Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jorgelito · 12-16-2004, 12:13 PM

I agree with Lebell here: I've been following this thread trying to find a place to add something constructive.

Everyone male interesting points and such, but we are fast deteriorating in to a mudslinging contest.

Maybe we should "reset" and start over with arguments supported by facts, and theories etc to parse here in a civil debate.

I will attempt here:

*************************************************************

Oddly, I find a bit of logic and (sort of agree) with the contention by Lebell and others that statistically, if more Muslims/Arabs commit an act of terrorism, then extra scrutiny should be given to them.
Thus, since statistically blacks commit more crimes then they should also be scrutinized as well as white collar criminals so on and so forth. But somehow, something just doesn't feel right with this type of logic. I can't really pinpoint it. IT seems too simple. If statistically many American athletes are using steroids, should all American athletes be banned from competetion, or more accurately, tested more strenuously?

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to make sense to "pat down" grandma given the limited resources (time & money) we are willing as a society to devote to "security".

So then it maybe becomes a matter of prioritization and resource management.

Because we as a people or whatever do not think of white collar crime as being important or a priority, therefore we are not willing to spend the necessary resources to fight it. Nor do we really care about the steroids issue (otherwise we would of done something about it already, like boycott baseball etc.).

But, national security (terrorism) for whatever reason, media or government induced, right or wrong, IS a priority.

Therefore, we are more prone to scrutinize the elements involved in this issue. But because we are still too cheap to pay more in taxes to or devote more spending (we want more security but don't want to pay for it) to security, corners must be cut, and priorities made.

Thus, instead of screening everyone, we check those deemed statisticlally more likely to commit terrorism. But, statistics can be flawed or manipulated too. People's tolerance fluctuate with perception. People are willing to stand in line for 3+ hours without complaint because they "feel safer". Would they tolerate 5 hours, ten hours plus $100 tacked onto plane ticket for "security" costs? What would it cost to be "fair and equal" in nondiscriminatory measures?

Same with terrorism. Statistcally less likely than say tax evasion or famine or drug-related deaths.

What would happen if we had to take off our clothes instead of just shoes? (an extreme example I know, but just trying to illustrate).

From a historical perspective, terrorism has been around for years, millenia even. We only started to really care about it after 9/11 to any significant measure. Compare and contrast Israel and the US in security policy. Their airlines (El AL) are deemed the safest due to the meticulous measure they take but would seem rather extreme or invasive by our standards. We are lax by comparison, but Israelis are more tolerant and accepting of those measures.

In terms of actual security, I think it is more dangerous to drive than to fly still so maybe we are too worked up over "nothing"? If the next attack occurs by car or bus, do we stop and search all car and busses at every stop light?

More people die each year of smoking related causes. My neighbor smokes. Terrorist? He's causing a bunch of us to die slowly.... or is he? But nevertheless, more dangerous, lethal and likely statistiaclly to cause harm than terrorism.

Remember the phenomenon of "scares"? When Colombine happened, we were hysterical over school shootings and the like. But gradually it settled down and statistically, less likely to happen.

Everyone demanded more school security, metal detectors. People blamed parents, parents blamed teachers, everyone blamed guns. The ACLU fanatics claimed infringement of civil rights because of searches and stuff. But gradually it all settled down. We don't hear about it much anymore beause "terrorism" is much more exciting and sexy and headline grabbing.

Maybe we're all "victims" or suckers of "fear-mongering"? I don't think terrorism is to be dismissed or taken lightly, but rather maybe we should think it out more thoroughly and act rationally as opposed to re-act hastily with no planning or endgame in sight.

What do you guys think?

12-16-2004, 12:13 PM	#84 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	I agree with Lebell here: I've been following this thread trying to find a place to add something constructive. Everyone male interesting points and such, but we are fast deteriorating in to a mudslinging contest. Maybe we should "reset" and start over with arguments supported by facts, and theories etc to parse here in a civil debate. I will attempt here: *********************************************************** Oddly, I find a bit of logic and (sort of agree) with the contention by Lebell and others that statistically, if more Muslims/Arabs commit an act of terrorism, then extra scrutiny should be given to them. Thus, since statistically blacks commit more crimes then they should also be scrutinized as well as white collar criminals so on and so forth. But somehow, something just doesn't feel right with this type of logic. I can't really pinpoint it. IT seems too simple. If statistically many American athletes are using steroids, should all American athletes be banned from competetion, or more accurately, tested more strenuously? On the other hand, it doesn't seem to make sense to "pat down" grandma given the limited resources (time & money) we are willing as a society to devote to "security". So then it maybe becomes a matter of prioritization and resource management. Because we as a people or whatever do not think of white collar crime as being important or a priority, therefore we are not willing to spend the necessary resources to fight it. Nor do we really care about the steroids issue (otherwise we would of done something about it already, like boycott baseball etc.). But, national security (terrorism) for whatever reason, media or government induced, right or wrong, IS a priority. Therefore, we are more prone to scrutinize the elements involved in this issue. But because we are still too cheap to pay more in taxes to or devote more spending (we want more security but don't want to pay for it) to security, corners must be cut, and priorities** made. Thus, instead of screening everyone, we check those deemed statisticlally more likely to commit terrorism. But, statistics can be flawed or manipulated too. People's tolerance fluctuate with perception. People are willing to stand in line for 3+ hours without complaint because they "feel safer". Would they tolerate 5 hours, ten hours plus $100 tacked onto plane ticket for "security" costs? What would it cost to be "fair and equal" in nondiscriminatory measures? Same with terrorism. Statistcally less likely than say tax evasion or famine or drug-related deaths. What would happen if we had to take off our clothes instead of just shoes? (an extreme example I know, but just trying to illustrate). From a historical perspective, terrorism has been around for years, millenia even. We only started to really care about it after 9/11 to any significant measure. Compare and contrast Israel and the US in security policy. Their airlines (El AL) are deemed the safest due to the meticulous measure they take but would seem rather extreme or invasive by our standards. We are lax by comparison, but Israelis are more tolerant and accepting of those measures. In terms of actual security, I think it is more dangerous to drive than to fly still so maybe we are too worked up over "nothing"? If the next attack occurs by car or bus, do we stop and search all car and busses at every stop light? More people die each year of smoking related causes. My neighbor smokes. Terrorist? He's causing a bunch of us to die slowly.... or is he? But nevertheless, more dangerous, lethal and likely statistiaclly to cause harm than terrorism. Remember the phenomenon of "scares"? When Colombine happened, we were hysterical over school shootings and the like. But gradually it settled down and statistically, less likely to happen. Everyone demanded more school security, metal detectors. People blamed parents, parents blamed teachers, everyone blamed guns. The ACLU fanatics claimed infringement of civil rights because of searches and stuff. But gradually it all settled down. We don't hear about it much anymore beause "terrorism" is much more exciting and sexy and headline grabbing. Maybe we're all "victims" or suckers of "fear-mongering"? I don't think terrorism is to be dismissed or taken lightly, but rather maybe we should think it out more thoroughly and act rationally as opposed to re-act hastily with no planning or endgame in sight. What do you guys think?