Topic awaiting preservation: All Arriving in USA to Be Fingerprinted and Photographed (Page 2 of 2)

There is nothing racist about it. I am not talking camps here, I am talking about putting more scrutiny on the ethnic group in question. There is nothing criminalizing about it and if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about. You are simply blinded by political correctness and are using the "racist" comment to detract from my point, which I in no way, shape, or form ever expected you to be able to understand in the first place. I know where you and your country stand poi.

Meta: I do not play counter-strike, so I really cannot know what you are insinuating. I do understand the terrorists are overwhelmingly as I have described above. Male Arab Muslims. Am I the only one with enough balls to come out and say it, or has the world gone mad?

Maybe we are living in 2 different worlds, but last I heard the extremist wing of Islam had declared war on the western world and my country in particular. That in itself is enough to warrant profiling. I am not worried about inconveniencing the few to protect the many, especially when the lives of my loved ones are on the line.

People like you scare me. And yes, I scare you too. The divide is large.

Ramasax

(Edited by Ramasax on 10-13-2004 03:18)

so we arrest all the male arab muslims and let chechen female suicide bombers, south-east asian war lords, south american drug leaders and pimply american shoe-bombers, even, breeze through customs for fear of inconveniencing them?

last i heard, male arab muslims weren't the only demographic keen on obliterating americans.

[insert fabulous sig here]

I must say, that is an extremely narrow and dangerous outlook Ram.

I am not totally against racial profiling - it most certainly has it's uses, and to ignore them for the sake of political correctness is absurd. Profiling is something that is used in many aspects of life, and comes in quite handy. We record all kinds of demographic information all the time and use it for many purposes. Many times this information includes our ethnicity.
To say that we can't use such statistical information as a tool to aid our understanding and preparedness is something I can't fathom.

On the other hand, to suggest that we need to just nail the arabs is a whole different can o' worms.



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-13-2004 05:23)

Ramasax: The problem is that the traditional concept of race is primitive at best; thus, all notions of racial profiling are primitive and inefficient. The adages "nothing is as it seems" and "appearances aren't everything" hold true. Moreover, do you really want a bureaucratic government supported by an overly-religious populace in charge of racial profiling? Nazi Germany demonstrated that governmental racial profiling isn't a good idea.

Read Steve Olson's Mapping Human History: Genes, Race, and Our Common Origins. It's inexpensive for what its information is worth. I highly recommend you read it.

quote:

---

In a journey across four continents, acclaimed science writer Steve Olson traces the origins of modern humans and the migrations of our ancestors throughout the world over the past 150,000 years. Like Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, Mapping Human History is a groundbreaking synthesis of science and history. Drawing on a wide range of sources, including the latest genetic research, linguistic evidence, and archaeological findings, Olson reveals the surprising unity among modern humans and "demonstrates just how naive some of our ideas about our human ancestry have been" (Discover). Olson offers a genealogy of all humanity, explaining, for instance, why everyone can claim Julius Caesar and Confucius as forebears. Olson also provides startling new perspectives on the invention of agriculture, the peopling of the Americas, the origins of language, the history of the Jews, and more. An engaging and lucid account, Mapping Human History will forever change how we think about ourselves and our relations with others.

---

Unlike DL-44, I am entirely against the application of the traditional concept of race and therefore racial profiling.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-13-2004 06:30)

DL: Surprising as this may sound we are not so far apart in our opinions here. I have no arguments with what you say. If I may ask, what makes what I am saying so much more different and dangerous as what you are purveying? Perhaps it is how you see me and interpret me, being that I in many of your eyes am what you would call a far-right-winger?

Meta: Your argument is irrelevent. The fact that you are against the application of traditional concept of race and profiling is irrelevent. I realize that human history binds all races. And while the book you cite sounds interesting, and looks like a worthwhile read, it in this case, to me, it is irrelevent. Perhaps I am missing the point above, but it does not speak to me on this topic.

And how did I know somebody would bring Nazism into this? God man, I am talking about placing more scrutiny on one race over another because of the fact that the race in question has been in the majority where these types of acts of violence are concerned. I am not talking about racial genocide. I am not talking about gas chambers and fiery furnaces and burning people alive. And I most certainly am not talking about treating them as second class people. That is in the pervue of the Islamo-facists.

We did far more during WWII with the Japanese here after Pearl Harbor, and we did not fall into Hitler-esque slaughter because we are a generally compassionate, intelligent country built upon fairness and equlity.

The Muslim Extremist community racially profiles us all on a daily basis. Not scrutiny as I am suggesting, but 'death to all' kind of profiling. They have declared war on all non-believers. We are the infidels, left, right, and middle makes no difference to them. They would just as soon behead Mr. Moore as they would President Bush or even a a small American child. And it goes further than religion, they are killing by the thousands in Darfour, ethnic cleansing of the black Muslims. They stand for one thing and one thing only, a Militant Arab Muslim hold over the entire world and annihlation of the zionist pigs. They will, and I believe have shown time and time again, use any available means to accomplish this goal. They are a scourge and must be dealt with and if that means more scrutiny on those whom share their ethnicity so be it. If it were my race that was responsible for these horrible acts, I would have no problem facing up to that scrutiny, because I have done nothing wrong. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. And yes, this is always open to corruption, but what the hell isn't?

Did white Christians attack the Kohbar towers? If so then I would be ok with racially profiling that crowd?
Did asian monks attack the WTC in 1993? If so, single them out.
Do children and grandmothers dacapitate infidels on a nearly daily ritual? If so, single them out.
Did black gang members fly planes into the WTC on Spetember 11th 2001? If so, single them out.

When the police are looking for a murderer and have a description of the perp, do they blindly deny that desciption, where race is usually the most important aspect, and scrutinize everyone? No, they start at a logical place, with the description.

