Racial Profiling
- Thread starter Whispered
- Start date
- Status
You know what really bothered me reading every single one of your posts? The fact that you really have no sense of humanity. You're also completely insensitive and ignoring the fact that you've never been subject to racial profiling. I've never been either, but I at least have empathy for people who are and are treated wrongfully because of their race. You do NOT get to say being interrogated and treated as a criminal is just a "minor inconvenience." Racial profiling is damaging.
If I come off as angry, it's because I am. You can't just forget about morals. I don't care if I'm fighting with emotions because why should the feelings of minorities be forgotten because you believe they're more likely to commit a crime? (which, by the way, is a RACIST assumption)
I am extremely offended not just because you believe racial profiling, whatever kind of racial profiling you think you're advocating for, is something that is fine? I'm offended because you have no sense of humanity for people who are treated like criminals for their race. I'm offended because you are trying to justify a system that violates people's basic human rights to be treated equally. Apologies for not responding to your other evidence that likes to paint minorities as criminals and drug users but I really just wanted to make light of your lack of moral values.
If I come off as angry, it's because I am. You can't just forget about morals. I don't care if I'm fighting with emotions because why should the feelings of minorities be forgotten because you believe they're more likely to commit a crime? (which, by the way, is a RACIST assumption)
I am extremely offended not just because you believe racial profiling, whatever kind of racial profiling you think you're advocating for, is something that is fine? I'm offended because you have no sense of humanity for people who are treated like criminals for their race. I'm offended because you are trying to justify a system that violates people's basic human rights to be treated equally. Apologies for not responding to your other evidence that likes to paint minorities as criminals and drug users but I really just wanted to make light of your lack of moral values.
Last edited:
@NiallOfficial I appreciate your statistics, and I'd like to respond to one part of your post where you link two articles about the TSA never having had any success using racial profiling. I obviously don't support giving "random" searches to a certain race more frequently, but why can we not use race as a factor like Israel has, where they've actually stopped terrorist attacks, and haven't had a single one in over 4 decades?
@Question I'm offended because you are trying to claim I don't have morals when, in reality, they just don't exactly 1 to 1 match up with yours. The whole point is that I don't care if someone feels bad, if they had morals they'd understand that they're being selected for interrogation because a trained officer thought they met the threshold of suspicion. Yes, the threshold will have to be such to include many false positives to catch terrorists, but any moral human should understand that if they are caught as a false positive it is beneficial to all because it means that someone who was more suspicious than them (i.e. actually committing a crime) would be caught as well.
Honestly, the problem in America now (having Trump and Hillary as nominees) is because people vote and act based on emotion, and care too much about what other people think. Look, I couldn't care less if someone gets offended because they were told to get to the airport 2 hours early, they get there one hour early, miss their flight due to security lines. But, under a profiling system (whether it includes race or not), wait times would be decreased for 95% or more of innocent travelers. Oh yeah, and safety would be increased.
Minorities also find it hard to pay for 8 years of college, then onwards through residency, etc. to become a MD in the US. But I don't see people going around claiming we should lower the number of years they'll have to go to school simply because it may adversely affect some of them. Why? Because it's the only logical thing to make our doctors have a good education. Likewise, in my opinion, it's the only logical solution to, when there is a case study that has gone on for over 5 decades now with this much success, adopt an Israeli style approach to security. Again, I couldn't care less that you, who has not ever been through the system I am advocating, think it would hurt your feelings.
I guess it's also discriminatory to require a form of state issued ID to board a plane. Or to require a passport to leave the country. Or require a social security number to work in the US. Or to prohibit non-citizens from voting. Heck, while we're at it why don't we just give everyone the keys to a nuclear weapon and say "hey fire this it's legal for you to do it". This isn't the freaking purge. It's such a slippery slope to give a flying hoot about someone's feelings at the expense of proven safety, efficacy, and apprehension of criminals. But go ahead, vote based on emotions. I sincerely hope you aren't anywhere near the next major terrorist attack happens in the country, as then you can continue to not have any idea of what people who are affected by them go through, or how they could have been prevented.
@Question I'm offended because you are trying to claim I don't have morals when, in reality, they just don't exactly 1 to 1 match up with yours. The whole point is that I don't care if someone feels bad, if they had morals they'd understand that they're being selected for interrogation because a trained officer thought they met the threshold of suspicion. Yes, the threshold will have to be such to include many false positives to catch terrorists, but any moral human should understand that if they are caught as a false positive it is beneficial to all because it means that someone who was more suspicious than them (i.e. actually committing a crime) would be caught as well.
Honestly, the problem in America now (having Trump and Hillary as nominees) is because people vote and act based on emotion, and care too much about what other people think. Look, I couldn't care less if someone gets offended because they were told to get to the airport 2 hours early, they get there one hour early, miss their flight due to security lines. But, under a profiling system (whether it includes race or not), wait times would be decreased for 95% or more of innocent travelers. Oh yeah, and safety would be increased.
Minorities also find it hard to pay for 8 years of college, then onwards through residency, etc. to become a MD in the US. But I don't see people going around claiming we should lower the number of years they'll have to go to school simply because it may adversely affect some of them. Why? Because it's the only logical thing to make our doctors have a good education. Likewise, in my opinion, it's the only logical solution to, when there is a case study that has gone on for over 5 decades now with this much success, adopt an Israeli style approach to security. Again, I couldn't care less that you, who has not ever been through the system I am advocating, think it would hurt your feelings.
I guess it's also discriminatory to require a form of state issued ID to board a plane. Or to require a passport to leave the country. Or require a social security number to work in the US. Or to prohibit non-citizens from voting. Heck, while we're at it why don't we just give everyone the keys to a nuclear weapon and say "hey fire this it's legal for you to do it". This isn't the freaking purge. It's such a slippery slope to give a flying hoot about someone's feelings at the expense of proven safety, efficacy, and apprehension of criminals. But go ahead, vote based on emotions. I sincerely hope you aren't anywhere near the next major terrorist attack happens in the country, as then you can continue to not have any idea of what people who are affected by them go through, or how they could have been prevented.
Let's psychologically damage an entire group of people so that a few people can have the illusion of feeling safer while flying. I mean they should have to put up with the inconvenience right? It's their fault for being the race they are. It's their moral duty to constantly tell Americans that they're not terrorists and defend themselves when they are accused of actions that another person committed.
In what way does it psychologically damage someone? Under the system I advocate, an innocent person would have a small chance of getting stopped. If they aren't acting suspicious, they wouldn't get stopped. But the second I say that the agents would be allowed to use race as a factor, it suddenly becomes emotionally scarring?
Your arguments all seem to be against the idea of "interrogate all arabs". News flash, mine haven't been for that either.
Your arguments all seem to be against the idea of "interrogate all arabs". News flash, mine haven't been for that either.
Why do you keep avoiding the topic at hand?...RACISM....
This is in fact a racist topic and I don't understand why this is being allowed to be discussed on the forums. It is an obvious, highly sensitive topic.
You can't just single minorities out. You pretty much are stating you are racist... Just avoiding the word "racist."
This is in fact a racist topic and I don't understand why this is being allowed to be discussed on the forums. It is an obvious, highly sensitive topic.
You can't just single minorities out. You pretty much are stating you are racist... Just avoiding the word "racist."
We're all human beings. Why shouldn't emotions be a factor when it comes to making decisions? I understand that we should think logically but it's impossible for every single one of us to ignore our emotions and rely on logic alone.
This is not what it means to have morals.
You make it sound like everyone who was stopped wasn't innocent.
The first couple paragraphs of this explains. It was literally already linked.
This is not what it means to have morals.
You make it sound like everyone who was stopped wasn't innocent.
The first couple paragraphs of this explains. It was literally already linked.
maybe you should listen to the moderation team who has said (after actually reading my posts) that my position isn't racist, and that the people who are providing "counter arguments" are trying to turn it into one.
i have repeatedly said i am against singling a minority out because they are a minority. read my posts before responding.[DOUBLEPOST=1470857479][/DOUBLEPOST] actually it's not. if you are fully emotionless it's a mental illness in fact.
The applicable definition from google: "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do."
Your morals are obviously different from mine. I think you're confusing "ethics" which are universal with "morals" which are individual.
No, hence the 95% figure. 5% of people would have, on average, the same wait time they do now (up to 2 hours). But by and large, these people in the 5% would be suspicious and would possibly have been screened under the old rules anyway (which involve long lines, then being selected for secondary screening), whereas now anyone not selected by the interviews conducted upon entry/ticketing would be able to pass through a simple metal detector/body scan to pass security.
Except that's about profiling based solely on race, which again I have not advocated for and have actually said multiple times now I do not agree with.[DOUBLEPOST=1470857540][/DOUBLEPOST] see above. the "racial profiling" being talked about there is different from that which I am advocating for. Did you even read my posts, as I've already explained the two varying definitions of "racial profiling"?
i have repeatedly said i am against singling a minority out because they are a minority. read my posts before responding.[DOUBLEPOST=1470857479][/DOUBLEPOST] actually it's not. if you are fully emotionless it's a mental illness in fact.
The applicable definition from google: "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do."
Your morals are obviously different from mine. I think you're confusing "ethics" which are universal with "morals" which are individual.
No, hence the 95% figure. 5% of people would have, on average, the same wait time they do now (up to 2 hours). But by and large, these people in the 5% would be suspicious and would possibly have been screened under the old rules anyway (which involve long lines, then being selected for secondary screening), whereas now anyone not selected by the interviews conducted upon entry/ticketing would be able to pass through a simple metal detector/body scan to pass security.
Except that's about profiling based solely on race, which again I have not advocated for and have actually said multiple times now I do not agree with.[DOUBLEPOST=1470857540][/DOUBLEPOST] see above. the "racial profiling" being talked about there is different from that which I am advocating for. Did you even read my posts, as I've already explained the two varying definitions of "racial profiling"?
Last edited:
I along with Jafart salute anyone who continues to try to reason with Whispered from here on out 
Like I said before: there shouldn't even be a debate here, because racial profiling is already a thing that exists. There's no need to advocate for it.
Like I said before: there shouldn't even be a debate here, because racial profiling is already a thing that exists. There's no need to advocate for it.
like, really?
- Status