A Troubling Poll

[Karnak]

AKDejaVu,

I think that some security increases need to be implimented at the airports, but they should affect all citizens, not just a select group.

FWIW, I wasn't commenting on gun control at all, it is simply that context in which I've most often seen that quote.  I oppose gun control, despite being a Liberal.

The method for gaining control of the aircraft seems to have been with knives/box cutters and threats of "There is a bomb on board!" I kinda doubt that there really was a bomb on board, but the threat was probably enough given past tendencies of hijackers.  This has now changed.

[mrfish]

Originally posted by ispar:
[QB]

Not to sound like a PC liberal know-nothing, [QB]

no, you sound more like someone fresh out of highschool still trying to be everyone's friend by saying things you think sound inclusive and patriotic.

the hijackers were all arab. at this point the probability that the next event will be by an arab based on that sample set is 1.

based on everyone in the world as the sample set, the probability is much lower for each arab but still substantially higher than any other group. should we dumb down what we know to make you feel better?

why should we ignore the highest probability in the name of feelings?

i guess under your world we should wave the 3 arab guys through and interrogate the 1st white male right? or maybe we should hire mcdonalds to make sure (like their commercials) we get one member of every race searched in line.

it is irrelevent that they are arab - arab is a characteristic, it could have been beards, glasses, green hair, nose rings etc.....if every hijacking had a shared characteristic you have to be aware of it - if not then you are a sorry cop.

if we are down to the point where we throw statistics and common sense out the window in favor of sparing feelings then we are at the end of an empire that was felled by good intentions and minimal brainpower behind them.if i were an arab it wouldn't change a thing, it would simply be my bad luck. i'm an adult so i realize that the world doesnt always present the possibility of happy endings - some day you might come to that conclusion as well.

[ispar]

Once again mrfish, you show your remarkable inability to read anything but what you want to into what I say. I simply said that for you to say that it doesn't matter that we pay closer attention to Arabs, because we will all be safer is laughable coming from your mouth. I doubt you would be saying as much were things reversed.

To even imply that I suggested paying more attention the white passengers is hilarious too. This is related to affirmative action, by the way, in that it represents racial profiling that is unfair to others. Unfair to others because it is unequal, not because they are Arab and are a greater threat group.

I concede that they are. But to think that we can just blithely go about and warn people to be careful about Arabs is ludicrous. It spreads paranoia and more resentment. And it means that others may be over looked. There is a very real danger that in watching out for all those terrorist Arabs you may miss the terrorist former army guy, or Irish guy, or South African guy, or Spanish guy...

You call for equal treatment for all under the law as strongly as anyone I've seen when YOUR rights may be in danger. Why the reversal when it's someone else?

Are Arabs the number one threat group? Sure.

Should we be more careful with them? Perhaps.

Should we warn against the dangerous Arabs, focus on them, and place additional restrictions on them just because they happen to be Arabic? No. And to hear it suggested makes me sick.

The Arab Terrorist is a myth in the making, one that will stand alongside the Black Criminal. Lets nip this one in the bud.

 

Originally posted by mrfish:


no, you sound more like someone fresh out of highschool still trying to be everyone's friend by saying things you think sound inclusive and patriotic.

Am I trying to be YOUR friend? No, because I think you're being a hypocrisy spouting right-wing idiot. Hey, I call it like I see it...

the hijackers were all arab. at this point the probability that the next event will be by an arab based on that sample set is 1.

Sure, if the world were all Arab. Do the math. The number of other people in the world who are not Arabic dispels that idiotic statement by itself

based on everyone in the world as the sample set, the probability is much lower for each arab but still substantially higher than any other group. should we dumb down what we know to make you feel better?

Oh yeah, that'll make me feel better all right... I'm your right-wing stereotyped Liberal, no brains and all heart.

why should we ignore the highest probability in the name of feelings?

feelings? when did I say anything about feelings?

i guess under your world we should wave the 3 arab guys through and interrogate the 1st white male right? or maybe we should hire mcdonalds to make sure (like their commercials) we get one member of every race searched in line.

I really love this one. Keep going fish, you sound really stupid now...

it is irrelevent that they are arab - arab is a characteristic, it could have been beards, glasses, green hair, nose rings etc.....if every hijacking had a shared characteristic you have to be aware of it - if not then you are a sorry cop.

Oh, certainly. And because people with piercings are more likely to commit crime, we should single them out as potential criminals and do our best to impose restrictions that make it harder for them to get around and get into places where they might "cause trouble"

if we are down to the point where we throw statistics and common sense out the window in favor of sparing feelings then we are at the end of an empire that was felled by good intentions and minimal brainpower behind them.if i were an arab it wouldn't change a thing, it would simply be my bad luck. i'm an adult so i realize that the world doesnt always present the possibility of happy endings - some day you might come to that conclusion as well.

You can talk all you want about how you would feel if you were an Arab, but that doesn't mean that you actually know jack toejam about how that perspective would affect your thoughts and feelings and outlook on the world.

Tard.

[mrfish]

i stated:

"the hijackers were all arab. at this point the probability that the next event will be by an arab based on that sample set is 1."

you reacted:

"Sure, if the world were all Arab. Do the math. The number of other people in the world who are not Arabic dispels that idiotic statement by itself"

but the very next sentence said:

"based on everyone in the world as the sample set, the probability is much lower for each arab but still substantially higher than any other group. should we dumb down what we know to make you feel better?"

so you obviously jumped before you read. take a breath.

your still trapped inside the same old tired cliches - where did i imply that pierced people steal more? i simply listed it as a possible characteristic, good grief! i guess i'll have to be more bland and pc in my choices  from now on ....shoe color height or something.... you missed the point entirely - you are on a hair trigger looking for a reactionary and are blinded.

well, no more arguing with teenyboppers tonight,go flip on mtv and make sure you have the right opinion on this to stay cool with your friends - get your notepad out, your instructions are waiting.  