I never pretended that racial profiling is perfect. I totally agree that it is a flawed system. To me though, it is far less flawed than the ridiculously inefficient system they are setting up. Sure, racial profiling is not always going to be correct as McVeigh showed us at OKC (this one is debatable as there are connections, all improvable of course, but not much in this world is ever provable outside of the realm of science) and as LaSun points out above, but it is certainly more viable and logical than tracking children, grandmothers, middle-aged balding white businessmen, Japanese tourists, etc... It is getting to the point now that Arabs are under far less scrutiny than the rest of us because airlines are fearful of being sued and or fined for making the wrong move.

Like it or not, these attacks in recent years upon the US all have one thing in common, they have all been perpetrated by one ethnic group and/or religion. Spin it any way you like, that is the simple truth and you cannot run from the logical conclusion.

I have stated my case. *shrugs* To each his own.

Ramasax

as 'primitive and inefficient' as racial profiling is, you have to admit it's convenient. and in some cases, it's all we've got to work with.

i'm not in any rush to go back to the states, especially not now. not because i'm laying any huge claims to privacy and whatever human rights i might have, but because it's all getting so damned tedious and will probably be more so for me than others (on his way back from the states last year, my brother was stopped, searched and interrogated twice because, they said, he looks arabic and our middle-eastern sounding last name was supposedly on some alert list somewhere).

but homeland security is homeland security. if i ran a country that inundated with terrorist threats (let's not even go into how those came about) i'd do whatever it takes to keep it safe. i'd fingerprint and photograph and racially profile the asses off of anybody if there was the tiniest inkling that he or she could possibly bomb my family while they slept.

the idea, however, that only one particular demographic is inclined to terrorism is naive. it's just about as silly as when my guy cousin got pulled over by cops one night because he was a brown boy driving a nice car while just down the road, almost at the same time, a white boy from out of town is drive-by shooting his former-friend in the face.

if you're going to crackdown on security, you're going to have to do it with everybody. it's sad, desperate and still so terribly inefficient, but it seems to be all the US has got to work with these days.

[insert fabulous sig here]

<ramasax posted while i was typing...>

(Edited by LaSun on 10-13-2004 11:32)

(Edited by LaSun on 10-13-2004 11:46)

bloody double post

(Edited by LaSun on 10-13-2004 11:12)

quote:

---

Ramasax: And how did I know somebody would bring Nazism into this? ...

---

You know the holocaust began "simply" by fingerpointing the jews. But according to your messages, it's not bad to fingerpoint and scrutinize (?) a given "race". BTW I dislike that word as it is absolutely irrelevent, but you seem to use it to name various regilious believers ... which is even more irrevelent.

quote:

---

We did far more during WWII with the Japanese here after Pearl Harbor, and we did not fall into Hitler-esque slaughter because we are a generally compassionate, intelligent country built upon fairness and equlity.

---

You said equality. Where is the equality of treatment in your intent to racially profile the people ?

I generally avoid that kind of statement, but Ramasax, your view is narrow minded and dangerous.



(Edited by poi on 10-13-2004 13:49)

MH - I am familiar with all of this. It has no bearing.

Your feeling on the 'traditional concept of race' does not effect the reality of the situation.

'Class' is something that is purely a social construct. It is also a major factor in many profiling instances, and - like race - is one of mnay factors that can point investigators in the right direction.

Now, obviously the phrase 'racial profiling' can be used in different ways. In most cases, the most negative connotation is inferred.

All I am saying is that race, along with the rest of our characteristics, can be used in an effecitve manner.

Obviously, singling out all arabs, or people who "look like arabs" is not what we need to do.

But ingoring ethnicity based on political correctness or philosophical waxing is silly.




(Edited by DL-44 on 10-13-2004 15:37)

Racial profiling is a "convenient" tool for persecution. My arguments are not irrelevant, Ramasax. Who the hell do you think you are.

quote:

---

Ramasax said:

Meta: Your argument is irrelevent.

---

Incorrect.

quote:

---

The fact that you are against the application of traditional concept of race and profiling is irrelevent.

---

If that is true, then the fact that you are for it is also irrelevant. So, incorrect.

quote:

---

I realize that human history binds all races. And while the book you cite sounds interesting, and looks like a worthwhile read, it in this case, to me, it is irrelevent.

---

Incorrect.

quote:

---

Perhaps I am missing the point above, but it does not speak to me on this topic.

---

I wouldn't expect a bigot to understand anyway.

quote:

---

And how did I know somebody would bring Nazism into this?

---

Perhaps because you are a Nazi? Gee, I don't know.

quote:

---

God man, I am talking about placing more scrutiny on one race over another because of the fact that the race in question has been in the majority where these types of acts of violence are concerned. I am not talking about racial genocide. I am not talking about gas chambers and fiery furnaces and burning people alive. And I most certainly am not talking about treating them as second class people. That is in the pervue of the Islamo-facists.

---

I suppose we should also revert public policy to discriminating blacks since there tends to more black men in prisons than other "races." Oh please...

quote:

---

We did far more during WWII with the Japanese here after Pearl Harbor, and we did not fall into Hitler-esque slaughter because we are a generally compassionate, intelligent country built upon fairness and equlity.

---

That's a laugh. You're clearly ignorant of history (and current events). Read this and learn about the Alien Enemies Act.

quote:

---

The Muslim Extremist community racially profiles us all on a daily basis. Not scrutiny as I am suggesting, but 'death to all' kind of profiling. They have declared war on all non-believers. We are the infidels, left, right, and middle makes no difference to them. They would just as soon behead Mr. Moore as they would President Bush or even a a small American child. And it goes further than religion, they are killing by the thousands in Darfour, ethnic cleansing of the black Muslims. They stand for one thing and one thing only, a Militant Arab Muslim hold over the entire world and annihlation of the zionist pigs.

---

Argument from ignorance. You fail to realize that many of the beheadings in the Middle East are done by criminal and governmental groups. They aren't necessarily terrorist factions. Why do people forget about criminals during wartime. Bah.

quote:

---

They will, and I believe they have shown time and time again, use any available means to accomplish this goal. They are a scourge and must be dealt with and if that means more scrutiny on those whom share their ethnicity so be it. If it were my race that was responsible for these horrible acts, I would have no problem facing up to that scrutiny, because I have done nothing wrong. If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. And yes, this is always open to corruption, but what the hell isn't?

