Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

Morality of selective screening

ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 5:04:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:18:38 AM, ben2974 wrote:
Okay...you can call it racial profiling...

Racial profiling can be both effective and immoral simultaneously. Well, anti-american if not immoral.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 5:13:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

Your friend. First of all, the worst atrocities in History have overwhelmingly been commited by white people, on both an individual level (serial killers) and on a national level (nazis) and yet, we someone get up on our high horses with our rose-tinted glasses and think we can stop terrorists by racially profiling brown people. What a joke. You should be ashamed of yourself. Racial profiling only worsens the problem. We should be trying to break down these barriers. These groups we put ourselves into are the problem. Race, religion, sexuality, nationality, policial affiliations, they only serve to weaken our race as a whole. We'll never achieve Star Trek level cooperation if we keep up with this attitude. I say give a terrorist a hug!
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 6:19:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 5:13:31 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

Your friend. First of all, the worst atrocities in History have overwhelmingly been commited by white people, on both an individual level (serial killers) and on a national level (nazis) and yet, we someone get up on our high horses with our rose-tinted glasses and think we can stop terrorists by racially profiling brown people. What a joke. You should be ashamed of yourself. Racial profiling only worsens the problem. We should be trying to break down these barriers. These groups we put ourselves into are the problem. Race, religion, sexuality, nationality, policial affiliations, they only serve to weaken our race as a whole. We'll never achieve Star Trek level cooperation if we keep up with this attitude. I say give a terrorist a hug!

So . . . we shouldn't take extra precaution on a group of people that is statistically more prone to committing violent acts and instead wait for their activity to stop all together. In the case of terrorism, I assume this will be done via diplomatic means, which takes decades, if not centuries. In the meantime, we shouldn't try to prevent these activities because we want to look nice.

Ok.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:10:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 6:19:58 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 5:13:31 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

Your friend. First of all, the worst atrocities in History have overwhelmingly been commited by white people, on both an individual level (serial killers) and on a national level (nazis) and yet, we someone get up on our high horses with our rose-tinted glasses and think we can stop terrorists by racially profiling brown people. What a joke. You should be ashamed of yourself. Racial profiling only worsens the problem. We should be trying to break down these barriers. These groups we put ourselves into are the problem. Race, religion, sexuality, nationality, policial affiliations, they only serve to weaken our race as a whole. We'll never achieve Star Trek level cooperation if we keep up with this attitude. I say give a terrorist a hug!

So . . . we shouldn't take extra precaution on a group of people that is statistically more prone to committing violent acts and instead wait for their activity to stop all together. In the case of terrorism, I assume this will be done via diplomatic means, which takes decades, if not centuries. In the meantime, we shouldn't try to prevent these activities because we want to look nice.

Ok.

This is a false dichotomy. The options aren't "racially profile brown people" or "do nothing", so don't straw man me. You asked "I'm for racial profiling and my friend isn't, who is right?"
I think you're not only wrong, but part of a mindset of people who feel "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" and the next minute, that "something" is putting innocent masses of people into concentration camps because they're potentially a threat.
When you vilify people, don't be surprised if they turn around and act like villains.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 3:59:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 7:10:17 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/14/2015 6:19:58 AM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 5:13:31 AM, tvellalott wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

Your friend. First of all, the worst atrocities in History have overwhelmingly been commited by white people, on both an individual level (serial killers) and on a national level (nazis) and yet, we someone get up on our high horses with our rose-tinted glasses and think we can stop terrorists by racially profiling brown people. What a joke. You should be ashamed of yourself. Racial profiling only worsens the problem. We should be trying to break down these barriers. These groups we put ourselves into are the problem. Race, religion, sexuality, nationality, policial affiliations, they only serve to weaken our race as a whole. We'll never achieve Star Trek level cooperation if we keep up with this attitude. I say give a terrorist a hug!

So . . . we shouldn't take extra precaution on a group of people that is statistically more prone to committing violent acts and instead wait for their activity to stop all together. In the case of terrorism, I assume this will be done via diplomatic means, which takes decades, if not centuries. In the meantime, we shouldn't try to prevent these activities because we want to look nice.

