Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I have repeatedly said that I do not have a fundamental objection to profiling.
I am only trying to point out the practical problems -- one, that it can be so broad as to be meaningless, and two, that it can and likely would become the dispositive factor so that a guy who actually intends to blow up a plane doesn't get extra scrutiny because, well, he looks white and has a british name.
So, what the hell is my point? My point is that your test misses the one guy we know about who has actually boarded a plane with explosives and the intent to use them in recent years. What the hell is your point?
|
Who ever said anything about a test? I never said there was a test. I was just trying to defend ethnic and religious profiling. You were attacking my defense of ethnic and religious profiling (instead of pointing out the practical problems) so it would seem logical that you were attacking ethnic and religious profiling.
And as far as your "practical points" which you say are not arguments against ethnic and religious profiling, didn't I already say that everyone gets checked randomly and that ethnic and religious profiling would be added to the other profiles they already use (like nervous people, one way tickets etc). Its like you are saying that I was implying that ethnic and religious profiling would be the only profiling used, and such profiling would make the system perfect. I never said either of those things making your points irrelevent.
Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
And to answer your other question (since you are following ppnyc's mode of responding to the same post twice) -- according to the BBC, the explosive in Reid's shoes may have been powerful enough to destroy the plane -- it's not entirely clear. But, c'mon -- if you can get on board without being searched, it can't be too hard.
link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1783237.stm
|
I don't know why were are discussing him in the first place. He was brought up to show that ethnic and religious profiling do not help. His example did not do that because I never said that it would be the only tool used, and I never said it would make the system better, not perfect. So if he does not show that religious and ethnic profiling does not help, then why are we still discussing him?
