Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

I think it's more likely that you're not a big enough target, but indeed, censoring people could help.

[RedKing]

Since we're on awesome random dichotomies, I'd just like to add that I'd rather be given a million dollars than see a nuclear bomb go off. How soon can we implement that?

Or to quote good ol' Jack Handey: "I'd rather be rich than stupid."

[Nadaka]

Not reading her her rights would constitute an error in practices, not a case of race hatred or maltreatment. I also do not know the normal procedures surrounding potential terrorists, they may want to avoid giving any information whatsoever until some things have been cleared up.

I have zero tolerance for law enforcement violating the law. The should be held to the strictest possible standards. Terrorist or no, people have rights that may not be infringed. Taking that away from America makes it less ideal and less noble.

America is "a nation of laws, not of men" - John Adams.

[Andir]

If I may be so free as to give you a tip to potentially improve your debate, that last sentence is essentially a flame bait. You're inviting people to blame you for something, which you're bound to take personal (no offence, many do). You might want to avoid those kinds of sentences in the future.

So noted.  Thank you!

why did you say, for instance:

Apparently it's perfectly fine for her to spout off whatever derogatory statements she wants to.

Which seems to imply you think what she said was wrong

She was wrong in calling them racially charged words.  I never said when was wrong in complaining about the incident.

, or

We don't know if someone reported her for having something that looks like Play-Doh or if they told the authorities that they were saying hateful things toward people.  If she held/showed contempt for those doing the questioning (doing their job...), you better believe they will continue.  We are reading one side of the story.  She could be leaving out whatever she wants.  "But I was perfectly innocent..."

which is clearly trying to discredit her.

Let me put it another way... we don't know all the details.  That's all that quote says.  It could have been one of a million scenarios, we only have hers.  It doesn't discredit her, it's human nature to tell a story to favor your innocence.  I see no discrediting in that, only a necessary condition of the article.

We don't have a tenth of the security measure the US have, and we are much more exposed to Muslims fanatics than them. Surprise!!! we don't have more terrorism than them. Actually, we have less, probably because we take "freedom of speech" differently.

We (the US) didn't have a tenth of the security that we have today... things have been going all wrong.

[Virex]

Not reading her her rights would constitute an error in practices, not a case of race hatred or maltreatment. I also do not know the normal procedures surrounding potential terrorists, they may want to avoid giving any information whatsoever until some things have been cleared up.

I have zero tolerance for law enforcement violating the law. The should be held to the strictest possible standards. Terrorist or no, people have rights that may not be infringed. Taking that away from America makes it less ideal and less noble.

America is "a nation of laws, not of men" - John Adams.

Then why not address that instead of hunting for possible traces of racism? Or is this something that non-Americans have trouble understanding? (Just asking, because to me this whole discussion feels like it's, to use a rather dangerous word just adter 9/11, rather overblown)

[Bauglir]

I did, quite frankly state at the beginning that I felt it was ironic that she was calling them rednecks and calling them out on racial profiling.  I didn't say, "Her argument is totally baseless," or anything of the likes.  People are reading that into the post and it's upsetting that I am the only one "called out" when I did the same previously.

You specifically linked your comment on her language to comments on the article that do make those claims. You can't call on them for backup one moment and denounce their conclusions the next, and act as though we're being irrational for assuming you agreed with posts you cited as supporting you. It reeks of baiting. Maybe not intentional; maybe just an oversight in forgetting to say, "Most of the same comments do go too far, but they have a valid point." That's a pretty reasonable, "Oops my bad" sort of thing.

Relevant quote:

From the comments, I'm not the only one pointing this out.

@Virex
"Planes blowing up" and "profiling, illegal detainment, and treatment that runs the gamut from inconvenience to human rights abuse" are not the only two options, nor are they mutually exclusive, nor do I think there's any meaningful connection between them that isn't purely rhetorical.

If you only follow the rules when they're convenient, they aren't rules. You can't claim the moral highground based on rules that aren't followed when it's easier to ignore them. If you're okay with admitting that the Bill of Rights applies only when the government wants it to and can be suspended on a whim, then that's at least consistent, I guess.

[Nadaka]

Not reading her her rights would constitute an error in practices, not a case of race hatred or maltreatment. I also do not know the normal procedures surrounding potential terrorists, they may want to avoid giving any information whatsoever until some things have been cleared up.

I have zero tolerance for law enforcement violating the law. The should be held to the strictest possible standards. Terrorist or no, people have rights that may not be infringed. Taking that away from America makes it less ideal and less noble.

America is "a nation of laws, not of men" - John Adams.