Ok.

This is a false dichotomy. The options aren't "racially profile brown people" or "do nothing", so don't straw man me. You asked "I'm for racial profiling and my friend isn't, who is right?"
I think you're not only wrong, but part of a mindset of people who feel "WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING" and the next minute, that "something" is putting innocent masses of people into concentration camps because they're potentially a threat.
When you vilify people, don't be surprised if they turn around and act like villains.

But you didn't address the problem that racial profiling in this case tries to solve, or at least intends to mitigate. You've literally given a basic emotional appeal, nothing more. Saying "we must be amicable and solve the problem with our hearts" (to paraphrase) does not solve the fact that in the process of things, bad things happen, regardless of our well-intended efforts. And no, I disagree that this is anything like internment camps. What we're dealing with here is securing the borders from those outside of it. The Japanese were rounded up IN the country. In the real world, we have to deal with issues with limited resources, and we have to figure out how to best spend those resources for the safety and security of the country. If we KNOW that a certain group of people is more likely to commit acts of violence, it is then logical to make an effort to screen those who DO pose that extra threat.

The simple fact of the matter is that statistics matter. You have a hard time accepting racial profiling at the border because it is offensive to the majority. What if, for example, 50% of a group committed acts of violence? This means that you have a 1/2 chance that the next person boarding a plane will commit mass murder sometime down the road. Would you still think it's not okay to take extra precaution against that group of people, in an effort to avoid these acts of violence? Now, this is just to illustrate a point: if a group is more likely to commit crimes, the group should be more likely to be investigated. Period.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 4:53:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 5:04:20 AM, TBR wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:18:38 AM, ben2974 wrote:
Okay...you can call it racial profiling...

Racial profiling can be both effective and immoral simultaneously. Well, anti-american if not immoral.

There are parts of the city you would rather not walk in. that's profiling.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 5:04:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:54:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Risk assessment is neither moral, nor immoral; unless you think self-preservation is a moral thing....

I'm glad you agree with me.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 5:09:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 5:04:57 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:54:53 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Risk assessment is neither moral, nor immoral; unless you think self-preservation is a moral thing....

I'm glad you agree with me.

Europe's problem of immigration is particularly troubling. Mass, unfettered immigration across Euro borders from Syria is bound to bring in those who would commit acts of violence. People will argue (like my friend) that it's immoral/racist/discriminatory to screen these refugees because they aren't terrorists and are just trying to escape death from their own country. Denying refugees a home would be like allowing them to die...
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 6:58:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

I doubt that you fairly and accurately represented your friend's position, and it's entirely possible that both of you are wrong.

You're talking about using race as a factor when letting people in to the country. How about this - Lets use sex. The overwhelming majority of crimes and terrorist acts are committed by men. Every person on the FBI's ten most wanted list and most wanted terrorist list is a man. Every 9/11 hijacker was a man. Men are the problem. If we just didn't let any of that group in, then we wouldn't be taking so much of a risk.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 6:58:43 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

I doubt that you fairly and accurately represented your friend's position, and it's entirely possible that both of you are wrong.

You're talking about using race as a factor when letting people in to the country. How about this - Lets use sex. The overwhelming majority of crimes and terrorist acts are committed by men. Every person on the FBI's ten most wanted list and most wanted terrorist list is a man. Every 9/11 hijacker was a man. Men are the problem. If we just didn't let any of that group in, then we wouldn't be taking so much of a risk.

Nope, I accurately and fairly summarized my friend's position.

From what I understand, you're saying that some type of profiling is possibly necessary, but that the type I advocate is not the solution. The problem with this argument is that you cannot beef up security indefinitely. Time and money is real, and it must be spent most effectively. We use statistics for a reason.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:29:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Nope, I accurately and fairly summarized my friend's position.

I don't believe you. I won't believe you.

From what I understand, you're saying that some type of profiling is possibly necessary, but that the type I advocate is not the solution. The problem with this argument is that you cannot beef up security indefinitely. Time and money is real, and it must be spent most effectively. We use statistics for a reason.

