Finally a politician with a set [Archive]

Jinpo

08-03-2005, 10:44 PM

what, no one is going to post the quiz? ok then, and it's been updated, too:

#1 In 1968 who assassinated Robert Kennedy?

(a) Abbie Hoffman

(b) Tiny Tim

(c) Charles Manson

(d) Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40

#2 In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:

(a) Olga Korbett

(b) Sitting Bull

(c) Arnold Schwarzenegger

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#3 In 1979,the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:

(a) Lost Norwegians

(b) Elvis

(c) A tour bus full of 80-year-old women

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#4 During the 1980's a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:

(a) John Dillinger

(b) The King of Sweden

(c) The Boy Scouts

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#5 In 1981, Pope John Paul II was shot 4 times in an assasination attempt by:

(a) Christopher Columbus

(b) Gene Simmons of "KISS"

(c) Vlad the Impaler,

(d) Muslim male extremists between the age of 17 and 40. (Name: Mehmet Ali Hagca)

#5 In 1983, the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:

(a) A Domino's pizza delivery boy

(b) Pee Wee Herman

(c) Geraldo Rivera making up for a slow news day

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

#6 In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked, and a 70 year old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard by:

(a) The Smurfs

(b) Davy Jones

(c) The Little Mermaid

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40.

#7 In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens, and a U.S. Navy diver was murdered by:

(a) Captain Kidd

(b) Charles Lindbergh

(c) Mother Teresa

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#8 In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:

(a) Scooby Doo

(b) The Tooth Fairy

(c) Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid with dynamite left over from the train job.

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#9 In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:

(a) Richard Simmons

(b) Grandma Moses

(c) Michael Jordan

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#10 In 1996 19 Americans were killed and hundreds more woulded at the U.S. Military complex at Khobar Towers, Saudi Arabia because of attacks by:

(a) The Verizon Guy (Can you hear me now?)

(b) Domino's Pizza "noid"

(c)Clinton Administration Secretary of State Madeline Albright

(d)Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#11 In 1998, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:

(a) Mr. Rogers

(b) Hillary, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems

(c) The World Wrestling Federation to promote its next villain: "Mustapha the Merciless"

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#12 In 2000, The USS Cole was attacked and more than 15 American Sailors were killed by:

(a) David Letterman

(b) Shaquille O'Neil

(c) The Cookie Monster

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#13 On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacked and destroyed and thousands of people were killed by:

(a) Bugs Bunny, Wile Coyote, Daffy Duck, and Elmer Fudd

(b) The Supreme Court of Florida

(c) Mr. Bean

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#14 In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:

(a) Enron

(b) The Lutheran Church

(c) The NFL

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#15 In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:

(a) Bonny and Clyde

(b) Captain Kangaroo

(c) Billy Graham

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#16 In 2001 Phillipene Missionaries Gracia and Martin Burnham were kidnapped, held for over a year, and Martin subsequently killed by:

(a) Mr. Rogers

(b) Scooby Doo & Shaggy

(c) Ronald Reagan

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#17 On July 4th 2002, 2 Innocent Airline Passengers Were Killed, And 3 Others Injured at the ticket counter of El Al Airlines in the LAX International terminal by:

(a) Hulk Hogan after losing the WWF Title

(b) The cast of Monty Python

(c) Senator Lil' Tommy Daschle

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 41

#18 On July 31st 2002 5 Americans were killed by a Palestinian HAMAS bomber in Jerusalem while attending school by:

(a) The US Congress

(b) The Tooth Fairy

(c) The Easter Bunny

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40

#19 On October 12th 2002 more than 200 innocent civilians (including 200 Australians and 5 Americans) were brutally murdered by:

(a) Kermit the Frog & Miss Piggy

(b) Bert & Ernie from Sesame Street

(c) Charles Barkley

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 41

#20 On October 29th 2002 more than 700 Moscow theatre goers were taken hostage and threatened with execution by:

(a) Royal Canadian Mounted Police

(b) Laurie Dhue of Fox News Channel

(c) Phil Donahue, of MSNBC, pissed because Fox News is kicking his ass

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 41

#21 a Madrid, Spain train bombing occured on March 11, 2004. Can you name the "conductors"?

(a) Willie Nelson

(b) George Bush and Hillary Clinton

(c) Abba

(d) 2 Muslim male extremists between the ages of 17 and 41

#22 On 7/7/2005, our faithful allies in Great Britian were the vicitms of a well orchestrated terrorist bombing attack planned by:

(a) Ringo Star

(b) The Naked Chef

(c) David Beckam

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 41

#23 On 7/21/2005, our long term allies in Great Britian were the victims of another bombing, purpetrated by:

(a) The Wiggles

(b) The Naked Chef

(c) David Beckam

(d) Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 41

#24 This Quiz, Humorous While Still Being Factual In Nature Offends Mostly:

(a) Democrats, Who Seek To Impose A Politically Correct Mentality That Will Get Us All Killed

(b) Terrorist Sympathizers

(c) Terrorists Osama Bin Laden, Musab Al-Zarqawi & Their Evil Minions

(d) All Of The Above

yep.

Jinpo

55 Monk, Saryrn (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266967)

55 Necro, Saryrn (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=584689)

29 Monk, Everfrost

Retired Until the Sony Devs get their heads out of their asses and roll back the game-destroying Live Update #3.Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jin po>Jinpo</A> at: 8/3/05 9:45 pm

Phung Kuu

08-03-2005, 10:55 PM

Excellent post Jinpo!

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You can look at the history of our country and see many of the end results. Those hundreds of thousands of Japanese "spies" thrown into camps...a "noble" sacrifice to protect our way of life!<hr></blockquote>

Cyb, have you read any of the memoirs or autobiographies of those interned? Their lives were upset, sure. But their living conditions were far better than any person serving in the US military at the time.

I will never say that it was gravy, but your allusion that they were 'camps' such as the camps that the Japanese or Germans ran is sadly and blatently ignorant.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Mrisda

08-03-2005, 11:20 PM

Estral, in the very thread you quoted, it says "No more political threads UNLESS IT IS IMPORTANT."

Politicians speaking in favor of racial profiling, I'd say, fits the bill quite nicely.

This isn't a partisan thread.

I happen to agree with the politicians. Noticing that 19 out of 20 terrorist acts are performed by people all of one ethnic packground isn't racial profiling, it's being "minimally observant." (kudos to Dennis Miller for that).

If the roles were reversed and white folks were the ones being profiled against....hell, I'd deal with it or I'd move out of the country.

I'm not saying "Love it or leave it" or any of that mindless "patriotic" bullshit, but jesus. I don't care if it IS insensitive. If 90% of terrorist attacks are made by people of one specific ethnicity, then we should be concentrating on that one specific ethnicity. It's not rude, it's not cruel, it's just fucking COMMON SENSE.

EQ - Mrisda Mriswith - Retired

WoW - Azgra - Shaman

"I'm surprised you don't like Nine Inch Nails more, because, you know... you're a morbid fuck."

Cybsled

08-03-2005, 11:31 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In 1968 who assassinated Robert Kennedy?<hr></blockquote>

Nixon ;p

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Cyb, have you read any of the memoirs or autobiographies of those interned? Their lives were upset, sure. But their living conditions were far better than any person serving in the US military at the time.<hr></blockquote>

These were mostly United States citizens, the majority of which were BORN in our country.

Many of them lost their buisnesses, homes, and savings...confiscated and given to whites, and never reimbursed properly.

And despite living conditions, they were prisoners put into labor camps. United States citizens thrown into camps. Because they had Japanese heritage. You will note that no German origin citizens were thrown into camps. Why's that? Oh ya...they're white. And there's too many of them (our national language was almost German long ago). Lets go for the easy to identify group that people wont be as vocal about because they appear to be alot more different.

This is -not- a slope we want to be sliding down again.

Vicero

08-03-2005, 11:41 PM

Hate to be the barer of bad news, but but both Germans and Italians were interned in WWII also. Its just not mentioned as much as the Japanese internments.

link (http://www.serve.com/shea/germusa/itintern.htm)

Edit: that was just the first page that showed up on a search, there is more info out there.

Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vic ero>Vicero</A> at: 8/3/05 10:42 pm

Ugle

08-03-2005, 11:47 PM

If you want to use that logic, Germans never attacked and killed Americans on American soil, hence there *is* a difference. But lets use your logic and say that because Japanese were put in internment camps, Germans should have been too to make it fair. Fair point to start from.

Muslim Extremists from a group who was in charge of Afghanistan attacked Americans on American soil. We went over and kicked the crap out of them in Afghanistan. So using the same logic, what is the argument about going after Saddam?

I'm not advocating throwing all people who are Muslim or of Eastern descent in jail and throwing away the key. But it would be stupid to not go "Hmm, we need to pay more attention to people who fit a certain background". If you run around downtown LA with Crips or Bloods colors, cops are going to pay more attention to you, you have a higher probability of being a gang member. If you ride around on a Harley with your gang jacket on, you have a higher probability of being a gang member. If you are a young Arab male, you have a higher probability of being involved with terrorism. That doesn't mean by any stretch ALL fit that description. But it is completely ignorant to not realize the similarities and pay more attention to people who fit a certain profile.

She whose name shall not be mentioned had some insight on this sort of thing. A certain political party screamed at a certain President that he didn't do enough to protect us, that our information community was impotent. So the President created the DHS, and passed the Patriot act. And now that same party is screaming at him about violating our rights. To bash the current administration for profiling, and then to get upset with them for not doing enough to protect Americans is a really ignorant viewpoint. I'm sure if I fit the "profile" I would feel differently, especially if it impacted me. But then again, how many people who "aren't" involved in acts stand by while others in their communities commit them, and do nothing? If we had some public examples where Muslim communities in the US or the UK kicked the crap out of some people plotting terrorist acts, then turned them over to the authorities, that would be great. It would show people that Islam is not a religion of hate, and that it doesn't tolerate terrorism. So where are the news articles?

If I were a member of say the KKK, and knew they were committing hate crimes, it would be really stupid of me to think I could tell everyone I was a member and not get questioned/monitored/harassed. If Muslim young men don't want to be thought of as terrorists, quit sympathizing with them. Out them, disown them, condemn them. But I pretty much never hear stories about that. Sure some Mullah will get up and say "that wasn't us, and we condemn them". But IMO that's just a precautionary tactic. If you condemn them, stop them.

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 12:12 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And despite living conditions, they were prisoners put into labor camps. <hr></blockquote>

Labor camps.

Ya, if you say that running stores is labor.

If you say that farming is labor.

If you say that making clothes to wear is labor.

If you say that building furniture is labor.

When you say labor camps as you do, you send a message that(though intended) is highly inaccurate.

My grandfather, of Swedish descent, lost his right had making steel for the war effort. You say some lost their homes,,,true. But what is worth more to you, a house or your right hand?

There is nothing that the average interned Japanese had to endure worse than what you or I would encounter on a camping trip.

Compare the standard of living of a GI at the time at a camp(a military camp). They had it FAR, far, worse than the average Japanese American.

PS, there were Japanese American spies. At the time. Working for Japan.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 12:56 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40<hr></blockquote>

For your information, religion is not WRITTEN on your face. So, what the clever police will do.

Arrest anywhom who "look like a Muslim" ?

Yeah, today we reach the bottom of the barrel, yooho !!

By the way... will the NY police arrest Farrakhan ?

you know.. because he's a nutjob, a Muslim on the top of that.

I wonder if the police have ever wondered to "mass check" people in the famous Mosquees of Brooklyn.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Lenardo

08-04-2005, 01:08 AM

i'd say this was a good enough topic to discuss.

as for racial profiling- sorry but if 90% of the terrorist attacks are made by young men of middle-eastern descent, if i was in charge of keeping a city/country safe, i damn well would have them checked out- just in case.

Brother Lenardo Draconis

65th Transcendant of the Celestial Fists

The First Seal-The Nameless

Lenardo

60th Tauren Shaman - The First Seal Blackhand

Magelo ('http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=329805')

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 01:14 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So, what the clever police will do.<hr></blockquote>

Not frisk 80 year old blue haired ladies, like they have to do now.

Do you have any idea how much money is being spent, now, randomly searching people who have no reasonable chance of committing these crimes?

Random?, like, eeny meeny minee moe. Or, everybody?

You really think that is a better why to catch bad guys?

If I were a clever policeman, I would go after suspects who I actually suspect. Not just everybody, to appease a bunch of idiotic liberal social scientists.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Ugle

08-04-2005, 01:59 AM

I find it ironic that

We can make it acceptable for young, caucasian men to be discriminated against in admissions or in government contracts, both of which can affect them financially for the rest of their lives, because in the past white caucasians discriminated against minorities.

We can shame white caucasians because in the past, they had slaves (while conveniently overlooking the fact that the slaves were sold by other Africans, and the practice lasted much longer in Africa then in America). We also discriminate against caucasians even though this happened 150+ years ago, long before most of us had families in America.

We can shame white caucasians because in the past, they took the land from the Native Americans. Even though this happened 150+ years ago, and very few of us had families in America.

But no way in heck we can be allowed to discriminate against Middle Eastern men because 4 years ago they killed 3,000+ Americans, and continue to target women and children around the world.

Is it fair to the innocent Middle Eastern families? Nope. But the same people who are the most vocal about how unfair this policy is, tend to also be strong supporters of affirmative action and quotas. Interesting.

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=ugl e>Ugle</A> at: 8/4/05 1:00 am

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 02:03 AM

I don't know if you have ever heard of this man: Farid Benyettou.

He's 23, French.

For several months he's highly suspected of recruiting people in Paris for doing the Jihad in Iraq.

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/143/2209/640/Islam%20in%20Paris.jpg

If this man'd retrieve his Sheish, would your police arrest him for "Middle Eastern, or Muslim looking" like ?

I don't think so.

There are legions of men who look him in Paris, France, Europe, World.

-A side note: don't pronunce the word Al'Qaeda speaking of him. The Iraqi network has nothing to see with Bin Laden, even if both him and Benyettou are Salafists-

Another one

Yasin Hassan Omar

He's 24, Somali

Suspected to have bombed the London's Warren Street Station.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/world/0507/gallery.tube.suspects/02.omar.ap.jpg

For sure, a Somali like him really look like "a Middle easterner", "a Muslim".

Well; so obvious, my bad, it's written on his face right now.

I dare you to find religion out of people's look if they bear no disctinctions on them.

You just can't.

The direct consequence of this "random checks" will just piss off more people, and lift more tensions that could generate more dangerous reactions.

Because you know the easiest way to generate terrorism ?

Chastization, exclusion, feeling of injustice.

Then an "Imam" comes and talk to you about "a cause". Dying in martyr... it's so easy to manipulate excluded people.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 03:40 AM

http://www.bsfs.org/b37images/images/costumed%20lady.jpg

You are saying that this lady should be regarded equally suspiciously as your fellow up there.

That she is just as likely to strap c4 around her belly(not like she has any room) and blow up the Chunnel or a theater, or the Bank of America building in San Francisco.

Are you really saying that they should be treated the same?

Can you imagine her with a box cutter on a plane? Really, can you?

You ARE saying that we need to regard her as an equal threat as your fellow up there.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

ADXO

08-04-2005, 08:00 AM

The moronic idea of political correctness would have us checking men and children if we got word that a pregnant army of women were attacking.

Of course a terrorist could exploit that, by recruiting people that didnt fit the profile, but that is more rare then common, remember the shock when an american was captured with Al Queda terrorists....( hell do any of you remember his name without googling it )......

Also Phung, that chick has some crazy wmds under her dress....I wouldnt trust her. Whats the from anyway? EQ Fan Faire? Or Ressiance Fair?

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 08:09 AM

You are saying that this lady should be regarded equally suspiciously as your fellow up there.

No. Please, read what I wrote.

I'm saying that religion is not written on people's face.

And speaking of suicide bombers, it's a sad thing, but they look like commoners. They act like commoners till the moment when they press their button.

With a discriminative policy, you just target minorities, people who did nothing wrong and whose lives has already turned into a hell because of stupid reactions, and will turn into a deeper hell because of that brilliant idea.

As it is only a matter of appearance, let me introduce you Ayat Akhras, 18, who blew herself up in Jerusalem this year.

http://img.slate.msn.com/media/93/020402_GIrlSuicideBomber.jpg

I know that the Palestine situation might be specific.

Although, the point is even comon looking women can strap themselves.

For you information, a terror cell is composed of what... 10 people in average. A good intel can locate them, get a clue about them, and maybe take action in time.

And how many people that stupid action wouldl piss off ? 100.000, one Million, more ?

Unfortunately, there is something you can hardly avoid; the day when they decided to strap themselves at take the bus is the day after the dead line for their arrest.

As far as I remember, stopping terror attacks H-2 mins only happened in movies. Unless you are lucky and had a battalion of troopers who were checking ebveryone when the suicide bomber paniqued and decided to runaway, so you can alert the population, and shoot him or isolate him so he'd harm nobody else but himself.

This, happened in Turkey by the beginning of the year if I remember well.

EDIT for addendum.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/4/05 7:13 am

Fopoodzo

08-04-2005, 08:38 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>For your information, religion is not WRITTEN on your face. So, what the clever police will do.

Arrest anywhom who "look like a Muslim" ?<hr></blockquote>

It's not talking about arresting, it about things like stop and search.

You've got 10 police officers. They can only stop and search 60 people per hour entering (for example) the London underground.

Scenario 1: they concentrate on people fitting the profile of the bombers.

Scenario 2: they stop and search to a check list making sure they get equal numbers of every sex, ethnicity, and age group.

Which scenario is likely to get results and which to just waste police time which could be better spend else where?

It's like if you have a murder suspect who is white (or whatever), you don't go around arresting non-white people on the off chance.

It is discrimination, but it's not racist or somehow sinisterly motivated, but rather discrimination that simply has to be, that doesn’t make it good, but necessary things aren’t always pleasant.

Although equally they can't concentrate on profiles to the point that they let others slip though.

Ugle

08-04-2005, 08:52 AM

If 100 people were "inconvenienced", but one life was saved due to profiling, would that be a fair tradeoff Velk? You believe Non, I say yes. Do you fly Velkyn? Why is it that you have to go through metal detectors, and other security measures? It's a huge inconvenience for you, and being a law abiding citizen why should you be forced to go through that inconvenience? Let me guess.....you're fine with that at airports because it might save *your* life, but in another situation that doesn't involve *your* safety you think it's unfair. You also seem to imply that racial profiling means that every Middle Eastern guy walking down the street is going to be picked up, thrown in a dark hole and beaten until people are tired of feeding him. Here's an example of racial profiling:

www.manhattan-institute.o...s_like.htm (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/_latimes-what_looks_like.htm)

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 09:11 AM

"It's not talking about arresting, it about things like stop and search"

Yes. It's what I wanted to say... thanks for the reminding.

Stop and search piss off people.

Which scenario is likely to get results and which to just waste police time which could be better spend else where?

None of you two scenarii are revelant in my honest opinion.

People who enter the subway don't 100% represent the population.

It's like if you have a murder suspect who is white (or whatever), you don't go around arresting non-white people on the off chance.

That argue is pointless.

That murder suspect is specifically identified.

A potential terrorist is not.

In one case you control anyone who look like the suspect.

In the other case, you control everybody that could match what you expect a terrorist to look like.

Two completly different cases.

"Although equally they can't concentrate on profiles to the point that they let others slip though"

From my personal conclusion in matter of counter-terrorism (I'm light years of being an expert) the police and the army depleted in cities have two main goals

1) to insure the population that they are doing something

2) to make the most stressed terrorists panic when they see them, so they'd have a suspect behaviour.

The most efficient way I know to break a terror cell is to break it through infiltration, or by police inquiry when a terror attack has already occured.

Mass checks mostly only annoy comoners.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Gorkeyah

08-04-2005, 09:35 AM

I'm with Velkyn on this one.

They're checking bags looking for bombs. To assume only a muslim would have a bomb, and that you could somehow assume someone is a muslim by the way they look, is stupid.

That would miss people like timothy mcvay, Eric Rudolph, and other christian terrorists. (ok, that was a troll. hehe)

If we could save one life by searching what looks like little old ladies, wouldn't it be worth it? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 09:46 AM

"If 100 people were "inconvenienced", but one life was saved due to profiling, would that be a fair tradeoff Velk? You believe Non, I say yes"

Here is another asumption.

If discrimination could proof itself to be a better solution than any other (not one life saved, it's not enough and not statistically probant), yes. If not, you guessed, no.

"Do you fly Velkyn? Why is it that you have to go through metal detectors, and other security measures? "

Yes I fly sometimes to the West Indies to see my family.

And metal detectors are for everybody.

See the nuance ?

"You also seem to imply that racial profiling means that every Middle Eastern guy walking down the street is going to be picked up, thrown in a dark hole and beaten until people are tired of feeding him"

Another brilliant assumption.

Wrong.

You want an example of consequence of "racial profiling" ?

Every year in France, for New Year eve, cars burn. Mostly in the East of France, but the phenomenon expands year after year.

It seems to be a French only phenomenon.

Sociologists wondered why.

Here is a point that was lighten up, among other factors:

Police men, even if they are ordered to do no discrimination, deal with population that are ghetto'ed.

So they often see the same people doing misdeeds, or often see the same people doing nothing by their homes.

Police can check ID's : by here, we have ID papers, you have 48 hours to show them to the police central if you can't afford them when you're asked them, or the police can bring you to the police center for an ID control that can last up to 48 hours if I remember well.

So here is the game several police officers do:

They control the same people, every day, over and over. They know the controled people's names back from their memory, they "joke" with them, and ever time they see them, they ask their ID. If they forget their ID for any reason, they win a trip to the police center "for an ID check".