Then why not address that instead of hunting for possible traces of racism? Or is this something that non-Americans have trouble understanding?

This is precisely what I have addressed, I have not even commented at all on any race based issue of the article. But there at least three different topics of discussion concurrently going on from this article.

[Virex]

@Virex
"Planes blowing up" and "profiling, illegal detainment, and treatment that runs the gamut from inconvenience to human rights abuse" are not the only two options, nor are they mutually exclusive, nor do I think there's any meaningful connection between them that isn't purely rhetorical.

If you only follow the rules when they're convenient, they aren't rules. You can't claim the moral highground based on rules that aren't followed when it's easier to ignore them. If you're okay with admitting that the Bill of Rights applies only when the government wants it to and can be suspended on a whim, then that's at least consistent, I guess.

To be honest, I don't have a clue about how to deal with terrorism (and the idea that there are people out there that would drop a plane on me just because I don't pray to god 5 times a day freaks me out), so I'm just clutching on to the concept that if it has a decent chance of working, it has to be rather harmful (instead of just demeaning) to not be worth it. In the case of people that behave in  suspect way, you may have 50 cases of false alarm, but if you do catch someone before he can get to his destination (because he was planning on taking another plane after this one for example) you've prevented so much suffering and gained potentially valuable information that I consider this to be a valuable tool until someone can convince me it does more damage than it prevents. I'm not too keen on the way it's currently implemented, but unfortunately, objecting to that puts me in the same camp as those who would do away with it entirely, which I consider to be much more harmful.

Not reading her her rights would constitute an error in practices, not a case of race hatred or maltreatment. I also do not know the normal procedures surrounding potential terrorists, they may want to avoid giving any information whatsoever until some things have been cleared up.

I have zero tolerance for law enforcement violating the law. The should be held to the strictest possible standards. Terrorist or no, people have rights that may not be infringed. Taking that away from America makes it less ideal and less noble.

America is "a nation of laws, not of men" - John Adams.

Then why not address that instead of hunting for possible traces of racism? Or is this something that non-Americans have trouble understanding?

This is precisely what I have addressed, I have not even commented at all on any race based issue of the article. But there at least three different topics of discussion concurrently going on from this article.

That'll teach me not to lose track of who's saying what. Consider this an appology.

[RedKing]

We (the US) didn't have a tenth of the security that we have today... things have been going all wrong.

We don't have a tenth of the security that people think we do. Much of what you see is mostly to reassure the public, not necessarily have the greatest impact. Port security is still a joke, cargo/freight security is still a total crapshoot when it comes to nailing contraband/weapons, critical site physical security still has major gaps, border security is still pretty much Swiss cheese, and cyber-security honestly keeps me awake some nights, because if the shit's really gonna go down, that's going to be the attack vector.

But hey, airplanes are pretty safe now.

Mind you, I'm not saying we need to be Fortress America. I'm saying that Fortress America is an impossible goal, but it's one that's still politically (and for some, financially) advantageous to tout.



EDIT: @Virex, the problem with that is that it's counter to what is supposed to be the American ideal of justice: Presumption of innocence and the notion that it's better that 50 guilty men go free than one innocent man to suffer unjustly. Instead we've taken to adopting what we used to consider the "inferior" form of justice in which you round up everybody and punish them all, because at least you're likely to get some guilty ones in there. You know, the Royal version of justice that prompted us to write the Bill of Rights in the first place.

Meanwhile, we treat someone as a dangerous threat for having the temerity to be brown-skinned and on an airplane, but continue to treat major financial crimes as misdemeanors or even just as "poor business decisions". Maybe we need to get more Arabs in CEO positions, then they'll start cracking down. (And yes, I'm being a cynical ass.)

[Virex]

Yeah let's put more orthodox Arabs in high financial positions, that'll cut down the spending on debt interest significantly

EDIT: @Virex, the problem with that is that it's counter to what is supposed to be the American ideal of justice: Presumption of innocence and the notion that it's better than 50 guilty men go free than one innocent man to suffer unjustly. Instead we've taken to adopting what we used to consider the "inferior" form of justice in which you round up everybody and punish them all, because at least you're likely to get some guilty ones in there. You know, the Royal version of justice that prompted us to write the Bill of Rights in the first place.

I think the idea that everyone is innocent has, over the last decades, proven itself to have become completely unworkable, but then again, I'm a filthy communist European, so what do I know?

[Andir]

I did, quite frankly state at the beginning that I felt it was ironic that she was calling them rednecks and calling them out on racial profiling.  I didn't say, "Her argument is totally baseless," or anything of the likes.  People are reading that into the post and it's upsetting that I am the only one "called out" when I did the same previously.