[ispar]

mrfish, if you are paying attention you would realize that my opinion is flying in the face of pretty much everyone in the nation. And I abhor mtv.

I think that you are missing my point as much as I am yours (if I am, indeed). You did not state that piercing people steal more - you listed it as a characteristic. The same you consider being arabic a characteristic. A characteristic that you believe implies "terrorist." I was simply using a counter example to make a simple point, one that you keep seeming to miss: just because we believe that an Arab is more likely to be a terrorist, this is in no way a justification for greater scrutiny, suspicion, and restriction of these people than the rest of the population.

I think that you are over-estimating the degree of pc'ness in my post, and how much of a place pc'ness has in my life. Sometimes the only thing between the lines is paper. I despise it, actually. It just so happens that the obscure and twisted notion that discrimination based on an inherited characteristic is wrong jives with what is pc in this nation today, I guess. Of course, that's the same argument that you use in opposing Affirmative Action - something that you are quick to denounce because you feel it threatens YOUR rights.

Your implication that I am incapable of forming my own opinions and must check with my friends to make sure I have the right idea is absolutely pathetic, given that NONE of them agree with my standpoint on the current situation, and people with your stance are in the vast majority in this country right now. Check the bloody poll!

The Rightist myth that the Leftists are incapable of thinking for themselves and must follow the crowd holds no more water than the Leftist myth that Rightists are either backwater under-educated rednecks or high-powered rich bastards with no interest than themselves. My viewpoint is MY viewpoint. Think what you will of that, but don't slander me by calling me a slave to pop-culture, which is another institution I abhor. Along with teeny-boppers.

Oh, and of course: wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong!
 

[zapkin]

If we intend to racial profile blacks and hispanics, then we might as well chunk in the arabs too. Profiling is a fact..whether its official or "unofficial"

[Pyro]

Defending the U.S. goes far beyond defending its people and land, it is defending the Constitution.  I twice swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to the Constitution.  Think about those words.  I didn't swear an oath to defend the "motherland" against foreign attackers.  Why is that?

The Constitution is why we are what we are.  Sometimes it may seem inconvenient to the greater good.  The government could easily dispense with many threats if they didn't have to deal with things like Habeus Corpus, and the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments among others.  But then we wouldn't be who we are.  In fact, we'd just be another country among many where you wouldn't want to live.  The Franklin quote is a truth, and it cuts in every direction.  

Our Constitution states that every citizen has equal rights and equal protection.  Is someone supporting and defending, and bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution, and therefore the U.S., when they state that that should not be followed, no matter how good they perceive their objective?

It only took a single death to provide the excuse for Kristallnacht.  I'm glad to live in a country and time where that won't happen.  As strong of a foundation as we have, we've made our mistakes in the past but have learned.  One of the goals of these terrorists is to rid Islamic countries of Western influence.  To stir up anti-Islamic sentiment in America furthers their goal by stirring up more anti-American sentiment there.  I believe that plan has backfired.  Instead, we will end up with an opportunity to have carte blanche to act against these extremists with the backing of other Islamic countries.  Instead of them driving a wedge between us and Islamic countries, it is our opportunity to drive a wedge between them and the people they are trying to influence their way.  Getting some people and destroying immediate capabilities is a necessary step, but it is not a permanent victory.

[StSanta]

Well said Pyro.

And, I must say, a bit telling how some individuals who have been very adament in their defence of the constitution in some regards have no qualms when it comes to bending it in others.

As mentioned before, terrorists come in many shapes and forms. Some are even white Americans. Equal rights means just that: nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps it's time you chaps do what's done in Europe: hire professional people to stand at the x-ray machine and handle security, instead of minimum wage slaves. Make sure they're properly educated and certificated. Ensure job satisfaction. Might even go so far as to make 'um state employees.

Sure, the government will grow a bit. Checking in etc will take a bit longer for *everyone*. But it seems to me that this is far better than tampering with the Constitution.

Too expensive for the airlines? Well, some seem to survive in nations with different laws. Not sure why the US situation would be so different. Prices would go up a bit, aye, some companies would go belly up, but it's capitalism at its best.

The US has at least one great thing -  the constitution and does at least one thing well - capitalism. It makes sense to me to use both in this situation.

[1776]

WOW, go to work and a thread really grows.

It's amazing!!  Like your's best, Hangtime

Every Lib will have to retreat to thier bunker and reload their PC guns to get ya!!

INCOMMING!!!!!

[Sandman]

Actually... Pyro trotted out the guns quite nicely.

We "libs" are bearing true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. If you think it's okay to treat people this way, you're not.

[1776]

Go back and reread Hang's post.  I believe he is close to the frontline of this war.  I am given that someone reporting from the frontline is going to have accurate information.

BTW Sandman, did you fly anywhere yesterday?

[Eagler]

it's called "playing the odds".
It is done everyday, everywhere, in all aspects of life...

[1776]

Hmmmmmm, a lot of talk about the Consititution in this thread.  I wonder if the 2nd had not been suspended in airports and planes if what happened Tuesday would have?

<prepares for firestorm>

[1776]

Oops,double post

[ 09-18-2001: Message edited by: 1776 ]

[Sandman]

The problem with the 2nd Amendment is that it has too much room for interpretation in it. No one can agree on what a "well regulated militia" actually is and that's pretty much the source of the argument. You'll also find plenty of argument to what "infringed" means. Obviously, those states that have passed background check laws do not consider these laws to be an infringement that violates the 2nd Amendment.

You'll not find that much latitude with the 14th Amendment. It is quite clear, IMO.