Faulty logic? Please help...

D

drjones

Joined
Sep 6, 2000
Messages
913
Ok. This is a little off the topic, but I need some help with this. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who gets sick and infuriated when I hear some idiot crying "civil liberties abuse" and "racial profiling" when the government takes various steps to defend against and prevent terrorism. ( I HOPE I'm not the only one!!!)

Now, I'm not racist, I'm not condoning racial profiling in any other context, and I am wary of the govt. gaining TOO much power and control over our lives and rights, but this is BS!!! :mad:

I see it like this: If a 220 lb., 6' white man is accused of murder, and the cops are looking for him, are they going to stop 5' tall mexican men, and 4' tall 80 year-old white women? The answer, I HOPE, would be no. They would be looking for men who FIT THE PROFILE. RIGHT??? Perhaps the answer would be NO if you are very liberal, but oh, wait, you can discriminate against white people anyway, so nevermind...:rolleyes:

SO, tell me what is wrong with putting people who are of middle-eastern descent, ESPECIALLY MEN, under extra scrutiny, ESPECIALLY at places like airports? HOW is it "unfair" and "discriminatory" to scrutinize individuals who FIT THE PROFILE of KNOWN criminals??????? If the terrorists had been 21 year-old white males, then I would have no problem being subject to extra scrutiny, as I have nothing to hide.

I'm NOT saying detain them for hours on end, deport them, treating them disrespectfullly or inhumanly, nor attempting to take any rights from them, or ANYTHING LIKE THAT. Just MORE scrutiny; i.e. more thorough baggage searches, interviews, etc. THEY FIT THE PROFILE OF KNOWN CRIMINALS FOR GODS SAKE!!!!!!!!! Why do I seem to be the only human in the world who sees that????????????

A frustrated drjones
 
While this really belongs over in the community forum, I'll add the following.

> To ensure Americans never offend anyone -- particularly fanatics intent on
> >killing us -- airport screeners will not be allowed to profile people.
> >
> >They will continue random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids,
> >airline pilots with proper identification, Secret Service agents who are
> >members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with
> >metal hips, and Medal Of Honor winning former Governors.
> >
> >Let's pause a moment and take the following test.
> >
> >In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
> > (a) Olga Korbet
> > (b) Sitting Bull
> > (c) Arnold Schwarzenegger
> > (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >In 1979,the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
> > (a) Lost Norwegians
> > (b) Elvis
> > (c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
> > (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
> > (a) John Dillinger
> > (b) The King of Sweden
> > (c) Boy Scouts
> > (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
> > (a) A pizza delivery boy
> > (b) Pee Wee Herman
> > (c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day
> > (d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
> >
> >In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70 year old
> >American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:
> >(a) Smurfs
> >(b) Davy Jones
> >(c) The Little Mermaid
> >(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.
> >
> >In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy
> >diver was murdered by:
> >(a) Captain Kidd
> >(b) Charles Lindberg
> >(c) Mother Teresa
> >(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
> >(a) Scooby Doo
> >(b) The Tooth Fairy
> >(c) Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid who had a few sticks of dynamite
> left
> >over from the train job.
> >(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
> >(a) Richard Simmons
> >(b) Grandma Moses
> >(c) Michael Jordan
> >(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
> >(a) Mr. Rogers
> >(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
> >(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain: "Mustapha
> >the Merciless"
> >(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed and thousands of
> >people were killed by:
> >(a) Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd
> >(b) The Supreme Court of Florida
> >(c) Mr. Bean
> >(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
> >(a) Enron
> >(b) The Catholic Church
> >(c) The NFL
> >(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
> >
> >In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
> >(a) Bonny and Clyde
> >(b) Captain Kangaroo
> >(c) Billy Graham
> >(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
 
Hawaiian, I think I know the answer to those questios. Is it "D"? Of course we need to profile.I might add that securing our borders might be necessary as well. I've never been a big fan of millions of illegal aliens crossing over our borders every year. We are the only country in the world that tolerates this.
 