48 plain hours sometimes.

Yoohoo !

Go get a job now and explain your boss you were under arrest for 48 hours for the 4th time this month.

As a consequence, youngers (mostly unemployed you've guessed) got upset.

It's not vileny, it's being upset, an understandable reaction.

So, they began to show hostility at the police officers.

Which led to worse situations.

To the point that now, there are places where the police no longer enter, due to the cohesion effect of the ghetto's. There are places where even the postmen and the firefighters (who wear uniforms) can no longer enter without being stoned, threw things from windows.

When the police enter those zones, they enter with 2 special divisions, arm shields, lightnings, they raid the flat of the suspect (mostly a drug dealer), then leave as fast as they can because youngsters gather and begin to throw stones at them.

A side note: coming here and arrest everybody is a bad solution.

A deletere situation.

Now, what would you do ?

Send more cops ?

Speak with the youngs ?

Do both ? Do none of the above ?

Or change your police officers, so that stupid racial profiling would be forgotten.

And to coment your stupid article, criminatity is economical, not racial.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/4/05 8:49 am

Fopoodzo

08-04-2005, 09:55 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"It's not talking about arresting, it about things like stop and search"

Yes. It's what I wanted to say... thanks for the reminding.

Stop and search piss off people.<hr></blockquote>

But it is needed.

Do you think there should be no security checks when going onto a plane etc.?

Yes 999 time out of 1000 there’ll be no problem, but it’s that 1 time for which they are there.

The problem with systems like the underground it that it is impossible to check (even however cursory) everyone that uses it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Which scenario is likely to get results and which to just waste police time which could be better spend else where?

None of you two scenarii are revelant in my honest opinion.

People who enter the subway don't 100% represent the population. <hr></blockquote>

Velk your just falling back into obtusism now.

Of course the people who use the underground are 100% of the population or representative of it, but that IS NOT THE ISSUE NOR THE POINT.

The fact is IF they’d had security checks targeted by the profiles they have now, there’s good change that ALL the first and most of the 2nd wave of London bomber would have been caught or scared off. Thereby saving 56 lives and countless injuries.

Now as currently from some reports ~5% of Muslims in Britain seem to believe there should be (not might be) another attack, and security forces believe another is likely. What is it best to do?

Just leave the underground open and ‘suck up’ another attack and another 56 deaths and 300 wounded?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's like if you have a murder suspect who is white (or whatever), you don't go around arresting non-white people on the off chance.

That argue is pointless.<hr></blockquote>

No it is exactly the point.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That murder suspect is specifically identified.

A potential terrorist is not.<hr></blockquote>

Yes that’s what profiling is about, no it doesn’t mean every Muslim is a terrorist (and the other nonsense a lot of groups keep trying to claim it means), it just means it is much more likely to come from one of those groups.

If you’re looking for neo-nazi’s you’ll probably not find many in a black African community.

If you’re looking for Muslim terrorists….. well you look where they are most likely to be found.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In one case you control anyone who look like the suspect.

In the other case, you control everybody that could match what you expect a terrorist to look like.

Two completly different cases.<hr></blockquote>

No the SAME thing, just different circumstances.

My brother was once arrested for assault because he looked vaguely like someone caught on camera doing it. He wasn’t the person, and that was eventually determined, but he was ‘discriminated’ against for his physical make up.

Was that nice? No, not at all.

Was it wrong? Not really, even though it was a mistake.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Although equally they can't concentrate on profiles to the point that they let others slip though"

From my personal conclusion in matter of counter-terrorism (I'm light years of being an expert) the police and the army depleted in cities have two main goals

1) to insure the population that they are doing something

2) to make the most stressed terrorists panic when they see them, so they'd have a suspect behaviour.

The most efficient way I know to break a terror cell is to break it through infiltration, or by police inquiry when a terror attack has already occured.

Mass checks mostly only annoy comoners.<hr></blockquote>

Yes and infiltration of Islamic extremist cells is near impossible, and if it were to be possible it would be years in the doing.

In the mean time other more effective things can be done.

Police enquiries in the wake of the London bombings are already being call ‘racist’ because for some reason (<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> ) they are ‘targeting’ the Muslim community.

It is idiocy and quite simply plays into the terrorists hands to just do nothing, equally neither should a country become a police state.

Security checks are supposed to enhance security, when PC agendas start to be MORE important than human lives there is a problem.

Fopoodzo

08-04-2005, 09:56 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If we could save one life by searching what looks like little old ladies, wouldn't it be worth it? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> <hr></blockquote>

Of course it would.

But with finite resources would it be "worth it" to search a little old lady and miss a terrorist and result in another 56 dead?

Exactly.

Fopoodzo

08-04-2005, 10:01 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Do you fly Velkyn? Why is it that you have to go through metal detectors, and other security measures? "

Yes I fly sometimes to the West Indies to see my family.

And metal detectors are for everybody.

See the nuance ?<hr></blockquote>

3 million people travel on the tube each day, it would be utterly impossible to check each and every person doing that.

See the nuance?

If there were infinite resources or some sort of ‘terrorist detector’ there’d be no issue, but as there is not you’ve GOT to target your resources to stand the best chance of stopping and attack.

Reality is not PC idealism, in the end there’s a choice, take small negatives for increased security or reduce security to pacify PC fears.

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 10:16 AM

Do you think there should be no security checks when going onto a plane etc.?

No ^^

"The fact is IF they’d had security checks targeted by the profiles they have now, there’s good change that ALL the first and most of the 2nd wave of London bomber would have been caught or scared off"

I don't think so.

How would you have checked people who look like comoners during rush hours ?

"Now as currently from some reports ~5% of Muslims in Britain seem to believe there should be (not might be) another attack, and security forces believe another is likely. What is it best to do?"

Let MI5 and the police inquiry.

"Just leave the underground open and ‘suck up’ another attack and another 56 deaths and 300 wounded?"

Of course no. I never said that.

"Yes that’s what profiling is about, no it doesn’t mean every Muslim is a terrorist (and the other nonsense a lot of groups keep trying to claim it means), it just means it is much more likely to come from one of those groups"

Which is pointless.

I asked how you can make the difference between a Christian and a Muslim in the street ?

You just can't.

"If you’re looking for neo-nazi’s you’ll probably not find many in a black African community"

Obviously yes.

"If you’re looking for Muslim terrorists….. well you look where they are most likely to be found."

And where do you find Muslims ?

More probably around Mosquees, cultural Muslim centers, etc...

In the street, you cannot recognize them, because they belong to the people of your country.

Here is the point.

"No the SAME thing, just different circumstances"

Made my day.

"My brother was once arrested for assault because he looked vaguely like someone caught on camera doing it. He wasn’t the person, and that was eventually determined, but he was ‘discriminated’ against for his physical make up"

Your brother was checled because they had a suspect in their files.

Here, for random checks, you have ZERO suspect in file, nada, quechi, nakash, nothing, rien.

Only assumptions about what a terrorist might look like.

Not even a profile suspect with a gold tooth, a scar, a black backpack or whatever. They just have nothing.

"Go and arrest terrorists fellow police officers". Yeah.

I hope you see the difference, because I'm fed up repeating.

"Yes and infiltration of Islamic extremist cells is near impossible, and if it were to be possible it would be years in the doing"

This is explicitely why our intel is made.

To forecast those kind of things, in order to isolate several potential suspects from the pool of other innocent people who never did nor will do anything like that.

"Police enquiries in the wake of the London bombings are already being call ‘racist’ because for some reason ( ) they are ‘targeting’ the Muslim community."

But it's where the inquiry leads. I see no reason to whine about there.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/4/05 9:19 am

Cybsled

08-04-2005, 10:36 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>PS, there were Japanese American spies. At the time. Working for Japan.<hr></blockquote>

I dont doubt that. But it doesnt justify saying "Well fuck it, lets just throw 100,000+ people into these camps".

And to the people trying to sugar coat is like it was a "camping trip".

Government comes to YOUR door. They tell you that all people who post on monkly buisness are suspected of being a threat to national security. You are forced to leave your home, job, etc and go with them to an internment camp. You can only bring with you a small amount of personal belongings. There is also the possiblity you might lose your property or buisness while you are at this camp. You will be forced to remain there until they see fit to release you. The camp isnt bad, but they want you to do some busy work while you are there.

Now if you were living in an apartment and worked a crappy job, this arrangement might not be so bad. But what if you were a working professional? Someone who runs his own buisness? Someone who had worked hard to earn enough money for a home for his family? What if you liked to go hiking in the mountains or go biking or head down to the lake and go swimming? What if you liked going out with friends and family that didnt come with you? What if they wouldnt let you use the internet?

Stop trying to make it sound like we did them a favor.

Fopoodzo

08-04-2005, 10:39 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Do you think there should be no security checks when going onto a plane etc.?

No ^^<hr></blockquote>

Then what are acceptable?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"The fact is IF they’d had security checks targeted by the profiles they have now, there’s good change that ALL the first and most of the 2nd wave of London bomber would have been caught or scared off"

I don't think so.

How would you have checked people who look like comoners during rush hours ?<hr></blockquote>

Because they’d have been profile to that type (ethnicity with large bags).

Obvious without hindsight they couldn’t have been stopped, but never they less with that sort of profiling it would have been much more likely they would have been (if not caught at least scared off).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Now as currently from some reports ~5% of Muslims in Britain seem to believe there should be (not might be) another attack, and security forces believe another is likely. What is it best to do?"

Let MI5 and the police inquiry.<hr></blockquote>

Yep which so far has resulted in 50+ death, 300+ wounding.

They did not stop an attack and they most likely will not stop another like it though intelligence. Yes it will help, but without security the chances are much lower.

Remember there was next to no intelligence warning of either the 7th or 22nd attacks.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Just leave the underground open and ‘suck up’ another attack and another 56 deaths and 300 wounded?"

Of course no. I never said that.<hr></blockquote>

But that is what you suggest.

Unfortunately it can’t be both ways, you can’t have a perfectly fair system that is equally as safe as it can be.

In the end with finite resources they should be spent in the best manner possible to reduce risk.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Yes that’s what profiling is about, no it doesn’t mean every Muslim is a terrorist (and the other nonsense a lot of groups keep trying to claim it means), it just means it is much more likely to come from one of those groups"

Which is pointless.

I asked how you can make the difference between a Christian and a Muslim in the street ?

You just can't.<hr></blockquote>

No you can’t tell every Christian from every Muslim, but then that is NOT what they’d be trying to do. They’d be profiling from things you CAN see and going from there.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"If you’re looking for neo-nazi’s you’ll probably not find many in a black African community"

Obviously yes.

"If you’re looking for Muslim terrorists….. well you look where they are most likely to be found."

And where do you find Muslims ?

More probably around Mosquees, cultural Muslim centers, etc...

In the street, you cannot recognize them, because they belong to the people of your country.

Here is the point.<hr></blockquote>

So your suggesting mindless raids on Mosques and Muslim centres? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

The problem is it’s not about finding anyone with any extremist sympathies, that would both be impossible and likely only create MORE with the draconian measures required.

But rather protecting the public whilst they are out and about.

You cannot stop a terrorist from one of the thousands of possible sources, what you can do it put up an effective screen at one of their likely destinations.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"No the SAME thing, just different circumstances"

Made my day.<hr></blockquote>

A pie is still a pie whether you eat it on top of a mountain or at home or in a restaurant.

Circumstances may change, that doesn’t mean the issue always does.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"My brother was once arrested for assault because he looked vaguely like someone caught on camera doing it. He wasn’t the person, and that was eventually determined, but he was ‘discriminated’ against for his physical make up"

Your brother was checled because they had a suspect in their files.<hr></blockquote>

No he was profiled with matching ethnicity, hair, clothes, build etc. and arrested not just stopped or checked or questioned, but arrested and held.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Here, for random checks, you have ZERO suspect in file, nada, quechi, nakash, nothing, rien.<hr></blockquote>

Of course you do, you go on the evidence of previous attacks…. just like not looking for neo-nazi’s in a black community.

Even though in a PC sense to avoid discrimination the police SHOULD check such communities for neo-nazi suspects.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Only assumptions about what a terrorist might look like.<hr></blockquote>

No not assumption, going from what HAS occurred.

The assumption that they are more likely to fit what has occurred, yes.

But that is just narrowing the odds in your favour.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Not even a profile suspect with a gold tooth, a scar, a black backpack or whatever. They just have nothing.<hr></blockquote>

All the bombers carried large backpacks, not crates with BOMB written on them.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Go and arrest terrorists fellow police officers". Yeah.

I hope you see the difference, because I'm fed up repeating.<hr></blockquote>

Except that is NOT the issue, what they are trying to do is NOT arrest terrorists, it is STOP terrorists from killing the public.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Yes and infiltration of Islamic extremist cells is near impossible, and if it were to be possible it would be years in the doing"

This is explicitely why our intel is made.

To forecast those kind of things, in order to isolate several potential suspects from the pool of other innocent people who never did nor will do anything like that.<hr></blockquote>

But that’s NOT how it works, even in situations like the IRA which was rather easy to infiltrate comparatively and it wasn’t easy.

Situations like this are vastly different, to infiltrate ONE cell (of which there could be tens or even hundreds) would take much luck and many years.

In which time atrocities can occur.

Did they manage to infiltrate or even discover the 2nd bombers before they attacked, no, not even close.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Police enquiries in the wake of the London bombings are already being call ‘racist’ because for some reason ( ) they are ‘targeting’ the Muslim community."

But it's where the inquiry leads. I see no reason to whine about there.<hr></blockquote>

And yet that is EXACTLY what is happening, to the point that they are actually NOT investigating leads for fear of the PC backlash. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":(">

Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=fop oodzo@monklybusiness43508>Fopoodzo</A> at: 8/4/05 9:42 am

Gorkeyah

08-04-2005, 11:28 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No he was profiled with matching ethnicity, hair, clothes, build etc. and arrested not just stopped or checked or questioned, but arrested and held.<hr></blockquote>

Your brother looked like someone in particular they were looking for. They weren't, for instance, saying wow lots of guys with tattoos commit crime, so lets arrest your brother because he has tattoos. We might prevent some crime that way.

Additionally, the people who fit the terrorist profile would fit it every day, so they could potentially be the target of a search every day they commute. It would be like your brother being arrested every day because every day he still looks like the suspect.

That would get a little old wouldn't it? Your brother getting picked out of a crowd every day because of his background, while watching others get let past.

People can endure inconvenience easier if they don't feel they're being made an unfair target of it.

Ancaglon

08-04-2005, 11:29 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Because they’d have been profile to that type (ethnicity with large bags).

Obvious without hindsight they couldn’t have been stopped, but never they less with that sort of profiling it would have been much more likely they would have been (if not caught at least scared off).<hr></blockquote>

You truly have not a clue, have you, how big a proportion of the London populace fit "that sort of ethnicity"? I live here. I work here. On 7th July, I was at my desk when the bombs went off. And many people routinely carry backpacks on the Tube, with their lunch, their gym kit, and whatnot. If just 1% of those "fit the profile with large bags", and needed stopping/searching, the disruption caused would be far bigger than that caused by the copycat idiots of 21st July.

Oh, and by the way, just how "ethnic" was the Brazillian electrician shot dead by plain-clothes police? That's the sort of brilliant preventative work that "profiling" leads to.

http://www.xenaphon.demon.co.uk/anc/anc-new-sig.jpg (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=52287)

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 11:31 AM

"Then what are acceptable?"

The current situation sounds me plainly acceptable because everybody is on the same scale.

Everybody is checked.

"Because they’d have been profile to that type (ethnicity with large bags)."

Pointless.

Look at the suspects of the past terror attacks in Europe, or easier in London, and give me an "average profile".

The only thing that you can take out it is male between 20 and 30.

"Obvious without hindsight they couldn’t have been stopped, but never they less with that sort of profiling it would have been much more likely they would have been (if not caught at least scared off)."

They could not have been stopped you said ?

That's the point. Thanks.

And the scare and intimidation techniques are intented for everybody, not only them; I hope you notice that at least.

"- Let MI5 and the police inquiry."

"- Yep which so far has resulted in 50+ death, 300+ wounding."

No. The police could not stop the second wave attempt.

Only an inquiry could lead to the suspect bombers.

The same inquiry that led to the first team, and that would lead to a third cell.

Don't take offense, but you seem to have little faith in your secret services...

"Remember there was next to no intelligence warning of either the 7th or 22nd attacks"

Wrong.

The Israeli secret services were "apparently" aware of the first terror attack.

And as an improbable coincidence, there were security training teams at the targetted stations on the July 7th... which did not prevent the terror attacks.

"But that is what you suggest."

No dicriminatory checks. It's simple.

"In the end with finite resources they should be spent in the best manner possible to reduce risk."

True, and a discriminatory method is a misuse of those finite ressources as the first consequence of that would lead to a feeling of injustice of populations who did nothing.

"No you can’t tell every Christian from every Muslim, but then that is NOT what they’d be trying to do."

Oh, really ? They're planning to arrest Muslim terrorists ?

So... people must be Muslim to be a Muslim terrrorist. It's a sine qua non point, isn't it ?

And how do you recognize a Muslim in the street ?

Get it ?

"They’d be profiling from things you CAN see and going from there"

No, they'll just check people who look like what they espect of being bad guys & terrorists => discrimination => tensions.

"So your suggesting mindless raids on Mosques and Muslim centres?"

No.

Please, read the following bolded word, and if you don't know why it means, be sure to check in a dictionary: investigation.

"The problem is it’s not about finding anyone with any extremist sympathies, that would both be impossible and likely only create MORE with the draconian measures required."

There are sympathizers of Muslim extremists who are not as nut as those who decided "to take action".

There are sympathizers of Muslim extremists who are against bombings.

There are people who are friend of sympathizers of activists terrorists.

Those people have the same point of view than you on terror attacks and will let the police know about suspects.

It's not impossible, it's how inquiries occur.

"No he was profiled with matching ethnicity, hair, clothes, build etc. and arrested not just stopped or checked or questioned, but arrested and held"

So your point is he was arrested because of his look, but police had no profile/suspect on the previous ?

Ahaha !!

You told me he looked like someone... that, is a PROFILE.

Your brother looked like a suspect. A FACTUAL suspect. Someone. A real man. Someone with a jean, shapped LIKE your brother. Someone real. A real guy. Someone with a face.

It was not a random check taken out of an assumption, but an arrest on purpose.

"Of course you do, you go on the evidence of previous attacks…. just like not looking for neo-nazi’s in a black community."

For your information, there are "Black" Neo-nazis as strange as it may appear you. I've heard from a couple of them, a new stream that appeared in the late 80's.

French Christians from the West Indies from the most part, who enlisted in right extremist parties, and who are anti-Arabs.

I've even see on my own eyes a thread on a Jew site of a Neo Nazi asking for a "treuce" to "politically" league against Arabs looking like people.

No need to say that the Jews there mocked at him.

"No not assumption, going from what HAS occurred."

Mmm, you're playing on words. And what will certify you that the next bomber -if there is one- will look like what you physically expect ?

Maybe it will be him

http://photos1.blogger.com/img/143/2209/640/Islam%20in%20Paris.jpg

Bad luck, he does match the "profile".

Or another Somali. Or a Mauritanian:

http://www.ocvidh.org/lesnews/imginc/chbih_malainine.jpg

It's all speculation, all wind made out of assumptions.

Religion is no matter of ethnicity.

Neither is extremism. The next bomber can be a tall blond guy.

A muslim blond extremist.

And you'd have failed because you'd have missed him.

And you'd not have failed if you'd ve knew by intel what the suspect look like.

Here again, it's a purposeful investigation that would have made the difference.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/4/05 10:38 am

guice666

08-04-2005, 11:33 AM

Lets just nuke the entire world. That'll solve all our problems in a single (ish) blow!

Let evolution take it's course and recreate civilization in a few million years.

ashalonmonk

08-04-2005, 11:33 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A good intel can locate them, get a clue about them, and maybe take action in time.

<hr></blockquote>

not really. the cia and fbi only have so many people and resources working for them (not to mention the cia "cant" work inside our borders) that pretty much just leaves the fbi when the cells are living here. not only that but the fbi also has to do federal crime cases such as kidnapping and the like

so we maybe have a couple thousand (god i think thats conservative i think its probably alot lower) people actually working the terrorist case for 350million people in the usa. good intel does not come from making those ~2000 people work on all 350million people. its quite impoosible

good intel comes from having those ~2000 people look at people who are MUCH MORE LIKELY to commit the crime they are looking at. having them only be able to search randomly for targets is quite simply stupid.

fbi man 1: so who are we going to look at today to see if they are a terrorist?

fbi man 2: pulls out the phone book and randomly opens it to a page "this one here "mrs. anne smith age 82"

fbi man 1: your shittin me?

fbi man 2: nope our hands are tied we have to do it this way

ya that makes abso-fucking-lutely alot of sense.

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 11:48 AM

"not really. the cia and fbi only have so many people and resources working for them (not to mention the cia "cant" work inside our borders)"

The CIA can't work out of US borders, you're sure ? Don't you mean Fbi ?

In Paris, it's "rumored" that a new secret service cell was born this spring/summer. A French- American secret service.

With the money and technology the American can bring

With the intel the French have, especially in the Middle east.

It's though to become one of the best intel cells in the word.

