Racial Profiling?

[bgzee]

And if you feel that being a candy-ass PC monkey is even more effective, then so be it, too. Later.

Since when did being opposed to racial profiling make ANYBODY a PC monkey?

I'm sure you're also one of those people strongly opposed to affirmative action. I'm opposed to it myself. But how the **** can you go and scream reverse racism if you openly support racist action?

[LatsMakeTheMan]

Since when did being opposed to racial profiling make ANYBODY a PC monkey?

I'm sure you're also one of those people strongly opposed to affirmative action. I'm opposed to it myself. But how the **** can you go and scream reverse racism if you openly support racist action?

Great.....more typical liberal bullsh*t.

I'm a proponent of racial profiling, so I'm racist

(You guys love to hit that racism panic button when you can't prove your point, don't you? BTW, show me where I used the words "reverse racism.")

[housejohnson]

Since when did being opposed to racial profiling make ANYBODY a PC monkey?

I'm sure you're also one of those people strongly opposed to affirmative action. I'm opposed to it myself. But how the **** can you go and scream reverse racism if you openly support racist action?

I do not, myself, view racial profiling as racist.

The definition of racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

No one is saying whites are inherently superior to blacks, or that blacks are inherently superior to arabs. What we are saying, what statistics prove (and it is hard to lie with statistics) is that certain races are more likely to commit certain crimes. Can there be exceptions? Of course. But had we of been racial profiling before 9/11 there would not have been an attack because we would have caught the attackers. Racial profiling should not be the only method of law enforcement, but it is an effective tool, foolproof? No. But it should be used.

And any sensible person was against affirmative action. Instead of a black man losing his job to a white man it made it so the white man lost his job to a black man, only in PC America could that be considered progress.

[LatsMakeTheMan]

No one is saying whites are inherently superior to blacks, or that blacks are inherently superior to arabs. What we are saying, what statistics prove (and it is hard to lie with statistics) is that certain races are more likely to commit certain crimes. Can there be exceptions? Of course. But had we of been racial profiling before 9/11 there would not have been an attack because we would have caught the attackers. Racial profiling should not be the only method of law enforcement, but it is an effective tool, foolproof? No. But it should be used.

THANK YOU.

[bgzee]

I do not, myself, view racial profiling as racist.

The definition of racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

No one is saying whites are inherently superior to blacks, or that blacks are inherently superior to arabs. What we are saying, what statistics prove (and it is hard to lie with statistics) is that certain races are more likely to commit certain crimes. Can there be exceptions? Of course. But had we of been racial profiling before 9/11 there would not have been an attack because we would have caught the attackers. Racial profiling should not be the only method of law enforcement, but it is an effective tool, foolproof? No. But it should be used.

Racial Profiling shouldn't be a method of law enforcement, period. It is against the law. For example, when you get pulled over the cop must have a valid reason for doing so. Pulling someone over because they're black isn't a valid reason. Some people in this thread confuse racial profiling with matching the description of a suspect, in which case, they do they have a reason for getting pulled over. This is not racial profiling. Racial profiling is pulling someone over and saying "This person is black. More than likely they are breaking the law." It's the same as saying, "This person is Arab. More than likely they are a terrorist." If all the sudden priests started getting pulled over because "This person is a preist. He must be molesting children," people would go crazy and throw fits, saying "Only a very small percentage of priests molest children!"

[fireman_x]

And any sensible person was against affirmative action. Instead of a black man losing his job to a white man it made it so the white man lost his job to a black man, only in PC America could that be considered progress.

First you need to look up the facts on AA and you'll see that it's far more likely for a white man to "lose" his job to a white woman than a black man. Also judging your statement it seems that you somehow believe that a black man losing his job to a white man would be "progress", why is that?

[diablo_03]

Racial profilling works it's pretty simple, I can't honestly name any "white" terrorist who has blown up and airplane recently, or strapped a bomb on his chest and blown himself up.

Randomly checking things works in a factory not real life, if Arabic people are more likely to be a terrorist with a 0.000001% chance then go ahead and scrutinize them. But to check out and old man or a kid doesn't make much sense, but it's done for the sake of being politically correct.

I hope this doesn't make me seem like a racist I'll get neg repped if it does I suppose.

But if someone is opposed to racial profilling please explain, I've never heard any really legitimate reason except the politically correct one.

