• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Student accused of being a terrorist for reading book on terrorism"

celticwar17 said:
Yes, yes you are.
Click to expand...

I'm going to stop you here. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Profiling is looking at a person and using NOTHING but their physical characteristics determining what they are capable of. It's not determining a person's skin color. That's why I'm so amused at all of the people who've partaken in this thread and claimed so by bringing out absurd examples that don't even begin to have relevance to this thread.
 
joG said:
I live in a country, where it is not legally possible to discuss the Third Reich, as it is forbidden to formulate certain positions and nearly impossible even to read Mein Kampf. And you are right. It is stupid and democratic bankruptcy to forbid persons taking any position they want and read everything. How is someone to understand the degree of horror, if they have not read the book written by the person that the voters of one of the then well educated populations in the world made their leader. They could all see, what the man had in his head and wanted to do and what level of education and type of emotion was expressed in it. How do you want to discuss things of importance, when the factual knowledge is not there?
Click to expand...

And you do know who put that law into place right?
 
Hatuey said:
I'm going to stop you here. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Profiling is looking at a person and using NOTHING but their physical characteristics determining what they are capable of. It's not determining a person's skin color. That's why I'm so amused at all of the people who've partaken in this thread and claimed so by bringing out absurd examples that don't even begin to have relevance to this thread.
Click to expand...

Ill call out when someone is wrong... You are wrong in this instance... no matter how certain you are, you are still assuming based on looks...

Are these people black?images (1).jpgdownload (1).jpg

No... they are actually not black...the girl is Aborigine(people who are actually more closely related to white people than black people)

The other guy is Phillipeano, Negrito ethnicity (50k+ years removed from africa... way older than even the last ice age...)
 
fmw said:
I guess this indicates that terrorism is beginning to achieve its goals. When we start fearing a student with a book we are in trouble.
Click to expand...
Only a brownish colored student with a middle eastern name.
 
celticwar17 said:
Ill call out when someone is wrong.
Click to expand...

You really should stop pretending that saying somebody is black because they are is profiling. It simply is not. It's what you attribute to their physical characteristics which is profiling. I'm absolutely laughing watching you completely get the meaning of the word wrong.
 
celticwar17 said:
Wow....

AT NO POINT.... did I say RACIAL profiling....
Click to expand...

OK, remove "racial" every place it appears. What you're left with is "profiling" using race or religion as the key clue and nothing I said changes.

And it has nothing to do with your definition:

The recording and analysis of a person's psychological and behavioral characteristics, so as to assess or predict their capabilities in a certain sphere or to assist in identifying a particular subgroup of people.
Click to expand...

If you assume that a person's race or religion identifies psychological and behavioral characteristics (in this context - terrorist) by identifying their race or religion, you're engaged in some kind of racial or religious profiling.

Not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. For example, from what I've read the Israelis are excellent profilers but they don't do it by race or religion - they are trained to ask questions, look at itineraries, luggage, actual behavior at the gate or wherever and use BEHAVIOR to identify threats. That's not what is being discussed here - "she's a nun..." "he's black" "Muslim" - making assumptions about someone based only on those physical or religious characteristics does not meet your definition.
 
JasperL said:
OK, remove "racial" every place it appears. What you're left with is "profiling" using race or religion as the key clue and nothing I said changes.

And it has nothing to do with your definition:



If you assume that a person's race or religion identifies psychological and behavioral characteristics (in this context - terrorist) by identifying their race or religion, you're engaged in some kind of racial or religious profiling.

Not sure what distinction you're trying to make here. For example, from what I've read the Israelis are excellent profilers but they don't do it by race or religion - they are trained to ask questions, look at itineraries, luggage, actual behavior at the gate or wherever and use BEHAVIOR to identify threats. That's not what is being discussed here - "she's a nun..." "he's black" "Muslim" - making assumptions about someone based only on those physical or religious characteristics does not meet your definition.
Click to expand...

Neither MaggieD nor celticwar1 seem to get it. They think that saying "Oh man, that's a cop." is profiling. NO it isn't! Profiling would be assuming that because somebody is a cop, they are necessarily/most likely/likely to be corrupt. It is creating a relationship between the qualities in question and capabilities which makes profiling. Which is why I reject the nonsense that simply stating that somebody is X makes it profiling. I'm not sure they're making this argument so that racial profiling can be justified, or whether they're doing it out of ignorance. However, in either case it's a REALLY stupid argument to make.
 
The way that the State treats children is one of the best signs of the general level of freedom and liberty of that State.

Years ago we wouldn't dream of arresting children for crimes, and now not only are they often tried as adults, they are being arrested for absurdity.

Things are getting out of control fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom