|
Would you support profiling based on race/origin? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by metalgearsolid
^^I marked down Hispanic b/c that way they could lower their standards for me and accept me for my semi-decent grades. |
"Hispanic" has got to be one of the most hilarious "racial labels" there is, and shows how this non-sense works.
I'm not Hispanic for I'm in a Portuguese speaking country. However, if some speaking country annexed Brazil, I'd probably be considered Hispanic soon.
We do have several stories of "Racial shift" here in Brazil, which is another proof of how this whole thing is social rather than biological. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| It is true that there is a statistical correlation between islam and large scale terrorist attacks, but racial profiling while boarding the plane is not really a good solution imo. Those muslim terrorists would probably have no problem declaring themselves non-muslims or changing their names into more westernized versions if it helped them achieve their goals. And since a lot of them already do have foreign passports, you wouldn't have much to go on aside from skin color. And that on the other hand includes a whole bunch of non-muslims. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by sasslife
I agree! Infact im going to Aushwitz in a couple of weeks. Ill see if they have room |
I hope that's sarcasm. |
|
|
| sasslife |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I hope that's sarcasm. |
I am going but yes, i was being sarcastic.. read the quote i was replying too |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by sasslife
I am going but yes, i was being sarcastic.. read the quote i was replying too |
Umm... yeah.. that was my post, which was obviously sarcastic. :p |
|
|
| venomX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
"Hispanic" has got to be one of the most hilarious "racial labels" there is, and shows how this non-sense works.
I'm not Hispanic for I'm in a Portuguese speaking country. However, if some speaking country annexed Brazil, I'd probably be considered Hispanic soon.
We do have several stories of "Racial shift" here in Brazil, which is another proof of how this whole thing is social rather than biological. |
I'll point out that Hispanic is derived from Hispania which was the name the romans gave the iberic peninsula. So calling latin americans, hispanics is just plain dumb because ovbiously we dont live in "hispania". |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by venomX
I'll point out that Hispanic is derived from Hispania which was the name the romans gave the iberic peninsula. So calling latin americans, hispanics is just plain dumb because ovbiously we dont live in "hispania". |
So I guess I should drop the whole "Hispanic Causing Panic" tag line at the end of my shows?? damn :(
| quote: | Hispanic (Spanish: Hispano) is a term denoting a derivation from Spain, its people and culture. It follows the same style of use as Anglo indicates a derivation of England and the English. Thus, the Spanish-American War in Spanish is known as Guerra Hispano-Estadounidense, the "Spanish-German Treaty" is Tratado Hispano-Alemán, and "Spanish America" is Hispanoamérica.
As used in the United States, Hispanic is one of several terms employed to categorize all persons whose ancestry hails either from the people of Spain, any of the various peoples of Spanish-speaking Latin America, or the original settlers of the traditionally Spanish-held Southwestern United States. The term is used as a broad form of classification in the U.S. census, local and federal employment, and numerous business market researches.
In Spain, Spanish-speaking Latin America and most countries outside the United States, Hispanic/Hispano is not commonly employed as an indicator of ancestry; however, this can be implied depending on the context. When used in this manner, in Spanish-speaking Latin America an Hispano is commonly regarded to be any person whose ancestry stems, in whole or in part, from the people of Spain — to the contrast of the non-Hispanic (ie. non-Spanish descended) population. In this sense, when speaking of a nation's Hispanic population, those who are implied are Spaniards, criollos, mestizos, and mulattos, to the exclusion of indigenous Amerindians, unmixed descendants of black African slaves or other non-Spanish descended peoples who may reside in each respective country, regardless of whether they now use Spanish as their first and only language.
|
websters
| quote: | His·pan·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-spnk)
adj.
Of or relating to Spain or Spanish-speaking Latin America.
Of or relating to a Spanish-speaking people or culture.
n.
A Spanish-speaking person.
A U.S. citizen or resident of Latin-American or Spanish descent. |
damn latinos, trying to change history huh?? |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
And that on the other hand includes a whole bunch of non-muslims. |
I always get side lined in the airports, and it is quite a funny thing when a Pakistanian Cab Driver asks me what part of the middle east I am from lol
But I guess its just the natural olive tanned skin I have.. :D |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Talking about side-lining at the airports, this is a bit off topic, but I got side lined when I was returning from the US for a detailed baggage chech. So when the guy opened the first bag he found a bunch of cowboy hats and confederacy flags and amblems that I was bringing to friends back home. Then in the second bag he found some 5 copies of the book of mormon, a mormon suit, and my priesthood certificate that I got from those wackos. And if that wasn't enough, the third bag was a semi-finished buffalo hide wrapped in a tarp. The thing was, I really had a hard time squeezing that huge hide into 62 linear inches, so when the guy cut the duct tape, it just exploded and spread all over his workplace. Of course, I demanded for it to be packed back in a way so that it does not exceed the 62 inch limit, because I would otherwise have to pay for excess baggage size. It took the guy half an hour to do it. I'd really like to know what he thought of me after all that :) |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Then in the second bag he found some 5 copies of the book of mormon, a mormon suit, and my priesthood certificate that I got from those wackos. |
:haha: Dude, you have to post a pic in PDDCOR or something of you dressed as a Mormon priest. :)
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
And if that wasn't enough, the third bag was a semi-finished buffalo hide wrapped in a tarp. The thing was, I really had a hard time squeezing that huge hide into 62 linear inches, so when the guy cut the duct tape, it just exploded and spread all over his workplace. Of course, I demanded for it to be packed back in a way so that it does not exceed the 62 inch limit, because I would otherwise have to pay for excess baggage size. It took the guy half an hour to do it. I'd really like to know what he thought of me after all that :) |
 I hate it when those jackasses completely ruin your packing. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
Statistically, approximately 0% of Muslims are "terrorists" which would make the average Muslim boarding a plane no more deserving of extra attention than a member of any other religious group. |
Well, first of all, it would be impossible to racially profile on religion.
However, leaving that, if we follow the kinds of calculations you present, the entire activity of security checking is redundant, as the chance of catching a terrorist is approximately 0. However, assuming that we take as a given that there are security checks, consider security persons A and B in Heathrow, each searching 100 persons a day, with A employing racial profiling on south-asians and middle easterners and B employing no racial profiling. After sufficient time (say, a year), the fraction of terrorists caught by A should be equal to the fraction of terrorists among south-asians and middle easterners leaving Britain, and the fraction caught by B would be equal to the fraction among all passengers leaving Britain. Those two fractions are not the same, and as the number of people checked by A and B rise, the difference among the number of terrorists caught by A and those caught by B will grow linearly. Hence, A is the more efficient security person of the two - both seen as a function of his wage and the number of people he "inconveniences".
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
I don't remember Catholics being targetted when it was the IRA and Columbian juntas who were committing most of the world's terror attacks, so why should it be different for Muslims now? |
But why should I base my opinion on the actual practices ten years ago? I don't understand the argument.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
That's utterly ridiculous.
|
I don't know if you're adressing me, but assuming that you are, allow me to point out where you're misunderstanding my point:
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
You're labelling someone, subjectively1, on the grounds of how this specific individual looks and/or what "ideal" group this person should belong to. That's an insulting approach to an individual, and a clearly way of tackling a problem in the laziest possible way: "Are all terrorists Arab? Let's crack down on Arabs then!". Perfect reasoning! Deny them their chance of thinking differently, or even worse, being labelled for a characteristic that they just can't change as they were born that way (rather than chosen to be that way). |
First, I'd rather insult a thousand people than allow even one to be blown up. Second, I don't deny anyone the chance of thinking differently, advocate cracking down on them (as for instance by denying them some civil rights like the wire-tapping scandal), nor labeling them because of their skin. I see racial profiling in airport as a rational refusal to spend effort on checking people which are (statistically speaking) harmless. Same way when I check for my keys: I don't start rummaging through the fridge or the drain, but go for the places where I usually put them. It's simply a question of allocating a set of limited resources to the areas where they are most likely to serve a purpose.
