4 ms·

No solution is perfect and there will always be people who get mistreated by racisms, sexism, prejudice etc. That is unavoidable. What you have to do is to cho

No solution is perfect and there will always be people who get mistreated by racisms, sexism, prejudice etc. That is unavoidable. What you have to do is to chose the least worse solution. So instead of violating a smaller number of peoples rights the US chose to violate everybody's rights with the TSA and the NSA. Even us who is not even living in the US or plan to go there. The defenders then try to hide behind it with the argument that is fair, because everybody is mistreated. No it isn't. Violating several millions people is far worse than a few thousands. Especially violating peoples rights that can't even remotely be classified as a US person, like me. And what was the end result of this nonsense US policy? Boston bombings. Why? Because if you make everyone a suspect that is the same as saying there is no suspects. In all of these cases, there where signs, but officials chose to ignore them because it is politically incorrect to profile on suspicious behavior and appearance.

rsofaer 13y ago
Have you ever been to Israel? Israeli style screening would mean interviews for every person flying to the USA. It would be more inconvenient and expensive than even the current TSA.
- fetbaffe 13y ago
  I does not make sense to interview persons in the US about why they will fly to US, so no.
Amadou 13y ago
So instead of violating a smaller number of peoples rights the US chose to violate everybody's rights So your argument is, it's better to mistreat a small group of people (to which you presumably don't belong) rather than a large group of people. Seems to me you've bought into the baseline fallacy that deliberately mistreating innocent people is A-OK.
- fetbaffe 13y ago
  No, I don't think it is ok. I never said that, it's you who are putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that mistreating millions is far worse than mistreating a few thousands. Understand the difference.
  - Amadou 13y ago
    Understand the difference. Well I don't see a difference. Better that a minority live in the ghetto so that the rest don't have to? Each time you clarify all I see is my original conclusion being confirmed. Perhaps it is you who don't understand the consequences of the policies you are promoting.
    - fetbaffe 13y ago
      Who said anything about a ghetto? You are just assuming too much and making things up because you are full with prejudice against others and other ideas. First you associated terrorist with muslims (which I never said), that shows in it self that you are profiling, even if you don't admit it. And now you seem to think that profiling will lead to a nazi like world. What? No! What Marxist has brainwashed you with this nonsense? Reality is not an all or nothing world, but you however seems to accept the fact of 1) total mass surveillance of everyone 2) which will create a police state 3) in a police state you will get true prejudice (like racism) and no equality before the law 4)that terrorism has won. It is you who must defend that fact that you need to search old solitaire playing ladies as much as young extreme radicals.
      - Amadou 13y ago
        Who said anything about a ghetto? It is an analogy. I am starting to get the impression that you are a literalist. That's not a helpful tool in this discussion because all you do is outright deny rather than explain how what you've written does not fit the analogies and comparisons. You could start with explaining how these two statements are meaningfully different: "better to mistreat a small group of people rather than a large group of people." "mistreating millions is far worse than mistreating a few thousands." Explain the difference, don't just declare they are different. First you associated terrorist with muslims (which I never said), I stand by my characterization of your use of "politically incorrect" - the only people who use that term with respect to profiling are talking about profiling of minorities. Your follow-up reference to "appearance" and defense of the israeli system's racial profiling of arabs only confirm my initial evaluation. you who must defend that fact that you need to search old solitaire playing ladies as much as young extreme radicals. Jihad Jane is 50 years old. Your error is in believing that "profiling" works - that you can know who is an "extreme radical" with any level of certainty. As soon as you create a shortcut through security procedures, that shortcut becomes a vulnerability.

rsofaer 13y ago

Have you ever been to Israel? Israeli style screening would mean interviews for every person flying to the USA. It would be more inconvenient and expensive than even the current TSA.

fetbaffe 13y ago
I does not make sense to interview persons in the US about why they will fly to US, so no.

Amadou 13y ago

So instead of violating a smaller number of peoples rights the US chose to violate everybody's rights So your argument is, it's better to mistreat a small group of people (to which you presumably don't belong) rather than a large group of people. Seems to me you've bought into the baseline fallacy that deliberately mistreating innocent people is A-OK.

fetbaffe 13y ago
No, I don't think it is ok. I never said that, it's you who are putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying is that mistreating millions is far worse than mistreating a few thousands. Understand the difference.
- Amadou 13y ago
  Understand the difference. Well I don't see a difference. Better that a minority live in the ghetto so that the rest don't have to? Each time you clarify all I see is my original conclusion being confirmed. Perhaps it is you who don't understand the consequences of the policies you are promoting.
  - fetbaffe 13y ago
    Who said anything about a ghetto? You are just assuming too much and making things up because you are full with prejudice against others and other ideas. First you associated terrorist with muslims (which I never said), that shows in it self that you are profiling, even if you don't admit it. And now you seem to think that profiling will lead to a nazi like world. What? No! What Marxist has brainwashed you with this nonsense? Reality is not an all or nothing world, but you however seems to accept the fact of 1) total mass surveillance of everyone 2) which will create a police state 3) in a police state you will get true prejudice (like racism) and no equality before the law 4)that terrorism has won. It is you who must defend that fact that you need to search old solitaire playing ladies as much as young extreme radicals.
    - Amadou 13y ago
      Who said anything about a ghetto? It is an analogy. I am starting to get the impression that you are a literalist. That's not a helpful tool in this discussion because all you do is outright deny rather than explain how what you've written does not fit the analogies and comparisons. You could start with explaining how these two statements are meaningfully different: "better to mistreat a small group of people rather than a large group of people." "mistreating millions is far worse than mistreating a few thousands." Explain the difference, don't just declare they are different. First you associated terrorist with muslims (which I never said), I stand by my characterization of your use of "politically incorrect" - the only people who use that term with respect to profiling are talking about profiling of minorities. Your follow-up reference to "appearance" and defense of the israeli system's racial profiling of arabs only confirm my initial evaluation. you who must defend that fact that you need to search old solitaire playing ladies as much as young extreme radicals. Jihad Jane is 50 years old. Your error is in believing that "profiling" works - that you can know who is an "extreme radical" with any level of certainty. As soon as you create a shortcut through security procedures, that shortcut becomes a vulnerability.