---

Sieg heil! Heil Hitler!

quote:

---

Did white Christians attack the Kohbar towers? If so then I would be ok with racially profiling that crowd?
Did asian monks attack the WTC in 1993? If so, single them out.
Do children and grandmothers dacapitate infidels on a nearly daily ritual? If so, single them out.
Did black gang members fly planes into the WTC on Spetember 11th 2001? If so, single them out.

When the police are looking for a murderer and have a description of the perp, do they blindly deny that desciption, where race is usually the most important aspect, and scrutinize everyone? No, they start at a logical place, with the description.

---

Since when did racial profiling ever solve anything? It's not a solution. It's a "convenient" way to circumvent the problem while maintaining an illusion of effect. It's analogous to medicine: the solution to curing a group of sick children is to enlist a doctor to treat them. You don't solve the problem by singling out sick children and placing them in a room separate from the rest. That only contains the problem and makes the problem worse inside the room. Additionally, you don't go around an elementary school herding a group of ethnic children, known for their histories of illness, into a prison (a.k.a. concentration camp) in order to "prevent" future illnesses from occurring. Any sane and rational person would disagree with you.

quote:

---

I never pretended that racial profiling is perfect. I totally agree that it is a flawed system.

---

You pretended and still are pretending that racial profiling is somehow efficient. For every Middle Eastern terrorist there are how many innocent Middle Easterners whom merely want to live their lives? 10? 1,000? 100,000?

quote:

---

To me though, it is far less flawed than the ridiculously inefficient system they are setting up. Sure, racial profiling is not always going to be correct as McVeigh showed us at OKC(this one is debatable as there are connections, all improvable of course, but not much in this world is ever provable outside of the realm of science) and as LaSun points out above, but it is certainly more viable and logical than tracking children, grandmothers, middle-aged balding white businessmen, Japanese tourists, etc... It is getting to the point now that Arabs are under far less scrutiny than the rest of us because airlines are fearful of being sued and or fined for making the wrong move.

---

That's bullshit. Plain and simple bullshit.

quote:

---

Like it or not, these attacks in recent years upon the US all have one thing in common, they have all been perpetrated by one ethnic group and/or religion. Spin it any way you like, that is the simple truth and you cannot run from the logical conclusion.

---

What you've argued for is neither truth nor logical... nor reasonable... nor rational... nor sane... nor justified...

(Edited by metahuman on 10-13-2004 20:23)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

MH - I am familiar with all of this. It has no bearing.

---

It has bearing.

quote:

---

Your feeling on the 'traditional concept of race' does not effect the reality of the situation.

---

The traditional concept of race is a subjective classification intended for discriminatory practices. My "feeling" about race is not a feeling at all. The latest genetic, psychological, and sociological research (scientific research, not "philosophical waxing" or "political correctness") suggests that the traditional concept of race is primitive at best and a motivator for prejudice.

quote:

---

'Class' is something that is purely a social construct. It is also a major factor in many profiling instances, and - like race - is one of mnay factors that can point investigators in the right direction.

---

Class is not "purely" a social construct. It's an economic classification which is key to aristocracy and elitism.

quote:

---

All I am saying is that race, along with the rest of our characteristics, can be used in an effecitve manner.

---

What Ramasax suggested is not effective.

quote:

---

Obviously, singling out all arabs, or people who "look like arabs" is not what we need to do. But ingoring ethnicity based on political correctness or philosophical waxing is silly.

---

True.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-13-2004 20:25)

quote:

---

What Ramasax suggested is not effective.

---

Hi. I'm DL-44. I am not Ramasax, nor do I share his view.

=)

quote:

---

...suggests that the traditional concept of race is primitive at best and a motivator for prejudice.

---

It's all about context.

There is indeed a great overlpa between science and philosophy, and something can be true on a scientific level but still not be "true" in a sense that relates to the "real world".



(Edited by DL-44 on 10-14-2004 00:55)

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

There is indeed a great overlap between science and philosophy, and something can be true on a scientific level but still not be "true" in a sense that relates to the "real world".

---

I disagree with you to an extent. Surely, theoretical science includes much of astronomy (e.g., dark matter) but science is a method of studying the "real world" and models are tools used to represent scientific reality. Regarding truth, all "truths" are incomplete, provisional and falsifiable. Anything that is provisionally true is at least theoretically falsifiable. The scientific method is the only effective means to establish provisional truths. Philosophy rarely overlaps science and science rarely overlaps philosophy; however, each are affected by the other.

quote:

---

Eliezer Yudkowsky said:

There is no such thing as science.

Your ability to watch things fall down, and thereby formulate the Simplified Theory of Gravitation ("things fall down"), is no different, in any way, from the thoughts that let a scientist understand why a star burns. Your ability to drop a rock from your hand, and thereby squash something using the Simplified Theory of Gravitation, is no different from the thoughts that let an engineer create a nuclear submarine.

There is a tendency, in twentieth-century culture, to view science and technology as some kind of magic. People talk about nuclear weapons as if they're some sort of dark sorcery. But they aren't. The laws of physics that make nuclear weapons go off are the same laws that make the Sun burn. It's the same laws, the same equations, that keep atoms from flying apart under ordinary circumstances. If you altered the physical laws that permit atomic weapons, not only would the Sun go out, but you yourself would dissolve into a cloud of less-than-dust.

Science is the same kind of thought that lets us survive in everyday life. Not a more powerful form, or a more distilled form - the same form, just as the same laws of physics underlie nuclear weapons and your own integrity on the atomic level.

---

With that said genetics, psychology, and sociology produce empirical truths, not quackery, waxing, etc. I'm surprised that you, one of the lone voices of reason in this forum, would even suggest such a thing.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-14-2004 01:27)

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramasax said:

Meta: Your argument is irrelevent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that you are against the application of traditional concept of race and profiling is irrelevent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If that is true, then the fact that you are for it is also irrelevant. So, incorrect.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize that human history binds all races. And while the book you cite sounds interesting, and looks like a worthwhile read, it in this case, to me, it is irrelevent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DL-44 said:

MH - I am familiar with all of this. It has no bearing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has bearing.

---

Wow, metahuman. Those are some pretty darn compelling arguments there. You sure have me convinced.

Explain to me how the "traditional concept of race" is primitive? Is it because by our nature humans categorize? You have yet to explain anything that supports your suppositions. Perhaps we could get a clearer idea of what you are driving at if you wouldn't veil your ideas in vaguaries.

quote:

---

meta: You don't solve the problem by singling out sick children and placing them in a room separate from the rest. That only contains the problem and makes the problem worse inside the room.

---

This is a pretty poor analogy... Separating the sick is part of the solution: It's called quarantine. It is how you prevent highly contagious disease from spreading. If someone is showing classic signs of Ebola, do you suggest that they remain in the general populace while receiving treatment? Do you ignore those that are also showing symptoms? Of course not. You round up everyone who is showing symptoms and everyone they have been in contact with and stick them in quarantine whether they like it or not for the general welfare of the public.

You have yet to explain why racial profiling is "ineffective" and offer up a better, more effective solution. Like it or not, race is a means of classification, just like gender, height and weight. It is ultimately a description.

Personally, I'm not above searching little old ladies or Japanese tourists or any other of the "groups" that have been mentioned, but that's just becuase I believe that anyone is capable of doing anything. However, I realistically understand that there are those that present a higher threat and given available resources are where greater attention should be paid.

Greater scrutiny of the group presenting the higher threat does not eliminate the threat entirely - that's a given. But it does reduce the threat.

What are the reasonable alternatives?

Metahuman, once again, your argument is irrelevent. You have nothing to offer but meaningless rhetoric that has no bearing on the facts or this discussion.

quote:

---

Incorrect.

---

Umm, ok. Here is where I knew you had something good to say.

quote:

---

If that is true, then the fact that you are for it is also irrelevant. So, incorrect.

---

This is an assanine statement. Saying I am incorrect means nothing if you have no argument behind your words. Once again, your argument did not speak about the issue at hand here.

quote:

---

Incorrect.

---

Again, how so?

quote:

---

I wouldn't expect a bigot to understand anyway...Perhaps because you are a Nazi? Gee, I don't know...

---

Your opinion of me is irrelevent. You don't know me, and please don't pretend to know me. This is a typical insult by a person who has given up on actually trying to argue his position because he knows he has nothing. When all else fails time to break out the scary words, eh?

How about a rational and relevent argument? That is what I was giving. I spent about an hour composing and revising my last post, giving a lot of thought to my rebuttals, all for this weak and childish response. How much time did it take you to come up with this? Two minutes in a flash of anger and non-thought?

quote:

---

Sieg heil! Heil Hitler!

---

Now you are acting like a child, which means I am retiring from this thread.

Nice chatting with you and thanks for the deep and intellectually challenging insight.

quote:

---

DL: Hi. I'm DL-44. I am not Ramasax, nor do I share his view.

---

Wow, that's news to me. lol.

Ramasax

quote:

---

Moon Dancer said:

Explain to me how the "traditional concept of race" is primitive? Is it because by our nature humans categorize? You have yet to explain anything that supports your suppositions. Perhaps we could get a clearer idea of what you are driving at if you wouldn't veil your ideas in vaguaries.

---

Perhaps you should the read the book I recommended first before even thinking about competing against me intellectually.

quote:

---

This is a pretty poor analogy... Separating the sick is part of the solution: It's called quarantine. It is how you prevent highly contagious disease from spreading. If someone is showing classic signs of Ebola, do you suggest that they remain in the general populace while receiving treatment? Do you ignore those that are also showing symptoms? Of course not. You round up everyone who is showing symptoms and everyone they have been in contact with and stick them in quarantine whether they like it or not for the general welfare of the public.

---

The objective of a quarantine is to prevent the spread of a disease. Curing the disease and preventing the disease from occurring again is not a quarantine's objective. Containment is not a solution. It's a method for circumventing the problem by isolating an infected group.

quote:

---

You have yet to explain why racial profiling is "ineffective" and offer up a better, more effective solution. Like it or not, race is a means of classification, just like gender, height and weight. It is ultimately a description.

---

Taken literally, racial profiling is merely a means of classification; however, in the context of governance, the context from which you casually brought the term out, racial profiling is a tool for persecuting primitively classified groups by appearance in order to bring about some illusory solution to a problem. Historically, racial profiling has not worked and it is still ineffective for secure governance. Moreover, implementations of racial profiling have caused more harm than good. The Nazi application is a good example.

quote:

---

However, I realistically understand that there are those that present a higher threat and given available resources are where greater attention should be paid.

---

Threats should always be attended to but not all Arabs and not all Muslims are threats to the United States. Some of you have problems realizing the world is much bigger than a list of al-Qaida operatives. By the way, the U.S. publicly discovered a year or two ago that al-Qaida (and other terrorist groups) were targeting African males for their recruitment efforts.

quote:

---

Greater scrutiny of the group presenting the higher threat does not eliminate the threat entirely - that's a given. But it does reduce the threat.

---

Behavior contrary to the civil liberties of targeted groups does not reduce threat, it increases and encourages it. Such is evident with the second invasion of Iraq.