You specifically linked your comment on her language to comments on the article that do make those claims. You can't call on them for backup one moment and denounce their conclusions the next, and act as though we're being irrational for assuming you agreed with posts you cited as supporting you. It reeks of baiting. Maybe not intentional; maybe just an oversight in forgetting to say, "Most of the same comments do go too far, but they have a valid point." That's a pretty reasonable, "Oops my bad" sort of thing.

Relevant quote:

From the comments, I'm not the only one pointing this out.

The comments point out that she has used racist and derogatory terms.  You are reading more into that simple sentence than that.  You are applying the thoughts and feelings of someone else to me.  I pointed out that others have noticed the language.  I did not say I agree with what they posted in total.

We (the US) didn't have a tenth of the security that we have today... things have been going all wrong.

We don't have a tenth of the security that people think we do.

Yeah, I was going to specifically use "Security Theater" but for some reason I incorrectly chose to exclude it from that post.

[GlyphGryph]

So, Virex, you believe discomfort, missed schedules, detainment of citizens, etc. and so on,no matter how lacking in effectiveness its been shown to be time and time again, are all okay as long we're really really scared? And that its okay to be dicks to people who may, possibly, maybe have done something wrong, even though its unlikely, until you're sure they didn't? And all because terrorists got managed one attack, almost solely because we weren't expecting it, that became pretty much impossible for them to manage again days after it happened when they decided to abandon the policy of letting hijackers have the plane without a fight and started locking the doors?

[Phmcw]

I think it's more likely that you're not a big enough target, but indeed, censoring people could help.

We (Europe as a whole) are a target as big as America, and not less worthy of hatred. But the thing is : most terrorism is domestic.
9/11 is a big, showy example of international terrorism, but wide majority of terrorist attack come from inside, and the cia, in a memo leaked by wikileak, does mention that US export more terrorists than it import.
Censorship is not very useful, penalising hate speech and denouncing bullshit, however, does help.
A society that tolerate creationists, burka, or racists is not healthy.

Edit : Any one else find it ironic that the war on terror is actually somthing like the circle jerk of terror, with millions of he most powerful nation on earth living in fear of a few nutjobs.

[Virex]

So, Virex, you believe discomfort, missed schedules, detainment of citizens, etc. and so on,no matter how lacking in effectiveness its been shown to be time and time again, are all okay as long we're really really scared? And that its okay to be dicks to people who may, possibly, maybe have done something wrong, even though its unlikely, until you're sure they didn't? And all because terrorists got managed one attack, almost solely because we weren't expecting it, that became pretty much impossible for them to manage again days after it happened when they decided to abandon the policy of letting hijackers have the plane without a fight and started locking the doors?

I don't know. Is it really that ineffective? Also, ignoring the feelings of the populace is something we've been doing for decades in the Netherlands and it has only bread a society in which Muslims, Jews and gays alike have to fear for their property. If people are scared, the government better fucking do something about it instead of telling people all will be all right and that they're delusional over and over.

I think it's more likely that you're not a big enough target, but indeed, censoring people could help.

We (Europe as a whole) are a target as big as America, and not less worthy of hatred. But the thing is : most terrorism is domestic.
9/11 is a big, showy example of international terrorism, but wide majority of terrorist attack come from inside, and the cia, in a memo leaked by wikileak, does mention that US export more terrorists than it import.
Censorship is not very useful, penalising hate speech and denouncing bullshit, however, does help.
A society that tolerate creationists, burka, or racists is not healthy.

If you're talking about Europe as a whole I'm counting 2 successful terrorist attacks, 3 prevented attacks and an assassination, against 1 successful attack and a shooting spree in the US. So much for our "superior" view on free speech.

[Bauglir]

The comments point out that she has used racist and derogatory terms.  You are reading more into that simple sentence than that.  You are applying the thoughts and feelings of someone else to me.  I pointed out that others have noticed the language.  I did not say I agree with what they posted in total.

Yes, I am applying the thoughts and feelings of others to you, because you invoked those thoughts as support for your own without reservation. Were I to say that animals are often mistreated in industrial environments, and judging from PETA, I'm not the only one who has noticed, it would be pretty reasonable for people to assume I agree with PETA's positions on industrial livestock in general, not merely that they are right that a problem exists. Unless I pointed out otherwise. Implications are a thing! Sometimes they're unintentional, and sometimes they're unjustifiably so on the part of the reader, not the author. But here, you've set up a sensible conclusion and then replied, "Well, I didn't say that."

From another approach, why is it relevant that commenters you otherwise disagree with are pointing out her language choices?