I didn't say any of that. I said that if the concern is security, then sex would be a more effective basis to discriminate on than race.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 7:36:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 7:29:33 PM, Death23 wrote:
Nope, I accurately and fairly summarized my friend's position.

I don't believe you. I won't believe you.

Fine.

From what I understand, you're saying that some type of profiling is possibly necessary, but that the type I advocate is not the solution. The problem with this argument is that you cannot beef up security indefinitely. Time and money is real, and it must be spent most effectively. We use statistics for a reason.

I didn't say any of that. I said that if the concern is security, then sex would be a more effective basis to discriminate on than race.

And i'm saying that's impossible.
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 8:03:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I didn't say any of that. I said that if the concern is security, then sex would be a more effective basis to discriminate on than race.

And i'm saying that's impossible.

Why would that be impossible?
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 8:56:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

Racial profiling is effective in many contexts (e.g. figuring out who is more likely to shoplift jeans from Macy's). It is less effective in the context of border profiling, especially when you're dealing with masses of immigrants all from the same country, because who is to be profiled? Everyone? That's not profiling.
Tsar of DDO
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 10:09:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 8:03:32 PM, Death23 wrote:
I didn't say any of that. I said that if the concern is security, then sex would be a more effective basis to discriminate on than race.

And i'm saying that's impossible.

Why would that be impossible?

Because it's not really profiling. Racial profiling at the border usually involves taking extra steps to screen PARTICULAR GROUPS of individuals on the basis that this particular group has a higher probability of causing harm. For example, I was in France just a month after the Charlie Hebdo massacre last year. I remember when right before embarking the plane, all those who carried a passport from, I think it was Saudi Arabia, were pulled to the side and had all their belongings thoroughly (re)examined. If they were to do this for "all males," it would simply be a waste of resources and time. You have to invest your limited resources in a way that maximizes your desired outcome, which in this case is to minimize terrorism. It's simple economics really.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 10:12:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 8:56:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

Racial profiling is effective in many contexts (e.g. figuring out who is more likely to shoplift jeans from Macy's). It is less effective in the context of border profiling, especially when you're dealing with masses of immigrants all from the same country, because who is to be profiled? Everyone? That's not profiling.

Well clearly Europe needs to be more prudent in the way they handle their immigration crisis. You're opening the floodgates to thousands of Syrians from a warzone. You should expect terrorists to take advantage of such a situation, and thus tailor your policies to address this.
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 10:20:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 10:12:22 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 8:56:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

Racial profiling is effective in many contexts (e.g. figuring out who is more likely to shoplift jeans from Macy's). It is less effective in the context of border profiling, especially when you're dealing with masses of immigrants all from the same country, because who is to be profiled? Everyone? That's not profiling.

Well clearly Europe needs to be more prudent in the way they handle their immigration crisis. You're opening the floodgates to thousands of Syrians from a warzone. You should expect terrorists to take advantage of such a situation, and thus tailor your policies to address this.

It's my view that Europe should never have to even be in a position where they're opening their doors to refugees, but we're too late for that. I agree that they need to carefully screen and monitor refugees.
Tsar of DDO
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 10:30:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 10:20:49 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/14/2015 10:12:22 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 8:56:56 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/14/2015 4:03:19 AM, ben2974 wrote:
I just had a huge debate over facebook with a really good friend of mine on the topic of selective screening at the border. Basically, I argued that it's okay - in fact it is a moral duty - to emphasize screening on identified groups of people as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country. This would in effect reduce the freedoms of these few individuals for the protection of the greater good.

My friend, on the other hand, argues that it is NOT okay to screen selectively. He believes everybody should be screened the same and no one (or more) group of people should have their rights and freedoms reduced in that respect. He illustrates his point by asserting that if MY belief was practiced, that I would in effect sanction the Japanese internment camps post WWII as well as racial profiling found in black America.

Who's right?

Racial profiling is effective in many contexts (e.g. figuring out who is more likely to shoplift jeans from Macy's). It is less effective in the context of border profiling, especially when you're dealing with masses of immigrants all from the same country, because who is to be profiled? Everyone? That's not profiling.