Ramasax, I'm not going to bother responding to your continued mental flatulence since the bulk of your responses consist of claims of irrelevance. Since you consider your claims of irrelevance to be intellectually stimulating, I'll set the record straight: everything you've said is either idiotic, ignorant, or incorrect. Those are typical attributes of arguments from a pseudo-intellectual stupid incompetent fool. Your "thoughtful" rebuttals lacked thoughtful response because none was merited. Interestingly, you argue that none of which I posted is relevant to the discussion, however, we are so far from the original topic that any claim of irrelevance is, to use a word you just learned, asinine. Moreover, your claims of irrelevance are invalid since the relevance which you refer to requires your respondents to agree with you and mentally operate far below their intellectual capacity. Unfortunately for you, I will not dumb down my opinions to a degree that you can possibly comprehend. If you want to discuss the issues, you'll need to come up here and to do that you'll need to climb a ladder called education for it seems to be an area in which you are lacking. Have a nice day.

There seems to be a whole load of mental and verbal flatulence going on in this thread, perhaps sticking to the original subject matter wouldn't incur this, seeing as this is the general forum and not the phylisophical one, but then... who am I to get involved!

As far as taking personal data from immigrants to the United States, well it really is a little strange, Intelligence agencies already had details on the members of the Al Qaeda that attacked the United States and could have done something about if they really wanted to, why they didn't nobody knows, why they want to take details from everybody entering the country, nobody knows, perhaps it's to ease the paranoia in the uneducated populace that's been whipped up by the media, perhaps it's also to sell to credit card companies, who knows!?

What I do know is that

quote:

---

everything you've said is either idiotic, ignorant, or incorrect. Those are typical attributes of arguments from a pseudo-intellectual stupid incompetent fool.

---

is damn right rude!

That

quote:

---

I spent about an hour composing and revising my last post, giving a lot of thought to my rebuttals, all for this weak and childish response.

---

is unnecessary, I mean calling him childish.. really! Spending one hour... HELLO!

Let's be happy people.

Cheers,

Blaise.

(Please don't flame me!)

It doesn't matter what I say, Blaise.

To Ramasax, everything I say is "irrelevant."

quote:

---

Metahuman: Perhaps you should the read the book I recommended first before even thinking about competing against me intellectually

---

First off - I am not trying to "compete" with you. I am perfectly aware of my own intellect and have no need to inflate my own ego playing "who has the bigger brain". How juvenile. I'm trying to have an intelligent conversation of which you seem incapable of participating as you are too interested in showcasing your arrogance and talking down to us mere mortals. I rather expected a retort like that.

Second - I know you're all excited to show off your shiny, new education however there are some of us out there who have this thing called a "life". We can't go out and purchase your recommended book and read it in 2.2 seconds to respond in a timely manner to a post. That's what discussion is about. You teach what you've learned, and when the rest of us have time and care enough to get greater detail on what you've taught we'll buy the book.

Third - You still have yet to supply a better alternative than categorizing on known factors such as race. And if you re-read my post, you will note that not once did I focus on Arabs or Muslims or Arab Muslims for that matter. This is a bigger picture. And yes, I know that the al-Qaeda threat does not extend only from those of Arab descent - another reason from which I refrained from specifying that group in my previous post.

On a side note - don't you find it interesting how on one hand African males are being recruited to "the cause" and on another they are being annihilated in the Sudan?

And back on topic... Maybe there is something here that I just don't get, but what is the realistic chance of misuse for fingerprints and a photo? What is the alternative if the goal is to document who comes into the country?

[edit] removing question as answer was found [/edit]

(Edited by Moon Dancer on 10-14-2004 16:42)

I'm beginning to think that nobody likes anyone in the general forum anymore, you guys should hang around the CSS and Javascript forum, people get on better there!

On a side note (or back on topic I should say), I think the only reason these details are being taken are actually for passport fraud, it may sound like extreme measures, but hey, the Australian government blow ships out the water for tresspassing in their waters, I suppose all countries will be going down this line or similar in the future, in reality this probably has very little to do with terroism, or racism for that matter.

Cheers,

Blaise

Moon Dancer:
(1a) The fact that you accused me of lacking explaination is indicative of your intent to compete.
(1b) The fact that you entered this discussion as late as you did is indicative of your unwillingness to "have an intelligent conversation." Your first response scurried to the defense of Ramasax and consisted of a number of ignorant criticisms. Moreover, you called my ideas suppositions which indeed they are not given the evidence I sourced.
(1c) Additionally, the fact that your claim to have a intelligent conversation is occupied by ad hominem conjecture is also indicative of your hypocritical intent. If you actually intended to have an intelligent discussion, perhaps I should overlook your initial impression and you should overlook mine; however, apparently that isn't the case.

(2) My responsibility is not to educate; it's your responsibility to educate yourself. If you want to learn something, the Internet is at your disposal and bookstores are also useful. In an intelligent discussion, participants will cite relevant sources to support their dissertation and others will research those sources to fully comprehend given dissertations. I seem to be the only person who has provided sources to support my ideas.

(3) I need not supply an alternative for Ramasax's primitive security tool to be realistically unworkable. Of course, I could argue that I did suggest an alternative: the alternative is to not use or support racial profiling. That is my position now.

(4) Yes, it is interesting.

(5) The realistic chance for misuse of photo and fingerprint identification is nearly null.

quote:

---

Metahuman said:
Most, if not all, American citizens have been fingerprinted and photographed sometime in the past.

---

Really now? That one's news to me. Only "government" photographs I've given up have been my passport and my drivers license, as it should be. Fingerprinted? There's no reason for most people to be fingerprinted outside the court system, or rather, most adults. Kids are far more likely to have been fingerprinted at some point in time for "safety" reasons, during those school drives or whatever they are.

On to the rest of the drivel here :

quote:

---

Metahuman said:
Moon Dancer:
(1a) The fact that you accused me of lacking explaination is indicative of your intent to compete.
(1b) The fact that you entered this discussion as late as you did is indicative of your unwillingness to "have an intelligent conversation." Your first response scurried to the defense of Ramasax and consisted of a number of ignorant criticisms. Moreover, you called my ideas suppositions which indeed they are not given the evidence I sourced.
(1c) Additionally, the fact that your claim to have a intelligent conversation is occupied by ad hominem conjecture is also indicative of your hypocritical intent. If you actually intended to have an intelligent discussion, perhaps I should overlook your initial impression and you should overlook mine; however, apparently that isn't the case.

---

First off, asking for further or more detailed explanation in now way indicates any desire to "compete." It means Moon Dancer is asking for further or more detailed explanation than what you did or did not provide. S/he's asking you to clarify what you are saying; maybe s/he is on your side and just wants to confirm that? You immediately assume someone responding to you is competing, and that you have something to "win" here.

"Entered the conversation as late as you did" means exactly what? Not everyone camps the general forums, or even the forums period. As for entering the conversation late, this thread was posted on 9/30 and you didn't "enter" it until 10/4. Whoo! You're late, boyo! Some people also read before they find a reason to reply to a thread, if at all. Some people lurk and read instead of spout of their view as if it were gospel written in stone.

As for 1c - big words, did you look them up first? The only impression that anyone can have of someone on a forum is through their words, and consistancy of posts, and the occasional use of smilies to try to convey what is usually expressed via intonation, expression and body language. And the bare text usual fails to convey those complexeties.

quote:

---

Metahuman said:
(2) My responsibility is not to educate; it's your responsibility to educate yourself. If you want to learn something, the Internet is at your disposal and bookstores are also useful. In an intelligent discussion, participants will cite relevant sources to support their dissertation and others will research those sources to fully comprehend given dissertations. I seem to be the only person who has provided sources to support my ideas.

---

Just because you link to other sources means nothing. Especially not when one of those sources is a book that someone would need to purchase before they could refute anything you said regarding that source. Citing sources really means nothing, not when people ask you for clarification. Saying "it's not my job to educate" is marginally valid, but then again, if you have the information that someone is asking for, why is it such a problem for you to share that? Would you do the same in your job if a coworker was asking for clarification about a point? "I told you were to find the information, look it up yourself.." would not fly with co-workers and definitely not your boss. Particularly not if the "favor" were ever returned to you in like fashion. Being a know-it-all prick and acting like a know-it-all prick aren't the same thing.

Your #5 - have you never heard of identity theft? I personally wouldn't trust the government or hell, other corporations to keep things straight. That's why people should check their credit histories out there. I know for a fact that there is someone else in my state that has the same first name, last name and middle initial as I do, because she has an account at the same bank that I use. The only thing "saving" me is that my accounts are all tied through my husband's name as primary account holder.

In addition, think of all the cases of mistaken identities that have happened with people being targeted because of homeland security and put on watch lists simply because of their names. The government isn't perfect, far from it, and the lessening of private rights under the Patriot Act should be disturbing to anyone, no matter if they are a US citizen or a visitor to our country. If something like this were put into place in another country, and US citizens were subjected to it, you can be sure there would be an outcry about it.

I reread this thread, just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, but almost all of your posts, Metahuman, have been condescending to some degree or another. Responding to Ramasax or not, you have come across as an arrogant jackass that likes to speak down to others, and even if your information is correct (what info you will deign to share with others that is) you give the impression that others should be grateful for your participation in the thread.

And I've been "participating" in this thread since it was started, I've just felt there was anything I needed to post as part of the discussion until now.

_____________________

le coeur du feu
Qui sème le vent récolte la tempête!

[quote]RhyssaFireheart said:

quote:

---

First off, asking for further or more detailed explanation in now way indicates any desire to "compete." It means Moon Dancer is asking for further or more detailed explanation than what you did or did not provide. S/he's asking you to clarify what you are saying; maybe s/he is on your side and just wants to confirm that? You immediately assume someone responding to you is competing, and that you have something to "win" here.

---

Open your eyes. Moon Dancer said, "You have yet to explain anything that supports your suppositions." Translation: "You've presented no evidence that supports your belief." Fortunately, I have presented evidence, some of you have just not cared to look at it. That evidence supports fact, not belief.

quote:

---

"Entered the conversation as late as you did" means exactly what?

---

It means the person entered the discussion late only to involve themselves in a off-topic.

quote:

---

As for 1c - big words, did you look them up first?

---

You must need a dictionary if you're asking me that.

quote:

---

The only impression that anyone can have of someone on a forum is through their words, and consistancy of posts, and the occasional use of smilies to try to convey what is usually expressed via intonation, expression and body language. And the bare text usual fails to convey those complexeties.

---

What does that have to do with anything?

quote:

---

Just because you link to other sources means nothing.

---

Incorrect. Presenting relatively unknown and esoteric information to the general public requires provision of evidence which can be used to verify the truthfulness of that information.

quote:

---

Especially not when one of those sources is a book that someone would need to purchase before they could refute anything you said regarding that source.

---

Either you're too lazy to visit an offline or online bookstore, or you're too poor to afford a book that costs ~$11. Either way, I'm not concerned.

quote:

---

Citing sources really means nothing, not when people ask you for clarification.

---

Again, incorrect. Clarification would require copying the text into digital format and violating copyright laws. It's easier to RTFM.

quote:

---

Saying "it's not my job to educate" is marginally valid, but then again, if you have the information that someone is asking for, why is it such a problem for you to share that? Would you do the same in your job if a coworker was asking for clarification about a point?

---

"Mapping Human History" is a populistic book that does a much better job than I can of communicating esoteric knowledge exoterically.

quote:

---

"I told you were to find the information, look it up yourself.." would not fly with co-workers and definitely not your boss. Particularly not if the "favor" were ever returned to you in like fashion. Being a know-it-all prick and acting like a know-it-all prick aren't the same thing.

---

Bad analogy. You're neither a co-worker nor a boss.

quote:

---

Your #5 - have you never heard of identity theft?

---

I didn't say misuse was impossible. I said the chance is too slim to matter.

quote:

---

In addition, think of all the cases of mistaken identities that have happened with people being targeted because of homeland security and put on watch lists simply because of their names. The government isn't perfect, far from it, and the lessening of private rights under the Patriot Act should be disturbing to anyone, no matter if they are a US citizen or a visitor to our country. If something like this were put into place in another country, and US citizens were subjected to it, you can be sure there would be an outcry about it.

