Can't teach an old atheist new jokes.It's a joke about stereotyping. New Atheism - Wikipedia
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can't teach an old atheist new jokes.It's a joke about stereotyping. New Atheism - Wikipedia
Don't they all go through the same metal detector anyway?I recently read Sam Harris' article "In Defense of Profiling" in response to @epronovost 's criticism of Sam Harris' view on this. And I must conclude, that I support profiling at airports and other establishments in which security is a concern. This includes profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, geographical location of hometown, and any other variable that can be proven to be a statistical risk factor for a person to commit an act of harm against others. Profiling is a logical thing to do to ensure a secure society. But, for those who are skeptical, or are beginning to get angry at me for suggesting such a thing, I'd ask you to consider a simple scenario. There are many hypothetical examples I could give, but I'll choose an obvious one: Do an 18 year old white woman from Kansas and a 36 year old Persian man from Saudi Arabia have the same probability of committing an act of terrorism? We all know that the answer is an obvious NO, and statistics can prove that the 36 year old middle eastern man has a far higher probability of being a danger to others. So, if these two people have radically different probabilities of harming others, then what logical basis is there for subjecting them to the same standards of security screenings at airports? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is obvious to me that people who are statistically verified to have higher probabilities of harming others should be subject to stricter security checks at airports and other public establishments. This is just common sense. The strictness of security checks that people should have to undergo should be directly proportional to their statistically verified probability of harming others, taking ALL known demographic factors into account. This isn't an issue of racism, because race is only one of many factors that would be considered. I believe that it's in the best interest of society as a whole to create universally recognized standards for profiling based on statistical evidence, in order ensure the maximum protection for all of us.
For those who believe that it is "prejudiced" or "unfair" for people of certain demographic groups to have to undergo stricter security checks, I'd ask if you also think it is unfair that people with higher probabilities of being exposed to COVID-19 be subject to stricter masking and quarantine rules. It makes sense to quarantine people with high probabilities of having illness that could harm others. If it turns out that they did not have the illness, then while unfortunate that they had to undergo the temporary inconvenience, it was still the right thing to do to avoid allowing them to become a danger to others, since statistically they had a higher probability of harming others. In the same way, people with high-risk demographic characteristics can go through the inconvenience of a slightly longer security check. This is not "racism," or "prejudice," it's just common sense.
What are your thoughts? I have no doubt that this will be a highly controversial thread, but I hope that we can avoid allowing it to go off-topic.
No.What if surveillance wasn't reducing killings and suicides and might actually contribute to them, would you still be a big fan of it?
If the statistics indicate that white men are the greatest threat, then, yes, white men should undergo the strictest security checks. The argument remains the same.
Yes everyone should be treated the same way, that is the only answer. If you worry about terrorism I know of many white terrorists and yes of colored terrorists too. So everyone should be seen as one until they have been screened.Depends on how you define "prejudice" I suppose. Why should people with different probabilities of harming others based on their demographics undergo the same security checks? There is no logic to that. To use Harris' example, do you think it's fair for a 3 year old child or 90+ year olds in wheelchairs who are obviously not threats to be subject to the same level of security checks as young adult men?
What would a Persian man be doing in Saudi Arabia?
The innocent among the profiled group have nothing to fear and will have greater safety even for themselves.
Which lines would you select based on, and how do you account for the bias in selection criteria?
What are your thoughts? I have no doubt that this will be a highly controversial thread, but I hope that we can avoid allowing it to go off-topic.
I think Harris is right. Profiling, based on good data and good statistics is a good thing.I recently read Sam Harris' article "In Defense of Profiling" in response to @epronovost 's criticism of Sam Harris' view on this. And I must conclude, that I support profiling at airports and other establishments in which security is a concern. This includes profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, geographical location of hometown, and any other variable that can be proven to be a statistical risk factor for a person to commit an act of harm against others. Profiling is a logical thing to do to ensure a secure society. But, for those who are skeptical, or are beginning to get angry at me for suggesting such a thing, I'd ask you to consider a simple scenario. There are many hypothetical examples I could give, but I'll choose an obvious one: Do an 18 year old white woman from Kansas and a 36 year old Persian man from Saudi Arabia have the same probability of committing an act of terrorism? We all know that the answer is an obvious NO, and statistics can prove that the 36 year old middle eastern man has a far higher probability of being a danger to others. So, if these two people have radically different probabilities of harming others, then what logical basis is there for subjecting them to the same standards of security screenings at airports? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is obvious to me that people who are statistically verified to have higher probabilities of harming others should be subject to stricter security checks at airports and other public establishments. This is just common sense. The strictness of security checks that people should have to undergo should be directly proportional to their statistically verified probability of harming others, taking ALL known demographic factors into account. This isn't an issue of racism, because race is only one of many factors that would be considered. I believe that it's in the best interest of society as a whole to create universally recognized standards for profiling based on statistical evidence, in order ensure the maximum protection for all of us.
