Should we racially profile people?

[FaceFalling]

My history teacher brought this up in class one day, and I thought it would be a good discussion topic. So the question is should we racially profile people?

A good example is the shoe bomber attack that happened a little while back, as you know the bomb did not go off, but if it had do you think it could have been stopped if we had profiled them and searched them more than usual?



Should we, or should we not and why.

[Magnate]

Yes, I believe in certain areas (e.g. airports and/or other high traffic locations), racial profiling should be involved.

[justinkiller]

I seen on the news the other day that a mexican killed a girl near where i live, are all mexicans murderers? NO! Racial profiling is wrong and targets a certain group of people based on where they come from. I know many middle easterners, and many that also serve in the u.s. Military. So why should they be treated as if they are terrorists?

[Magnate]

Originally Posted by justinkiller

I seen on the news the other day that a mexican killed a girl near where i live, are all mexicans murderers? NO! Racial profiling is wrong and targets a certain group of people based on where they come from. I know many middle easterners, and many that also serve in the u.s. Military. So why should they be treated as if they are terrorists?

Stereotypes don't form for no reason.

[justinkiller]

Im speaking strictly for america, the government can not racially profile people.

strip search everyone problem sovled.

race has no issue, imho, it boils down are were they are coming from, and it just so happens to be mostly of that same kind of people.

people will always make a big dig out of race just to start a uproar.

[blazinfasstt]

Originally Posted by justinkiller

Im speaking strictly for america, the government can not racially profile people.

yes they can

they do it with drug dealers all the time
they do it as well with east indian people at airports and at borders.

it does unfairly punish some ppl of that race, but it is just reasonable damage control.

if you know that some race is more likely to do something illegal, than it just makes sense to search them more often than others who have been seen to be less likely to commit those crimes.

[T V]

It also has a lot to do with who the terrorist of time are. Of course today we're more inclined to racially profile Middle Eastern foreigners, but 70 years ago, you're suspects would have had blonde hair and blue eyes.

[blazinfasstt]

Originally Posted by T V

It also has a lot to do with who the terrorist of time are. Of course today we're more inclined to racially profile Middle Eastern foreigners, but 70 years ago, you're suspects would have had blonde hair and blue eyes.

most german people are not blonde with blue eyes

i think you mean to say their suspects were japanese, hence the japanese internment camps

[justinkiller]

Originally Posted by blazinfasstt

yes they can

they do it with drug dealers all the time
they do it as well with east indian people at airports and at borders.

it does unfairly punish some ppl of that race, but it is just reasonable damage control.

if you know that some race is more likely to do something illegal, than it just makes sense to search them more often than others who have been seen to be less likely to commit those crimes.

The government does not tell the security at the airport to look out for middle easterners. That is up to the individual security guard. Sure, they could have prejudices and stop every single one, but that is the security guard acting on his or her own free will. Not the government issuing a law saying every Indian has to be checked before boarding an airplane.

[blazinfasstt]

Originally Posted by justinkiller

The government does not tell the security at the airport to look out for middle easterners. That is up to the individual security guard. Sure, they could have prejudices and stop every single one, but that is the security guard acting on his or her own free will. Not the government issuing a law saying every Indian has to be checked before boarding an airplane.

"The Patriot Act used terrorism and national security as an excuse to make it legal to target Muslim communities.

Since the attacks of 9/11, the word terrorist has been associated with Muslim, and the Patriot Act was made to stop “terrorists” from harming the US. Because of the Patriot Act, “Arabs, Arab Americans and Muslims were disproportionately subjected to a myriad of abuses including secret evidence, denial of due process, indefinite detentions, airline profiling, illegal wiretapping and surveillance."[29] The FBI and INS have arrested more than a thousand noncitizens which mostly happened to be Arab and/or Muslim even though they had no reason to arrest them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling#Legality

[justinkiller]

Originally Posted by blazinfasstt

"The Patriot Act used terrorism and national security as an excuse to make it legal to target Muslim communities.

Since the attacks of 9/11, the word terrorist has been associated with Muslim, and the Patriot Act was made to stop “terrorists” from harming the US. Because of the Patriot Act, “Arabs, Arab Americans and Muslims were disproportionately subjected to a myriad of abuses including secret evidence, denial of due process, indefinite detentions, airline profiling, illegal wiretapping and surveillance."[29] The FBI and INS have arrested more than a thousand noncitizens which mostly happened to be Arab and/or Muslim even though they had no reason to arrest them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_profiling#Legality

Does the patriot act say that only Muslims or Arabs can be targeted? NO. Anyone the government feels is a credible threat to our country can be targeted, anyone. You have zero proof, and will never be able to show proof, that the government racially profiles people.