---

First, you've just given reason that supports my position that racial profiling wouldn't work. It's strange that some people oppose minor measures like photographic records of alien visitors yet they support racial profiling. The chance for misuse of racial profiling is far greater than the chance for misuse of photographic records. Secondly, photographing and fingerprinting non-citizens is not detrimental to civil liberties.

quote:

---

I reread this thread, just to make sure I wasn't mistaken, but almost all of your posts, Metahuman, have been condescending to some degree or another. Responding to Ramasax or not, you have come across as an arrogant jackass that likes to speak down to others, and even if your information is correct (what info you will deign to share with others that is) you give the impression that others should be grateful for your participation in the thread.

---

Then I guess I'm an arrogant jackass prick... according to you at least. Sue me. I have an eerie feeling that the reason people typically get upset with my opinions is that I use words like "ignorant" and they attribute some subjective meaning to those terms. I should have a disclaimer in my signature that says something to the degree of, "All of my opinions use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of their actual meaning." Thus, my opinions are devoid of emotion.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-15-2004 00:14)

2 things -

1) the problem here obviously lies in intent.

Most of us come here for discussion.

Apparently MH comes here for "competition".

the two are not compatible in this format.

2) citing a source does not make what you say factual. period.

the fact that we have not read the same book you did does not make us less educated than you, or less able to have a discussion about topics on which that book offers a point of view.

No - you won't find anyone here ready to bow to your self-supposed intellectual grandeur.

Until you can come to terms with this two things, metahuman, 'discussion' with is simply not possible.

The futility of trying to discuss the points in your last post addressing me is quite evident, so I will respectfully decline to continue in this manner.

Should you feel like having a civil discussion at some point, I'll be more than happy...

DL-44: Apparently you have problems differentiating assumption and fact. Most of your perceptions of me are assumptions, not fact.

quote:

---

DL-44 said:

1) the problem here obviously lies in intent. Most of us come here for discussion. Apparently MH comes here for "competition".

---

This is a debate, not a discussion. Competition is an inherent byproduct of debate. Since you're incapable of proving that racial profiling is effective, you've turned to claims of irrelevance and dirty campaigning.

quote:

---

2) citing a source does not make what you say factual. period.

---

I don't recall anyone claiming that. Source citations certainly make an opinion far more credible than unsubstantiated subjective bollocks.

quote:

---

the fact that we have not read the same book you did does not make us less educated than you, or less able to have a discussion about topics on which that book offers a point of view.

---

Incorrect. The fact that you have not read the definitive book in esoteric->exoteric genetic human history does make you less educated than I. That is, you are ignorant of the subject discussed. Moreover, due to your ignorance of the subject discussed you fail to comprehend relevancy and therefore are less capable of producing intelligent discussion.

quote:

---

No - you won't find anyone here ready to bow to your self-supposed intellectual grandeur.

---

I couldn't possibly care less.

quote:

---

Until you can come to terms with this two things, metahuman, 'discussion' with is simply not possible.

---

I don't need to accept your opinion of me in order to participate in discussion. Intelligent conversation with deluded racist fools that are ignorant of the sociological, psychological, and genetic aspects of human nature is not possible anyway.

quote:

---

The futility of trying to discuss the points in your last post addressing me is quite evident, so I will respectfully decline to continue in this manner.

---

Which manner is that? The manner in which you demonstrated your inaccurate understanding of science and your attitude towards science that claims scientific inquiry is equivalent to philosophical waxing? If you decline to continue in that manner, that would be wonderful.

quote:

---

Should you feel like having a civil discussion at some point, I'll be more than happy...

---

Right back at you.

(Edited by metahuman on 10-15-2004 03:40)

Metahuman - We obviously have different ideas surrounding what "discussion" and "ideas" mean. I think we should just leave it at that. Should I someday have the time to read the book you referenced, we can maybe then have a chat about it. And in the future, I would appreciate that you refrain from insinuating that I don't take responsibility for my own education. You have no idea how I spend my day.

Rhyssa - You bring up and interesting point regarding identity theft and the topic at hand. I'm curious as to how you believe that photographs and fingerprints would contribute to identity theft. Both of these provide more solid means of verification than a name and a signature. In the virtual world these methods are useless of course.

The fingerprinting and photographing isn't something that foreign visitors are being subjected to. US citizens are subjected to the same treatment. In the past 6 months I've been fingerprinted no less than 4 times simply because my company has a contract with the government. Everytime a piece of information needed correction on my background check, I was required to initial it, date it and submit another set of fingerprints to go along with the update. I didn't feel violated or like my privacy was being invaded - only annoyed at the fact that I would be cleaning ink off my hands for several days again. I think it's because I don't feel that a more definitive means of identification equates with invasion of my privacy. But, that's just me. Now - if they were asking for DNA samples... that's another story.

Moon Dancer: I'm sorry if you thought I insinuated you don't take responsibility for your education but I only say what I mean (I don't insinuate) and what I said was that educating yourself is your responsibility, which you seem to agree is true.

I think archiving DNA samples would prove to be a much more interesting issue. Still, I would disagree that it would be an invasion of non-physical privacy as having your DNA on file would bring about all sorts of new technology that make life easier. The benefits of DNA archivance outweigh the threats.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!

quote:

---

quote:Citing sources really means nothing, not when people ask you for clarification.

Again, incorrect. Clarification would require copying the text into digital format and violating copyright laws. It's easier to RTFM.

---

just a quick fyi here -

several months ago this issue was before the congress and the american librarians turned out en masse to object. quoting is still legal as long as the source is noted and it is legal to copy/photocopy some (not every page) of a book including maps and diagrams. again, as long as the source is noted.

Metahuman, hi, how's it going?

Without a doubt you have an interesting 'debate' technique, mostly revolving round telling people they are ignorant, and claiming unfailingly that your sources are superior to theirs. I don't want to post in this forum and attack anyone, but you sound like you need it a little... maybe a lot!