Well clearly Europe needs to be more prudent in the way they handle their immigration crisis. You're opening the floodgates to thousands of Syrians from a warzone. You should expect terrorists to take advantage of such a situation, and thus tailor your policies to address this.

It's my view that Europe should never have to even be in a position where they're opening their doors to refugees, but we're too late for that. I agree that they need to carefully screen and monitor refugees.

Can you explain the bold?
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 10:34:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 10:09:22 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 8:03:32 PM, Death23 wrote:
I didn't say any of that. I said that if the concern is security, then sex would be a more effective basis to discriminate on than race.

And i'm saying that's impossible.

Why would that be impossible?

Because it's not really profiling. Racial profiling at the border usually involves taking extra steps to screen PARTICULAR GROUPS of individuals on the basis that this particular group has a higher probability of causing harm. For example, I was in France just a month after the Charlie Hebdo massacre last year. I remember when right before embarking the plane, all those who carried a passport from, I think it was Saudi Arabia, were pulled to the side and had all their belongings thoroughly (re)examined. If they were to do this for "all males," it would simply be a waste of resources and time. You have to invest your limited resources in a way that maximizes your desired outcome, which in this case is to minimize terrorism. It's simple economics really.

I don't see exactly what you're advocating for here. I can't tell if you're talking about immigration policy (i.e. Who should we let in to the country?) or if you're talking about screening only (i.e. Which person do we search more thoroughly?) In your OP you said screening could be used "as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country." However, I don't see how screening is going to prevent terrorists from getting in to the country. They could go through customs with innocuous luggage and simply buy whatever they need to build a bomb or whatever once they get past customs.
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2015 11:06:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/14/2015 10:34:21 PM, Death23 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 10:09:22 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/14/2015 8:03:32 PM, Death23 wrote:
I didn't say any of that. I said that if the concern is security, then sex would be a more effective basis to discriminate on than race.

And i'm saying that's impossible.

Why would that be impossible?

Because it's not really profiling. Racial profiling at the border usually involves taking extra steps to screen PARTICULAR GROUPS of individuals on the basis that this particular group has a higher probability of causing harm. For example, I was in France just a month after the Charlie Hebdo massacre last year. I remember when right before embarking the plane, all those who carried a passport from, I think it was Saudi Arabia, were pulled to the side and had all their belongings thoroughly (re)examined. If they were to do this for "all males," it would simply be a waste of resources and time. You have to invest your limited resources in a way that maximizes your desired outcome, which in this case is to minimize terrorism. It's simple economics really.

I don't see exactly what you're advocating for here. I can't tell if you're talking about immigration policy (i.e. Who should we let in to the country?) or if you're talking about screening only (i.e. Which person do we search more thoroughly?) In your OP you said screening could be used "as a precautionary security measure to stop potentially dangerous individuals (terrorists, maniacs, violent people ,etc) from coming into the country." However, I don't see how screening is going to prevent terrorists from getting in to the country. They could go through customs with innocuous luggage and simply buy whatever they need to build a bomb or whatever once they get past customs.

Yep, i'm talking about screening, not selective immigration. I think everyone can come in. Some will just have to be screened with more scrutiny than others (aka racial profiling). That's the main thing my friend finds to be unfair, and I debated him, arguing the stuff I've already stated above. Screening obviously has its limitations, but it's better than nothing. Looking into phone records, passports, family history, etc, are ways to weed out potential terrorists, or otherwise risky people. Like, if they find that your brother committed a suicide bomb attempt in some country, security needs to know this. And the example I cited earlier (Saudis) is an example of an extra step taken for a group of people that is more suspected of terrorism.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2015 7:46:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The way we go about ensuring maximal results in any chance related scenario is through induction. That is, we use past experiences to determine probability of future events. If you saw a lion walking down the street what would you do? I'm betting you would run and hide, and you would do this because you are aware that other lions have killed people. If you found yourself in a car with a drunk driver what would you do? I'm betting you would plead with them to stop the car so you can get out, and you would do this because you are aware that other drunk drivers have gotten into accidents. We use this form of reasoning in nearly every aspect of our lives, but when it comes to race, gender, religion, etc... all of a sudden it's hateful and immoral.

Complete nonsense.