I like to play devil's advocate, so hear me out.
It's bad for anyone to be terrorize, and i'm not against america or anyone in particular.
However, I believe for the amount of men listed in that "questionnaire" that commited terrorism, the top criminals in jail would have killed more criminals combined. Also it's not always the young Arab looking who are terrorists. There are neo-nazis who cause derailment of passenger trains, the Olkahoma (sp) bombing, and various other terrorism planned by people other than Arabic which was put down by the FBI and not widely known.
Should they be kept an eye on because they're statistically proven to be more likely to terrorize? sure. But I couldn't nail down the extent myself. I mean the new thing about fingerprints would (IMO) contradict the highly prized value of America: freedom. AFAIK there are no other country who fingerprints Americans or any other group of people when they enter a particular country.
Enough devil's advocating. I do see your concern though.
 
Why not just come out and say what you really mean, which is "I think profiling is good as long as it's not me or people like me that are getting profiled"..

You go ahead and accept profiling of any kind, and I can guarantte it will escalate, and then sooner or later it will be you whining about profiling and how bad it is, but it will of course be too late.

And never mind that not only can you not prevent terrorist attacks, but that profiling is especially pointless.
 
Originally posted by drjones
I see it like this: If a 220 lb., 6' white man is accused of murder, and the cops are looking for him, are they going to stop 5' tall mexican men, and 4' tall 80 year-old white women? The answer, I HOPE, would be no. They would be looking for men who FIT THE PROFILE. RIGHT??? Perhaps the answer would be NO if you are very liberal, but oh, wait, you can discriminate against white people anyway, so nevermind...:rolleyes:
Click to expand...


The obvious flaw with this example is that you are dealing with a crime that has already been committed, and trying to say that such an approach is right when no crime at all has been committed...get it??

What is really pathetic is you obviously have a problem with discriminating against white people, but instead of trying to change that, you try to use it as an excuse to discriminate against someone else, like that makes it okay or some such nonsense.

Honestly, I have really seen an ugly side of America since 09/11, and it just keeps getting worse...
 
Mike, you can bet every knife you own on the following. Should we have in this country one or two more major terrorist incidents where it is shown that individuals of Arab descent are responsible there will not only be a huge public outcry for profiling but much more extreme measures as well. You can take that to the bank. Hell, there was talk of using nuclear weapons immediately following the attacks of 9 - 11. We wouldn't tolerate for one month what Israel has been going through for the last three decades. Profiling? That's the least of the worries for Muslims if we have a rash of further terrorist incidents.
 
I'm with average guy.
Flame me if you will, but I would gladly give up some of my freedoms to feel that my family and I are safer.
Immigration: don't get me started.
Profiling: If a known group of people has committed a crime, I'm all for it. I have no problem being stopped and detained for questioning if a crime has been committed by an ugly 40 something balding doofus. Why? Because I have nothing to hide. All these special interest groups and minorities hiding behind the ACLU is pure BS. Makes me sick when The Rev Al Sharpton cries "racial profiling" every time a black man is arrested. If they have nothing to hide, what's the problem? If they are detained or God Forbid, refused boarding on a plane because of their clothing, music they listen to, skin color, whatever, that's a price we have to pay for safety.
I'd hope for understanding from the Arab-American communities. Really think about what is at stake here. The only people who are afraid of profiling are the terrorists, their friends and associates. I can understand why the regular hardworking, tax-paying Arab-American would be upset with profiling, but please try to understand what is at stake. If you love this country, and want to continue to work and live here to raise your family, please be patient and put up with the state of things. If not, find some other place to live that is better. I don't think your home land is better, or else you wouldn't have left it in the first place.
Come on people, the Government doesn't want to crawl up our butts, look into our sex lives, study our finances (OK, maybe they do) etc. They just want to keep us safe, alive, and strong. There is no perfect way to do this, specially if many of us are objecting to their methods. Just makes the job more difficult.
Thanks for bearing with me thru this rant.
Lenny
 
I wonder how many of those who say they wouldn't mind being questioned have ever been detained and questioned by the police? If you have, then you know that being innocent is no guarrantee that one will not be in world of trouble if the LEOs in question feel that you are the one they want.

