Total Posts:72|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Racial Profiling Justifiable?

suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 4:16:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
If it is statistically proven that certain races or class or sex have more tendency to commit crime, is it justifiable for law enforcers to give that particular race more attention than the rest?

Discuss
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:43:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Combining the first two posts, I would ask "what if it was justifiable"?

Then, given the statistics Royal cited, the DEA would hound Native Americans and whites. Currently, they seem to prioritize urban areas, which are primarily populated by blacks and Latinos, i.e. there is no "justifiable racial profiling" occurring, only "unjustifiable racial profiling".

Royal's point about the reality of the situation is well-founded. There's no reason to think that law enforcement would miraculously focus on less marginalized peoples. With the marginalization of a group comes the ease of further marginalizing that group, which would seem to succinctly describe current DEA policy.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 11:04:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:43:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Combining the first two posts, I would ask "what if it was justifiable"?

Then, given the statistics Royal cited, the DEA would hound Native Americans and whites. Currently, they seem to prioritize urban areas, which are primarily populated by blacks and Latinos, i.e. there is no "justifiable racial profiling" occurring, only "unjustifiable racial profiling".

Royal's point about the reality of the situation is well-founded. There's no reason to think that law enforcement would miraculously focus on less marginalized peoples. With the marginalization of a group comes the ease of further marginalizing that group, which would seem to succinctly describe current DEA policy.

It means if the idea sounds acceptable to you.

Actually, I would like to discuss the idea that should the individual liberty be scarifies for better overall benefit. Thus it came in assumption that if it is proven that certain group of people commit more crime than the other and pay special attention to them would significantly aid in legal enforcement.

Would it be acceptable that their right to be treated equally is partly suspended for the sake of greater good? Of course I didn't talk about put them to jail without trial or randomly searched their house without the court authorisation. It 's more like when you are an immigration agent working at the air port, is it ok if you ask the Latino more often for passport than the rest of the passenger, given that it will significantly reduced the illegal immigrant or smuggler at the end.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 11:39:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Only if it's confined to more efficient allocation of police resources when conducting an investigation. However, with the possibility of false charges, even this is pretty immoral.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 12:27:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 11:04:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:43:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Combining the first two posts, I would ask "what if it was justifiable"?

Then, given the statistics Royal cited, the DEA would hound Native Americans and whites. Currently, they seem to prioritize urban areas, which are primarily populated by blacks and Latinos, i.e. there is no "justifiable racial profiling" occurring, only "unjustifiable racial profiling".

Royal's point about the reality of the situation is well-founded. There's no reason to think that law enforcement would miraculously focus on less marginalized peoples. With the marginalization of a group comes the ease of further marginalizing that group, which would seem to succinctly describe current DEA policy.

It means if the idea sounds acceptable to you.

Actually, I would like to discuss the idea that should the individual liberty be scarifies for better overall benefit. Thus it came in assumption that if it is proven that certain group of people commit more crime than the other and pay special attention to them would significantly aid in legal enforcement.

I would say we do this to a large extent, but not necessarily by race. The government keeps meticulous records on felons and the nature and types of crimes committed by them, so in this sense there is already accepted and "justified" profiling. The only real question is whether or not it should be done by race. So, why should it be done by race, then?

Would it be acceptable that their right to be treated equally is partly suspended for the sake of greater good? Of course I didn't talk about put them to jail without trial or randomly searched their house without the court authorisation. It 's more like when you are an immigration agent working at the air port, is it ok if you ask the Latino more often for passport than the rest of the passenger, given that it will significantly reduced the illegal immigrant or smuggler at the end.

From my understanding, most illegal immigration in the US does not involve any immigration agent...it involves sneaking across the border by night, or being stowed away in some unsearchable compartment while crossing borders, so racial profiling would not necessarily stem illegal immigration, although it would most certainly stem both legal and illegal immigration from that specific racial/ethnic group.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 1:58:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 12:27:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:04:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:43:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Combining the first two posts, I would ask "what if it was justifiable"?

Then, given the statistics Royal cited, the DEA would hound Native Americans and whites. Currently, they seem to prioritize urban areas, which are primarily populated by blacks and Latinos, i.e. there is no "justifiable racial profiling" occurring, only "unjustifiable racial profiling".