For those who believe that it is "prejudiced" or "unfair" for people of certain demographic groups to have to undergo stricter security checks, I'd ask if you also think it is unfair that people with higher probabilities of being exposed to COVID-19 be subject to stricter masking and quarantine rules. It makes sense to quarantine people with high probabilities of having illness that could harm others. If it turns out that they did not have the illness, then while unfortunate that they had to undergo the temporary inconvenience, it was still the right thing to do to avoid allowing them to become a danger to others, since statistically they had a higher probability of harming others. In the same way, people with high-risk demographic characteristics can go through the inconvenience of a slightly longer security check. This is not "racism," or "prejudice," it's just common sense.
What are your thoughts? I have no doubt that this will be a highly controversial thread, but I hope that we can avoid allowing it to go off-topic.
It begins to look like it.You don't "investigate" any group more than any other. You simply look at already available demographic data on crime and terrorism. And there are CLEARLY demographic differences. What causes them is beside the point.
What "we" call in Stats? I'm nearly finished with a Master's Degree in Statistics. Are you saying you have more statistical knowledge than I do?
Don't they all go through the same metal detector anyway?
Expert: US Needs to 'Profile' - Defense/Middle EastI recently read Sam Harris' article "In Defense of Profiling" in response to @epronovost 's criticism of Sam Harris' view on this. And I must conclude, that I support profiling at airports and other establishments in which security is a concern. This includes profiling based on race, ethnicity, religion, age, gender, geographical location of hometown, and any other variable that can be proven to be a statistical risk factor for a person to commit an act of harm against others. Profiling is a logical thing to do to ensure a secure society. But, for those who are skeptical, or are beginning to get angry at me for suggesting such a thing, I'd ask you to consider a simple scenario. There are many hypothetical examples I could give, but I'll choose an obvious one: Do an 18 year old white woman from Kansas and a 36 year old Persian man from Saudi Arabia have the same probability of committing an act of terrorism? We all know that the answer is an obvious NO, and statistics can prove that the 36 year old middle eastern man has a far higher probability of being a danger to others. So, if these two people have radically different probabilities of harming others, then what logical basis is there for subjecting them to the same standards of security screenings at airports? It makes no sense whatsoever. It is obvious to me that people who are statistically verified to have higher probabilities of harming others should be subject to stricter security checks at airports and other public establishments. This is just common sense. The strictness of security checks that people should have to undergo should be directly proportional to their statistically verified probability of harming others, taking ALL known demographic factors into account. This isn't an issue of racism, because race is only one of many factors that would be considered. I believe that it's in the best interest of society as a whole to create universally recognized standards for profiling based on statistical evidence, in order ensure the maximum protection for all of us.
For those who believe that it is "prejudiced" or "unfair" for people of certain demographic groups to have to undergo stricter security checks, I'd ask if you also think it is unfair that people with higher probabilities of being exposed to COVID-19 be subject to stricter masking and quarantine rules. It makes sense to quarantine people with high probabilities of having illness that could harm others. If it turns out that they did not have the illness, then while unfortunate that they had to undergo the temporary inconvenience, it was still the right thing to do to avoid allowing them to become a danger to others, since statistically they had a higher probability of harming others. In the same way, people with high-risk demographic characteristics can go through the inconvenience of a slightly longer security check. This is not "racism," or "prejudice," it's just common sense.
What are your thoughts? I have no doubt that this will be a highly controversial thread, but I hope that we can avoid allowing it to go off-topic.
Australia definitely profiles folk arriving (or did, not been for a few years).
When they tell you which customs line to go into there is some that are families and kids, businessmen, etc. then if you get sent to 'number 1' (can't remember the actual number) then it's all blacks/Africans, Taliban looking dudes, and old Chinese folk (who if TV is to be believed are all carrying suitcases full of penises harvested from endangered species).
I have repeatedly beenprofiled'randomly' assigned tothe problematic ethnics and other assorted miscreantscompletely normal queue number 1 for being a male, traveling on my own from SE Asia, on a ticket from a travel agent I didn't purchase myself but paid in cash.
The innocent among the profiled group have nothing to fear and will have greater safety even for themselves.
The criminality problem is because people of that group commit disproportionately more crimes. The good in those communities generally want stronger police protection.You are aware that when practiced by the police in the US it didn't reduced criminality in the targetted community, that innocents are often wrongfully arrested and sometime even condamned and that it alienates entire communities. For **** sake have people suddenly forgotten the lessons of the last 20 years in terms of global security and police work? Racial profiling is a catastrophic failure as is security theatre.
Yes I do honestly believe that. Belligerent attitudes involved and things can escalate in an ugly way. If one is polite and co-operative from the start problems are exceedingly rare.I think you honestly believe this.
Care to show your work on that assumption? I don't think this is obvious at all.Do an 18 year old white woman from Kansas and a 36 year old Persian man from Saudi Arabia have the same probability of committing an act of terrorism? We all know that the answer is an obvious NO, and statistics can prove that the 36 year old middle eastern man has a far higher probability of being a danger to others.