Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sob
Additional troll noted, then ignored.
|
Further inability to answer noted.
Quote:
Here's an example for you: If I were stocking a medical clinic in an impoverished area of the US, and most of the residents were black, I would normally stock it with more than the average amount of armamentarium to treat diabetes, since it is more prevalent among blacks.
However, by your reasoning, that would be "racist."
|
Ha, nice try but no. You won't corner me by getting me to admit that there are real biological differences between various groups of people that we understand as "races." I admit that freely. That's not racism.
Quote:
|
While I'm sure you're very proud of the plan you created above, what I'm suggesting is common sense, something lacking in your idea.
|
My plans were suggestions based on what I gathered from your posts above about what you mean by "common sense." Common sense is not a plan by the way, it's not something that can be taught or tested and apparantly from your inability to elucidate further it means nothing.
Quote:
If I saw an urban black kid in a health clinic, and he/she was complaining of fatigue and achey joints, I'd be likely to test for sickle-cell anemia.
If it were a white kid who lived in a rural area of Minnesota, I'd be likely to test for Lyme disease. But then again, I'm a racist.
|
Again these are real biological differences between different groups of people, this isn't racism. The problem comes when you start using racial signifyers to decide who is and isn't more likely to commit a crime. An example of this might be if someone says they're so certain that people from a particular asian country are harmless and non-threatening based on their race alone.
Quote:
|
No, that's a conclusion you jumped to. If you recall, I didn't post a comment on the lead article. Since you were embarrassed by the article, you attempted to get the thread locked, even though it has now generated 987 views in less than five days.
|
Was that the reason I gave for asking for the thread to be locked? Let's review. I said, "there is a policy against posting content without comment, mods please lock the thread" I posted that under the false assumption that there was a policy against posting articles without commenting on them. Although this is a
de facto policy that has resulted in the locking of many threads here, it is not a part of the rules (I believe this is what Rekna was implying as well). I actually hadn't read the article yet at that point. If I was only interested in locking threads I find disagreeable why did I praise the "masters of war" thread and then ask for it to be locked?
Quote:
|
In fact, my point is essentially the opposite of racial profiling. The ACLU, by injecting issues of race, is compromising the safety of air travel. Chief among their idiocies is that we must celebrate diversity by investigating prospective airline passengers with no consideration of the likelihood of their planning an attack.
|
Well you haven't yet elaborated on your ideas of "common sense" so it remains to be seen if it is racial profiling or not. The ACLU is only interested in keeping race from being the only factor for determining who is likely to be planning an attack.
Quote:
|
It would not take a mental giant of a terrorist to arrange for ten or twelve of his cohorts to be on the same flight. If he was really determined, he could bring along his own ACLU-endorsed attorney to protest loudly if anyone wanted to search more than two or three of his team.
|
The ACLU would have no interest in proactively creating instances of discrimination, this possibility exists only in your dreams. In any case an attorney, ACLU or not, would have no basis to challenge any search, only detainment. And even then only if the only criteria for that detainment was race. If racial profiling wasn't being used there could be no problem. The rule you're so upset about
does not exist as any DOT guideline. I thought I made that clear when I was thoroughly discrediting the allegations in the original article. But apparently you missed that so I'll post it again:
"
This isn't even the policy that you just quoted, nor is this policy to be found in any official DOT guideline. It seems to exist solely as a fabrication of right-wing "news" outlets. It is based on the testimony of one Michael Smerconish, an attorney and radio talk show host from Philadelphia who heard it from Southwest airlines executive Herb Kelleher who supposedly heard this in a discussion with Norm Mineta. So the allegations are hearsay. Hearsay is legal jargon refering to "Statements by a witness who did not see or hear the incident in question but heard about it from someone else. Hearsay is usually not admissible as evidence in court."
Why hasn't Herb Kelleher made these allegations himself? Is he afraid he might perjure himself in doing so?
Quote:
|
Undoubtedly based on your personal experience.
|
Indeed, that book made me radically rethink how I understand race. Twain had a more advanced sense of what race actually was than most people do today, and that was 125+ years ago.