Who blew up the Oklahoma building?

Every country has their extremists who use violence and fear to their advantage. Sure Arabs are being pinned against the wall, but in a few years, it might be the chinese, the indians, or any other person.

[kwyckemynd00]

Racial profiling is a no-brainer IMHO. You CANNOT DENY STATISTICS! It's ridiculous that racial profiling gets such a bad wrap when statistics clearly show there are major distinctions between races.

I.E. Look at the graduation rate, crime rate, etc, etc, etc between blacks, mexicans, cubans, asians, whites, and indians (the ones from India ) Tell me that there arent' any differences....THERE ARE!

Don't be an ignorant fool. Just accept that facts If you don't like the statistics you should do something other than complain about racial profiling. Work to make the statistics a little more favorable for some of the races who statistically are less benificial to society, less productive, more likely to commit crime, etc, and so on.

I'm not a racist. I'm white with an asian girlfriend, a mexican best friend and had a lifelong black best friend...they were all honest enough to admit they see the truths and accept them.

Now, I bet this thread closes in 20 minutes

[kwyckemynd00]

Who blew up the Oklahoma building?

Every country has their extremists who use violence and fear to their advantage. Sure Arabs are being pinned against the wall, but in a few years, it might be the chinese, the indians, or any other person.

Yes, a white man blew up a building in Oklahoma....

Do you know the statistics by race regarding crime rate, education (graduating high school), unemployment, etc, etc...

Put it this way. There are minorities who excel in these areas for the better, surpassing the majority in education, unemployment, etc, and then there are those who fail miserably. It's not just color that dictates this success...it's culture. A good example is cubans vs. mexicans. Very racially similar but their culture has developed a group of immigrants who tend to be very successful when they arrive in America...same with asians, especially the Japanese. However some asians, like the Thais and the Mung, don't fare so well here. Quit lying to yourself!!!! It's a cultural problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Racial profiling is necessary, IMHO.

[Diesel66]

Who blew up the Oklahoma building?

Every country has their extremists who use violence and fear to their advantage. Sure Arabs are being pinned against the wall, but in a few years, it might be the chinese, the indians, or any other person.

Then have another warning to companies that rent trucks and sell fertilizer to be on the lookout for arabs and white guys that want to start a racial civil war.

Still does not change the fact that the major terrorists that want to attack the US are Muslim extreamists. Yes they would be smart enough to blend into the hispanic population or get more whiter looking people.

[Xanatos]

But had we of been racial profiling before 9/11 there would not have been an attack because we would have caught the attackers. Racial profiling should not be the only method of law enforcement, but it is an effective tool, foolproof? No. But it should be used.

That is utter nonsense. You say it as if there were zero signs that 9/11 was going to take place. There were NUMEROUS warnings. Those warnings were not followed upon, NOT because of racial profiling but because of negligence.

[Xanatos]

Racial Profiling shouldn't be a method of law enforcement, period. It is against the law. For example, when you get pulled over the cop must have a valid reason for doing so. Pulling someone over because they're black isn't a valid reason. Some people in this thread confuse racial profiling with matching the description of a suspect, in which case, they do they have a reason for getting pulled over. This is not racial profiling. Racial profiling is pulling someone over and saying "This person is black. More than likely they are breaking the law." It's the same as saying, "This person is Arab. More than likely they are a terrorist." If all the sudden priests started getting pulled over because "This person is a preist. He must be molesting children," people would go crazy and throw fits, saying "Only a very small percentage of priests molest children!"

Thank you, someone who makes sense.

[housejohnson]

Racial Profiling shouldn't be a method of law enforcement, period. It is against the law. For example, when you get pulled over the cop must have a valid reason for doing so. Pulling someone over because they're black isn't a valid reason. Some people in this thread confuse racial profiling with matching the description of a suspect, in which case, they do they have a reason for getting pulled over. This is not racial profiling. Racial profiling is pulling someone over and saying "This person is black. More than likely they are breaking the law." It's the same as saying, "This person is Arab. More than likely they are a terrorist." If all the sudden priests started getting pulled over because "This person is a preist. He must be molesting children," people would go crazy and throw fits, saying "Only a very small percentage of priests molest children!"