Royal's point about the reality of the situation is well-founded. There's no reason to think that law enforcement would miraculously focus on less marginalized peoples. With the marginalization of a group comes the ease of further marginalizing that group, which would seem to succinctly describe current DEA policy.

It means if the idea sounds acceptable to you.

Actually, I would like to discuss the idea that should the individual liberty be scarifies for better overall benefit. Thus it came in assumption that if it is proven that certain group of people commit more crime than the other and pay special attention to them would significantly aid in legal enforcement.

I would say we do this to a large extent, but not necessarily by race. The government keeps meticulous records on felons and the nature and types of crimes committed by them, so in this sense there is already accepted and "justified" profiling. The only real question is whether or not it should be done by race. So, why should it be done by race, then?

Would it be acceptable that their right to be treated equally is partly suspended for the sake of greater good? Of course I didn't talk about put them to jail without trial or randomly searched their house without the court authorisation. It 's more like when you are an immigration agent working at the air port, is it ok if you ask the Latino more often for passport than the rest of the passenger, given that it will significantly reduced the illegal immigrant or smuggler at the end.

From my understanding, most illegal immigration in the US does not involve any immigration agent...it involves sneaking across the border by night, or being stowed away in some unsearchable compartment while crossing borders, so racial profiling would not necessarily stem illegal immigration, although it would most certainly stem both legal and illegal immigration from that specific racial/ethnic group.

I said race or class or sex at the beginning of the post, so it is not exactly racial exclusive, sorry the topic name may be misleading.

I didn't talk about the situation in US in particular (although it is often the case), the example is only to show you how the principle works, not the real issue in US (which I don't know obviously). It work like if I am wrong to focus more attention on Muslim population when searching for Islam terrorist.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 2:54:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 12:27:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:04:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:43:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Combining the first two posts, I would ask "what if it was justifiable"?

Then, given the statistics Royal cited, the DEA would hound Native Americans and whites. Currently, they seem to prioritize urban areas, which are primarily populated by blacks and Latinos, i.e. there is no "justifiable racial profiling" occurring, only "unjustifiable racial profiling".

Royal's point about the reality of the situation is well-founded. There's no reason to think that law enforcement would miraculously focus on less marginalized peoples. With the marginalization of a group comes the ease of further marginalizing that group, which would seem to succinctly describe current DEA policy.

It means if the idea sounds acceptable to you.

Actually, I would like to discuss the idea that should the individual liberty be scarifies for better overall benefit. Thus it came in assumption that if it is proven that certain group of people commit more crime than the other and pay special attention to them would significantly aid in legal enforcement.

I would say we do this to a large extent, but not necessarily by race. The government keeps meticulous records on felons and the nature and types of crimes committed by them, so in this sense there is already accepted and "justified" profiling. The only real question is whether or not it should be done by race. So, why should it be done by race, then?

Actually, the question is whether it should be done by trait or behavior.

We don't keep records of felons because they are men or because they are black or because they are smart.

It is because they have committed particular behavioral signatures.

I have no problem with behavioral profiling. It's a much better way of identifying potential suicide bombers than assigning some trait and looking for those who possess it (for instance suicide bombers tend to go into a trance state to calm themselves while in security lines).
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 2:56:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 2:54:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 12:27:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:04:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:43:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Combining the first two posts, I would ask "what if it was justifiable"?

Then, given the statistics Royal cited, the DEA would hound Native Americans and whites. Currently, they seem to prioritize urban areas, which are primarily populated by blacks and Latinos, i.e. there is no "justifiable racial profiling" occurring, only "unjustifiable racial profiling".

Royal's point about the reality of the situation is well-founded. There's no reason to think that law enforcement would miraculously focus on less marginalized peoples. With the marginalization of a group comes the ease of further marginalizing that group, which would seem to succinctly describe current DEA policy.

It means if the idea sounds acceptable to you.

Actually, I would like to discuss the idea that should the individual liberty be scarifies for better overall benefit. Thus it came in assumption that if it is proven that certain group of people commit more crime than the other and pay special attention to them would significantly aid in legal enforcement.

I would say we do this to a large extent, but not necessarily by race. The government keeps meticulous records on felons and the nature and types of crimes committed by them, so in this sense there is already accepted and "justified" profiling. The only real question is whether or not it should be done by race. So, why should it be done by race, then?

