Quite a few of the regulations are silly, and do nothing to promote safety. I am sorry for your loss of cuticle scissors to this stupidity. Either those in charge of such things have no clue what they are doing, or they know they are doing many things that are irrelevant to actual safety, for some undisclosed motive. I don't know which possibility is more disturbing.
Nothing is perfect. But from the fact that some of the regulations are silly (if it is a fact) what follows. That we should have none? ...
Obviously not. What follows is that the regulations should be changed to come closer to actually doing what they are supposed to do. In this case, it is likely that that would mean eliminating or altering some of the current regulations, adding new regulations, and keeping some of the regulations as they are.
In the abstract, I have no problems with profiling per se, but in practice there is a great danger that it will be done in a prejudicial manner, which should be guarded against, both because it would be unjust, and because it would not serve the actual goal of making people safer. Or, to put this another way, if profiling is done properly, I have no problem with it, but I do have a problem with the slipshod way such things often get done in the real world. You may have noticed that I have not participated in this aspect of the discussion up to this point, as I presently have nothing terribly useful to say about the exact rules that should be in place regarding profiling.
Quite a few of the regulations are silly, and do nothing to promote safety. I am sorry for your loss of cuticle scissors to this stupidity. Either those in charge of such things have no clue what they are doing, or they know they are doing many things that are irrelevant to actual safety, for some undisclosed motive. I don't know which possibility is more disturbing.
A philosopher in Denmark commented that politicians sometimes make changes that they know will not help or they know will even hurt their cause, but they still make them in order to send out a signal. The case in Denmark was longer punishments for something, even though meta-studies reveal that longer punishments make people more criminal.
I imagine that everyone doesn't like any program run in a slipshod or prejudicial way. (Except maybe some of those who stand to gain by it). But there are some who are against profiling in principle, as I suppose you know. And, those people who are against profiling in principle, often cite as a reason Ben's Old Chestnut.
A philosopher in Denmark commented that politicians sometimes make changes that they know will not help or they know will even hurt their cause, but they still make them in order to send out a signal. The case in Denmark was longer punishments for something, even though meta-studies reveal that longer punishments make people more criminal.
If you are right, then the signal (whatever it was a signal of) was presumably judged to compensate for the fact that the longer punishments increase crime.
I suspect that most of the people who object to profiling "on principle" are really objecting to profiling as it has been done. There has been abuse of power, with profiling given as an excuse for some of it, and this naturally gets people to not like "profiling".
---------- Post added 01-07-2010 at 05:39 PM ----------
.
Kenneth,
To protect the west's supply of oil.
To show that we would not be trifled with.
To reverse the course of tyranny.
To defend democracy.
You are in my view wrapping yourself in the stars and stripes my friend. It is exactly this kind of view that is the cause of the very terrorism you are so afraid of. In sociology there is a term called ethnocentricism (believing that your own ethnicity is the only one which is right) and it is the kind of arrogance that has caused war the world over through all of history.
Saddam was not a nice guy, we all agree on that, but the invasion of Iraq has made the place more unstable than it ever was prior to his overthrow.
As for not caring what the people of Britain think, well, that just shows that you are perhaps the kind of self-interested, uninformed American that has, unfortunately, become a stereotype the world over. Remember my friend that the British people whose opinions you do not care about are your nations closest allies. You would do well to remember this.
As for "what is true", do the United States have a monopoly on this?
I am trying not to get involved in an "off the thread" argument and perhaps we should agree to differ on this one but, honestly Kenneth, no one has a monopoly on truth.
Kenneth,
I feel I must apologise for the rather personal nature of my last post. Unfortunately there are some subjects that bring out the worst in me and American foreign policy is one of them. However, I did not wish to make a personal slur on your integrity and if you feel offended in any way please accept my apologies. My basic argument still stands but I would like to say that I do not have a problem with you, the American people (who are amazingly friendly) or your country itself. I just don't trust your government (or mine for that matter).
We all have our personal biases and fears: yours seem to be Islamic Fundementalist terrorists and "lefties", mine are governments and large corporate interests. Perhaps we are both right and wrong. As I said before, no-one has a monoploy on truth. Hope we can still argue till the cows come home.
To protect the west's supply of oil.
To show that we would not be trifled with.
To reverse the course of tyranny.
To defend democracy.