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Blake actually said something quite interesting: "Research has shown that there is an even proportion of blacks, whites, and hispanics who posess illegal substances, however 97% of all drug arrestts consist of blacks and hispanics." - I don't know where he got these numbers from, but it clearly shows a social problem rather than a "racial" one. Are these "black" and "hipanic" drug dealers living in poverty? Are you going to label those who strive against discrimination - in spite of being "black" or "hispanic" - under the same umbrella term these drug dealers are grouped in? |
The BIG difference between this study and flight terror is that we have the probability of a passenger being a terrorist given his race, whereas in the case above we only have the probability of a person being a drug offender given his race AND that he was arrested. That is, we cannot make a statistical statement on the number of drug offenders among the different races, as we only have the numbers for those who got caught. For flight terrorists, we both have the numbers for those who are either intercepted or carries out the plot (about 99%) and for those who do not (0%).
You might be right that there is a social problem in the way police chooses its targets for drug busts (which I agree with), but it is not a valid analogy for the case of terror probing in airports. Not only because of the fundamental statistical problem pointed out above, but also because the search of your carry-on luggage at airports are not in any way an offense, nor a terrible inconvenience, and fully in accordance with the contract you engage in when buying the flight ticket. The drug bust, on the other hand, is both an invasion of privacy and (probably?) a situation filled with animosity. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
I don't know if you're adressing me, but assuming that you are, allow me to point out where you're misunderstanding my point: |
Erm... I was talking about the original question ("what do you think about racial profiling?"). Besides, you clearly seem to know what you're talking about, so I'd never disrespect your words that way (i.e. saying it was utterly ridiculous) ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
First, I'd rather insult a thousand people than allow even one to be blown up. |
By insulting this thousand people, do you honestly believe you're not making things any worse, prejudice wise?
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Second, I don't deny anyone the chance of thinking differently, advocate cracking down on them (as for instance by denying them some civil rights like the wire-tapping scandal), nor labeling them because of their skin. I see racial profiling in airport as a rational refusal to spend effort on checking people which are (statistically speaking) harmless. |
Statitically speaking...
- During the last decade in the UK, there were more terrorist attacks by the IRA than by Islamic terrorists. The only attack in the UK by Islamic extremists happened last year.
- 4 Extremists caused the bombings in the UK, which has a Muslim population of a million and a half followers [1]. That's not even 0.01%
- There were more school shootings than suicide bombings in the US in the last decade. In fact, the only recent bombing that is worth mentioning, other than what happened 11th of September, happened in Oklahoma, and was carried out by an European-blooded Catholic.
- 19 Extremists caused the 9/11, out of a population of 7 million followers. I don't think I need to do the math again, do I?
- The last bombing threat involving airplanes in the US-UK was Richard Reid's right? Racial profilling wouldn't have stopped him.
Except for the mass hysteria, there are no real reasons why racial profiling should be used. In fact, a more fool-proof method would be gender profiling: Most attackers were men.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Same way when I check for my keys: I don't start rummaging through the fridge or the drain, but go for the places where I usually put them. It's simply a question of allocating a set of limited resources to the areas where they are most likely to serve a purpose. |
Like I said, the belief that Muslims are that more likely to be terrorists than any other group is just a matter of selective thinking.
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
The BIG difference between this study and flight terror is that we have the probability of a passenger being a terrorist given his race, whereas in the case above we only have the probability of a person being a drug offender given his race AND that he was arrested. |
We have!?
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
That is, we cannot make a statistical statement on the number of drug offenders among the different races, as we only have the numbers for those who got caught. For flight terrorists, we both have the numbers for those who are either intercepted or carries out the plot (about 99%) and for those who do not (0%).
You might be right that there is a social problem in the way police chooses its targets for drug busts (which I agree with), but it is not a valid analogy for the case of terror probing in airports. Not only because of the fundamental statistical problem pointed out above, but also because the search of your carry-on luggage at airports are not in any way an offense, nor a terrible inconvenience, and fully in accordance with the contract you engage in when buying the flight ticket. The drug bust, on the other hand, is both an invasion of privacy and (probably?) a situation filled with animosity. |
The problem here is racial profiling, not the luggage. |
|
|
|
|