Actually, the question is whether it should be done by trait or behavior.

We don't keep records of felons because they are men or because they are black or because they are smart.

It is because they have committed particular behavioral signatures.

I have no problem with behavioral profiling. It's a much better way of identifying potential suicide bombers than assigning some trait and looking for those who possess it (for instance suicide bombers tend to go into a trance state to calm themselves while in security lines).

As an extension, I am fine with using past records as a means to discriminate between risk. For instance, schools in areas with high levels of violence can choose who should be in their limited "target at risk youth" program by checking predictors like "truancy" or "low" and other such things.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 2:57:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 2:56:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 2:54:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 12:27:32 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 11:04:40 AM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:43:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
Combining the first two posts, I would ask "what if it was justifiable"?

Then, given the statistics Royal cited, the DEA would hound Native Americans and whites. Currently, they seem to prioritize urban areas, which are primarily populated by blacks and Latinos, i.e. there is no "justifiable racial profiling" occurring, only "unjustifiable racial profiling".

Royal's point about the reality of the situation is well-founded. There's no reason to think that law enforcement would miraculously focus on less marginalized peoples. With the marginalization of a group comes the ease of further marginalizing that group, which would seem to succinctly describe current DEA policy.

It means if the idea sounds acceptable to you.

Actually, I would like to discuss the idea that should the individual liberty be scarifies for better overall benefit. Thus it came in assumption that if it is proven that certain group of people commit more crime than the other and pay special attention to them would significantly aid in legal enforcement.

I would say we do this to a large extent, but not necessarily by race. The government keeps meticulous records on felons and the nature and types of crimes committed by them, so in this sense there is already accepted and "justified" profiling. The only real question is whether or not it should be done by race. So, why should it be done by race, then?

Actually, the question is whether it should be done by trait or behavior.

We don't keep records of felons because they are men or because they are black or because they are smart.

It is because they have committed particular behavioral signatures.

I have no problem with behavioral profiling. It's a much better way of identifying potential suicide bombers than assigning some trait and looking for those who possess it (for instance suicide bombers tend to go into a trance state to calm themselves while in security lines).

As an extension, I am fine with using past records as a means to discriminate between risk. For instance, schools in areas with high levels of violence can choose who should be in their limited "target at risk youth" program by checking predictors like "truancy" or "low grades" and other such things.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 4:09:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
BTW, if you want to argue for any type of profiling, keep in mind that society is dynamic.

That is, when America establishes that they will profile sub-culture S as "terrorists" then you essentially drive sub-culture S towards either self-identifying as terrorists or rejecting America for (what they consider) wrong and unfair treatment.

SEE: Police interaction with blacks in low-income, gang-infested neighborhoods.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 6:33:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 1:58:00 PM, suttichart.denpruektham wrote:

I didn't talk about the situation in US in particular (although it is often the case), the example is only to show you how the principle works, not the real issue in US (which I don't know obviously). It work like if I am wrong to focus more attention on Muslim population when searching for Islam terrorist.

Ok, this becomes more interesting.

So, when it comes to terrorism, is racial profiling justified? The Japanese internment camps during WWII was essentially a government response to potential terrorism from Japanese Americans after Pearl Harbor. In the US, we have recognized this as wrong, Reagan issued a formal apology during his term with renumeration.

In your specific example, let's say we have a terrorist suspect who is from a Muslim country, and let's say for simplicity's sake he does not speak English. It would be extremely easy then to find out the people with whom he associated, and these people would speak the same language, and as is the case in most Muslim countries, would most likely share the same ethnicity. An investigation into this subject would predicate interviewing a LOT of Muslims and possibly holding them as suspects as well, not because of racial profiling, but because of the nature of the investigation.

So, is racial profiling justifiable? I would say not. Although a lot of investigative activity may seem to resemble racial profiling, it is merely coincidental per the above reasoning.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 6:35:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 2:57:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 2:56:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 2:54:35 PM, Wnope wrote:

Actually, the question is whether it should be done by trait or behavior.

I'm not certain. I don't think even the OP is certain.

We don't keep records of felons because they are men or because they are black or because they are smart.