And a news that is not linked to Fbi

Al'Zawahri enters the dance (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/41F14605-4546-4EFA-9DFF-41E356B3CBFB.htm)

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

ashalonmonk

08-04-2005, 11:53 AM

i know english isnt your first language so im just gonna nicely point out that i said the cia "cant" work INSIDE our borders =p

Ashalon

60 Paladin

whisperwind

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 12:08 PM

Ahaha <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

I misread, sorry for the pointless comment Ashalon ^^

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Ugle

08-04-2005, 12:31 PM

This is where people with your attitude Velk, and people with mine will probably never meet. In a video like ancapistan.typepad.com/th...eating.wmv , people with your outlook will say that the "bad" actions shouldn't cause us to treat that person any differently.

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

guice666

08-04-2005, 12:42 PM

^^ <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> that's awesome! I totally agree with him.

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 01:06 PM

Ahaha, funny video <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

More seriously. Would you please stop with your stupid assumptions ?

If you have not noticed, this video is made to make laugh people and have no reliability to real life.

People who are cheked and are beaten for no reason on the lane did obey the law.

bad luck, they were and that was enough for the police.

If you want I can also find you funny movies funded by the KKK about how "Black" people "are".

[i]I swear they are very funny.

But are these funny videos real ?

Hell no.

Here is my advice: Turn off TV and talk to real people.

Ill tell you a personal experience of a man of my knowledge who travelled in your wonderful country years ago.

This is what he told me. He was in Atlanta and described me the city: blah blah, Coca Cola, blah, blah fountains of Coca, Coca Cola Museum, blah blah blah, no ecologic thought, blah blah, citizens.

Then we talked about urbanization

A residential zone for poor "Black" people

A residential zone for poor 'White" people

A residential zone for poor "Asian" people.

A residential zone for rich "Black" people.

A residential zone for rich "White" people

A residential zone for rich "Asians" people.

Mixity ?

What the fuck is that ? No matters.

So, one day he was walking in the street, doing nothing but basic tourism, and the police got to him, asking what he was doing in the street, alone.

With his feeble English (his English really s...), he told the police officers he was just touring. He was asked to enter the police car, on the back seats of course, and was taken back to the place he lived.

Do you know the reason he gave to me ? His skin is "Black" and he was in the "White" residential zone.

He summoned a police car to him only beacuse he walked in the street, and was "asked" to go away.

If he had got upset, because it's his right to be in the street, the police could certainly have taken offense... and you know the possibilities that are offered to a cop to neutralize someone.

By the way if you want to enter the field of look-like: yes, this man has no taste for dressing, he is a student on the top of that. He did a Master in Bio-chemistry, I met him when I was studying Japanese, and like me, your government spammed his mailbox with offers of having a Green Card.

He declined, wonder why ?

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Shawee

08-04-2005, 01:37 PM

I call bullshit on this. It seems to me that racial profiling is only defined when it is done to people who we call "minoroties". Than you get the ACLU and every other "we have a cause" group up in arms.

I didn't see anyone complain during the snipper attacks when the majority of men being pulled over and questioned were white.Well, we all know what race the snippers were and they do not look white to me.

Here in Louisiana we had a serial rapist and murderer that had killed several women in a span of just 3 years. The police ended up pulling over hundreds of trucks that had white men drivers, and ended up with a DNA database of over 300 white men. The killer ended up being a black man(Derrick Todd Lee).

As the dreaded old white man, I didn't have a problem with the above examples. The officers were simply following the probability scale. So, why should I give a rats ass if some muslims in NYC get checked a little more often than other races/nationalities?

Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sha wee>Shawee</A> at: 8/4/05 12:38 pm

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 01:45 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And to the people trying to sugar coat is like it was a "camping trip".<hr></blockquote>

I was not trying to sugar coat anything.

What I am countering is YOUR* idiotic comparison of the Japanese internment camps as death or labor camps such as the Germans and Japanese ran.

You are wrong in the assessment. You are wrong for saying that they were at all similar. Or for even implying it.

I will say it again, they lived in better conditions than the average GI in the military at the time.

They ran stores. They had dances. They had businesses and farms. They even had informal government(city halls). Aside from not being able to leave, they were free to do just about anything they wanted to do.

The propaganda that you have been force fed, and continue to spread is and was always false.

*it is not even yours. It was made up by somebody else. You got it from your teachers or parents or somebody else.

beware.

quite possibly a ninjaEdited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/4/05 1:04 pm

Ugle

08-04-2005, 01:47 PM

I work graveyard shift, in the center of a fairly large city. Every once in a while, I'll take a break and walk to a mini-mart a few blocks away to grab a snack. Every time I do, I get at least one, if not more people that come up to me and ask me if I want to buy some drugs. Why would they assume that that's what I'm down there doing? Because a white guy doesn't generally walk around those neighborhoods at that time of night unless he's looking for something illegal.

If a cop stopped me, would I be mad? Would I scream "RACIAL PROFILING!!!!!!". Not at all, I'd rather they cracked down on it, even if it inconvenienced me, because it would be for the greater good. The odds are that someone like me, walking those neighborhoods at that time of night, was up to no good. It is profiling, and it is justified.

If the French are immune to these petty discriminations, why was www.consulfrance-newyork....iority.htm (http://www.consulfrance-newyork.org/us/news/coverstories/antisemitist_racism/cop%E9_priority.htm) something that your government needed to address? Why the push for pamphlets talked about at www.ambafrance-us.org/new...083104.asp (http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2004/antisemitism_campaign083104.asp)

I suppose archives.cnn.com/2002/WOR...isemitism/ (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/04/french.antisemitism/) didn't happen either, it was just propaganda.

No country with a heterogenous population of any size is immune to tensions between people of different ethnicity and/or religious beliefs. You feel free to condemn the US because someone you know was discriminated against based on his ethnicity. Do you believe France is immune to these kind of things, do I need to post more links? You tell me to get out and see the real world, I've done a fair bit of travelling. I'm sure you want to post about crap that happens in the US, which strengthens my point; that these kind of things happen everywhere, versus your focus which is on what happens in the US. I realize you need to look at the "BIG" picture. I met a lot of extremely rude people in France. Would it be fair for me to say all French are rude obnoxious people? Not at all.

I've lived in an Asian country. There was plenty of ethic intolerance by them towards other asians, and other asians towards them. Bosnia was a war between people of different ethnicities, though some took the fact that the different ethnicities tended to belong to different religions and tried to make it a religious conflict. People talk about the unrest with the IRA and British government being a conflict between Catholics and Protestants, when the root cause wasn't religion, it was ethnicity. People in the Middle East and all over Africa kill each other because of the groups they belong to. I'm not trying to justify any of the acts of violence done by any group against another. But I have seen enough of the real world to know that it's not something that is unique to any country.

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

imalwayshungry

08-04-2005, 01:54 PM

A Dem suggests racial profiling? Ann Coulter must be splitting in two.

While a good idea at first glance, I'm surprised our more conservative posters have jumped wholeheartedly aboard with this, considering their considerable fear of slippery slopes and overarching government powers.

<div style="text-align:center"> Sensei Halabut (retired) (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=371532)</div><div style="text-align:center">"Luck favors the prepared"</div>

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 02:12 PM

If the French are immune to these petty discriminations [...]

Thanks for paying attention to what I wrote earlier <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> .

Well.

The articles you brought are directed to the people, for social issues.

Not to the people, for police issue.

You don't play on the same field a post to another.

The topic is about police, remember ?

And to answer about your attempts about anti-semitism, you should have listened to Sharon who came in France a couple of days ago, and said that France should be followed as a model in Europe for fighting Anti-semitism.

A nice fliip-flop, one year after that horrendous slanding he did.

But you maybe missed that one.

"You feel free to condemn the US because someone you know was discriminated against based on his ethnicity. Do you believe France is immune to these kind of things [...]"

Read my former posts, especially the one talking about the misdeeds of the police in France, and answer to you own question.

"I'm sure you want to post about crap that happens in the US, which strengthens my point;"

Honestly no. Unless you say shit.

And that is again another assumption only you can do.

"I realize you need to look at the "BIG" picture. I met a lot of extremely rude people in France. Would it be fair for me to say all French are rude obnoxious people? Not at all."

I described you the "BIG" picture that led my friend to be arrested. I'm sure you can find it in the previous text I wrote.

Here is a hint:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

Then we talked about urbanization

A residential zone for poor "Black" people

A residential zone for poor 'White" people

A residential zone for poor "Asian" people.

A residential zone for rich "Black" people.

A residential zone for rich "White" people

A residential zone for rich "Asians" people.

<hr></blockquote>

Oops, I pointed you the text I was thinking of. I spared you several hours of intense searches I think ^^.

"I've lived in an Asian country. There was plenty of ethnic intolerance by them towards other asians, and other asians towards them"

Yes, and we're talking about the New York police right now.

If you want to talk about the police in Asian countries, do so, and please tell us what comparaison-link you can light up with the current thread.

No need to accuse others to discharge yourself, one's could say.

The Asian police surely do bad things, does that mean that the New York police would do/would have to do the same shit ?

I don't think so.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/4/05 1:17 pm

Gaereth

08-04-2005, 02:35 PM

<shrug> Its merely common sense applied to a manpower issue.

If your a programmer and somethign is wrong with the database, you tend to go look at the database or the calls to said database first, not every line of code.

If your an electrician and something is wrong with a plugin in a room you generally start looking for problems there.

If your a mechanic and a car keeps stalling in traffic you don't look at the radio.

If your a doctor and someone says their big toe hurts you generally don't go for an MRI right off the bat.

If your a prof. baseball player and someone hits a line drive to right field you generally don't run to left field.

If you an artist and you are commissioned to paint a portrait, you generally don't start with a bowl of fruit.

If you want to stop extremists of middle eastern descent from blowing crap up, you generally don't search white grandmothers for bombs.

Its common sense applied to a manpower issue.

Might it suck being of middle eastern ancestry and getting stopped daily?? Hell yes.

But, and this is a big but, rather than bitchign about the fact that you are getting profiled why don't you urge every single muslim, mosque, and middle eastern community to speak out against these extremists and turn in all the bad people you know.

You want to stop this from happening?? Help the authorities get rid of the bad section of your religion or ethnic group.

When more people from these targetted profiles start standing up to and turning in those on the fringes that causing the problems the sooner you will be able to travel unmolested.

Could it be called blackmail?? On some level sure.

We will stop screwing with you as soon as you eliminate from your ranks those that cause trouble and are bad.

We will stop screwing with you when attacks by those whose ethnicity and religion you share in some manner reaches the same level as attacks by those of other ethnicities and other religions.

When the level of attacks that is committed by muslims and middle easterners falls to the same level as committed by christians and americans then I think we can stop profiling.

Until then..."Good afternoon sir, please step over here so our police dog can give your crotch a good sniffing."

<shrug> If blonde haired, blue eyed men were blowing shit up I would fully expect to get stopped daily if necessary until it stopped.

In fact, as a blonde haired, blue eyed man I would be raising holy hell if they WEREN'T stopping blonde haired, blue eyed men because I would want the problem people stopped before they blew MY ass up.

That is what I don't understand. If it was blonde, blue eyed folks causing the trouble I would be all for them stopping those folks even though I would fall right into that catagory.

I want the problem solved quickly and if I it required me to get searched daily while everyone else went right on through the check point, so be it.

When people start wanting to be part of the solution and stand up and admit that the profiling is a good thing rather bitching about their personal convenience then we will get a good handle on this stuff.

When people start turning in those extremists from their communities rather than turning a blind eye to them then we will get a good handle on this stuff.

Until then...<shrug> profile all you want to. I am perfectly happy to be profiled as long as you are as well. Went you bitch about it I become suspicious of you when its rather obvious it works.

Jinpo

08-04-2005, 02:42 PM

wow, i was going to type a huge response, but I'll just ditto what Phung and Ugle have said.

Let's play, "find the terrorist!'

one of these people is about to murder yoru family. Your wife and children children could be killed, this very minute.

You only get one choice, who do you choose? who do you choose? Who is going to murder your family? You've got one chance to save their lives.

http://www.geisinger.org/services/gim/old_lady.jpghttp://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.alqaeda.links/vert.zarqawi.jpghttp://sigmanu.mit.edu/photos/brothers/604.jpeg

http://www.healthyvermonters.info/hi/diabetes/pubs/learning/images/overview-woman.jpghttp://photos7.flickr.com/8658833_4cc432a957_m.jpg

How dare anyone play with my family's safety, in the name of political correctness. If you conscience is so fragile that you need to pretend to be nice to everyone, you really need to reanalyze your life.

The only reason you are not agreement with this logic is because of your hatred of conservatives and Bush. It's not that you don't really believe this, deep down, it's just that you still have a bad taste in your mouths from 2000.

I choose #2. 100 times out of 100.

Jinpo

55 Monk, Saryrn (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266967)

55 Necro, Saryrn (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=584689)

29 Monk, Everfrost

Retired Until the Sony Devs get their heads out of their asses and roll back the game-destroying Live Update #3.

Cybsled

08-04-2005, 02:48 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>What I am countering is YOUR* idiotic comparison of the Japanese internment camps as death or labor camps such as the Germans and Japanese ran.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You are wrong in the assessment. You are wrong for saying that they were at all similar. Or for even implying it.<hr></blockquote>

Did you read my post? Did I EVER say it was like a German or Japanese labor/death camp? Reading skillz 4tw! I said "labor camp" because they were labor camps. People there had to do jobs. I never said they were building a bridge over the river Kwai or mining gold in the Gulag. They usually farmed or did textile stuff, etc. Last I checked, that is working, hense LABOR. You are the one who made the connection between the two, not I.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I will say it again, they lived in better conditions than the average GI in the military at the time.<hr></blockquote>

Well I would certainly hope so, considering they were non-combatant citizens and not members of 101st airborne trying to hold off waves of Tiger tanks and 88 shellings.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

They ran stores. They had dances. They had businesses and farms. They even had informal government(city halls). Aside from not being able to leave, they were free to do just about anything they wanted to do.<hr></blockquote>

Hey...well that makes it all better. I bet those guys who ran their own buisnesses on the west coast sure were glad they had the one they started themselves ripped away and replaced with Fujikawa's General Goods, serving the camp community with Nihonjin pride!

You accepted my example earlier it seems. So glad to have an upstanding American citizen who has no issues in being ripped from his life and tossed into a camp which he can't leave. Benjamin Franklin is crying proud tears of joy for your patriotism.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The propaganda that you have been force fed, and continue to spread is and was always false.<hr></blockquote>

You're the one missing the fundamental issue: THEY WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR FREEDOM FOR DOING NOTHING AND AGAINST THEIR WILL.

Cybsled

08-04-2005, 02:52 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

I choose #2. 100 times out of 100.<hr></blockquote>

That worked really well for that innocent guy in Britain who got gunned down.

"Sorry bout that mate...Brazilian...Arab...looks the same to us! God save the queen!"

Glad you arent in the FBI. Thousands of killers would be free still if you just want by surface glance.

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 02:54 PM

"Let's play, "find the terrorist!'"

Applying your stupid "racial profiling" I'd check the males, especialy No2, No3 and No5.

No2 because he's purposedly known and I'd arrest him

No3 because he looks like an "Asian", and Baly terrorists were "Asians".

No5 because he can be a retired Nazi.

I'd also check No4, the woman, because there could have female suicide bombers, and to my standards she does not look like a "White" innocent women, but a potential Middle Eastern Muslim ready to sacrifice.

Dumb isn't it ?

No1 sounds me innocent, but know knows. I'd control her to avoid discrimination feelings <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

The only reason you are not agreement with this logic is because of your hatred of conservatives and Bush

AHAHAHA !!!! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

That, somehow reminds me:

Me martyr, you post only because you hate us !!! Bad you, me martyr, always martyr !!

Gollum sad !!

Stop that, please. No one cares about broadcast political stances. That's not the point here.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/4/05 1:56 pm

08-04-2005, 02:58 PM

"If you want to stop extremists of middle eastern descent from blowing crap up, you generally don't search white grandmothers for bombs.

Its common sense applied to a manpower issue.

Might it suck being of middle eastern ancestry and getting stopped daily?? Hell yes.

But, and this is a big but, rather than bitchign about the fact that you are getting profiled why don't you urge every single muslim, mosque, and middle eastern community to speak out against these extremists and turn in all the bad people you know.

You want to stop this from happening?? Help the authorities get rid of the bad section of your religion or ethnic group."

The above is the answer to the problem, untill its done in this form get used to living in a world where you can die becuase the police officer searched the 35 year old Business owner sitting next to you but not the obvious suspects.

<div style="text-align:center">http://members.cox.net/diarmadhi/Yuries%20magic.jpg</div>

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 03:12 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I said "labor camp" because they were labor camps. People there had to do jobs. <hr></blockquote>

Yes, you said that to imply that they were like NAZI labor camps.

Everyone at the time had to do jobs.

Like I said, if you mean that they had to grow food for themselves, just like they were doing before internment(most, if not all, of the Japanese from my area were farmers) then say that.

Don't try and make it sound like they were slaves like Jews in Germany were, or Chinese and Philipinos and POWs were to do in Japanese labor camps.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Gaereth

08-04-2005, 03:15 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That worked really well for that innocent guy in Britain who got gunned down.

"Sorry bout that mate...Brazilian...Arab...looks the same to us! God save the queen!"

Glad you arent in the FBI. Thousands of killers would be free still if you just want by surface glance.<hr></blockquote>

1. Came out of a place under surveilance.

2. Wearing a winter coat in summer.

3. Went to the tube.

4. Refused to stop when asked.

5. Ran from the police.

<shrug> I think it worked just fine.

I don't have a problem with stupid people being killed for running from police.

I, personally, would fully expect 2 in the head if I did the same thing that he did and I am a blue eyed white man. I would EXPECT to be shot.

That he ran, for whatever reason, is his own stupidity and in no way makes me think less of the police there. He was killed due to the actions that he took, not because of something stupid on the police's part.

Again...whats wrong with stopping dark skinned people with bulky jackets or bags when those are the people that are blowing shit up??

When it gets to the white folks in bulky jackets in bags blowing shit up, stop them too. Until then you need to spend the time focusing on the biggest common denominator.

Cybsled

08-04-2005, 03:20 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Yes, you said that to imply that they were like NAZI labor camps.

Everyone at the time had to do jobs.<hr></blockquote>

No, I was implying that they were taken from whatever they were doing in life and being forced to work in a camp they had no choice in going to, then forced to do assigned labor regardless of their profession or position in life. Are you denying that? No? Then good.

You're putting words in my mouth when you should be taking the foot out of yours.

Attitudes like the one you are displaying are dangerous. You are openly accepting a bad thing as ok, convincing yourself it really isnt that bad.

08-04-2005, 03:25 PM

How soon we forget.....

Oklahoma City Bombing (http://www.oklahomacitynationalmemorial.org/)

Tettsuo Otomo (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=281768) Transcending Grasshopper of the Celestial Fist - Retired

Quiet Sturm (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=283394) 51 Bard of Jazz Fury - Retired

Juppo (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=289842) 48 Druid of Non-Furry Feet - Retired

Druzzil Ro

Tetssuo 19 Brawler EQ2

Butcherblock

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 03:34 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Attitudes like the one you are displaying are dangerous. You are openly accepting a bad thing as ok, convincing yourself it really isnt that bad.<hr></blockquote>

No they are not dangerous.

I am not accepting something bad as ok.

I am saying that you are saying all bad is the same value. You are saying all bad is equally bad. Or definately IMPLYING it with your choice or words.

That, that is dangerous.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Cybsled

08-04-2005, 04:09 PM

Not all bad is equally bad.

However, certain minor bads can EASILY turn into big bads if not held in check by the population.

Camp situations like our topic of arguement are a "minor" step that can lead to worse things. The fact that a great many of the people who were forced to goto these camps lost all their belongings and buisnesses should be sign enough that this wasnt a benign act.

Gorkeyah

08-04-2005, 04:28 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In fact, as a blonde haired, blue eyed man I would be raising holy hell if they WEREN'T stopping blonde haired, blue eyed men because I would want the problem people stopped before they blew MY ass up.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I, personally, would fully expect 2 in the head if I did the same thing that he did and I am a blue eyed white man. I would EXPECT to be shot.<hr></blockquote>

Well if there's one thing we've learned from this thread, it's how to profile fascists. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

08-04-2005, 04:39 PM

Getting searched regularly as a blonde-haired green-not-blue-eyed white guy wouldn't bother me. However (deep breath) --

Subsequently getting arrested because I got flagged because my name is very common (and we know how excellent and foolproof our government IT systems are) and easily confused with another guy with the same name that might have some connection with something that may or may not be connected to a terrorist group so I get held on suspicion without being charged for so long that I lose my job, my car, and my house while I'm being investigated only to be cleared and released without so much as a thank you very much or so sorry your life is f.u.b.a.r. but aren't you glad we're so safe from terrorism?

I think folks here wouldn't be quite so sanguine about being profiled under those circumstances. I simply just don't trust the government enough to want to be put in that situation. Just ask any of the folks that have been banned from flying for months or years after 9/11 because of bad data in government computer systems. It's no great leap to extrapolate their experiences to what I just described.

Master Maark Goodsoul

58 Master of the Ninth AA

Permanoob Casual Monk of Quellious

Karana

Maark the Monk (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=900571)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/wiouxev/maarkgoodsoulssig3.jpg

Gaereth

08-04-2005, 04:42 PM

hmmm...guess I am confused Gorky...joking or saying I am a fascist??

Stating that if blonde, blue eyed people were running around blowing up crap I would not only expect to be stopped, but demand they stop all the others and get the bad ones the hell off the streets makes me fascist??

I think its common sense. I have been in a scarey, police are searching the building, file out now situation before. I stepped to the front of the line because I wanted it over with and I wanted the bad guys caught.