Would you allow your five year old child to be left alone with a catholic priest? All you people keep saying is it is wrong, but I have given you FBI Crime Statistics that show clearly that certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crimes. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

[housejohnson]

First you need to look up the facts on AA and you'll see that it's far more likely for a white man to "lose" his job to a white woman than a black man. Also judging your statement it seems that you somehow believe that a black man losing his job to a white man would be "progress", why is that?

Neither one of them is progress, but affirmative action was not the correct way to fix the problem of racist hiring practices. And you assumed I meant a black man losing his job to a white man was progress, I never said that.

[Xanatos]

Would you allow your five year old child to be left alone with a catholic priest? All you people keep saying is it is wrong, but I have given you FBI Crime Statistics that show clearly that certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crimes. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.

That's not necessarily true of only catholic preists. There are molesters in each religion, just that the Catholic ones are the ones that got caught. What's next? Stop sending your kids to an uncle's place because we've all heard stories of uncles trying to molest kids.

[LatsMakeTheMan]

That is utter nonsense. You say it as if there were zero signs that 9/11 was going to take place. There were NUMEROUS warnings. Those warnings were not followed upon, NOT because of racial profiling but because of negligence.

And if those warnings HAD been followed up on, I'm willing to bet that the first thing the government would have done would be to put out a warning on the morning of September 11th to all airports: "Watch carefully for men aged 21-35 of Arabic decent....we have reason to believe there are terrorists attempting to board planes."

[bgzee]

And if those warnings HAD been followed up on, I'm willing to bet that the first thing the government would have done would be to put out a warning on the morning of September 11th to all airports: "Watch carefully for men aged 21-35 of Arabic decent....we have reason to believe there are terrorists attempting to board planes."

This is a different situation. They were specifically told that certain people were planning to attack us. At this point, an arab man fits the description of a suspect or a lead. Now, if a mexican guy robs a gas station, they may question mexican guys in the area until the situation has been resolved. That doesn't mean that after the guy has been detained, you question every mexican because a mexican before them robbed a store.

[JUSA]

Racial Profiling shouldn't be a method of law enforcement, period. It is against the law. For example, when you get pulled over the cop must have a valid reason for doing so. Pulling someone over because they're black isn't a valid reason. Some people in this thread confuse racial profiling with matching the description of a suspect, in which case, they do they have a reason for getting pulled over. This is not racial profiling. Racial profiling is pulling someone over and saying "This person is black. More than likely they are breaking the law."

I guess the difference is this... black people break the law. So do a lot of white people. Same with any race. If someone breaks into my shop at night - it isn't necissarily any one race of person.

With terrorism.. however, I'd wager 99.9% are Arabic males between the ages of 18 and 40. Period. If 99.9% of all crimes were perpetuated by black people, I'd have no problem with them being racially profiled and pulled over more often. (And let me reiterate here that I again do not think the majority of all crimes are done by any specific race of person).

So they aren't really simliar situations at all. We pretty much KNOW who the terrorists are. While I have heartfelt sympathy for the majority of Arabic people who aren't terrorists, checking them all would not be a bad thing.

It's the same as saying, "This person is Arab. More than likely they are a terrorist."

No, most Arabs are not terrorists but most terrorists ARE Arabs. See the difference in the logic?

If all the sudden priests started getting pulled over because "This person is a preist. He must be molesting children," people would go crazy and throw fits, saying "Only a very small percentage of priests molest children!"

The difference, again, is that there are a ton of molestors who aren't priests. If every molestor was a priest, I'd be on board with you - but that just isn't how it works.

JUSA

[bgzee]

With terrorism.. however, I'd wager 99.9% are Arabic males between the ages of 18 and 40. Period.
JUSA

I disagree. We only know what we are shown by the media. That means, if the media decides to report only report on Islamic terrorists, thats all we know. It seems that the "terrorist" label is only being given to Islamic Extremists post 9-11. It's the new buzzword. When we hear about an abortion clinic bombing or a church burning, we no longer associate that with terrorism because we've been conditioned to think that terrorism is exclusive to arab men.

The bottom line is, we have the best intellegence gathering methods in the world. We do not need to lower ourselves to the point of racial profiling. We had a warning a month in advance, fairly specific, regarding 9-11.