It is because they have committed particular behavioral signatures.

I have no problem with behavioral profiling. It's a much better way of identifying potential suicide bombers than assigning some trait and looking for those who possess it (for instance suicide bombers tend to go into a trance state to calm themselves while in security lines).

As an extension, I am fine with using past records as a means to discriminate between risk. For instance, schools in areas with high levels of violence can choose who should be in their limited "target at risk youth" program by checking predictors like "truancy" or "low grades" and other such things.

I fully agree with this reasoning, but the title is pretty specific that we are discussing racial profiling, not behavioral profiling.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 6:37:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

By this argument, we could judge all Germans by Hitler's standard.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.

A Salaafist is much more identifiable by their style of dress and manner. If you argue "but they could hide that" then it equally applies that someone who is Pashtun can "hide that."

Are you planning to profile Pashtuns by simply asking what region they are from and assuming they hold the local culture? Self-labeling? If it's by region, then there's quite a few Pashtuns we shouldn't worry about.

Or do you plan to use some "skin color" means of differentiating Pashtun from Sufis?

In the end, non-behavoiral profiling backfires. Culture is useful insofar as it influences an individual. But assigning culture by visible trait fails the same reason visible traits of "salaafism" fails (according to you).

Profiling just becomes a matter of statistical correlations and an arbitrary threshold for when someone has too many of the "wrong" traits.

Once you do that, terrorists will just adjust who they try to recruit to always keep one step ahead of the empirically-discovered "probabilities" of which traits indicate dangerousness.

Profiling is one reason muslim terrorists emphasize recruiting whites and latinos.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 6:56:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 6:35:39 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 2:57:00 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 2:56:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 2:54:35 PM, Wnope wrote:

Actually, the question is whether it should be done by trait or behavior.

I'm not certain. I don't think even the OP is certain.

We don't keep records of felons because they are men or because they are black or because they are smart.

It is because they have committed particular behavioral signatures.

I have no problem with behavioral profiling. It's a much better way of identifying potential suicide bombers than assigning some trait and looking for those who possess it (for instance suicide bombers tend to go into a trance state to calm themselves while in security lines).

As an extension, I am fine with using past records as a means to discriminate between risk. For instance, schools in areas with high levels of violence can choose who should be in their limited "target at risk youth" program by checking predictors like "truancy" or "low grades" and other such things.

I fully agree with this reasoning, but the title is pretty specific that we are discussing racial profiling, not behavioral profiling.

I know, and my argument is that racial profiling has net disadvantages, but that doesn't mean profiling itself is bad.

Otherwise, you'll get people equating behavioral and racial profiling in order to show how "profiling" works.

Quantico has a program that is about as close as it gets. That is, you can analyze individual crime scenes, the unique elements of each crime have low correlation with racial and trait-based profiles for murderers that do not involve monetary incentives. However, even within this small sample (people who kill but not for money), crimes have many common elements and rare elements, and only the rare elements give any real information.

So, for instance, the combinations of factors at a murder scene like "victim tied up" and "victim moved" can be used to find a weak correlation with "latino."

If you watch CSI and stuff, that's how profilers can say things like "I think was done by a black male in his twenties."

But notice the backwards engineering is based on BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 7:00:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 6:37:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

By this argument, we could judge all Germans by Hitler's standard.

Read what you respond to.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 7:04:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.

A Salaafist is much more identifiable by their style of dress and manner. If you argue "but they could hide that" then it equally applies that someone who is Pashtun can "hide that."

Are you planning to profile Pashtuns by simply asking what region they are from and assuming they hold the local culture? Self-labeling? If it's by region, then there's quite a few Pashtuns we shouldn't worry about.

Or do you plan to use some "skin color" means of differentiating Pashtun from Sufis?

In the end, non-behavoiral profiling backfires. Culture is useful insofar as it influences an individual. But assigning culture by visible trait fails the same reason visible traits of "salaafism" fails (according to you).

Profiling just becomes a matter of statistical correlations and an arbitrary threshold for when someone has too many of the "wrong" traits.

Once you do that, terrorists will just adjust who they try to recruit to always keep one step ahead of the empirically-discovered "probabilities" of which traits indicate dangerousness.

Profiling is one reason muslim terrorists emphasize recruiting whites and latinos.