<shrug> That doesn't make me fascist, just means I want it over with quickly.

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 04:44 PM

My grandfather lost his right hand. I do not think that war is benign.

btw, many of the internees retained what they owned. Many of it was stolen. My town is FULL of Japanese American, and was at the time. Many signed over power of attorney to their friends, German Americans incidently.

The who's who at the local chamber of commerce is full of Germanic last names of decendents of those who stole from their Japanese friends. It is also full of Japanese names whose ancestors got ALL their stuff back when the war was over.

During times of war, people are forced(just as you said, forced) to do things that they would not otherwise want to do.

There were plenty of non Japanese Americans who lost everything during WW2. Soldiers who go to war can not pay mortgages. They lost their homes, businesses, and wives. They lost their lives as well.

No, it was not benign. But it was not evil either. Not like your painting of them like they were Gulags or Nazi death camps.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Gaereth

08-04-2005, 04:52 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Getting searched regularly as a blonde-haired green-not-blue-eyed white guy wouldn't bother me. However (deep breath) --

Subsequently getting arrested because I got flagged because my name is very common (and we know how excellent and foolproof our government IT systems are) and easily confused with another guy with the same name that might have some connection with something that may or may not be connected to a terrorist group so I get held on suspicion without being charged for so long that I lose my job, my car, and my house while I'm being investigated only to be cleared and released without so much as a thank you very much or so sorry your life is f.u.b.a.r. but aren't you glad we're so safe from terrorism?

I think folks here wouldn't be quite so sanguine about being profiled under those circumstances. I simply just don't trust the government enough to want to be put in that situation. Just ask any of the folks that have been banned from flying for months or years after 9/11 because of bad data in government computer systems. It's no great leap to extrapolate their experiences to what I just described.<hr></blockquote>

I agree in some respects...BUT..<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

I have a buddy who could not qualify for a security clearance because of someone else with that name.

I have a family member who can't get refinanced because some bad credit from someone else with a similar name is on their report. They won't remove it either.

It happens all the time to thousands of people I would say pretty much daily and has nothing to do with the government.

Anything that a person has to enter can be screwed up. Anything people have to touch can be screwed.

We all know that and understand that...but does that mean we shouldn't do anything on the off chance something might happen to the wrong person?? I don't think so.

But, if they are wrong, they damn sure better fix things. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gae reth>Gaereth</A>* http://www.ezboard.com/ezgfx/gicons/black_thatch.gif at: 8/4/05 3:53 pm

Fopoodzo

08-04-2005, 05:04 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No he was profiled with matching ethnicity, hair, clothes, build etc. and arrested not just stopped or checked or questioned, but arrested and held.

Your brother looked like someone in particular they were looking for. They weren't, for instance, saying wow lots of guys with tattoos commit crime, so lets arrest your brother because he has tattoos. We might prevent some crime that way.<hr></blockquote>

We’re NOT talking about arresting people if you were you’d have a point, we’re not and you don’t, we’re talking about targeting finite searches.

As to my brother yes he was profiled, because he fit the description (as opposed to the police just randomly arresting the first 10 people they saw – which wouldn’t have been very likely to get them anywhere, would it), in much the same way that in a security situation you’re best off targeting your resources.

Not to the point of stopping everyone of one ethnicity and ignoring the rest that is stupid and counter productive for several senses.

But equally it’s silly to stop a little old lady with her tiny hand bag and let through someone of clear middle east/Pakistani/North African decent with a large ruck sack on their back.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Additionally, the people who fit the terrorist profile would fit it every day, so they could potentially be the target of a search every day they commute.<hr></blockquote>

Indeed that’s a drawback it is not a reason to just say ‘oh well we may as well not bother’, or indeed to start targeting completely unlikely people for balance (you can’t balance such a situation).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It would be like your brother being arrested every day because every day he still looks like the suspect.<hr></blockquote>

If the suspect was still on the lose then yes, but again NO ONE is being arrested, security checks are a very different thing, and the arguments quite, quite different.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That would get a little old wouldn't it? Your brother getting picked out of a crowd every day because of his background, while watching others get let past.

People can endure inconvenience easier if they don't feel they're being made an unfair target of it.<hr></blockquote>

And there’s the catch, instead of targeting resources where they would do MOST good, instead they are targeted evenly there by increasing the chances of another successful attack.

As I said you can have your PC security system, but you’ve got to accept you’re increasing the likelihood of more deaths.

Equally you can have your profiled security, which will be more likely to stop such things again, but that will have it’s own set of drawbacks.

Which choice is best?

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 05:09 PM

You have some here arguing against profiling, and most here arguing against BAD profiling.

Obviously, after you make the choice to profile, one would hope that all attempts at good profiling are made.

I think that we can all agree that profiling poorly is a bad thing.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Fopoodzo

08-04-2005, 05:11 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That worked really well for that innocent guy in Britain who got gunned down.

"Sorry bout that mate...Brazilian...Arab...looks the same to us! God save the queen!"

Glad you arent in the FBI. Thousands of killers would be free still if you just want by surface glance.

1. Came out of a place under surveilance.

2. Wearing a winter coat in summer.

3. Went to the tube.

4. Refused to stop when asked.

5. Ran from the police.

<shrug> I think it worked just fine.<hr></blockquote>

Yep if anything if he had been carrying a bomb he would have made it to the train to detonate. In that case everyone would have been screaming about why they didn’t shoot him earlier than they did.

It’s one of those no win situations.

How do you stop a suicide bomber? Pretty much with head shots and that’s about it (although they are arming them with tasers now instead).

But more importantly how do you tell the difference between a suicide bomber and a man of indeterminate ethnicity, who’s been followed out of a suspected house, wearing a bulk coat in summer, who goes to the tube, and when challenge flees towards the train? Frankly you can’t. You either shot and hope he/she was, or you don’t and hope he/she wasn’t.

The difference being if you’re wrong one way only 1 person dies, if you’re wrong the other way MANY people die. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":(">

Gorkeyah

08-04-2005, 05:13 PM

Yes, I was mostly joking Gaereth. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

08-04-2005, 05:35 PM

Heh, I don't trust any other large institution any more than I trust the government. Big business, big religion, big labor, doesn't matter. All institutions ultimately become far more concerned with continuing thier own existence, whatever that requires, far more than doing the right thing or even fulfilling the mission they were created to fulfill.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You have some here arguing against profiling, and most here arguing against BAD profiling.

Obviously, after you make the choice to profile, one would hope that all attempts at good profiling are made.

I think that we can all agree that profiling poorly is a bad thing.<hr></blockquote>

Easy to rationalize when you're not the victim.

Master Maark Goodsoul

58 Master of the Ninth AA

Permanoob Casual Monk of Quellious

Karana

Maark the Monk (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=900571)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/wiouxev/maarkgoodsoulssig3.jpg

Gaereth

08-04-2005, 05:38 PM

Good...I would have had to reinstate my EQ account, log into Quellious and kick your ass around..:P

Fopoodzo

08-04-2005, 06:04 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Then what are acceptable?"

The current situation sounds me plainly acceptable because everybody is on the same scale.

Everybody is checked.<hr></blockquote>

You quite simply CANNOT check 3,000,000 people every single day (and that’s just the tubes, NOT the buses).

Ok.

So NOW what do you do? What is acceptable?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Because they’d have been profile to that type (ethnicity with large bags)."

Pointless.

Look at the suspects of the past terror attacks in Europe, or easier in London, and give me an "average profile".

The only thing that you can take out it is male between 20 and 30.<hr></blockquote>

Aye 17-30, all of North African, Middle Eastern, Pakistani or Somali origin.

Now that’s not to say stop everyone of those criteria, that is impossible, pointless and indeed counterproductive.

But someone that fits that criteria and is carrying a reasonable sized bag or indeed is looking a bit suspicious, it is infinitely more sensible to stop that person than a 70 year old grandmother.

There’s not point HAVING to stop 10 x 70 year old women each day to fit a PC cross-section, that is just wasting time and resources.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Obvious without hindsight they couldn’t have been stopped, but never they less with that sort of profiling it would have been much more likely they would have been (if not caught at least scared off)."

They could not have been stopped you said ?<hr></blockquote>

Without hindsight, as I said IF there’d been high security with profiling in place on the 7th or even the 22nd then yes maybe they could have been stopped.

But clearly without being very selective with the finite security resources available then it is just a matter of time until it happens again, so long as someone is willing to do it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That's the point. Thanks.<hr></blockquote>

No it’s NOT, see above <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And the scare and intimidation techniques are intented for everybody, not only them; I hope you notice that at least.<hr></blockquote>

They are intended to put off terrorist, NOT to terrify the public, although they are also meant to reassure the public as well.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"- Let MI5 and the police inquiry."

[o]"- Yep which so far has resulted in 50+ death, 300+ wounding."[/i]

No. The police could not stop the second wave attempt.<hr></blockquote>

Yes the security measure mentioned here might (there is no certainty of course).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Only an inquiry could lead to the suspect bombers.<hr></blockquote>

And yet NONE of the bombers were in any way suspected of ANYTHING prior to the bombings, several had even been in side the houses of parliament with MP on visits.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The same inquiry that led to the first team, and that would lead to a third cell.

Don't take offense, but you seem to have little faith in your secret services...<hr></blockquote>

I have every faith in intelligence to do what it CAN do, I don’t for it to work miracles (this is like the whole Iraq/Syrian border thing).

The structure of the ‘cells’ that hit London was such that short of blind luck it was improbable that any security or intelligence agencies would get a whiff of it.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Remember there was next to no intelligence warning of either the 7th or 22nd attacks"

Wrong.

The Israeli secret services were "apparently" aware of the first terror attack.<hr></blockquote>

I’ve still not seen any actual clarification on that, there were lots of rumours, but nothing certain. It’s just as likely co-incidence, or simple rumour mongering, as anything else.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And as an improbable coincidence, there were security training teams at the targetted stations on the July 7th... which did not prevent the terror attacks.<hr></blockquote>

London has regularly run security training at all major targets for several years now, it would be more of a surprise for personal to NOT be at or very near any attack.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"But that is what you suggest."

No dicriminatory checks. It's simple.<hr></blockquote>

And when you cannot check even a fraction of the 3,000,000 people you NEED to check what do you do then?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"In the end with finite resources they should be spent in the best manner possible to reduce risk."

True, and a discriminatory method is a misuse of those finite ressources as the first consequence of that would lead to a feeling of injustice of populations who did nothing.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, so you therefore choose to let it be MORE likely that such things will happen again. You choose to risk lives for the sake of potential offence, you cannot have it both ways, that is just the reality of the situation.

Is that any more “right” than offending someone?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"No you can’t tell every Christian from every Muslim, but then that is NOT what they’d be trying to do."

Oh, really ? They're planning to arrest Muslim terrorists ?<hr></blockquote>

No they are in the context we’re discussing here to STOP another atrocity, arrests are secondary to that goal.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So... people must be Muslim to be a Muslim terrrorist. It's a sine qua non point, isn't it ?

And how do you recognize a Muslim in the street ?

Get it ?<hr></blockquote>

But they’d not actually targeting Muslims, but rather the features that might make it more likely they are a Muslim extremist.

In any profiling a large proportion of those profiled (never mind search for other reasons) would not be Muslim.

But then that’s just it, it doesn’t make it omniscient, it just tried to stack chance in the favour of the security personnel.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"They’d be profiling from things you CAN see and going from there"

No, they'll just check people who look like what they espect of being bad guys & terrorists => discrimination => tensions.<hr></blockquote>

Yes as opposed to wasting resources targeting people who are very, very unlikely to be Islamic extremists. As I said if you’re looking for neo-nazi’s you don’t go looking for people of Black African ethnicity (although I guess there may be 1 or 2 out there).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"So your suggesting mindless raids on Mosques and Muslim centres?"

No.

Please, read the following bolded word, and if you don't know why it means, be sure to check in a dictionary: investigation.<hr></blockquote>

Aye and you cannot investigate without evidence, which requires close surveillance and monitoring (again targeted at specific group of people….. or I wonder do you think they intelligence services should be bugging little old ladies retirement homes, just to be “politically correct” and “fair”? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> ) and indeed raiding to get evidence.

Most of those raids will turn up little to nothing (especially in the UK as they now have guide lines on how to raid a Muslim property – most of which are quite counter productive to actually finding evidence).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"The problem is it’s not about finding anyone with any extremist sympathies, that would both be impossible and likely only create MORE with the draconian measures required."

There are sympathizers of Muslim extremists who are not as nut as those who decided "to take action".

There are sympathizers of Muslim extremists who are against bombings.

There are people who are friend of sympathizers of activists terrorists.

Those people have the same point of view than you on terror attacks and will let the police know about suspects.

It's not impossible, it's how inquiries occur.<hr></blockquote>

Except they don’t tell the police.

In fact even many of the close friends of the bombers did not know, but many said they even if they had they probably would not have told the police.

But as I said before the way these attack were organised did not allow for much in the way of loose lips.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"No he was profiled with matching ethnicity, hair, clothes, build etc. and arrested not just stopped or checked or questioned, but arrested and held"

So your point is he was arrested because of his look, but police had no profile/suspect on the previous ?

Ahaha !!

You told me he looked like someone... that, is a PROFILE.

Your brother looked like a suspect. A FACTUAL suspect. Someone. A real man. Someone with a jean, shapped LIKE your brother. Someone real. A real guy. Someone with a face.

It was not a random check taken out of an assumption, but an arrest on purpose.<hr></blockquote>

Yes he was randomly taken because he looked like a suspect (as opposed to the police just going out an arresting the first 10 people the see – all of different sexes, ages and ethnicities of course to make it nice and “PC” and “fair” <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin"> ).

Just like search profiling is there to try and target your resources on to the areas it is likely to give you results.

My brother looked vaguely like the visual description and so was arrested and carted off (that he was hammered and hammered and tried to make confess is another issue), he was innocent.

In the end the vast majority (almost all in fact) of profiled people will be completely innocent as well, but that’s part of the price for increased security…. the alternative is to accept the increased likelihood of more deaths.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Of course you do, you go on the evidence of previous attacks…. just like not looking for neo-nazi’s in a black community."

For your information, there are "Black" Neo-nazis as strange as it may appear you. I've heard from a couple of them, a new stream that appeared in the late 80's.<hr></blockquote>

Yes like there are Arabic Christians and black Jews etc. etc. etc. but still even though there probably are some, they would not go looking there. Now why is that?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"No not assumption, going from what HAS occurred."

Mmm, you're playing on words. And what will certify you that the next bomber -if there is one- will look like what you physically expect ?

Maybe it will be him<hr></blockquote>

Because IF the bomber has all been white or Japanese or blue or whatever then THAT would have been the profile most likely.

But there weren’t so therefore you go with what is MOST LIKELY, it’s as simple as that.

It some has hit you repeated in the face 3 times and you’re hit again who is it most likely to have been from? The same person? Or just someone wandering past that thought it might be fun.

Ironically with the IRA of course the profiling would and was of a differing nature (the police didn’t stop Arabic or Black people looking for member of the IRA for some reason), however they never attacked in quite the same manner as the 7 & 22 bombs.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's all speculation, all wind made out of assumptions.

Religion is no matter of ethnicity.<hr></blockquote>

No but it has a likelihood of ethnicity, which is all it is about, not certainty (because frankly that is stupid), just narrowing the odds.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Neither is extremism. The next bomber can be a tall blond guy.

A muslim blond extremist.

And you'd have failed because you'd have missed him.<hr></blockquote>

Yes…. Now just THINK about this.

You may miss a suicide bomber that doesn’t fit the profile because your finite resources are looking else where.

BUT are you more likely to miss a suicide bomber who does fit the profile (and they are more likely TO fit the profile) because you’re stopping old ladies just to fit some PC quota?

We both know the answer to that.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And you'd not have failed if you'd ve knew by intel what the suspect look like.

Here again, it's a purposeful investigation that would have made the difference.<hr></blockquote>

Again (again, again, again) they DID NOT have any ‘intel’ about the recent bombings, if they DID, it would have been to look out for suspects that fit the PROFILE that we’re talking about here!!!! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

So what are we arguing about again?

But as I said the issue at the moment is that all the raids going on in the UK are being targeted at Muslims, and there’s quite an uproar going (discrimination, racism etc.) on to the point where they police ARE backing off due to the political sensitivity of it.

And it’s understandable as well (from both a Muslim and Police point of view), but that doesn’t make it best for security.

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 06:07 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Easy to rationalize when you're not the victim.<hr></blockquote>

Is it that, or is it that I am not the follower of a 13 century prophet who was a child molester.

Nor am I tolerant of a religion or a people who are apologetic and complicit for others of their creed who want me and you dead.

They have had the time to clean up their own shit, but they refuse to do so.

Don't come crying to me, because YOU think they are victims.

You have a bunch of people who are 100 years out of the Dark Ages, and you expect me to feel sorry for them when they want to kill me.

Let me give you a clue, THEY definately profile you, my boy.

Those in their community should be stopping this shit. But they are not, they are abetting them. I have had these terrorists living blocks away from me, (before they had been arrested), and they are just like I profiled them. I said years ago, they are normal everyday people(who want to blow you up), they drive ice-cream trucks, run corner stores, and run their mosques. Guess what, they are. I live blocks from where Hamid and Umer Hayat lived, worked , and prayed before they were arrested.

And they live blocks from you as well.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Cybsled

08-04-2005, 06:15 PM

Well Phung, any credibility you had went out the window when you stooped down with that last posting with religious attacks. GG.

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 06:27 PM

Religions are not credible.

Aside from that...

Moe had sex with his 14 year old wife.

By my culture's standards, that makes him a child molester.

True.

That is the paradox of Cultural Relativism. If their culture can be revered, so can yours. Your culture says that he was a child molester.

Why would you think that your culture is inferior to Moe's?

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 06:32 PM

Religious attacks???

Hehe, you have people living in your town who want to kill you because you are a Christian or a Jew(or think that you are).

By the mere fact that they think that their religion is correct and your(or perceived) religion is heretical, they so badly want to kill you, that they will kill themselves to do it.

They want to kill you right now, because of your belief system.

And you call what I wrote a religous attack?

That is crazy.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

08-04-2005, 06:45 PM

So what you're telling me Phung, is that you are willing to put innocent lives at risk in order protect your own life? You're willing to sacrifice your innocent neighbors to protect yourself?

I'm not suggesting that terrorists are victims, I'm suggesting the innocent folks that match the profile will be the victims.

It doesn't take much to meet the terrorists' profile, I'm alive and human, that's all it takes. They kill indiscriminately.

My concern is that we don't lose ourselves by following the terrorists down the moral low road. If we sacrifice who and what we are, we become what they say we are and they win even if we're still alive to talk about it.

Master Maark Goodsoul

58 Master of the Ninth AA

Permanoob Casual Monk of Quellious

Karana

Maark the Monk (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=900571)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/wiouxev/maarkgoodsoulssig3.jpg

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 06:58 PM

I am not telling you any such thing.

The opposite of profiling is NO profiling. NO profiling is treating EVERYBODY the same. Random and equal.

If you say that profiling is bad. That it should not be done. You are definitionally saying at least two things, either EVERYBODY is equally a suspect, in which case by means of finite resource must use random techniques.

If law enforcement does not concentrate their efforts equally, that is to say: If the police and FBI treat your grandmother differently because of the way she looks, that she is LESS of a suspect than Rashid al'Bombselot running your local mosque-That that IS profiling.

If you are saying that you do not want profiling, you are definitionally saying that the FBI and FAA must treat and suspect your white haired white grandmother the same as Rashid.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 07:01 PM

victims of what?

You make it sound like the Police are going on a shooting spree.

What the hell do you mean by victim?

What are you talking about? Victim. Innocent lives.

The topic is about profiling. Suspecting one person over another, or suspecting one person less than another because of how they act, dress, look, or what they do.

I admit, I got a little sidetracked with the intern camp thing, but those are unrelated topics.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Gaereth

08-04-2005, 07:12 PM

I think what many folks are saying is that the Muslim/Middle Eastern communities should be the first folks in line to fix this.

Why??

It makes them look bad. ESPECIALLY when they turn a blind eye to things they know are happening because some part of them believes in what the extremist is doing.

They should be first in line simply to PROVE their innocence.

The should be first in line to prove that they are not the same as the extremists.

They should welcome the chance to stand up and be counted against the extremists. They should welcome the opportunity to show the world that the extremists are, well, extreme.

Like I have said many times, if somehow I fit into a profile for someone they are looking for, I will be first in line to prove its not me they are looking for.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>My concern is that we don't lose ourselves by following the terrorists down the moral low road. If we sacrifice who and what we are, we become what they say we are and they win even if we're still alive to talk about it.<hr></blockquote>

My concern is that people are soooo busy trying to assauge other peoples feelings that they will forget that being a patriot and a member in good standing of your country/community sometimes requires that you have to go above and beyond.

The moral high road (ie - don't profile) does very little to help those that are left behind when their loved ones are blown up.

Very few people want to see muslim/middle eastern descent folks rounded up and put in camps. Very few want to restrict theirs rights in whatever country they are in.

But, if it has been proven time and again that certain groups have a propensity to commit these terrorist acts, its merely common sense that a bit more scrutiny be applied to said groups.

In all honesty, the moral high road should be something that the muslims/middle easterners flock to with abandon. They should be reporting everything suspicous, denouncing all acts of terrorism and providing every single assistance they can to help stop these extremist.

Well, if they don't agree with the terrorists.

Cybsled

08-04-2005, 07:13 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

Moe had sex with his 14 year old wife.

By my culture's standards, that makes him a child molester<hr></blockquote>

You're right, by your and my culture's standards.