I am suspicious of anyone who says that they wouldn't object to being profiled. I know from my own experience that Americans strongly resent being seen as simply one of group and not individuals. For instance, white Southerners tend to be strongly offended if someone who is not one of them makes stereotypical assumptions about them. The same is true for urban Italian Americans. As an African American, I know for fact, that I am offended if someone judges me by some guy they saw on the 6:00 news or if they assume that I'm an athlete or a good dancer etc.

I think the only answer for reducing terrorism is for the police to be really thorough and professional investigators who look at all possibilities, not just the ones that appear to obvious or "common sense." For instance, at an airport, check everybody thoroughly. I would bet the house that if security only focuses on Muslims and Arabs, someone else will slip something through and create an incident.
 
I'm afraid we are talking about many different things but only pointing at one of them. "Profiling" is effective, but "racial profiling" is absurd. "Profiling" is listing characteristics that might define a criminal. "Racial profiling" foolishly assumes that the only characteristic we need to know is the suspect's ethnicity.

As far as screening passengers, profiling is almost beside the point, except perhaps in reverse. Certain people are so much less likely to be a problem, that we might preferentially ignore them. But technology for detecting hazardous materials will eventually be more useful than trying to determine which of us is thinking unhappy thoughts.

I don't believe that giving up my freedom will increase my security, as a general rule. But for all my trepidation, when I flew to the Blade Show, and got baggage x-rayed, myself metal detected, shoes off and x-rayed, prosthetic foot removed and inspected, the whole finicky procedure only lasted a few minutes, and the screeners were polite, alert, and professional.

Let's save our outrage for the b@st@rds who are really out to get us, not the fumbling Federal bureaucrats who are doing the best that they can to protect us from them.
 
Originally posted by Lenny
I'm with average guy.
Flame me if you will, but I would gladly give up some of my freedoms to feel that my family and I are safer.
Click to expand...


That makes me sick to my stomach.

Not only would you gladly give up some of your freedoms, you would also give up some of mine too, all so you could feel safe, although in reality you would not be any safer than the rest of us.

Goddamn, this country is filling up with sorry losers who are American in name only...
 
I am a 60 year old,fat,bearded,tatted out guy who used to be a 25 year old,bearded,tatted out guy who rides a Harley and has been since I was 14.Never in any serious trouble.
Rode through the south in the 60's and 70's.Redneck cops must have loved my bike,cause they stopped me enough times.
Made sure no wants or warrents at any time.
Still get profiled sometimes by my local PD.(call it selective enforcment)Really never has bothered me.I walk the walk.If I want to look clean cut I can do that too.I prefer to look like I do because it keeps me out of bar fights.I look like the last guy you want to screw with.
I do not care if ANYONES civil liberties are compromised,as long as there is not another 9/11.If you are clean(from any crimes)what does it matter.If you travel in this country THE RULES HAVE CHANGED.Get used to it.
My .02 or.04 or something
 
Nifrand, there is a huge difference between chosing an outlaw look and being a member of a racial or ethnic group that is being profiled. I can wear my best suit and and be perfectly polite, but a racist is going to be hostile to me. Similarly, I am concerned when some one is questioned or put off a plane because he is an Arab or Muslim. I am all for investigating people when there are groounds to investigate. I accept increased security on planes (like I have a choice:o ), what I don't accept is some one who is being singled out because of their name, color, etc. when there are no other facts that justify singling this person out. Such behavior may give others a false sense of security but it will build resentment among those who are singled and gradually build up an attitude of non-compliance with authorities. More importantly, the real terrorists will go on about our business while we give Habib with the convenience store the third degree.
 