OK, let's say you aren't in a multicultural country like America, but rather in an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or Poland. Shouldn't they screen individuals that belong to ethnic or cultural groups that are hostile to Japan or Poland?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:14:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 7:04:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.

A Salaafist is much more identifiable by their style of dress and manner. If you argue "but they could hide that" then it equally applies that someone who is Pashtun can "hide that."

Are you planning to profile Pashtuns by simply asking what region they are from and assuming they hold the local culture? Self-labeling? If it's by region, then there's quite a few Pashtuns we shouldn't worry about.

Or do you plan to use some "skin color" means of differentiating Pashtun from Sufis?

In the end, non-behavoiral profiling backfires. Culture is useful insofar as it influences an individual. But assigning culture by visible trait fails the same reason visible traits of "salaafism" fails (according to you).

Profiling just becomes a matter of statistical correlations and an arbitrary threshold for when someone has too many of the "wrong" traits.

Once you do that, terrorists will just adjust who they try to recruit to always keep one step ahead of the empirically-discovered "probabilities" of which traits indicate dangerousness.

Profiling is one reason muslim terrorists emphasize recruiting whites and latinos.

OK, let's say you aren't in a multicultural country like America, but rather in an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or Poland. Shouldn't they screen individuals that belong to ethnic or cultural groups that are hostile to Japan or Poland?

What ethnicity is "hostile" towards Japan? Not to mention Poland?
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:25:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:14:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 7:04:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.

A Salaafist is much more identifiable by their style of dress and manner. If you argue "but they could hide that" then it equally applies that someone who is Pashtun can "hide that."

Are you planning to profile Pashtuns by simply asking what region they are from and assuming they hold the local culture? Self-labeling? If it's by region, then there's quite a few Pashtuns we shouldn't worry about.

Or do you plan to use some "skin color" means of differentiating Pashtun from Sufis?

In the end, non-behavoiral profiling backfires. Culture is useful insofar as it influences an individual. But assigning culture by visible trait fails the same reason visible traits of "salaafism" fails (according to you).

Profiling just becomes a matter of statistical correlations and an arbitrary threshold for when someone has too many of the "wrong" traits.

Once you do that, terrorists will just adjust who they try to recruit to always keep one step ahead of the empirically-discovered "probabilities" of which traits indicate dangerousness.

Profiling is one reason muslim terrorists emphasize recruiting whites and latinos.

OK, let's say you aren't in a multicultural country like America, but rather in an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or Poland. Shouldn't they screen individuals that belong to ethnic or cultural groups that are hostile to Japan or Poland?

What ethnicity is "hostile" towards Japan? Not to mention Poland?

Theoretically possible. Why can't I use it as an example?
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:39:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:25:39 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:14:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 7:04:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.

A Salaafist is much more identifiable by their style of dress and manner. If you argue "but they could hide that" then it equally applies that someone who is Pashtun can "hide that."

Are you planning to profile Pashtuns by simply asking what region they are from and assuming they hold the local culture? Self-labeling? If it's by region, then there's quite a few Pashtuns we shouldn't worry about.

Or do you plan to use some "skin color" means of differentiating Pashtun from Sufis?

In the end, non-behavoiral profiling backfires. Culture is useful insofar as it influences an individual. But assigning culture by visible trait fails the same reason visible traits of "salaafism" fails (according to you).

Profiling just becomes a matter of statistical correlations and an arbitrary threshold for when someone has too many of the "wrong" traits.

Once you do that, terrorists will just adjust who they try to recruit to always keep one step ahead of the empirically-discovered "probabilities" of which traits indicate dangerousness.

Profiling is one reason muslim terrorists emphasize recruiting whites and latinos.

OK, let's say you aren't in a multicultural country like America, but rather in an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or Poland. Shouldn't they screen individuals that belong to ethnic or cultural groups that are hostile to Japan or Poland?

What ethnicity is "hostile" towards Japan? Not to mention Poland?

Theoretically possible. Why can't I use it as an example?

Because I need to at least be able to picture it. I've never heard of a case where "ethnicity x hates nation y" on some sort of culturally universal level.

Are you trying to say "what if America was all white, should we screen out arabs/muslims?"