Hell, just think of all the stereotypes about African Americans, then look at our president.

[blazinfasstt]

Originally Posted by justinkiller

Does the patriot act say that only Muslims or Arabs can be targeted? NO. Anyone the government feels is a credible threat to our country can be targeted, anyone. You have zero proof, and will never be able to show proof, that the government racially profiles people.

Hell, just think of all the stereotypes about African Americans, then look at our president.

well, seeing as no proof they use racial profiling will ever be able to be shown, you win all the arguments

seriously,
"The Patriot Act used terrorism and national security as an excuse to make it legal to target Muslim communities."

there is a lot of evidence of this out htere, but i dont think any amount would be good enough for you.

as for stereotypes against black people, they are still have deep roots in americas structure.

i rly dont konw what having a black president has to do with stereotypes against black people?

[justinkiller]

Originally Posted by blazinfasstt

well, seeing as no proof they use racial profiling will ever be able to be shown, you win all the arguments

seriously,
"The Patriot Act used terrorism and national security as an excuse to make it legal to target Muslim communities."

there is a lot of evidence of this out htere, but i dont think any amount would be good enough for you.

as for stereotypes against black people, they are still have deep roots in americas structure.

i rly dont konw what having a black president has to do with stereotypes against black people?

You know Wikipedia is a piss poor place to gather info from right?
The government does NOT racially profile people. That is up to a specific person to do. If you went to the store and one employee was sitting there eating food from the shelve, does that mean the store told him to? No. And do not say my analogies don't compare, because they do.

[blazinfasstt]

Originally Posted by justinkiller

You know Wikipedia is a piss poor place to gather info from right?
The government does NOT racially profile people. That is up to a specific person to do. If you went to the store and one employee was sitting there eating food from the shelve, does that mean the store told him to? No. And do not say my analogies don't compare, because they do.

"If you went to the store and one employee was sitting there eating food from the shelve, does that mean the store told him to? No."

i literally lol'd


thanks for the laugh

but... the analogies do not compare well.
they do not compare well because profiling is something that actually makes their search more efficient, rather than something that is purely negligent.





i am too lazy to dig out examples of institutionalized profiling, but wiki is an alright source for internet arguments.

im not going to spend 30 mins researching to put my findings in front of someone with an incredibly ethnocentric view who would most likely dismiss them for no good reason anyway



PS:
i love how you tell me not to say it doesnt compare, like you knew ur analogy was weak.
it reminds me of when people say: "now dont call me racist for saying this, but"
you just know something contradictory is going to come out

[T V]

Originally Posted by blazinfasstt

most german people are not blonde with blue eyes

i think you mean to say their suspects were japanese, hence the japanese internment camps

yet, you instantly assumed I was talking about Germans. See what I mean?

[The Riddler_ *BANNED*]

No, because racial profiling is going off on race alone. Your race does not make you what you are. I am black, I do not want to be followed by the cops, because they believe I am a risk because of my skin color. It is irrelevant to my actions.

I don't care about the results. Check the diaper bomber. He was black, he would not have been "randomly checked" to make sure he has bombs because you SHOULD NOT associate arabs with terrorism.

Originally Posted by justinkiller

The government does NOT racially profile people. That is up to a specific person to do. If you went to the store and one employee was sitting there eating food from the shelve, does that mean the store told him to? No. And do not say my analogies don't compare, because they do.

It does mean that the store condones it, if they do not have any actions against it. It is a bad analogy.

[Divine_God]

No, we shouldn't but this isn't a perfect world.


Clearly if someone can't speak English and they are of Latino decent ( in this case Mexican ) then I can see the Arizona laws being plausible. ( The law in which a police officer has the right to ask for documentation. Also, a side note, this IS a federal law that wasn't being enforced beforehand. )

Morally correct? No, Logically? Yes.

[lame123]

I think subconciously we do. It wrong obv but where all human.

[JohnK]

it's more efficient to concentrate our time on a certain group of people who are statistically more likely to offend. as others have already said, not exactly the most moral thing but more logical.