44% of Americans want to restrict the rights of Muslims

[machinaddict]

Originally posted by Future Boy


Polling and surveys when done properly can be fairly accurate.

As far as this one goes, the last election proved that about half the country is quite stupid, so 44% seems within reason.

the idea that half of america thinks this is bullshit and you're an idiot if you believe it

you just look for any excuse to hate this country. go fuck yourself

[Why Am I So Ugly?]

Originally posted by jczeroman
I have really been weighing this issue and how it relates to racial profiling -- I might be switching my beliefs on the matter. I am at least questioning them.

Whitey thinks to himself, "Hmmm. Maybe racial profiling does exist! "

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Why Am I So Ugly?


Whitey thinks to himself, "Hmmm. Maybe racial profiling does exist! "

Of course it exists, in an entire spectrum of useful to ciminal -- everything has such a spectrum.

I think I am comming to some kind of terms that if a crime has happened and it is established by concrete proof what the ethnicity is of the suspect was, it is appropriate not to look for criminals fitting other ethnicities. There need to be strict and harsh laws/punishments/jail sentences against any who would use such evidence to espouse racists/hateful actions against people soley on their ethnic decent. There must also be a lot more additional information to being searching for a suspect other than race. "he was black" -- with the racist people in our institutions, could easily be used as a green light to start harrassing people.

Now, if there is not a crime commited (IE: WAR ON TERROR) then there is no justification for "restricting" or profiling any race/religion just because of what they might do. Since there are muslims and people of arabic descent aplenty who are not planning attacks on the US -- thier rights cannot be comprimised simply because others of the same race/religion are doing these things. Even if 99% of the group were planning crimes, it would not be correct. That means no tapping, survielance, searching, anything -- as they inherantly have rights to life, liberty and property as individuals. Since people are individuals first and groups second, their individual rights as citizens must supercede the country's suspicions of the group (even were the suspicions based on faultless reason and logic).

[Lie]

Originally posted by Knight0440
I disagree completely. It's never reasonable to use race for investigative purposes because more times than not you are going to be targeting innocent people based on something as arbitrary as race. Besides that, police always take racial profiling too far to the point of racism. Want evidence? Hang out in the south side of Chicago for a day.

They key here is based under some kind of reasonable suspicion which never seems reasonable. Remember COINTELLPRO from the 60s? The feds infiltrated anything that seemed to question authority. They disrupted legal assemblies of people. They assassinated activists. These infiltrations breached founding principles of our supposed liberty. So give me an example of a reasonable suspicion?

Kind of makes me question why we let racists/bigots thrive. You should be locked up and starved to death. MOSLEMS AREN'T THE ENEMY YOU TURD!

I think you're stuck in the wrong argument, dude. He was questioning the hype of the story, the validity of the survey, and the possibilities of peoples' actual opinions and intentions. Your glitchy account of U.S. racial profiling history adds, counters, and states nothing in that area.

[Knight0440]

[DeviousJ]

Haha

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by jczeroman


Of course it exists, in an entire spectrum of useful to ciminal -- everything has such a spectrum.

I think I am comming to some kind of terms that if a crime has happened and it is established by concrete proof what the ethnicity is of the suspect was, it is appropriate not to look for criminals fitting other ethnicities. There need to be strict and harsh laws/punishments/jail sentences against any who would use such evidence to espouse racists/hateful actions against people soley on their ethnic decent. There must also be a lot more additional information to being searching for a suspect other than race. "he was black" -- with the racist people in our institutions, could easily be used as a green light to start harrassing people.

Now, if there is not a crime commited (IE: WAR ON TERROR) then there is no justification for "restricting" or profiling any race/religion just because of what they might do. Since there are muslims and people of arabic descent aplenty who are not planning attacks on the US -- thier rights cannot be comprimised simply because others of the same race/religion are doing these things. Even if 99% of the group were planning crimes, it would not be correct. That means no tapping, survielance, searching, anything -- as they inherantly have rights to life, liberty and property as individuals. Since people are individuals first and groups second, their individual rights as citizens must supercede the country's suspicions of the group (even were the suspicions based on faultless reason and logic).

Profiling is always going to be useful in very specific situations - it's like Cluedo (or Clue or whatever you guys call it). When you're looking for suspects, you have to start with everyone and start narrowing things down, much like Guess Who? (or whatever you guys call it), building up a profile of the suspects and eliminating those who don't match the description. Even with an example as extreme as the airport one (I don't think people would be happy if the suspect was white, and every white person was searched while EVERYONE who was not white was allowed to breeze through without scrutiny), the idea of focusing resources to be as efficient as possible makes sense, so long as it's in a very specific and definite situation.

But in daily life, treating people differently based on race, creed, gender, whatever is wrong. If 'racial profiling' extends like this then it basically becomes institutional racism, and while I'm sure this doesn't bother some people it makes me wonder just how much people have thought about this, and how objectively they'd view it if applied to themselves. The news is definitely guilty of promoting this 'us vs them' mentality, and I think that's contributing a lot to this attitude.

What's funny is how unreliable it is. What good does it do watching Muslims so closely? Exactly how effective would this be in preventing a terrorist attack? I can't help but think of the airport example again, with an image of a crowd of Muslim men being held up and searched while a white female boards a plane carrying an explosive device. Focusing attention in an arbitrary way just opens up more security holes as far as I'm concerned

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by DeviousJ
Focusing attention in an arbitrary way just opens up more security holes as far as I'm concerned

Right. And that is what equating Islam or Arabs with "the terrorists" does exactly. Even if it is only an extra look here, an extra check there -- that is one look and check that was not being used objectively , and everytime that happens,larger and larger holes are being slowly expanded in the security net.

[Lie]

Originally posted by DeviousJ
(I don't think people would be happy if the suspect was white, and every white person was searched while EVERYONE who was not white was allowed to breeze through without scrutiny)

[alexthestampede]

"exterminate the brutes"

words of wisdom

[Future Boy]

You bumped this, for that?

[phaedrus]

didn't this happen to the jews in the early half of the 20th century? what was that all about anyways?

[3Marlon3Brando]

go back to muslimville, muslims

[Mayfuck]

Originally posted by DeviousJ


and every white person was searched while EVERYONE who was not white was allowed to breeze through without scrutiny

Ah eutopia