You are in my view wrapping yourself in the stars and stripes my friend. It is exactly this kind of view that is the cause of the very terrorism you are so afraid of. In sociology there is a term called ethnocentricism (believing that your own ethnicity is the only one which is right) and it is the kind of arrogance that has caused war the world over through all of history.
Saddam was not a nice guy, we all agree on that, but the invasion of Iraq has made the place more unstable than it ever was prior to his overthrow.
As for not caring what the people of Britain think, well, that just shows that you are perhaps the kind of self-interested, uninformed American that has, unfortunately, become a stereotype the world over. Remember my friend that the British people whose opinions you do not care about are your nations closest allies. You would do well to remember this.
As for "what is true", do the United States have a monopoly on this?
I am trying not to get involved in an "off the thread" argument and perhaps we should agree to differ on this one but, honestly Kenneth, no one has a monopoly on truth.
Housby,
I am waiting for my wife to get through jabbering on the phone ...but in the mean time, you have given me some entertainment. For that I thank you.
This is a something that I have heard in many forms. There are absolute truths, lies, and things in between. Some people do have a "monopoly" on truth. Well, maybe not a monopoly...but there are some true statements. If others disagree with those true statements, then there statements are not true...or at least not as true...if that makes sense.
For example, lets assume that person A says that the world is round. Also assume that person B says that the world is flat (for mankind's sake I really hope that person B doesn't exist anymore). Either A or B is correct.
Since so many things are not black and white many people declare that there is no real truth because much of the time that is a true statement. But the truth is that there are absolute statements.
In the same vein, there are terrorists, there are freedom fighters, and there are many who are both.
As you've already said, the above statement came in part because American foreign policy brings out the worst in you. Everyone gets passionate sometimes...so I will disregard this post since it suffers from aggravation and strings of slanderous sentences that would grade on those that are unsure.
Welp, the wife's through yakking but I was wondering: since you said that you are critical of government and large beaurocratic entities, would you say that you dislike American liberalism? (I say American liberalism because I don't know if it is different than liberalism in England)
We have been informed that now everyone adores the Obama administration overseas.
I must allow that I was not so much surprised by Obama's getting the peace prize as I was astonished, and then amused.
Classical liberalism had a strong foothold in the British Whigs. At that time it referred to individual freedoms. Roosevelt was a democrat, however his emphasis in the group over the individual was not liberal in the classic sense. Thus liberalism changed from representing individual freedoms to those of the group and bigger beaurocratic organizations (ie. government). I'm currently looking more into this area, but it is interesting nontheless to point out that the Liberalist Union Party merged with the conservative party in 1912.
That is why I am so perplexed at those that subscribe to liberalism in America but at the same time say that they are pro individual freedoms! I too am for some government involvement but I am also for individual freedom. Thus I may agree to and argue more liberal ideas (some regulations) however I cannot get on board with liberalism in America since I know what it is really about.
As far as the peace prize...I gave up on that one when they gave it to Al Gore. Long are the days when someone such as Mother Teresa deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. Remember that Irena Sendler was passed up for the prize when it was awarded to Al Gore. Who was Irena Sendler? Sendler saved 2,500 Jewish children by smuggling them out of the Warsaw Ghetto in WWII, providing them false documents, and sheltering them in individual and group children's homes outside the Ghetto.
I have to admit a degree of ignorance on the American Liberalism front as I don't live there and am "uninformed" as to what exactly it may be. Liberalism in Britain takes 2 forms. Firstly there is the political liberalism of the Liberal Democrats. This a form of liberalism that I don't subscribe to. This would have us, for example, give all our political rights and powers over to the Euopean Union, a thing that fills most people in Britain with dread. The "liberals" in this country, politically, are weak and too "politically correct" to operate in the real world.
The other kind of liberalism is the one, generally, I would subscribe to. This is the kind of liberalism that allows for free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of lifestyle etc. This liberalism allows for individual
freedom in all things providing it doesn't harm others.
I would guess that this is the same in the US? In this sense I believe that we (Britain and the US) are not that far apart.
Cruise95,
Kenneth, you are absolutely right in saying that the person who blows up school buses is not a freedom fighter, they are quite simply murderers. Yes, we are right to fear them. Yes, we are right to fight them. But for goodness sake we must also understand where they are coming from. Sometimes people become so desperate that they will stop at nothing to get what they want. The Islamic Fundementalists know this. They recruit from the disaffected and angry. All terrorists do this. The way to stop terrorism is to remove that which they fight for. .