Now to start with, whilst holding DNA details on members of a society are certainly going to break technilogical barriers and increase security, such measures are surely going to make a society cave in. I'm certainly not pro-crime at any level, but if the government knows where everyones going and what they're up to people will be scared to live their lives the way they want to. independance will go out the window, it really is a Big Brother scenario, we'll no longer have the freedom to release our stress and anxiety in ways we see fit, we'll be practically living like robots, except Human beings don't do too well living in captivity.

Because ultimatley that's where it could go, maximum security, living in a prison.

I've seen Escape from New york don't ya know!

I'd like to congratulate RhyssaFireheart on a good post up there, it summed up a lot that's been going on in this forum as of late, and also I would have to say that for once I totally agree with DL-44. Metahuman, you have come here for debate, but we're here for discussion...

quote:

---

All things OZONE. Miscellaneous chit-chat about all sorts of silly topics. A good place to start.

---

That's what is says on the door mate, don't let it hit you on the way out.

There's no point insulting everyone in the 'debate' just to prove your point right, if people are the sum of their posts, then you're one Arrogant, Ignorant wan&er!

Cheers,

Blaise.

(Edited by Blaise on 10-15-2004 12:04)

One point only: this is a discussion. Any 'debate' or sense of competition you bring to it is outside the scope of such a discussion.

MH: You don't spend much time in airports do you? I can tell you that I do; I'm in an aiport at least once a week, most likely twice a week. There absolutely has to be profiling during the security screening process. Notice I didn't say racial profiling because race isn't the only thing to consider. However, it is definitely among the factors to take into consideration.

Whether you believe it or not, race is most definitely a predictor of the likelihood that someone will commit a terrorist act.

:::11oh1:::

Not that he needs agreement to be right, but I agree with metahuman on this one: just wonder why they aren't doing it with *all* visitors since Al Qeada would use anyone of any race to get to us.

~allewyn

Woo Hoo! Velvetrose said "underwear"... snicker...

and then all those words from everybody else... Jeez, you people can blather on.


I dont know about fingerprinting EVRYONE that comes into the U.S., Thats a lotta ink and tissue, or do they use those bank inkpads that have special wipe away ink? Lights?

I did gather that some people are concerned about racism... tsk, tsk, tsk, I didnt read anyone advocating unequal treatment, like seperate sections of the airport, plane or restrooms. So was the race card thrown out there to muddy the waters of sanity?

If mostly green people hated America and wanted to destroy them, wouldnt it be wise to take an extra look at the green people entering?

Ok not green, but how about people dressed as pirates, if there was a cult of 22 million people who dressed as pirates and professed to loathe America and all it stands for, and was known to have carried out some shenanigans on american soil; Could we then profile pirate looking people entering the U.S.?

And if not, why not?

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

quote:

---

UnknownComic said:
I didnt read anyone advocating unequal treatment,

---

Read the messages of Ramasax again.

Profiling only pirate looking people would be insulting to honest pirate looking people, would miss all not pirate looking people who want to hurt America in the name of pirate looking people. Sure it could have a little immediate benefit for Americans, but certainly at the cost of more harm later and of a discrimination towards all pirate looking people. Thus profile pirate looking people would be racist, and naive in the sense that it would try to cure a symptom without trying to look at the roots the Americano-Pirate ( or Pirato-American if you're a Pirate yourself ) problem.

quote:

---

would miss all not pirate looking people

---

Again we a gross misunderstanding of 'profiling'.

*OBVIOUSLY* you can't look soley at the 'pirate looking people'.

But if you've identified one aspect of a person who is likely to be a threat, it's just plain stupid not to address it.

Not just pirate looking people, just proportionally more pirate looking people. And..., any grandma's carrying pirate equipment of course.

Sure, the pirate looking people could find people who dont look like pirates to carry out their dastardly deeds. But, it is somewhat unlikely that grandma looking people would be willing to sacrifice their life for the pirate looking people. And, because the pirate looking people who want to hurt America, are somewhat fanatical, they tend not to trust grandma looking people and want the glory of martyrdom for themselves.

I am not saying ALL pirate looking people are fanatical, just the ones who strap explosives to themselves.

It is with pride that the less informed pirate looking people step up for the job of martyr. We dont see the pirate looking people leaders, or the other pirate looking people for that matter, volunteering to be a martyr. It takes a certain type of pirate looking person to strap explosives to themselves and explode their body parts in the name of the pirate looking peoples god. I'm sure the incentives to the family left behind helps. But it is more a matter of ignorance and proud martyrdom that is at work here. It HAS to be a pirate looking person that does the deed. Otherwise their is no glory.

Pffft, imagine the shame visited upon the pirate looking people cell that used girl scout looking people to do their glory work.

______________
Is This Thing On?

Webbing; the stuff that sticks to your face.

(Edited by UnknownComic on 10-24-2004 00:31)

quote:

---

Blaise said: Without a doubt you have an interesting 'debate' technique, mostly revolving round telling people they are ignorant, and claiming unfailingly that your sources are superior to theirs.

---

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp July 30, 1816. (Pretty good source, eh?)

The term "ignorance" merely means "the lack of knowledge or education." Describing someone as "ignorant" is ambiguous and leaves that which they are ignorant of to interpretation. I attach no other meaning to the term in addition to its optimally objective definition.

A common misconception of profiling is that it can be used effectively to target people based on appearance. With profiling, the only effective targeting method is all or nothing and that's not saying much.

quote:

---

krets said: Whether you believe it or not, race is most definitely a predictor of the likelihood that someone will commit a terrorist act.

---

That's simply not true. Criminalization is a societal process. If a society discriminates people based on appearance, then people of that appearance will assume behaviors appropriate for adaptation to that discrimination. Terrorism can neither be accurately measured nor prevented by discrimination based on the color of skin.

_____________
Disclaimer. All opinions by metahuman use objectively defined terms. Use Princeton University's WordNet if you are uncertain of the actual meaning. Have a nice day!