Also, you don't need an ethnicity to be highly represented in a country in order for the effects of domestic terrorism to take place. Consider the ratio of muslims in the US to muslims who commit acts of terrorism in the US.

You can't just take average opinion polls of ethnicities. If that were policy, we say in the 1990s that Iranian immigrants were fine since the population at large liked America.

So what exactly are you talking about?
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:46:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:14:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 7:04:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.

A Salaafist is much more identifiable by their style of dress and manner. If you argue "but they could hide that" then it equally applies that someone who is Pashtun can "hide that."

Are you planning to profile Pashtuns by simply asking what region they are from and assuming they hold the local culture? Self-labeling? If it's by region, then there's quite a few Pashtuns we shouldn't worry about.

Or do you plan to use some "skin color" means of differentiating Pashtun from Sufis?

In the end, non-behavoiral profiling backfires. Culture is useful insofar as it influences an individual. But assigning culture by visible trait fails the same reason visible traits of "salaafism" fails (according to you).

Profiling just becomes a matter of statistical correlations and an arbitrary threshold for when someone has too many of the "wrong" traits.

Once you do that, terrorists will just adjust who they try to recruit to always keep one step ahead of the empirically-discovered "probabilities" of which traits indicate dangerousness.

Profiling is one reason muslim terrorists emphasize recruiting whites and latinos.

OK, let's say you aren't in a multicultural country like America, but rather in an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or Poland. Shouldn't they screen individuals that belong to ethnic or cultural groups that are hostile to Japan or Poland?

What ethnicity is "hostile" towards Japan? Not to mention Poland?

Chinese and Japs hate each other.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:56:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 7:00:59 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 6:37:44 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

By this argument, we could judge all Germans by Hitler's standard.

Read what you respond to.

That's not the problem. The problem is your argument.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:58:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 7:04:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM, Wnope wrote:

OK, let's say you aren't in a multicultural country like America, but rather in an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or Poland. Shouldn't they screen individuals that belong to ethnic or cultural groups that are hostile to Japan or Poland?

You miss the point. Because Japan is ethnically homogeneous, they do not screen individuals that belong to other ethnic or cultural groups, because there are no other ethnic or cultural groups.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2013 10:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:46:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:14:39 PM, Wnope wrote:

What ethnicity is "hostile" towards Japan? Not to mention Poland?

Chinese and Japs hate each other.

Almost all of east and SE Asia have an intense love/hate relationship with Japan because of WWII. In China's case, it has veered off a bit into the hate category, but they still love most Japanese cultural products.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 2:23:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:46:31 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:14:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 7:04:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.

A Salaafist is much more identifiable by their style of dress and manner. If you argue "but they could hide that" then it equally applies that someone who is Pashtun can "hide that."

Are you planning to profile Pashtuns by simply asking what region they are from and assuming they hold the local culture? Self-labeling? If it's by region, then there's quite a few Pashtuns we shouldn't worry about.

Or do you plan to use some "skin color" means of differentiating Pashtun from Sufis?

In the end, non-behavoiral profiling backfires. Culture is useful insofar as it influences an individual. But assigning culture by visible trait fails the same reason visible traits of "salaafism" fails (according to you).

Profiling just becomes a matter of statistical correlations and an arbitrary threshold for when someone has too many of the "wrong" traits.

Once you do that, terrorists will just adjust who they try to recruit to always keep one step ahead of the empirically-discovered "probabilities" of which traits indicate dangerousness.

Profiling is one reason muslim terrorists emphasize recruiting whites and latinos.

OK, let's say you aren't in a multicultural country like America, but rather in an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or Poland. Shouldn't they screen individuals that belong to ethnic or cultural groups that are hostile to Japan or Poland?

What ethnicity is "hostile" towards Japan? Not to mention Poland?

Chinese and Japs hate each other.

Good example of why we shouldn't profile.

There are miles between "vehemently hating country x" and "willing to commit violence acts against civilians of country x."

Opinion, even coupled with intensity, cannot predict violence, only where that violence would be directed if violent tendencies were already present.
suttichart.denpruektham
Posts: 1,115
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2013 2:25:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/29/2013 10:39:40 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:25:39 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 10:14:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 7:04:42 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 6:47:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:44:40 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:59:49 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 4/29/2013 3:21:18 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
At 4/29/2013 5:34:22 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
No, because it lumps people into groups instead of considering them as individuals.