[DanMc]

I disagree. We only know what we are shown by the media. That means, if the media decides to report only report on Islamic terrorists, thats all we know. It seems that the "terrorist" label is only being given to Islamic Extremists post 9-11. It's the new buzzword. When we hear about an abortion clinic bombing or a church burning, we no longer associate that with terrorism because we've been conditioned to think that terrorism is exclusive to arab men.

The bottom line is, we have the best intellegence gathering methods in the world. We do not need to lower ourselves to the point of racial profiling. We had a warning a month in advance, fairly specific, regarding 9-11.

Uh how long has profiling of any kind been part of law enforcement? No it has / may not always be used in the best of ways. But when it comes to terrorism on a global level who is most likely behind it?

[LatsMakeTheMan]

No, most Arabs are not terrorists but most terrorists ARE Arabs. See the difference in the logic?
JUSA

You are right.....I tried making that point like 3 pages ago but it just doesn't seem to sink in for some of these people.

Bgzee.......you gave an example of a Mexican robbing a gas station. No, I wouldn't start profiling Mexicans in an attempt to stop robberies from that point on, because robberies can be committed by anyone.

Terrorism is different. Although it CAN be carried out by anyone......we know for a fact that MOST of the people who would try it are Arabic. So by profiling Arabs in airports, we would be removing a large portion of the threat. Sure, maybe 1% of al-quaeda recruits are white. But the other 99% of them who are Arabic would be eliminated as threats. So in essence, by profiling the Arabs, we are cutting out 99% of their ability to attack us.



And on the subject of abortion clinic bombings and church burnings, yes, these people are terrorists as well. But they aren't attacking 100-story sky scrapers and trying to destroy the Pentagon. So on the grand terrorism scale, they're somewhat insignificant.

[bgzee]

And on the subject of abortion clinic bombings and church burnings, yes, these people are terrorists as well. But they aren't attacking 100-story sky scrapers and trying to destroy the Pentagon. So on the grand terrorism scale, they're somewhat insignificant.

Timothy McVeigh.

I know you guys argue the percentage of terrorists that are arab. This number is insignificant. The number that matters is the percentage of arabs that are terrorists. Lets say that 99% of the billionaires in the US are white. It would not be an effective means of finding the billionaires simply by racial profiling, IE, looking at skin color alone. Because the number of white billionaires within the white population is such an low percent that you are never gonna pick one out of a crowd. Its the same with terrorists.

[DanMc]

You brought this up already... is he your hero?

[LatsMakeTheMan]

Timothy McVeigh.

Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.



You make a very convincing argument.

[JUSA]

Timothy McVeigh.

Lame - and I feel safe calling this particular argument of your stinky because I'm about to give you a kudo (read below).

Lets say that 99% of the billionaires in the US are white. It would not be an effective means of finding the billionaires simply by racial profiling, IE, looking at skin color alone. Because the number of white billionaires within the white population is such an low percent that you are never gonna pick one out of a crowd. Its the same with terrorists.

That's the first pretty thought provoking thing you've said, IMO, in this debate. (Keep in mind I'm not really paying attention to this thread... you may have said some real humdingers earlier and I just missed 'em).

Still, I think if for some reason Billionaires were committing mass crimes like the terrorists it would make sense to check white people at airports, particularly well dressed ones. Were this improbably scenario reality, I wouldn't mind if I were searched.

I'm not that snappy a dresser, though.

JUSA

[bgzee]

Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.Timothy McVeigh.



You make a very convincing argument.

But they aren't attacking 100-story sky scrapers and trying to destroy the Pentagon. So on the grand terrorism scale, they're somewhat insignificant.

Timothy McVeigh. Not really much else I have to say.

[LatsMakeTheMan]

Timothy McVeigh. Not really much else I have to say.

This doesn't change the fact that your entire argument is based around one, single isolated incident.

If you've got nothing else to day, does that mean you'll finally shut up?

[bgzee]

This doesn't change the fact that your entire argument is based around one, single isolated incident.

If you've got nothing else to day, does that mean you'll finally shut up?

Dude, if you can't handle your argument getting blown to peices, maybe you shouldnt be posting here.

[DanMc]

Dude, if you can't handle your argument getting blown to peices, maybe you shouldnt be posting here.

You have yet to make one of your own...

[bgzee]

You have yet to make one of your own...

Hey, here comes the short bus! How are you doing, lil guy?