However, biologically, 14 year old girls are "mature" women in the sense they are able to become pregnant and give birth. Thus throughout the majority of human history, a girl of 14 or so was considered a woman by society. This was especially the case since the average lifespan of a human was much shorter, usually in the range of the 30s and 40s. Thus it was not considered wrong, and any acts done with such a person was not done with any more malice or ill intent then if they had done the same with an 18 or 29 year old. You found and find this in the Middle East, Asia, Europe, and even America.

But that didnt really matter to you because you really just sought to discredit a religious belief system based on that nugget.

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 07:28 PM

It has no credit in the first place.

Unless YOU give it credit.

Regardless.

Your delemma is the fact that you are saying that it is perfectly alright for the founder of the Muslim religion to fuck a 14 year old girl, base on the fact that it was ok by their culture to do so, back then.

You are saying that they can judge US by our culture, but we are not allowed to judge them by their culture. That is paradoxical and retarded. It is logically unsound.

If I wanted to, I could discredit their culture and cult with a thousand truths that will offend you and your sensibilities. I just used an obvious one, like you pointed out. It is an easy target, as you imply.

But it is only you defending a people whose religion is the root of them wanting to kill people like me or who look like me.

You can apologize for Muslim terrorists and Muslim child molesters all you want, Cyb. Your defending of Muslim terrorists and Muslim child molesters, is in and of itself a form of profiling.

beware.

quite possibly a ninja

Gaereth

08-04-2005, 09:40 PM

Geez Phung..<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> Get off the 14 year old thing.

There are still states HERE and NOW that allow 14 year olds to marry.

Hell....my mom had me at 16 and I was born in the 60's.

It hasn't even been in the last 100 years that we started to look down on it...hell...you could go back 50 years EASY and find many many many people marrying very young girls.

You cannot judge other cultures actions in the past from the eyeballs of the future. Like I said...just go back 50-100 years in the US and you not only would have been cheering for him, you would have been looking for a sister to keep you warm. P

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 10:39 PM

Phung

"Your delemma is the fact that you are saying that it is perfectly alright for the founder of the Muslim religion to fuck a 14 year old girl, base on the fact that it was ok by their culture to do so, back then."

It is all right, perfectly, yes.

Back to the same period, almost every king I know was married at 14-16, every Queen I heard of was married between 12 and 15.

How surprrising.

The lifespan was 30,35 years old at that time.

The life span did not change from these days to the 19th century.

People need to marry their children to pactize between clans.

Male leaders need a young and fertile woman, because life was everything but a journey at Disney Land.

And is during the 19th century that the Bourgesy imposed its standards to the European people, so the concept of infance was born.

At 14, in 1880, you were considered a working adult if you didn't belong to the Bourgesy.

It's the bourgesy and the increase of standard livings that influenced the average European people to take more and more about our children.

With the time, the 14 years old people were taken off the labour force, then the 16 years old.

To the situation you know now, with people who stay at their parents up to their 30.

Don't be all astonished if you forget that simple thing.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 10:49 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You cannot judge other cultures actions in the past from the eyeballs of the future. <hr></blockquote>

Why not? What eyeballs should I judge them by?

What, or who, gave you the idea that you are not capable of judging people or cultures.

Better yet, you may change that "You" to I, I do not care if you cannot judge things.

I will continue to. For there is no valid reason or logic to not to.

Stupid philosophy created by cultural anthropologists made up so that they could collect a paycheck,,,and you all buy it up, like it is real. Cultural Relativism is anachronistic. It is stupid, and it is illogical.

You can continue to think that it is valid all you want, but please don't spread it like vaginal warts and herpes.

It is a dungheap of a philosophy.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Phung Kuu

08-04-2005, 10:52 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Back to the same period, almost every king I know was married at 14-16, every Queen I heard of was married between 12 and 15.<hr></blockquote>

So, Velk, you are saying that it is ok for 12 year old girls to have sex with grown men(20+)?

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Velkyn Azurel

08-04-2005, 11:14 PM

"So, Velk, you are saying that it is ok for 12 year old girls to have sex with grown men(20+)? "

I'm sure you can use your brain to reach another conclusion.

It's not a matter or right or wrong here.

It's a matter of time, epoch and standard of living.

Go live in the desert in the 8th century where people die around 25, and while they run a couple of wars, they lose the half of your their army from diseases before getting to a battle field.

Go to there, and tell me that traveling is healthy.

Other times, other morals.

That's all.

And yes, you can blame cultural relativism, that's excatly what it is.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Mrisda

08-04-2005, 11:28 PM

I don't speak for everyone else who's for profiling, but as far as my thoughts go....

I don't want it to be the ONLY thing done. It should simply be used as part of a whole bunch of things to protect us.

Not used solely, but used in conjunction with many other tactics. I'm sure that doesn't make anyone who's against it feel better, but luckily I don't care.

EQ - Mrisda Mriswith - Retired

WoW - Azgra - Shaman

"I'm surprised you don't like Nine Inch Nails more, because, you know... you're a morbid fuck."

Cybsled

08-04-2005, 11:57 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

There are still states HERE and NOW that allow 14 year olds to marry<hr></blockquote>

And the ironic thing is, almost all these states are in the bible belt ;P

Save us from the molestors, Phung! Drive down South and start your campaign. We'll be waiting for your results.

Gaereth

08-05-2005, 12:00 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You cannot judge other cultures actions in the past from the eyeballs of the future.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not? What eyeballs should I judge them by?

What, or who, gave you the idea that you are not capable of judging people or cultures.

Better yet, you may change that "You" to I, I do not care if you cannot judge things.

I will continue to. For there is no valid reason or logic to not to.

Stupid philosophy created by cultural anthropologists made up so that they could collect a paycheck,,,and you all buy it up, like it is real. Cultural Relativism is anachronistic. It is stupid, and it is illogical.

You can continue to think that it is valid all you want, but please don't spread it like vaginal warts and herpes.

It is a dungheap of a philosophy<hr></blockquote>

I can easily look at my family tree and find several members married well before 18. You could too Phung.

Is it ok now?? I don't think so, even though there are states that still allow it.

The point is, it is our moral point of view NOW. It wasn't our (as in collective United States morals) as short as 75 years ago.

In the 60's and 70's free love, drugs, rock and roll were a pretty accepted norm for the young of that time.

The young kids now think a blowjob is less serious than a good night kiss.

Times change and attitudes do as well.

Can you be scandalized that such a think happened?? SURE...but I bet you dollars to donuts that in your very background, in your very family tree, you will find much the same.

It was accepted and smiled upon then. It is not now.

Damn..did you know gay people are getting married?? Holy hell..that should shock the shit out of you. :P

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 12:10 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I'm sure you can use your brain to reach another conclusion.<hr></blockquote>

I love you, Velk.

Of course I have other conclusions. But I want to know what yours are.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Velkyn Azurel

08-05-2005, 01:22 AM

Phung ^^

"Why not? What eyeballs should I judge them by?"

Because it's pointless.

Judging someone is only applyying one's subjectivity. It's just a nonsense on a objective point of view.

"What, or who, gave you the idea that you are not capable of judging people or cultures."

Anyone who did and remember... let's say... 2 hours of sociology class.

"Better yet, you may change that "You" to I, I do not care if you cannot judge things."

The point is your conclusions will not be "SET IN THE MARBLE FOR AGES", but will only be your sole and unique advice. A pure piece of ethnocentrism.

So, a pointless thing in the end.

"Stupid philosophy created by cultural anthropologists made up so that they could collect a paycheck,,,and you all buy it up, like it is real. Cultural Relativism is anachronistic. It is stupid, and it is illogical"

That is your point of view.

And it's not aphilosophy, it is a law.

Cultural relativism is universal.

Let's say we both believe in a god..; but a different one.

Odin my God, told me that your God was dead.

Who is right ?

What can you objectively conclude from this ?

You belive your god is alive.

I believe my god told yours is dead.

Is driving on the left, right ? Is driving on the right, right ?

Is aiming at someone with shopsticks right ?

Etc...

All those data are not universal. They are local/temporal. They belong to a culture/time/religion/space.

Even the beliefs that you think that are millenia old changed with the time. They way peopel perceive it change, the way people talk change, the volcalubalry, science, knowledge changed. So is the way of conceiving the world.

But in the end, there is no right/wrong.

Only dfferent ways of conceiving the Universe. And even the world Universe is controversal.

"Of course I have other conclusions. But I want to know what yours are."

I told you mines.

Things are relatives. So are marriage conditions.

"I love you, Velk"

yeah, I love you too Phung ^^

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 01:46 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A pure piece of ethnocentrism.<hr></blockquote>

Absolutely pure. Right on, girl.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So, a pointless thing in the end.<hr></blockquote>

Not according to Cultural Relativism. A culture of one, is just as important as a culture of millions. Your own philosophy dictates that you have to respect MY personal philosophy and culture.

And there is the point. Your philosophy(CR) takes another trip around it's Moebius Loop.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Ugle

08-05-2005, 02:37 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Why not? What eyeballs should I judge them by?"

Because it's pointless.

Judging someone is only applyying one's subjectivity. It's just a nonsense on a objective point of view<hr></blockquote>

Heh. You're going to judge someone's comment and say it's pointless. So then why did you post since by your standards it's pointless since your post is clouded with subjectivity and is nonsense?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"What, or who, gave you the idea that you are not capable of judging people or cultures."

Anyone who did and remember... let's say... 2 hours of sociology class.<hr></blockquote>

This is really what drove me to add to this post. First, why is it that you can't debate ideas without trying to throw in snide comments or insults? Anyone is capable of judging people or cultures. Whether or not there is any legitimacy to that judgement is certainly a point that can be debated. You personally seem to be a big proponent for international law, and I remember several criticisms over the US handling of what we call "enemy non-combatants". You certainly felt that you are capable of judging someone else, and yet you believe that nobody else is capable of doing so?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Better yet, you may change that "You" to I, I do not care if you cannot judge things."

The point is your conclusions will not be "SET IN THE MARBLE FOR AGES", but will only be your sole and unique advice. A pure piece of ethnocentrism.

So, a pointless thing in the end.<hr></blockquote>

Again, why do you post here if it's all pointless? You belittle someone else posting their opinions by saying that they are irrelevant - yet you have no problem posting your own. If you really believed what you say, you wouldn't bother posting here. The fact that you do undermines the validity of your statements.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>All those data are not universal. They are local/temporal. They belong to a culture/time/religion/space.

Even the beliefs that you think that are millenia old changed with the time. They way peopel perceive it change, the way people talk change, the volcalubalry, science, knowledge changed. So is the way of conceiving the world.

But in the end, there is no right/wrong.<hr></blockquote>

I can state that you are a 250 pound hairy Male with 3 eyes and are a pedophile. Can you tell me that I am wrong? If you meant that there is no universal right and wrong when judging the actions of an individual from a moralistic perspective, then I agree with you, but then again I am not a religious person, and we are both being subjective about this. That's quite different then just saying that there is no right or wrong. I could easily argue that it is wrong to take away someone's freedom. But is it wrong to lock up someone who is a murderer or rapist? Right and wrong, in practice, is based on the society that one lives in (a point you allude to above). You are alluding to right and wrong as theories, but that's just a subjective viewpoint. A Xtian Conservative can tell you what is right or wrong; from his subjective viewpoint, God's laws are absolute, and to deviate from them is wrong. Your subjective viewpoint might be different. In essence, as you did above, you are saying that "there is no right or wrong, and I am unquestionably right about that"........

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Things are relatives. So are marriage conditions<hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure if you meant this as a pun, or it was a typo. Spouses are relatives, so I suppose spouses could be "things", and things could therefore be relatives. But if you used it that way, it doesn't support any viewpoint which I would assume it was meant to since it was part of your response. There's a saying "Everything is relative". Do you understand that logically that statement is false?

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

XandriaYBKeq

08-05-2005, 06:33 AM

Simple fact:

If the average age of a population is between 18 and 25 and people of 25 or older are considered old they average age in which people are getting 'married' will be lower too.

Something like the early marriage would not be acceptable now to most but it does not mean you can use todays mores to make an objective comment about those times.

If someone has 10 years of active adult life to look forward to you get a whole different mentality then for someone who can look at 40 or 50 years of active adult life.

Xandria, Muse of 63 songs and proud officer of Guardians of Blood, at your service.

< a href="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=730060"> Inspect Me< /a>

Sauropod, Monk of 11 kata's.

My pleasure and my duty.

Velkyn Azurel

08-05-2005, 07:05 AM

Phung ^^

"Not according to Cultural Relativism. A culture of one, is just as important as a culture of millions. Your own philosophy dictates that you have to respect MY personal philosophy and culture."

My own experience taught me to respect other advices, cultures, yes.

"And there is the point. Your philosophy(CR) takes another trip around it's Moebius Loop"

It is not a point: it is your advice <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> .

Ugle

"Heh. You're going to judge someone's comment and say it's pointless"

There is a difference between saying shit, and telling one's advice.

Look at in this thread, people emited their advices on many times, I did not comment them (especially because comenting other advices is pointless).

Other times they said something that made me jump, I commented.

"This is really what drove me to add to this post. First, why is it that you can't debate ideas without trying to throw in snide comments or insults? "

Because you like me as much as I like you Ugle. With the time, I became familiar with your assumptions, and your... err... unability... unwillingness ? well unability to read and understand my post without

"Anyone is capable of judging people or cultures. "

Yes, and that's the point, no one can judge cultures and still be objective. Yes, you can be all judging you want, but don't expect your points of view to be taken as facts.

"You personally seem to be a big proponent for international law, and I remember several criticisms over the US handling of what we call "enemy non-combatants". You certainly felt that you are capable of judging someone else, and yet you believe that nobody else is capable of doing so?"

As a remind, the Law is made to say what is right, and what is not. It's a tool. When you refer to it, you inherently refer to a system of value.

Yes, I certainly used international laws to defend my point, I see no problem with that, as it is somethiong that exist, and not my advice taken out out nothing. It's something reliable, probant, that holds water. It is a reference.

But in absolute, if you talk about cultures, (if we can call Law a culture) the International law is a matter of perspective.

"Again, why do you post here if it's all pointless? "

Because it is a point of view, not a law or something immuable.

It's nothing more that what it is: an advice.

"I can state that you are a 250 pound hairy Male with 3 eyes and are a pedophile. Can you tell me that I am wrong?"

Ok.

That is what you think is true.

If I can show you, demonstrate that I am not a male, that I only have 2 eyes and I'm not fat, you'd be proven wrong.

Those are objective datas and are not a matter of point of view.

If, in front of the law, I was proven innocent of pedofily, here again you'd be wrong.

The law is a point of view (in its absolute definition) but is a reference in matter of human relations.

So, in the end, you'd be proven wrong in your statements.

That statement is not a point of view, but a wrong statement.

If you said I prefer Apples to Lemon, that would be your advice, and no one could take it from you.

"Right and wrong, in practice, is based on the society that one lives in (a point you allude to above)."

Good, you get it. I didn't allude anything I told that at last a Million of times over the past year ^^

"I'm not sure if you meant this as a pun, or it was a typo. Spouses are relatives, so I suppose spouses could be "things", and things could therefore be relatives."

I was talking about the criteras of the marriage. They change with the time.

"There's a saying "Everything is relative". Do you understand that logically that statement is false? "

In matter of human affairs, it is right.

I don't know for the rest.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Ugle

08-05-2005, 08:13 AM

Lets think about this statement a minute.

"Everything is relative".

"Everything" is an absolute statement. If I say everything is wrong, that doesn't mean that most things are wrong, that doesn't mean everything but one is wrong, that means no matter what point you choose to study, everything is wrong. Or if I say "All cars are red", that doesn't mean most cars are red, that doesn't mean 99% of cars are red, it means every single car is red. Stating that "Everything is relative", is meant to mean that there is no such thing as an absolute....but it uses an absolute term, "Everything". Therefore the statement everything is relative, restated, is "Absolutely there are no absolutes". The statement is inherently false.

And while you like to make it all about me (I'm flattered, really.....not), I was pointing out your responses over and over again to multiple people. But I'm flattered that you think that it's all about me. The rest of your comments, can you reconcile for me?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As a remind, the Law is made to say what is right, and what is not<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If I can show you, demonstrate that I am not a male, that I only have 2 eyes and I'm not fat, you'd be proven wrong<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If, in front of the law, I was proven innocent of pedofily, here again you'd be wrong<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So, in the end, you'd be proven wrong in your statements.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>In matter of human affairs, it is right.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But in the end, there is no right/wrong<hr></blockquote>

One of these statements contradicts all of the other statements. Why is that?

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

Fopoodzo

08-05-2005, 09:39 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't speak for everyone else who's for profiling, but as far as my thoughts go....

I don't want it to be the ONLY thing done. It should simply be used as part of a whole bunch of things to protect us.

Not used solely, but used in conjunction with many other tactics. I'm sure that doesn't make anyone who's against it feel better, but luckily I don't care.<hr></blockquote>

That’s exactly it, it is a tool to be used to try and enhance security. It has benefits (security-wise) and drawbacks (discrimination-wise).

It is not the be all and end all, and it would be utterly stupid for it to be, nor should it based solely around something like ethnicity, but I’m afraid in the current conditions ethnicity would likely be one of the “flags” in such a system (along with other things which have nothing to do at all with ethnicity of religion).

It is horrible in its own way, but that’s just part of the horrors and issues with the current situation. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/frown.gif ALT=":(">

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>My concern is that we don't lose ourselves by following the terrorists down the moral low road. If we sacrifice who and what we are, we become what they say we are and they win even if we're still alive to talk about it.<hr></blockquote>

Yep that’s the trick, you’ve got to balance benefits with loses.

In the end from a purely PC point of view profiling shouldn’t happen, but the price for that is likely to be paid in lives and blood.

Better a sensible compromise getting the most out of it without it becoming more of a monster that what it is trying to stop.

But in the end that is just sensible from security point of view anyway, as many other factors come into play. No security checks should be based solely on ethnicity etc., but equally it has to be taken into account, as it is a factor in risk at the moment, equally it’s a complete waste of time to search people who have only the tiniest chance of being a risk purely to fulfil a PC quota of “balance”, be it ethnic, religious, age, or otherwise.

Really everyone should be given the same treatment, but the reality is that there simply are not the resources to do that; therefore some selection must take place.

IMO better it be selection to reduce risk than selection to reduce potential of offence.

Aviera Cerveth

08-05-2005, 11:15 AM

I skipped a lot of this topic, cuz it expanded too much in the 1 day since I read the board, so I'll just state my opinion.

Profilers get paid, and trained, a whole lot. Criminal profilers, jury profilers... profiling is used in every single aspect of day to day life by all of us.

Every time you pick a particular brand of rice as opposed to another one, it's because you have either statistics about other rices being bad or just know you can count on the one you pick being good.

The insurance industry's actuarial tables are nothing more than massive profiling.

Surface PCism can't hide the fact that profiling is useful and done constantly.

I'll be the first to be annoyed if my "type" comes under scrutiny for some reason, but I can still recognize the beneficial utility of it. So I'll grumble, but I'll still go along.

The thing is, the scope of the need is so extensive, I don't see how it could be that effective.

It's like the only way to stop terrorism, is to stop parents teaching their children to hate (insert label here). How do you do that?

-----

Firefox seems to time out quickly when tryin to load a web site. It won't last long enough to let ezboard do a spell check. Anyone know how to change that, please?

Aviera Cerveth

www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=274070 (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=274070)

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 12:56 PM

Do you mean 'opinions' when you are saying 'advice'.

Advice generally means a suggestion, usually asked for and requested by the recipient.

If you mean opinion, just about everything, just about every thought, every aspect of every culture is, just about, well, everything is an opinion. So what is your point(if that is what you meant).

You can judge peoples' opinions. Are they close to reality, or closer than the rest. Do those opinions hurt physically or monatarily others when enacted upon, when those opinions cause action that is?

eg, if I held an opinion that all Christians should be burned at the stake, that would be an inferior opinion and would be judged as such. Even though Christians have been known to do that; and some might say that it is just irony.

qed, Muslim terrorists, and those who aid, teach, abet, and apologize for them have the opinion that all Jews must die(or at least leave Israel), and all Christians must leave the Middle East is an inferior opinion. Those that hold that opinion, that culture, is inferior.

You judged me in your post. Yet you can not judge them. Why is that so hard to see the paradox of your philosophy, of your opinion? Others here have seen it, Ugle pointed it out in a superior way than I did. See, I made a value judgement, there. It is easy, once you get use to it. Ugle's post was superior to mine, and he was funnier than I was too.

The only thing that can go wrong with a judgement of an opinion is to be inaccurate. My opinion that Ugle's post was superior to mine, is an accurate judgement. See, they start rolling out on their own when you let them. It is refreshing really, give it a try, Velk.

Ugle's post was not equal to mine. It was not the same, but just different. It was better. Aside from the misunderstanding part at the bottom(another judgement on my part) it was superlative.

You can't tell me, that you, a Frenchwoman, that you do not use superlatives and qualifiers of opinions and wit. Your whole culture thrived and perfected that art for hundreds of years.

Just because there never really was a Divine Arbitrator of right and wrong, inferior and superior, does not mean that you have to think that everything is the same and equal; but different.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 01:01 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Anyone know how to change that, please?<hr></blockquote>

Not really, but there are superior Firefox gurus on this board than I.<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eek.gif ALT=":eek">

What I do, is post in, then spell check in the edit.

Or paste into Notepad(and sometimes save to hard drive).