It doesn't matter what we do, we cannot and never will be able, to effectively defend ourselves. We have enough malcontents within our own back yard to help these guys carry on attacks for as long as it takes. Every country does. Yes, the first attack involved men of Middle Eastern descent. That does not mean that the next attack will not be carried out by a white Anglo Saxon Protestant whose ancestors arrived with the Mayflower. Just look at the radicals from US and Europe who have broken the law to support the Palestinian cause. What would Jane Fonda have done; come to think of it, does anyone know where she is?

How quickly we have forgotten about the "American Al Quaida". Profiling people will only help to create more frustration and even a few more malcontents. Where do we start and what happens when those initial methods fail? Do we strip a few more rights, or isolate a few more groups? Perhaps we should just burn the Bill of Rights and and start building the concentration camps. Pick your scape goat; what is today's color du jour?

We should not be waiting for an attack at all. If we want to end the fear then it is incumbent on us to act. It is stupid to build another Maginot Line. It doesn't work. We can invest trillions of dollars on passenger screening equipment, and background checks, only to have a sympathizer at flight control steer a perfectly peaceful flight right into the biggest target on a dark and stormy night. It is garbage pushed by those with vested interest to sell stuff and it is attractive to those who want to look like they are actually doing something.

We have real choices. We can attack those who would attack us and those who provide them a safe harbor, and make them incapable of taking action against us. We can make it so painful that no one will dare allow anyone to take up arms against us. But, we first have to yield our illusion of human value. We have to be willing to take and to inflict casualties. The sad thing is that until we have achieved that state of mind things will continue to get worse, and the longer we wait the greater the toll will grow.

We will get there eventually. Perhaps after New York city is reduced to rubble, Perhaps after Chicago, or Los Angeles, or Washington is no more; but, eventually, we will grow up and realize what we are up against. We are our own enemies. Our unwillingness to act has made us a target.

n2s
 
Mr.Cheeseboro:If 20 Biker Types did the 9/11 thing I would and anyone that looks like me would be profiled when I went to board a plane.FACT
Profiling is profiling no matter what groups you are dealing with.Like I said we are going to have to deal with it.As a country we will deal with it.
n2s:well written.
 
Mr. Hawaiian's quiz is humorous, but it does make a good point: Very few middle-eastern males between the ages of 17 and 40 are terrorists. But, a lot of terrorists seem to be middle-eastern males between the ages of 17 and 40.

Profiling may be offensive. Profiling may not, in fact, be very accurate or affective. But, nobody has yet proposed a better option. Flawed as it may be, profiling is what we've got to go with right now. And right now, we need something... anything. As the old saying goes, "any port in a storm."
 
Yeah, and after we eradicate the terrorist threat by profiling swarthy arabs and such, we can take the next step and go after 'thought crime' and other threats to our security....

Right after 09/11, a teenage American flew his plane into a building also...Why not profile that too, and prevent even more terrorist attacks?

Every day, on average, 3 women here in the US are killed by a husband or boyfriend..why not profile husbands and boyfriends, and save, on average, 3 women a day, or approximately 1000 women a year?

You don't need to look to the mid east to witness atrocities and barbarism..you can look right here in America, and see Americans killing, maiming, torturing, abusing, starving, and otherwise committing crimes against humanity.
Why not profile that, and really take a bite out of crime and make America a true utopia?

It's not terrorist attacks that are the real threat to America, it's John Q public and what you will condone or accept.
 
Mikemck, man, you are exactly right. I think the problem is that 9/11 was a big, never before, highly emotional event that made people angry, sad and vulnerable. To this day, the artist's portrait of an angel embracing a slouching firefighter makes me choke on tears.

I saw an interesting statistic once. During Desert Storm, about 150 soldiers died from all types of encounters; that included fire fights, plane and truck wrecks, disease and natural causes.

During that same period 450 people, three times the amount, were killed in Washington D.C. from gunfire related to the drug trade. My first feeling is 'so what,' a bunch of 'good riddance' killings.

During my entire life time, about 40 to 50 thousand people die on highways. More than half of these deaths derive from alcohol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top