Non-sequitur. Why should people be treated individually if they likely share generally cultural or national beliefs with each other? Why shouldn't we lump them into groups for the sake of security?

In addition, this policy would really only be able to be implemented against poor minorities. For example, more African Americans are arrested for drug use, but it is estimated that actually whites actually use drugs more as a percentage that African Americans do. (http://healthland.time.com...) It is more difficult to catch whites, however, since they usually do it in upscale areas behind closed doors, and the police need warrants. I doubt that there would be racial profiling against them by the DEA.

Terrible example. Let's use Pashtuns. Almost all of them come from Afghanistan/Pakistan, and tend to be religious and live in rural areas. Again- they have much higher risks of being terrorists or intending harm than, say, whites or even Arabs.

Of course, it doesn't matter that humans naturally coalesce themselves into cultural and ethnic groups by themselves, we merely should pretend they don't on the basis of not organizing them collectively.

A minority of Pashtuns qualify as terrorist; you might as well profile Chechnyans. Followers of Pashtunwali may be more violent in their responses than westerners consider rationale, but Pashtunwali does not involve random aggression. It is always in the context of the greater community. In fact, Pashtunwali is fanatically against all sorts of initiation of aggression even between individuals since it can easily lead to clan warfare. Even despicable acts like killing your sister after she is raped has a sick, twisted logic that ultimately involves stopping massive inter-clan warfare. Look up

The reason Pashtuns are disproportionately involved in illegal and violent activity involves how they've been geo-politically manipulated by Pakistan and Afghanistan into becoming a quasi buffer-state. Pakistan invested in thousands of border madrasses while Afghanistan propped up anti-Pakistani "secular" Pashtun (secular in the sense of not motivated directly by a religious ideal) to counter Pakistans madrassas.

This has no effect on my argument.

If you REALLY want to try and argue for culturally-based profiling, you might as well go for the "root" of it all.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Followers of Salafi (especially ones that intend to do terror) aren't identifiable by ethnic features.

A Salaafist is much more identifiable by their style of dress and manner. If you argue "but they could hide that" then it equally applies that someone who is Pashtun can "hide that."

Are you planning to profile Pashtuns by simply asking what region they are from and assuming they hold the local culture? Self-labeling? If it's by region, then there's quite a few Pashtuns we shouldn't worry about.

Or do you plan to use some "skin color" means of differentiating Pashtun from Sufis?

In the end, non-behavoiral profiling backfires. Culture is useful insofar as it influences an individual. But assigning culture by visible trait fails the same reason visible traits of "salaafism" fails (according to you).

Profiling just becomes a matter of statistical correlations and an arbitrary threshold for when someone has too many of the "wrong" traits.

Once you do that, terrorists will just adjust who they try to recruit to always keep one step ahead of the empirically-discovered "probabilities" of which traits indicate dangerousness.

Profiling is one reason muslim terrorists emphasize recruiting whites and latinos.

OK, let's say you aren't in a multicultural country like America, but rather in an ethnically homogeneous one like Japan or Poland. Shouldn't they screen individuals that belong to ethnic or cultural groups that are hostile to Japan or Poland?

What ethnicity is "hostile" towards Japan? Not to mention Poland?

Theoretically possible. Why can't I use it as an example?

Because I need to at least be able to picture it. I've never heard of a case where "ethnicity x hates nation y" on some sort of culturally universal level.

Are you trying to say "what if America was all white, should we screen out arabs/muslims?"

Also, you don't need an ethnicity to be highly represented in a country in order for the effects of domestic terrorism to take place. Consider the ratio of muslims in the US to muslims who commit acts of terrorism in the US.

You can't just take average opinion polls of ethnicities. If that were policy, we say in the 1990s that Iranian immigrants were fine since the population at large liked America.

So what exactly are you talking about?

Actually, let's use this example from my country. In Thailand we are largely ethical homogeneous, an ethnic Malays minority in our three southern provinces have tendency to engage in arm struggle, is it right to pay special attention to them (and other Muslim population in that provinces) to prevent act of terrorist?

Should fit your scenario better

wiki information

http://en.wikipedia.org...