To not lose posts.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

08-05-2005, 01:56 PM

All of the logical mindfucking in this thread has obscured the issue here. I don't have an aversion to profiling for PC reasons, my reasons are quite practical and based on both empirical evidence and personal experience.

Profiling by trained FBI profilers and the like is very effective. It's hard to argue the fact that at least for now 99% of all jihadis are young Arab males, and are therefore the most likely perpetrators of a terrorist act. The problem is that fact gets turned on its head by the untrained, fearful unwashed masses and used as an excuse to lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists.

This is what happens, as borne out by history:

Fact 1 - 99% of all jihadis are young Arab males

becomes

Erroneous belief 1 - 99% of all Arabs are jihadis or support jihadis

As a result of that erroneous belief, lives get destroyed in the manner discussed earlier in this thread.

Where has this happend before? I grew up in the South in the 70's. I saw burning crosses within a few miles of my house. This same logic was (and still is in places) used by racists to justify their actions against blacks.

Where else? I don't live too far from the most destitute Indian reservations in the county. The poverty and despair there make anything in the inner city look like luxury living. The surrounding residents use the same rationalization to discriminate (and worse) against Native Americans.

I went to high school with Laotian refugees in the '80's in Chicago, same thing. South Side blacks? Must be in the Vice Lords, right? Better to just round 'em all up, right? Same thing.

That's the problem with making it ok for the general public to embrace profiling. That's what I was referring to when I asked Phung if he was willing to put his innocent neighbors at risk to ostensibly protect his own life. It's already happening. Britain has recorded 6.5 times more anti-Arab violence in the weeks after 7/7 than all of 2004. All that kind of unconscious crap does is make the problem worse and becomes fuel for the jihadis' fire. At that point we have lowered ourselves to their level. And they have won.

Master Maark Goodsoul

58 Master of the Ninth AA

Permanoob Casual Monk of Quellious

Karana

Maark the Monk (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=900571)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/wiouxev/maarkgoodsoulssig3.jpg

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 02:18 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The problem is that fact gets turned on its head by the untrained, fearful unwashed masses and used as an excuse to lower ourselves to the level of the terrorists.<hr></blockquote>

You said you wanted to get back the point.

I believe that the points was for normal police officers to be able to use profiling.

Not unwashed people, unless the police are undercover and not taking baths is part of that cover.

And I have heard this lower ourselves to the level stuff all my life, I am certainly not going to strap c4 to myself and go blow up mosques or oil wells in Pakistan. What's this lower level stuff really mean? It seems like you are using it as a cliche, an idiom. Are you really saying that we will become like them? Really?

And won?, they don't win unless they get their way, which is for all Jews and Westerners out of the Middle East. That is what they want. They are not going to stop unless that happens, or there are no more of them.

What do you mean by 'they have won'? Unless you again are using a fluffy meaningless idiom, they don't win if we have police not target poor suspects(that is we profile THEM), and instead they themselves are suspected. Using profiling to catch terrorists is not 'them winning' anything. Terrorists don't win if we profile. They go to jail, or they get deported, or they die in a blazing firefight if they resist. They don't win anything.

Jihadists are clear on exactly what they want from you. You think all this time, they have been lying? They want Jews to die, and they want the US out of the Middle East. Neither of which are EVER going to happen. At least not until all the oil runs out, or we all start using solar, atomic, or methane cow fart energy for everything that runs.

Which is a very long time away.

We are talking about regular police and sheriffs being able to use profiling. Not your average mob ready to lynch some poor camel jockey for wearing a turban in public.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Gaereth

08-05-2005, 02:59 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>This is what happens, as borne out by history:

Fact 1 - 99% of all jihadis are young Arab males

becomes

Erroneous belief 1 - 99% of all Arabs are jihadis or support jihadis

As a result of that erroneous belief, lives get destroyed in the manner discussed earlier in this thread.<hr></blockquote>

Until the leaders, both religious and community, of the muslims everywhere start saying what is happening is a bad thing, then that sort of thing is going to happen no matter what.

Blair is kicking all of the sympathizers out of Britain. You agree with the terrorists?? Fine, live someplace else.

Honestly...this cartoon (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/050808/8cartoon.htm) sums up how the vast majority of us feel about the muslim leaders.

It is not only because of the actions of 1% of the middle eastern/muslim population that people feel that way, but also because of the INACTION of the other 99%.

I believe they have the responsibility to get off their asses and avoid being tarred with the same brush. They must take actions that present the case for the good 99% and against the bad 1%.

Frankly, I don't want to paint all people of a certain creed and ethnic make up with the same color. But when they don't seperate themselves from the herd, and in fact conceal, help, and fund that 1%, its damn hard not paint with broad strokes.

08-05-2005, 06:07 PM

I agree 100% that anti-jihad Muslim leaders need to stand up and make some noise. I'd like to see a Fatwah (sp?) a week every week from every one of them. Winning the hearts and minds of the folks that are being turned into suicide bombers should be foremost in the minds of those leaders. If the jihadist leaders can reach out, so can the anti-jihadist leaders.

There was nothing meaningless or fluffy in my post. If you behave in the same manner as those whose behavior you object to, you have lowered yourself to their level of behavior. In this case, if we lower ourselves to their level of behavior, we have become exactly what they say we are - a godless and morally bankrupt society. We become that because we turn our backs on what we claim to stand for by doing what we think is expedient instead of being consistent with our stated beliefs.

Walking the high road is hard. If it was easy, everyone would do it.

A very simplistic example to help make my point: ever watch the series Highlander? In almost every show the main character is faced with the choice of either doing the right thing or taking the easy way out. In the show the choice is usually pretty obvious. Unfortunately real life is usually not so obvious and requires discernment and strength to do the right thing.

Master Maark Goodsoul

58 Master of the Ninth AA

Permanoob Casual Monk of Quellious

Karana

Maark the Monk (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=900571)

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/wiouxev/maarkgoodsoulssig3.jpg

Gaereth

08-05-2005, 06:52 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>There was nothing meaningless or fluffy in my post. If you behave in the same manner as those whose behavior you object to, you have lowered yourself to their level of behavior. In this case, if we lower ourselves to their level of behavior, we have become exactly what they say we are - a godless and morally bankrupt society. We become that because we turn our backs on what we claim to stand for by doing what we think is expedient instead of being consistent with our stated beliefs.<hr></blockquote>

Well...I don't think we will be sawing peoples heads off, suicide bombing, killing woman and children, and have a stated goal of killing all of them.

Dude...we just want to search peoples bags.

We won't ever come close to being down at their level because it would be so debasing to anyone doing it you would have to be an animal to do it.

Taking the high road is searching bags rather than putting everyone in camps.

Taking the high road is profiling rather than deporting.

I know you may not agree...but the high road doesn't always mean you are 100% nice to people, but it does mean you use all available means that don't touch your morals.

Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=gae reth>Gaereth</A>* http://www.ezboard.com/ezgfx/gicons/black_thatch.gif at: 8/5/05 11:44 pm

Velkyn Azurel

08-05-2005, 08:52 PM

"One of these statements contradicts all of the other statements. Why is that? "

Apparently you failed to understand the point.

The Law is subjective.

It's a reference most people use to say what is right or wrong.

But the law is not the same about all humans.

Even the international Law has issues to be respected or acknoledged, lol.

So, if you want to refer to a pandemic, or a more universal system of value, the simplest is to refer to the international Law.

You can also refer to, let's say the Royal Indian System of Value of the 18th century, or the Japanese system of value during WW2 if you want.

It's only clothes you take to explain your point. nothing more.

Because, that Law, as being subjective is nothing more than a point of view.

"Lets think about this statement a minute.

"Everything is relative"."

I like your way of reasonning.

It's just a paradox. And it happens all the time.

It's like saying everybody's dead. If everybody's dead, how can we talk about it ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

You exclude that "everything" from that statement, or you put a tacite and syntaxic limit to your absolute. It's the snake that eats its tail.

And that's why I prefered to answer you "things are relative" <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

Because, you see, you even have to relative that first statement, a blatant proof that everything is relative <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> .

EDIT: slight addendum <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/5/05 7:55 pm

Velkyn Azurel

08-05-2005, 09:35 PM

"Fact 1 - 99% of all jihadis are young Arab males"

Mmm, I think you underestimated the Perses, several people from Indonesian tribes, and many other people.

But I agree with your point though, I was just whining about the figure <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"> .

Aviera

"The insurance industry's actuarial tables are nothing more than massive profiling.

Surface PCism can't hide the fact that profiling is useful and done constantly"

Insurances don't care about morals or to deal with that such of things. They just do statistics to make the most benefits as possible. So they define the most cases as possible, be them scientific or completly subjective.

On the contrary police must have morals. That's a huge difference in my honest opinion.

Phung

"Do you mean 'opinions' when you are saying 'advice'."

Advice generally means a suggestion, usually asked for and requested by the recipient"

Sorry Phung, for me those words have close meanings. I meant opinion if you more eased with that word.

"eg, if I held an opinion that all Christians should be burned at the stake, that would be an inferior opinion and would be judged as such."

And what "scale of values" do you refer to allow you to state that the other opinion is inferior ?

Yours ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

"You judged me in your post. Yet you can not judge them"

I did not judge you.

It's is not a opinion I emitted, it is a fact.

You can bare no conclusion of right/wrong from someone else's opinion.

It's as if you said "Apples have a good taste", and me I'd reply "You only say s..., apples taste like poo !".

Who is right ?

You because you like apples ?

Or, me because I hate apples ?

On a more objective stance, you can define things that identify apples for everybody : lenght, composition, color, weight, etc...

And the only thing you can say as you personal conclusion is:

I like it or I don't like it.

Objective things are facts. They cannot be issued, if an apple is 3 inches tall, you can whine and convince all the friends you want to taste apples, that apple will not change only because you made up other people's minds to taste them.

Yes, you can have an opinion that other people are wrong. I never said that you can't have one. It is your opinion, but you cannot make it a fact.

It is just your opinion.

And yes, many people can agree with you, or not.

That is all about opinions, you can talk about it for hours, and opinions can even change in the past.

But facts don't.

"The only thing that can go wrong with a judgement of an opinion is to be inaccurate"

I don't see how you can have an inaccurate opinion.

You can rely on inaccurate facts, or incomplete facts to get an opinion.

But to the point to get a wrong opinion... I don't see how.

"The only thing that can go wrong with a judgement of an opinion is to be inaccurate. My opinion that Ugle's post was superior to mine, is an accurate judgement"

No, opinions have no superior/inferior.

You do the same error, you refer to you system of value to judge them.

We don't have the same system of value.

You cannot conclude this and make it fact.

It is your judgement, yes.

It is your opinion, yes.

But it is not a fact.

And from your opinion, there is nothing to comment, because you'd be inherently right if people dared to comment it. Because only you can state what you like or not, and not other people.

I hope you get it...

"You can't tell me, that you, a Frenchwoman, that you do not use superlatives and qualifiers of opinions and wit. Your whole culture thrived and perfected that art for hundreds of years."

I can agree with opinions, and disagree with others. I'll laudate the first, and mock the others, yes. It's my opinion to agree with someon's opinion, dislike other's, to like something or not. But it's just my opinion, and it's not a fact.

As far as I know, no one here prohibiddded anyone to bare an opinion.

"Just because there never really was a Divine Arbitrator of right and wrong, inferior and superior, does not mean that you have to think that everything is the same and equal; but different"

Opinions are equal and different. I don't see the issue here.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Velkyn Azurel

08-05-2005, 10:05 PM

"Terrorists don't win if we profile. They go to jail, or they get deported, or they die in a blazing firefight if they resist. They don't win anything."

If you use chekpoints, the terrorist will patiently wait for her/his turn, slowing the queue, so more people will come near him/her when (s)he'll blow up her/himself in the crowd

If you do camera profiling and, by a miraculous chance, you point out someone and send special divisions to neutralize her/him, the second when (s)he gets under police spotlight, (s)he'll certainly push the button and blow up her/himself in the crowd.

In both cases, the terror attack will happen.

Profiling is useless to stop terrorist attacks. The moment when the terrorists steps on foot in the street with the bomb, (s)he wins.

The best way to prevent them, is to not allow them to strap their bellies with C-4. And that, is not profiling.

Gaereth

"Until the leaders, both religious and community, of the muslims everywhere start saying what is happening is a bad thing, then that sort of thing is going to happen no matter what"

Behind several terror acts, there is the problem involving Palestine & Israel.

And a ton of (Muslim) Arabs are unlikely to condemn terrorism in general because they believe that terrorism is a valuable method for fighting Israel.

So, they'll certainly make a disctinct between terror acts happening in Europe, in the US and in the rest of the word, and those happening in Israel.

The Hezbollah, just for the sake of naming it, has one of its goal to see Israel destroyed.

The Hezbollah is a band of guys sponsored, and manipulated by Iran. They are famous up to Lebannon and Gaza strip.

For the Hezbollah leaders, terrorism is a valuale tool because they don't care about killing innocents, as long as they think the goal is worth it.

Nonetheless, there are a ton of Imams and mere Muslims who are offended by terror attacks and terrorism (wherever the place, which includes Israel). But who really listen to them ?

Will you sell neswpapers if you talk about unkown and comon people ?

Will you sell newspapers if you talk about Bin Laden & Jihad ?

The choice was made years ago by the medias.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/5/05 9:15 pm

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 11:23 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>And what "scale of values" do you refer to allow you to state that the other opinion is inferior ?

Yours ?<hr></blockquote>

Absolutely!

Whose, the else, would I use?

Whose, the else, should I use(according to yourself)? And why?

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 11:32 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You can bare no conclusion of right/wrong from someone else's opinion.<hr></blockquote>

Everything is opinion.

So, in effect, you are saying there is NO right or wrong.

Even most Objectivists(Ayn Rand) will probably disagree with that extreme opinion.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't see how you can have an inaccurate opinion.<hr></blockquote>

Opinion: All Frenchwomen have hairy armpits.

Fact: Many, but not all Frenchwomen have hairy armpits. Probably, around less than half do.

Conclusion: The opinion is inaccurate. Mostly so.

Why can you not have an inaccurate opinion?

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/5/05 10:36 pm

Velkyn Azurel

08-05-2005, 11:32 PM

When you use your personal scale of value, you can only speak for yourself.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 11:38 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>When you use your personal scale of value, you can only speak for yourself.<hr></blockquote>

Who else does, or can, anyone speak for?

If my opinion is accurate, it is probably shared by many other people.

If my opinion is inaccurate, it is probably shared by much less people.

But that is not always the case, just probably so. Most people have the opinion that there is a God. I do not share that opinion. They probably not elect me to speak for them.

Most people think that the Earth is round, and rotates on its axis every day, and revolves around the Sun every year. I hold that opinion with others, we share that opinion. I can say that we all agree, I can speak for them that way.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/5/05 10:44 pm

Velkyn Azurel

08-05-2005, 11:41 PM

"Everything is opinion"

I don't think so.

Things can exist without Man.

If I eat an apple, it's not an opinion it's a fact.

If I eat an apple in front of you and you groan, it's not an opinion but a fact.

The fact I like apples and I voice it out is an opinion.

The fact you dislike apples and you voice it out is another opinion.

Opinions are like tastes if you want. And tastes and colors as no matter of issuing one's can say.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-05-2005, 11:46 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I don't think so.

Things can exist without Man.<hr></blockquote>

While true, that is mental masturbation.

If there were no people, who would care if things exist? Who cares...That opinion does not matter. And that opinion is accurate.

And of course there are facts, but very few statements are REALLY facts.

If I say, "My car is out of gas." That sounds like a statement of fact.

But it is not. For my car still has gas in it, and can run(most of the time) enough to get me to a gas station. What I am really saying is an opinion, "My car is almost out of gas, I think it is a good idea to now find a gas station and fill up the tank." An opinion. Which is accurate.

When I say "Everything is opinion", I was stating an opinion. If you read the previous posts, I qualified it. Here I shortened it for brevity's sake.

What is meant by what I said is this, "There are very few facts, most of what anybody at all has to say is really an opinion anyways, even when they sound like facts."

And, "the very few provable verifiable facts that do exist, are most likely only probabilities in the first place, and therefore most likely not truely absolute, but absolutely good enough for government work and philosophical debates around a fire or on a message board for a silly online game."

And.."the remaining true facts, that do exist probably do not matter much for pretty much of anything that any human being finds important in the daily comings and goings of their life."

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/5/05 11:09 pm

Ugle

08-06-2005, 12:11 AM

Perhaps some of you are missing why this is such an attractive philosophy.

You can never lose an argument, no matter how much your viewpoint contradicts any facts, because you can never be wrong.

There's no pressure on you to ever win an argument, because you can never be right.

There is absolutely no chance you will have any responsibility, because you could never be wrong. If you release a murderer from prison, and he murders again, it's not your fault, because you couldn't be wrong.

There's no such thing as success, or failure, because it's all relative....

The problem you run into with this thought process, is that it's been perverted. A liberal will tell you "There is no wrong or right.....but if you don't agree with me you're wrong, because I know I'm right". WTF. Every viewpoint is as valid as any other one....as long as your viewpoint agrees with mine. If someone expresses an opinion that disagrees with mine, it's irrelevant because there is no right or wrong. But if I express a viewpoint it's right....unless someone calls me on it, then it's just an opinion and it's irrelevant and not worth anything. There is no right, there is no wrong, there is no success, there is no failure, we are all just happy happy people and everything is great.

Unfortunately that goes against human nature and chaos theory, but hey who is anyone to let facts stand in the way of my philosophy?

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 12:21 AM

"If I say, "My car is out of gas." That sounds like a statement of fact."

Yep.

"But it is not"

Yep.

"For my car still has gas in it, and can run(most of the time) enough to get me to a gas station."

Yep.

"What I am really saying is an opinion, "My car is almost out of gas [...]"

That, is more acurate that "My car is out of gas" because, that's right there is still gas in your car.

"[...] I think it is a good idea to now find a gas station and fill up the tank." An opinion."

It is an opinion yes.

Another opinion: I'd rather burn that car and buy another one full of gas.

Another opinion: I'd rather make a barrage with it on the road, then attack the first driver who stops to rob his car, then get the hell out of here.

Another opinion: Oh my God !!! no more gas left: the world is collapsing, let's crash myself in a treeeee !!!!

Another opinion: Mmm, sounds like I have enough gas to go to work, I'll go to the gas station near home.

I can list tons of opinions like that.

But both you and me will agree that's better to go to the next gas station and buy more gas.

That, is our opinions.

They are accurate for us, because we both agree it's the right thing to do.

Here, our added comon opinions are what is called comon sense. It exaplin by itself, it's comon for us.

Though, as it is only opinions, another opinion is as worthy.

There can be people who don't agree with that and would rather to do something else.

It might kill them, it might allow them to find cheaper prices, it might make them lose a whole night pushing that damn car, etc... those are the consequences of their opinions.

Those are acts.

You can find them dumb, clever, etc..; but it's your opinion <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/5/05 11:26 pm

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 12:47 AM

"If my opinion is accurate, it is probably shared by many other people."

By definition your opinion is not accurate.

It's only your opinion.

What you rely on can be accurate.

The conclusion you can draw from that are not.

please, look at the following example

Fact: That apple is 9cm tall.

Opinion: Apples suck.

Maybe people can agree with you and find that apples suck.

It's not written in marble, it's only your taste and most people agree with.

Maybe less people agree with you and find that apples rock.

It's not written in the marble again, it's only your taste and less people agree with.

"But that is not always the case, just probably so. Most people have the opinion that there is a God. I do not share that opinion. They probably not elect me to speak for them"

And can you tell me who is right ? You ? Them ? None ?

God, for now, is still a matter of opinion.

He was not proven, or disproven

(Special note for Bible thumbers and pro/anti religious people: if you want to enter in a pro-anti Bible/Torah/Veda/Sutra Lotus/etc.. fighting to proof what you say is Law, I'm your woman, I think I can argue both parts. I don't want the thread to derail there though).

"Most people think that the Earth is round, and rotates on its axis every day, and revolves around the Sun every year."

That is not an opinion.

It's a fact.

You can agree with it or not.

If your religion teaches your that Earth is flat and, by the underground the Sun is swollen every night, then released every morning, it's your plain right to believe it.

But you cannot say that Earth is flat. It is not.

As far as I know, people used to think the Earth was flat, because they had a proof: the Chruch stated it.

When it was proven wrong, most of them made up their mind to fit with a more accurate representation of our Universe.

"I hold that opinion with others, we share that opinion. I can say that we all agree, I can speak for them that way"

You can have opinions about theories.

For example, you can agree with Einstein's work, or not.

As far as I know, it was not proven yet.

And maybe, it's all wrong, so wrong.

If you can demonstrate that his work is wrong, your opinion will rely on a demonstration, and no longer on your assumptions/instinct/(fill with something subjective).

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Vicero

08-06-2005, 12:57 AM

Well in my oppinion, hehe, racial profiling is good to harden the targets, however like Mrisda said it shouldn't be the only thing done to make transit safer. What paying more attention to a certain group will do will make it harder for the terrorist to bring in and use probably the largest portion of their recruites.

Now notice I said focusing because we really can't totaly rely on what the terrorist will look like. They have suicide bombings by the multitude in Isreal and I would think as an outsider looking in, it should be very easy to racial profile over there. So profiling should not take away totally from bomb sniffing dogs and other means of detecting these individuals befor they reach their target.

And also in my oppinion the blame for this type of action lies solely with the terrorist. They are the ones who have gone out of their way to create the eviorment that is being faced at the mass transit today.

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 01:09 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>That is not an opinion.

It's a fact.<hr></blockquote>

Of course it is an opinion.

You can never know exactly how long it takes for the Earth to rotate. Today it may have taken 23.65 hours to do it, and tomorrow it may take 24.72 hours to do it. And a day is 24 hours long.

But that does not mean that it does not rotate upon it's axis in a day.

A meteor may slam into the Earth tomorrow and it itself fall out of rotation and orbit, and fall into the Sun.

But that does not mean that a day is not a day, and a year is not a year.

Your argument is absurd. For there are so few real facts, and facts that happen(as opposed to being just a probability of happening mostly), and anything that is a real fact is relatively and absolutely meaningless.

You have fallen into the trap of applying philosophical abstract theory to real life. And that is absurd.

But then again I do not use the word opinion as narrowly as you do, you use it to mean a preference. Brunettes are cuter than blondes.

I use the word more broadly. While brunettes are more attractive than blondes, that does not mean that most of everything that anybody says, thinks, or believe is an opinion. So much close to everything(but obviously not all), that it could just as well be everything.

We are close to saying the same things, you and I, but we both have come to two polar conclusions. You say that because there are NO true absolutes(absolutely), that NO opinions or values are valid. I, on the other hand, have come to the conclusion that MY opinions and values are valid.

Which leads me to my next conclusion, an opinion, which is that YOUR opinion that no opinions and values have any validity, because it makes everything meaningless is useless. Let me clarify that, your opinion provides no meaning to anything, therefore it is not useful in any tangible fashion. It does not explain. It does not predict. It does not affect my life. It has no use, aside from interesting debates on a discussion board. It does not fill up my tank of gas in the morning.

Mine do.

My opinions are useful, they add meaning.

They allow me to predict.

Which then allows me to change my actions.

When my opinions are discovered to be inaccurate, I change them; until something better comes along.

That allows me to predict more accurately.

Which allows me to change my environment more effectively. Or avoid my environment more effectively.

Use. Practical. They help me find gas in the morning for my car.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>You can have opinions about theories.<hr></blockquote>

Those theories are just opinions. I can have opinions about opinions, true.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>As far as I know, people used to think the Earth was flat, because they had a proof: the Chruch stated it.<hr></blockquote>

That was an opinion, not proof.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's not written in the marble again, it's only your taste and less people agree with. <hr></blockquote>

Nothing is written in marble, but opinions. Someone else's opinions. And just because they wrote it in marble, does not make it more valid than mine. Or more accurate.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/6/05 12:28 am

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 01:23 AM

"Perhaps some of you are missing why this is such an attractive philosophy"

I personaly enjoy it Ugle, because it somehow reminds me how people should take caution of the Shadoks' theories, ahaha.

You surely don't know what a Shadok is; it's a great part of the 60's French counter culture.

Really... open minding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadoks) <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>The Shadoks were bird-like in appearance (in the tradition of cartoon birds they had beaks with teeth), were characterised by ruthlessness and stupidity and inhabited a two dimensional planet<hr></blockquote>

They had so crazy ideas, ROFL <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

The motto of the Shadok was to pump.

http://lthaler.free.fr/guppy/img/shadoks.gif

They had a ton of theories around that. But "the Shadoks pumped and pumped" the speaker kept saying.

In the end, their opinions are as valuable as mine, ahaha <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

"You can never lose an argument, no matter how much your viewpoint contradicts any facts, because you can never be wrong"

Right, because it's opinions <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 01:29 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Though, as it is only opinions, another opinion is as worthy.<hr></blockquote>

That is a Strawman argument.

An opinion is not worthy, because it is not worthy, therefore opinions are not worthy.

Or said in a different form

All opinions are equal, because they are all equal, therefore all opinions are equal.

That is stupidity.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/6/05 12:31 am

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 01:56 AM

"Of course it is an opinion. You can never know exactly how long it takes for the Earth to rotate. Today it may have taken 23.65 hours to do it, and tomorrow it may take 24.72 hours to do it. And a day is 24 hours long"

It's the same system with your gas tank.

You can scratch at the details if you want.

But on a larger scale you can state that a day is made with 24 hours and zero seconds, even if you know that the Earth does not make a turn on its own in 24 hours every single day of the year (if not never), or so to fill with that statement.

That, is made with an average.

You can enter in the details with astrologic knowledge and so, at will.

But in the end, a day will still be identified as 24 being plain hours long, so will rotate Earth.

"A meteor may slam into the Earth tomorrow and it itself fall out of rotation and orbit, and fall into the Sun"

Mmmm.. no offense here; I don't know if you remember your early class in grammar or syntax, but a fact must be declarative.

Never a conditional enters in the place.

If you use a conditional, or a probability, it's no longer a fact.

"May, might, may have, if, would, et al are banned when you refer to facts.

Which means that, either the Earth turns like it does for Millenia, either it no longer do that.

I think (it's my opinion) it's not really obvious in English to notice that out beacuse you don't really use the subjunctive modal. But in my native it's so obvious that it jump to everybody's eyes.

"I use the word more broadly. While brunettes are more attractive than blondes, that does not mean that most of everything that anybody says, thinks, or believe is an opinion. "

Error: you put your opinion as a fact:

Brunettes are more attractive than blondes.

And that is a bias, not a fact.

"We are close to saying the same things, you and I, but we both have come to two polar conclusions."

It's because you do the same error again and again.

You place yourself in the center of your thought of process.

"You say that because there are NO true absolutes(absolutely), that NO opinions or values are valid. I, on the other hand, have come to the conclusion that MY opinions and values are valid."

And that is ethnocentric (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Ethnocentrism)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ethnocentrism (Greek ethnos nation + -centrism) is a set of beliefs or practices based on the view that one's own group is the center of everything<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>This behaviour can range from universal acceptance or feelings of inferiority compared with other cultures [...]<hr></blockquote>

For you personal information: I do think MY personal opinions and values are valid, but I keep that for myself <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p"> .

This thought does not hold water when you listen to someone else's opinion. Your personal opinions are made to fight you and yourself; not other people.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 02:04 AM

"That is a Strawman argument"

You're right <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

Please, let me re state and apply the Shadok theory.

So:

Your opinion is that your that your opinions and values are valid.

My opinion is that my opinions are as valuable as yours, no matter what your opinion is.

What is your conclusion ? Who can conclude this ?

It's a dead end.

So, I am right, QED <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Ugle

08-06-2005, 02:56 AM

There's no logic involved in that statement at all.

Xandria might say she prefers to kiss men (you are a she right? If not I apologize).

I say I prefer to kiss women.

There is nothing contradictory about those two statements.

I say my opinion is valid.

Velk says her opinion is valid.

There is nothing contradictory about those two statements, both opinions are valid. It is only when the content of those opinions differ that there is a conflict in the statements. It's rather humorous that you then conclude that you are right, especially since you like to argue that there is no right or wrong. Your logic is more like "a=b" and "c=d" therefore "a=c". It's only if "a=b" and "c=d" AND "b=d" then you can logically conclude that "a=c". You are missing any kind of logical progression, and trying to prove your conclusion without logically coming to that conclusion.

I can say that my opinion is that profiling will help curtail terrorism. You then reply that it is your opinion that it will not, and since they are opinions that neither viewpoint is valid. But if I then back up my "opinion" with facts, you turn around and say "Well that's not an opinion, that's fact". If what I believe about something, and what the facts are about something are in agreement, then my opinion IS the same as fact. Therefore for you to say that no opinions are valid is false. It is only when an opinion is based on purely subjective criteria that one can logically conclude that all viewpoints are as valid/invalid as all others.

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 02:57 AM

Your opinion is useless.

It has no meaning, for it says that nothing(that is nihilism) has meaning or value.

Your opinion says all opinions have no value, including your own opinion(this one that you are proposing).

Logically, you are again in a paradoxical Moebius Loop.

That is to say, in effect you are saying "Nothing that people know or think or say has any real value, including the opinions that nothing that people know or think or say has any real value."

Ergo, my opinion is more accurate than yours for my purposes. Thusly, it is superior to yours. Regardless of how many people share it, or not.

Regardless of whether or not you change your opinion and adopt mine, mine is superior.

Nihilism is a philosophical dead end, created by philosophers and thinkers too bored to even find value in jacking off. Or too apathetic to jack off.

Nihilism is great if you want to sell records and art, >or run a Hot Topic franchise< to disaffected youth. But that does not affect me. Well, not anymore, now that I am no longer a disaffected youth.

I like going into Hot Topic because they have Bettie Page decals. Cool ones too. So, it does affect me that way, I have to admit. But that certainly is not important to you, or anyone else here.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 03:17 AM

"It's rather humorous that you then conclude that you are right, especially since you like to argue that there is no right or wrong"

I'm happy. You understood my joke attempt

<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> => joke, remember ? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

"There is nothing contradictory about those two statements"

Of course there is nothing contradictory about those statements. They are different, that's all. You should explain that to Phung, not to me ^^

"I can say that my opinion is that profiling will help curtail terrorism. You then reply that it is your opinion that it will not, and since they are opinions that neither viewpoint is valid"

Mmmm... if you want <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> .

"But if I then back up my "opinion" with facts, you turn around and say "Well that's not an opinion, that's fact""

If you back up that opinion with a fact, I see no problem with that. If your fact happens to be a bullshit, your opinion will sound me unfounded, or illogic.

And yes, that again is my opinion, because no need to tell you that there are people who will deny other people's opinion, no matter how they are backed by facts.

And those facts may not change your opinion, but only back my point.

"If what I believe about something, and what the facts are about something are in agreement, then my opinion IS the same as fact"

No. It is still your opinion. It's the same as a fact for you.

For others it is not.

A fact can't be issued, what you conclude from it can because of matters of perspective.

"It is only when an opinion is based on purely subjective criteria that one can logically conclude that all viewpoints are as valid/invalid as all others"

Are tastes subjective ?

Are scales of value subjective ?

Are forecasts subjective ?

If you answer yes to one of those question, I think you're able to see my point.

Phung

"Your opinion says all opinions have no value [...]"

What the !!

I said opinions are worth each others. And not that.

By the way, did you read the definition of ethnocentrism ?

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=vel kynazurel>Velkyn Azurel</A> at: 8/6/05 2:24 am

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 03:51 AM

You used the word 'worth' in a defining way.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>worth1 Audio pronunciation of "worth" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûrth)

n.

1. The quality that renders something desirable, useful, or valuable: the worth of higher education.

2. Material or market value: stocks having a worth of ten million dollars.

3. A quantity of something that may be purchased for a specified sum or by a specified means: ten dollars' worth of natural gas; wanted their money's worth.

4. Wealth; riches: her net worth.

5. Quality that commands esteem or respect; merit:<hr></blockquote>

You are saying that every opinion is worth the same. Yet the word worth itself means that something is desirable, useful, or valuable. Over another.

In effect that everything is worth the same. That no thing is worth more than any other thing. I don't know about you, but when everything is worth the same, all those things loose value and worth. If nothing is desirable more than another, than it is worthless. It has no worth.

You are stating that the definition of something is exactly the opposite of the definition of the word. I have no problem discussing things with altered meanings, as long as the meanings are understood. But that is absurd.

That would be like me predicating this argument by saying, "The only things that have meaning, are those things that have no meaning. You do understand what I mean, right?"

I highly predict that you would not want to enter into a discussion with me on that. It is absurd, of course.

But you have drawn me into a discussion, where you have set up that nothing is worth more or less than anything else, even the fact that nothing is worth more or less than anything else. You have defined the meanings and the context words(opposite of what they really mean), and I have happily played along with you.

If Cultural Relativism truely is true, then by its very definition, that you have to value my culture equal to your own, then you HAVE to accept my opinion equally to yours.

Cultural Relativism, by definition, is FORCED to accept that ethnocentrism is just as good a value as not. Different, sure as you say, but just as good as your opinion.

And because Cultural Relativism makes NO qualifiers about the number of persons who exhibit and possess a culture, logically, it has to accept the culture of one person(ME), just as equally(but of course different) as your own.

Cultural Relativism forces YOU, Velk, to concede the fact that my opinion that things have value over other things, is just as important and equal to your own, in which you say that nothing has value over another thing. You are forced to value my opinions equally to your own.

Cultural Relativism, by definition, forces and compels you to say, think, and believe that I am just as right as you are. Just different, equal, but different.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/6/05 2:51 am

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 03:59 AM

I'll try something more subtil in order to make sense.

- Phung's opinion is that your that his opinions and values are valid.

- My opinion is that the king of Shadok is the best.

What is your conclusion ? Who can conclude this ?

It's a dead end.

So :

=> Opinions are different. And no one can conclude which one is objectively better or not

=> opinions are worth each others.

As a remind, here is the very first definition of objectivity (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3AObjectivity)

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A quality in writing characterized by the absence of the author's opinion or feeling about the subject matter. Objectivity is an important factor in criticism<hr></blockquote>

If you, or anyone else insert his opinion/advice/felling/rating in the conclusion I stated above, he is no longer objective.

If he's no longer objective, he has high chances to be subjective.

If he's subjective here, he's ethnocentric.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 04:07 AM

You are saying that every opinion is worth the same. Yet the word worth itself means that something is desirable, useful, or valuable

Valuable is the word that matches with the meaning of the sentence.

"I don't know about you, but when everything is worth the same, all those things loose value and worth"

No. If everything you buy is worth 10 dollars, everything you bought still worth 10 dollars, not nothing <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

"If Cultural Relativism truely is true, then by its very definition, that you have to value my culture equal to your own, then you HAVE to accept my opinion equally to yours."

Yes. And have I ever denied you the right to get an opinion ?

Have you ever seen me stating nonsense things like "my opinion is superior to yours" ?

Do you agree with cultural relativism ?

"Cultural Relativism, by definition, is FORCED to accept that ethnocentrism is just as good a value as not"

Yes, and that is an opinion that I respect.

But don't mix up opinion and hard facts <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

You are free to get all the opinions you want and I'll go away with them in mind. I'll sit here and read yours patiently and see, I won't whine about them.

But you cannot come here and state wrong things.

Wrong things are not facts. Wrong things are wrong things.

Here, even if the topic slighted about opinions, we're talking about facts. The fact that opinions are worth each others, or not if you can proof me why.

"Cultural Relativism, by definition, forces and compels you to say, think, and believe that I am just as right as you are. Just different, equal, but different"

No right/wrong remember ? but I think you understood my point. Nice <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Ugle

08-06-2005, 04:52 AM

By your definition Velk, no opinions are more or less valid then any others because of ethnocentrism. But isn't this viewpoint also driven by ethnocentrism? Therefore it's a self defeating loop, similar to the statement "Everything is relative". All of these statements from an objective, logical point of view, are contradictory phrases. And yet you continue to try to use them to prove you are correct. You are using illogical statements to prove your logic. You don't see the problem there? Logically, you can't disprove someone's objectivity by using subjective arguments.

I can say "It makes sense that nothing makes sense". While it might make sense to me, it's a flawed argument because it's contradictory. Your arguments are flawed from a logical point of view. The problems with your logic are not due to ethnocentricity, the problem with your logic is that it is illogical. And in this case that's not only my opinion, it's also objectively true.

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 05:37 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>If he's no longer objective, he has high chances to be subjective.<hr></blockquote>

But your logic says that being objective is the SAME as subjective.

Regardless.

Objective <> truth. In and of itself.

Subjective <> untruth. Either, in and of itself.

In my opinion both can be accurate. Or inaccurate.

I use objective truths all the time here to make subjective points, to which people scream and rant and rave at me for being subjectively wrong.

Your argument seems to be that you value objectivity higher than subjectivity. And we both know that you, because of your Cultural Relativism, can not do that. At least not without being a hypocrit.

For me objectivity only has value when it lends value to subjectivity. I CAN say that I value subjectivity higher than objectivity(for its own sake), but only when it is accurate. The objectivity is only useful for the purpose of bolstering that subjectivity. And only when that objectivity is itself accurate.

Unless, of course, I am making a reducio ad absurdum argument.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No. If everything you buy is worth 10 dollars, everything you bought still worth 10 dollars, not nothing<hr></blockquote>

In the real practical world, if everything was worth the same, nothing would even approach costing 10 dollars. No one is going to buy the shit that comes out of my ass every morning, averaged out with all the shit that everyone makes. Even the Hope Diamond would still be free.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/6/05 4:40 am

Fopoodzo

08-06-2005, 06:00 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Terrorists don't win if we profile. They go to jail, or they get deported, or they die in a blazing firefight if they resist. They don't win anything."

If you use chekpoints, the terrorist will patiently wait for her/his turn, slowing the queue, so more people will come near him/her when (s)he'll blow up her/himself in the crowd<hr></blockquote>

Actually it's been shown that a suicide bomber faced with a checkpoint is likely to either be scared off and NOT detonate at all, or detonate in panic BUT killing far fewer people than they would if ALLOWED to reach their target.

Obviously option 1 is better, but option 2 does save lives i the long run.

XandriaYBKeq

08-06-2005, 12:39 PM

Not a she, my ex when she was using my pc to play EQ would sometimes use my ezboard accoutn but I am not a she.

As for scaring people, it depends on what type of attack.

Some people will be patient because that is what they are trained for, others will freak out since they are all emotion and not cold planners.

In UK and a lot of Europe the examples have been amply shown that to be the case, the examples with the IRA or with the CCC bombings come to mind.

The better the planning, the least likely people will panic and show their hand.

The big reason that sniffer dogs and detectors are far more important then just random profiling.

(ok, semi random profiling)

Thing is one of the bombings they in Belgium was that someone swiped a bag from an old lady, someone got it 'back' and then later a bomb went off in the bag.

They just stuffed a bomb in the bottom of the bag, and one of them even was thanked by the old lady in question for getting her bag back.

Profiling in a tube station is difficult to the point of near impossibility without causing as problems as they solve.

Putting a single entry point in all places with scanners and a unit on call there would be better.

You can still do spotchecks, you can still reduce potential attacks with people who are specialists in profiling by having them check the people through camera's.

Xandria, Muse of 63 songs and proud officer of Guardians of Blood, at your service.

< a href="http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=730060"> Inspect Me< /a>

Sauropod, Monk of 11 kata's.

My pleasure and my duty.

08-06-2005, 01:09 PM

Profiling isnt going to stop terrorist attacks, here or anywhere else. But it DOES put people in the position to check people who are "more likely" to be commiting those acts.

Personaly, and i know this sounds really bad, but id rather just turn the middle east into glass. That regoin has been fighting over religon for Thousands of years, and bringing strife to its lands and lands around the globe for countless years, and its not going to stop anytime soon. But i guess you really cant stop something that has become what seems to be part of a lifestyle. What would they do if they stopped terorizing? Do you honestly think they would just lay down arms and hug all cuddly poo poo? Probably not, they would just find something else to use as motivation to continue on the same path.

I want my country to be safe, same as Britain wants theirs to be safe, and i applaud the british for taking the extreme steps they are as far as profiling to protect their country. They are going to make mistakes, and in fact already have, but they are still doing it for the good of the country.

Sad thing is, is that no matter how much profiling goes on or doesnt go on, is the fact that it still isnt going to stop the attacks. There really is no fool proof way to tell a terrorist from a non terrorist, and their never will be on unless they start wearing like red flags from their head. But i fully support a country doing whatever it feels is needed to protect its citizens, whether profiling or not.

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 01:38 PM

"By your definition Velk, no opinions are more or less valid then any others [...]"

Yes

"{...]because of ethnocentrism"

No <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> .

Ethnocentrism is just the nature of an opinion.

A sentence introduced by the speaker as a fact, which is in fact an ethnocentric opinion can never be a fact, but an opinion.

"But isn't this viewpoint also driven by ethnocentrism?"

No.

"I can say "It makes sense that nothing makes sense". While it might make sense to me, it's a flawed argument because it's contradictory."

As I told you earlier, it's the snake that eat its tail.

Phung

"But your logic says that being objective is the SAME as subjective"

Ahaha, no ^^

Or you have to explain me how ^^:

Oh I see... you're still on opinions.

An subjective opinion is worth the same as a objective one, that's right ?

So, here yes, both opinions are worth.

But the point is the one relies on a fact, while the other does not as there is still subjectivity is the statement attempt. Here is the main difference.

"Your argument seems to be that you value objectivity higher than subjectivity"

Speaking of opinions no.

Speaking of facts, hell yes.

"I CAN say that I value subjectivity higher than objectivity(for its own sake), but only when it is accurate"

No, you cannot.

That is your advice; your opinion, okay, no problem, you can say it all you want.

That, is not a fact.

A side note, "can" refers to subjectivity, non declarative sentences ^^

"In the real practical world, if everything was worth the same, nothing would even approach costing 10 dollars"

If everything is worth the same, it does.

Let say that every object you see is worth 10 dollars.

A pool costs 10 dollars, an elephant costs 10 dollars, a planet costs 10 dollars, an universe costs 10 dollars.

Everything is worth the same does not mean that everything has no value.

Fopoodzo

"Actually it's been shown that a suicide bomber faced with a checkpoint is likely to either be scared off and NOT detonate at all, or detonate in panic"

Been shown ? By ?

You should tell that to all the people who died at checkpoints in Iraq and Israel. They would be interested to hear that in my honest opinion.

"BUT killing far fewer people than they would if ALLOWED to reach their target."

No matter what they do, they are already dead and they consider themselves dead as well, because if/when they are discovered by the police, the police will shot within seconds.

They came to kill people, so they'll kill even if it's less than they had expected, and yes even if they blow up themselves all paniqued.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 01:53 PM

Hello Jittan ^^

"Personaly, and i know this sounds really bad, but id rather just turn the middle east into glass"

The ironic thing is you say that the day of the 60th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes"> .

"That regoin has been fighting over religon for Thousands of years, and bringing strife to its lands and lands around the globe for countless years, and its not going to stop anytime soon"

That region is the most sacred land for Western and Middle East monotheists.

This place saw the merge of Judaism, Christianism and Islam.

It's obvious that this place lifts a ton of tensions.

"Do you honestly think they would just lay down arms and hug all cuddly poo poo?"

You underestimate Mankind I think.

The worse enemies can become buddies with the time.

It has already worked.

What you need is people who can solve problems and ease tensions.

"Sad thing is, is that no matter how much profiling goes on or doesnt go on, is the fact that it still isnt going to stop the attacks. There really is no fool proof way to tell a terrorist from a non terrorist, and their never will be on unless they start wearing like red flags from their head."

I totally agree with that one.

Only intel can dissociate them from the crowd.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 04:16 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No, you cannot.<hr></blockquote>

I can too. And I did. I can say it all I want, and I am correct factually in saying it.

You seem to think that facts are void for subjectivity. That is false.

I don't know how you can have subjectivity without prior facts being discovered, or things having happened.

Why do you think that?

That subjectivity is void of empirical evidence. I would be meaningless to form a thought or opinion on something that had not ever happened before(or about something that I don't know exists).

Subjectivity, just like objectivity, is formed through, and only through, experiences.

If it is not, it is useless. As you say it is.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But the point is the one relies on a fact, while the other does not <hr></blockquote>

See, you say that subjectivity does not use facts.

With that definition. I will agree with you if that were the case. But, it is not the case.

But I do NOT agree that subjectivity does not require facts. It does. If yours does not, fine. Mine does. Therefore yours and mine are not the same. Mine relies on facts, and your subjectivity does not. Mine is superior to yours.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/6/05 3:25 pm

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 04:21 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Let say that every object you see is worth 10 dollars.<hr></blockquote>

No, because it is not worth that to me.

If you own something and want to sell it to me for 10 dollars, I will say, HELL NO.

You wont be able to sell anything to anyone if everything is worth the same. No thing will have any value, if everything was valued the same. That is human nature. That is just the way it is.

Because you are a socialist, it is easier for you to imagine some Ministry of Prices edicting costs of items. I can not.

You would have to put a gun to my head, before I reach into my pocket and pay you anything. But socialists do not have a problem with that notion. So I am pretty sure that you would not object to it.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 04:34 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A side note, "can" refers to subjectivity, non declarative sentences<hr></blockquote>

It can refer to both.

I declare objectively, that I use subjectivity to predict behavior, actions, and outcomes to situations, empirically.

I certainly am allowed to make subjective statements. I can do as I damn well please, and your Ministry of Truth can NOT stop me.

Your Divine Arbititer, your Ministry of Truth, does not exist anymore than anyone else's does.

You, do not have the permission, the ability, to state declaritively that I do NOT have the ability to effectively use subjectivity. It is YOU, who can NOT do that.

I can do it all I want, and there is nothing that you can do or say to STOP me.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 05:41 PM

You seem to think that facts are void for subjectivity. That is false

Facts have no subjectivity because they are considered to be always true.

Subjectivity implies that the point of view can change regarding who talks.

Do you agree with that two phrases ?

Example:

Fact: That apple is red

Opinion: That disgusting apple is red.

The point is the apple is red. And the problem is that someone else may enjoy it.

The apple is not inherently disgusting, you just don't like it => that is subjective.

So, your opinio relies on a fact (the color of the apple), but the word disgusting, being a word of quality, is totaly subjective.

In the end, you said nothing but an opinion. And not a fact.

"Subjectivity, just like objectivity, is formed through, and only through, experiences"

Yes, and ?

It's experience that allowed us to point out that subjectivity and ethnocentrism were not objective analysis.

Where is your point ?

"See, you say that subjectivity does not use facts"

I said that an opinion can rely on a fact.

I said that opinion can rely on another opinion.

I said that as long as you use subjectivity, you are only talking about opinions.

And not what you understood.

"But I do NOT agree that subjectivity does not require facts. It does"

Me too. I never said that.

"If you own something and want to sell it to me for 10 dollars, I will say, HELL NO. You wont be able to sell anything to anyone if everything is worth the same. No thing will have any value, if everything was valued the same. That is human nature. That is just the way it is"

Okay, my example with a bill of ten dollars maybe disappointed you.

Let's say that everything is worth an apple.

Everything will have the same value.

That does not mean that everything is worth nothing. They do have a value, also known as apple.

Get it ?

"You would have to put a gun to my head, before I reach into my pocket and pay you anything. But socialists do not have a problem with that notion. So I am pretty sure that you would not object to it. "

Cut the crap, please.

"You, do not have the permission, the ability, to state declaritively that I do NOT have the ability to effectively use subjectivity. It is YOU, who can NOT do that"

You missed the point.

I NEVER said you were unable to use subjectivity.

I SAID you COULD use subjectivity all the way you want.

Uing subjectivity is needed to build YOUR opinion.

I said that you could not introduce a subjective opinion as beign a fact.

Period.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 06:05 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Facts have no subjectivity because they are considered to be always true.<hr></blockquote>

Nooo.

Show me a fact that is always true, and I can show you that it is not. Probably.

Or rather the number of facts that are always true, are so small, that it makes them useless to me(any human) in any practical manner.

edit:

Unless you mean, that they are CONSIDERED to be always true. Thought(an opinion) of as being true.

And in that case, most, facts are like my tank of gas. That is to say, that just because people have the subjective opinion that they are so close to being really true, that we can CONSIDER them to be true(when they probably are not).

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/6/05 5:08 pm

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 06:14 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's experience that allowed us to point out that subjectivity and ethnocentrism were not objective analysis.<hr></blockquote>

No experience allowed that.

That is definitional, of course they are not objective.

But in terms of dealing with other human beings, getting along with them, objectivity, objective analysis is rather useless. Experience HAS shown that.

Human beings are not beakers of water.

Human beings are not objective.

Human beings lie, cheat, and kill.

Human beings are subjective.

You are employing a science, or rather empiricism, on something it was never designed for.

Human beings are NOT facts. So why are you saying that objective analysis is the most useful form of understanding them.

I can say, that I do not have a right index finger.

I can say, that I had an accident, and it got cut off by a lawnmower.

Those are objective facts(I will give you that).

But without applying those facts to something, those facts are meaningless.

Subjectivity and opinion are used to determine what you are going to do with that information, or what I am going to do to cope with not having a right index finger.

I can also say (a racial stereotype) that every Black person I have ever met "Likes fried chicken and watermelon". A racist, ethnocentric, notion. But it is objectively true, for every Black person I have met(got aquainted with), likes fried chicken and watermelon.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/6/05 5:20 pm

Fopoodzo

08-06-2005, 07:09 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Actually it's been shown that a suicide bomber faced with a checkpoint is likely to either be scared off and NOT detonate at all, or detonate in panic"

Been shown ? By ?

You should tell that to all the people who died at checkpoints in Iraq and Israel. They would be interested to hear that in my honest opinion.<hr></blockquote>

By Israel and several other countries and agencies.

As you're the one who always seems to think intelligence agencies are 100% dunno why you're questioning it. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

But as I said when there's checkpoint the detonation is either stopped entirely or there's less casualities, so they ARE a GOOD idea without question and one of the best weapon in a security sense.

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 07:48 PM

"Nooo. "Show me a fact that is always true, and I can show you that it is not. Probably."

I swear, yes ^^

Look at the definitions of a fact (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:fact).

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>An indisputable truth<hr></blockquote>

Get it ?

"Or rather the number of facts that are always true, are so small, that it makes them useless to me(any human) in any practical manner."

There are tons of facts.

Facts are not small in numbers and are all objective.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Something that can be demonstrated to be true. A proven piece of information<hr></blockquote>

"Unless you mean, that they are CONSIDERED to be always true. Thought(an opinion) of as being true"

That's the point, as you refered to experience.

I grabbed another definition, especially:

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>When an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact.<hr></blockquote>

A fact cannot be contested.

A fact cannot include subjective words such as quality adjectives, because people may not agree with using them. That is why a fact must be objective by definition.

"And in that case, most, facts are like my tank of gas. That is to say, that just because people have the subjective opinion that they are so close to being really true, that we can CONSIDER them to be true(when they probably are not). "

It's no longer subjective if everybody agree on that.

Your example with the sun is good

A day is 24 hours long.

The Earth does not run a complete turn in 24 hours though.

Those two facts stand to be true.

If you're more eased with your tank gas

Your tank has run out of gas: true.

Your tank gas is not empty: true.

Both are true. The tank is low in gas, but the tank gas is not empty.

"But in terms of dealing with other human beings, getting along with them, objectivity, objective analysis is rather useless. Experience HAS shown that"

Ahahaha <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

That is especially why anyone learning sociology and ethnology is asked to remove subjectivity from their analysis of societies <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> .

It's the first bias/danger/error/shit someone can do when he studies a society: to compare with his/her; to judge the subject.

And the conclusion of his work would be completly pointless, because it would not be an analzis, but an advice, an opinion.

"Human beings are NOT facts. So why are you saying that objective analysis is the most useful form of understanding them"

Because if you always refer to your scale of value, you'll never understand other people.

You'll be stuck in: judging them/estimating them inferior/estimating them primite/ estimating them elovled/ saying it's good, saying it's bad, saying I like it, saying I don't like it.

Who cares about wat you think when you are asked an objective work (a work everybody on this planet can work on) ?

It is an analyzis you're suposed to do, not tourism.

"I can also say (a racial stereotype) that every Black person I have ever met "Likes fried chicken and watermelon". A racist, ethnocentric, notion. But it is objectively true, for every Black person I have met(got aquainted with), likes fried chicken and watermelon"

Here is your fact: [...] every Black person I have met(got aquainted with), likes fried chicken and watermelon

Here is an opinion twisted from your statement Black person "Like fried chicken and watermelon.

The first is always true, the second is not.

The first is true because regardless people advice, people color of skin or so, every "Black" person you have met like fried chicken and watermelon.

That, is always checked. It's always true.

The second is not, because you have not met all the "black" people of this planet, and you don't know their preferenecs.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 07:59 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Who cares about wat you think when you are asked an objective work<hr></blockquote>

Huh?

When in the hell does that happen?

When is it ever going to happen?

There is no value in objectivity, in and of itself, unless it is applied. That is absolutely true.

You just try and and name ONE fact that is important if it is not applied by people subjectively, for a purpose.

I am not a machine, designed to collect empirical data for you.

That does not mean that I can not do so,,,I can take blood pressures, and temperatures, and heartrates objectively. But until that data is applied to an OPINION, a medical opinion,,,it has ZERO meaning. It has ZERO use.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>

Because if you always refer to your scale of value, you'll never understand other people.<hr></blockquote>

Says you, and only you. That is only your OPINION, Velk. And I have no idea where you got that.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It is an analyzis you're suposed to do, not tourism.<hr></blockquote>

It is you with your pure objectivity, that is not applied, that is the tourist. Not I. I analyze EVERYTHING, and form opinions about the data collected. It is you who is stating that one is not allowed to do that. je no comprende.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Here is an opinion twisted from your statement Black person "Like fried chicken and watermelon. <hr></blockquote>

That is your conclusion. But I did put it out there to play with.

I know that I can not account for every Black person and their preferences, on way or the other about fried chicken and watermelon. I know that.

Just as I know that my car really is not out of gas when I say "I am out of gas". If I am speaking to you, I assume that you are a human being with a mind, and can tell the difference. If you can not, it does not matter anyhow.

You don't really go out into the world, and I mean you Velk, everyday, qualifying everything that you say do you. You do know that when you say to French people on the streets or cafes, or whatever French people really do, "Americans are piggish, borish, ethnocentrists", that they really think that you mean that you are really saying that all of them are. Just enough of them are to form an opinion about the matter.

You don't expect me to believe that you walk around, and the only thing that you speak of. that is important. is empirical data and objective truths, spouted of like some 60's robot.

That is absurd, I don't believe that you do.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....Edited by: <A HREF=http://p201.ezboard.com/bmonklybusiness43508.showUserPublicProfile?gid=phu ngkuu@monklybusiness43508>Phung Kuu</A> at: 8/6/05 7:11 pm

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 08:20 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Ahahaha <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol">

That is especially why anyone learning sociology and ethnology is asked to remove subjectivity from their analysis of societies <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> .

It's the first bias/danger/error/shit someone can do when he studies a society: to compare with his/her; to judge the subject.

And the conclusion of his work would be completly pointless, because it would not be an analzis, but an advice, an opinion<hr></blockquote>.

True, I have said that repeatedly to you.

An anthropologist loses his subjects of study if they become like him or her.

Keeping cultures 'pure' anthropologically is only motivated by anthropologists, and sociologists to keep the grant money coming. To keep the pay check coming.

Who needs anthropologists, if there is only one culture?

But you are no more Margaret Mead, than I am Richard Leaky. Just because they have some professional Prime Directive, does NOT mean that it is true for anybody else outside the profession of anthropology and sociology.

People set up systems of belief(and that is just one of them) that helps secure their jobs. That is just one of them. No more, no less. Its not like it is pure or anything, is just as dirty as a whore's hole or the pope's hands.

That is the foundation of Cultural Relativism, not truth, not fact. Not objectivity for its own sake, but so that fat social scientists could get fed. Cultural Relativism is only an opinion, a false one, a paradoxical one. One that deserves to end up in the latrine of human knowledge.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 08:34 PM

"There is no value in objectivity, in and of itself, unless it is applied"

Objectivity is just the only thing everybody agree on.

"I am not a machine, designed to collect empirical data for you"

Obviously yes. But what you are is not the point <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/tongue.gif ALT=":p">

- Because if you always refer to your scale of value, you'll never understand other people

- "Says you, and only you. That is only your OPINION, Velk. And I have no idea where you got that."

It's more than an opinion.

I learned that in a classroom.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> A paradigm of the academic community in the United States, particularly among anthropologists, is that ethnocentrism adversely affects one's understanding and assessment of culture, and therefore should always be avoided<hr></blockquote>

It's a copy/paste from the definition of ethnocentrism I brought you.

Do you get it now ?

"It is you with your pure objectivity, that is not applied, that is the tourist. Not I. I analyze EVERYTHING, and form opinions about the data collected. It is you who is stating that one is not allowed to do that. je no comprende"

You analyze everything yes. I never said you were an idiot.

But you have a bias called: scale of value.

You keep it everytime you analyze a thing, thus, in the end, you fail to understand other people in an objective manner.

From that point, all your conclusions are tainted with subjectivity.

(a side note, you should say: Je ne comprends pas ^^)

"Just as I know that my car really is not out of gas when I say "I am out of gas". If I am speaking to you, I assume that you are a human being with a mind, and can tell the difference"

Yes, when you say that your car is out of gas, I understand the point, even if there is still gas in your gas.

You do know that when you say to French people on the streets or cafes, or whatever French people really do, "Americans are piggish, borish, ethnocentrists [...]'

AhAhaha !!!! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/roll.gif ALT=":rollin">

I'm talking to you Phung. Not to America.

And here again you're doing a laughable assumption.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Velkyn Azurel

08-06-2005, 09:01 PM

"True, I have said that repeatedly to you"

I don't think so, beause it's my point ^^

"Keeping cultures 'pure' anthropologically is only motivated by anthropologists, and sociologists to keep the grant money coming. To keep the pay check coming"

ROFL!!

Keeping cultures "pure" as you said, is the aim of the EXTREME RIGHT WINGERS.

Sociologists don't give a rat' ass about that.

Sociologists have a pool of people, and they study how they behave.

Anthropologist studies smaller structures to draw a pic about mankind, and neither sociologists nor anthropologists are here to judge. WHich means they are not here to judge what is right, what is wrong, to judge what is "pure" and what is not.

That is not their work, they are not paid for that.

If you want to get a clue, go to any library and buy a couple of books about sociology and athropology.

They are paid to answer questions.

They are paid to explain how.

That's all.

"Who needs anthropologists, if there is only one culture?"

I think you have a completly false idea about anthropology. I think you see them as loser in the pampa studying aborigenes.

They are not.

They study mankind, be there one culture or 1.000.

"But you are no more Margaret Mead, than I am Richard Leaky. Just because they have some professional Prime Directive, does NOT mean that it is true for anybody else outside the profession of anthropology and sociology"

I don't know them, but that's right. What one earns does not mean everybody else has got it too.

"People set up systems of belief(and that is just one of them) that helps secure their jobs"

Right.

"That is the foundation of Cultural Relativism, not truth, not fact"

No. cultural relatism lies in interraction and valuation between cultures (and furthermore people's systems of value).

"Cultural Relativism is only an opinion [...]"

I demonstrated it to you. You just refuse to face it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are just estimating that other opinions must be judged by your sole standards.

So, honestly speaking, I see no further reasons to continue to talk with you about that.

It's not a matter of logic here, you just refuse to pay attention.

You stated it is a false opinion (be it opinion or not). Doing so, you repeated the same error I had pointed you out a dozen of times.

You think ethnocentrically, and the story ends here.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Ddrakon

08-06-2005, 11:07 PM

what the fuck

Ddrakon of Luclin, Stone Fist - Retired

Formerly Takanit of Cazic (Brell)

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 11:39 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Objectivity is just the only thing everybody agree on.<hr></blockquote>

Says who?

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 11:40 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>But what you are is not the point<hr></blockquote>

To me it is.

It is the most important point.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Phung Kuu

08-06-2005, 11:44 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's more than an opinion.

I learned that in a classroom.<hr></blockquote>

Then you learned the teacher's opinion.

That's all it is.

Somebody else's opinion.

I have spent the better part of half a lifetime UNLEARNING the wrong opinions of teachers. Cultural Relativism being one of them.

...white people never get in trouble for anything, they have it so easy.......damn white people.....

Jinpo

08-07-2005, 01:04 AM

you two should exchange phone numbers already

Jinpo

55 Monk, Saryrn (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=266967)

55 Necro, Saryrn (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=584689)

29 Monk, Everfrost

Retired Until the Sony Devs get their heads out of their asses and roll back the game-destroying Live Update #3.

Velkyn Azurel

08-07-2005, 01:57 AM

Phung

"But what you are is not the point"

"To me it is."

What you are cannot change a fact. So it is really unimptortant. You can be a flying unicorn or a Star, it will make no difference.

"Then you learned the teacher's opinion."

What you have issues to understand is that it is not an opinion.

Velkyn Azurel, Phantasmyst.

Don't worry, be happy (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=93768)

Retired (http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf)

Ugle

08-07-2005, 02:11 AM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Facts have no subjectivity because they are considered to be always true<hr></blockquote>

It used to be a "fact" that the world was flat. Many people believe it's a fact that God exists. Facts in nearly every instance are merely theories that are supported by other observations, and are not disproved. Evolutionists claim it's a fact we evolved from Apes. Currently there is little/no data to contradict that, so it's currently a fact. But "God" could come down tomorrow and say "Hey just wanted to see how my creations are going". It used to be a fact that man couldn't run a mile in less then 4 minutes, it was scientifically proven....

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>An indisputable truth<hr></blockquote>

Ok Velk, and which of your arguments is an indisputable truth? Next...

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>There are tons of facts.

Facts are not small in numbers and are all objective.<hr></blockquote>

See my comments about it being a fact man cannot physically run a mile in under four minutes. A "fact" which is disproven fairly regularly. Facts can be and usually are subjective, i.e. given the data that the observer has, he determines that something is always true. We say that if we mix Na and Cl we always get salt. We may find that there is some sort of sub-atomic particle that actually makes them bind, and that under certain conditions they won't bind together. We just haven't found those conditions, hence this is a subjective observation that we believe to always be true.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A fact cannot be contested<hr></blockquote>

Facts change all the time. If they were never contested, the Sun would still revolve around the flat earth.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>It's no longer subjective if everybody agree on that<hr></blockquote>

Everyone agreed that the Earth was flat, and that man couldn't run a sub 4-minute mile. Does that mean the Earth is flat and that man can't run a sub 4-minute mile?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Objectivity is just the only thing everybody agree on<hr></blockquote>

My Uncle John doesn't agree with that, so that's a lie.

I'll save you the bother of responding to this one "When I said everyone that means only people that I listen to Ugle".

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>A paradigm of the academic community in the United States, particularly among anthropologists, is that ethnocentrism adversely affects one's understanding and assessment of culture, and therefore should always be avoided<hr></blockquote>

This one gets fun. How do you avoid ethnocentrism? You would have to use your ethnocentric values to determine how you could avoid ethnocentrism. I could say that to show I'm color-blind when it comes to people, I'll date someone of asian descent. Whoops, I determined who I could date based on their ethnicity.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>anthropologists are here to judge. WHich means they are not here to judge what is right, what is wrong, to judge what is "pure" and what is not<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>"People set up systems of belief(and that is just one of them) that helps secure their jobs"

Right.<hr></blockquote>

Anthropologists are not people? The Anthropologists set up their system of beliefs which they believe are non-judgemental. But that system is based on a subjective analysis of what is considered judgemental and what is not. How can anyone determine what is judgemental or not without using subjective criteria to do so?

You and your examples are of an ethnocentric mindset that believes that they know the answers, and are non-judgemental. But you get there via an ethnocentric model of reasoning, therefore invalidating your beliefs. A snake swallowing it's tail has no beginning and no end, but it does have perpetuity. Your statements are contradictory, they are not the same. One continues indefinitely, one never exists.

Natassi Dogym (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=198315&resize=true)

Dawulfie Duklin (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=406812&resize=true)

Lacesout Ferdafieldgole (http://www.magelo.com/eq_view_profile.html?num=1172520&resize=true)