Mass shooting New Zealand Mosque - MOD NOTE POST #1

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe it is nonsensical because that is not what I said or implied In one breath you declare it nonsensical and then in the next breath describe a position no one actually mentioned. Wow.

To clarify, your last paragraph in the post I quoted was nonsensical. And Mr Harris did try and justify his position in his addendum.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again showing you did not _actually_ read the essay as he at no point suggested selecting "Muslim looking people". He said "anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim". And he multiple times said he very much includes _himself_ in that group! He then later in the same essay described what he does _not_ mean by it and guess what - he specifically contradicts what you claim here! See Addendum 1 specifically.

You are taking exception to his position by inventing one of your own and attacking that. Why all the straw?


Also showing you did not read it. His position on what he calls "anti profiling" is based on _reducing_ the inpact on innocent people.

That's not anti-profiling, it's just casting a wider net. Saying "don't search the old white people" is not better than saying "search the Muslims".

Deleted User wrote: »

Further he is not actually advocating anything extra or out of the ordinary. His position is on what we are doing _already_ and how we focus our time when doing it. The majority of the work the TSA do is invading the lives of innocent people. All he is advocating is that since we are doing that anyway - lets do it intelligently.



Also what "right" is it you specifically thing is being "invaded" here? We are all subject to searches and questioning - or the potential for both - when we choose to travel through airport security. No "right" here is being contravened at all. You're hyperbole is showing.

The right to be free from unwarranted search. Once you remove the random aspect of the searches they become illegal. That's why they have to be random.

suicide_circus

batgoat wrote: »

I think much of the reason that certain people are uncomfortable with coverage is that hateful views of a spree shooter overlap with the hateful views of others. Eg plenty of those outraged in the thread are fans of the likes of Tommy Robinson.

what i'm wondering is how one man's actions are supposed to trigger some sort of ethno flaggilation amongst the pale faces with ominous warnings of the rise of white nationalism but any suggestion that the followers of mohammed need to tackle extremism in their own house following any of the atrocities committed in their name is met with accusations of islamophobia.

do you honestly not see an imbalance there?

MrFresh

MrFresh wrote: »

To clarify, your last paragraph in the post I quoted was nonsensical. And Mr Harris did try and justify his position in his addendum.

So should we sit here shouting "non sensical" at each other all day or do you actually want to explain what yuo think is problematic in my post.

The former is easy to do. 4 year olds can do it. The latter - you ain't done yet kiddo.

MrFresh wrote: »

That's not anti-profiling, it's just casting a wider net. Saying "don't search the old white people" is not better than saying "search the Muslims".

What it is saying is that if you have a large group of people - and you can not search them all - only a proportion of them - then you should choose who to search somewhat intelligently.

I asked - but you ignored - why is that in any way actually controversial? It only seemingly becomes controversial after you have imported the bits you made up yourself and he never actually said.

MrFresh wrote: »

The right to be free from unwarranted search. Once you remove the random aspect of the searches they become illegal. That's why they have to be random.

Can you cite the relevant laws and rights to which you refer here? Are you talking international rights and laws here? Or some specific law or right in one specific jurisdiction? You are not at all attempting to be clear to what you are referring here.

Manic Moran

Boggles wrote: »

Like has all ready been stated, no legislation has been made public yet, what has been is a vague order to prevent the stock piling of weapons which as I all ready explained is a very sensible thing to do. The PM also stated in her address that the new laws will only be the start of overall gun reform for the country.

I would think it is reasonable to presume that whatever final legislation is passed it will generally be tailored to achieve the aims announced by the PM, would it not? They are perfectly welcome to take a longer, more analysed review and assessment of how to reform their firearms laws, but that wasn’t the extent of what she said when she got up to the podium. She made in less than a week a specific announcement about a certain subcategory of firearm under NZ law. I can’t comment on the larger reform, it hasn’t been announced. I can comment on the stated policy and desired emdstate with regard to MSSAs.

So any comparison with any other State or country is far too premature, I would suggest though, NZ would have it's own fire arm experts who would have technical knowledge at least on par with people the on internet all ready claiming the new (unpublished) laws are doomed to fail.

I would similarly presume that California has folks who know one end of a firearm from the other. California has been attempting to prohibit the lawful ownership of weapons similar to the AR-15 since 1989, they have not managed it yet, and the verbiage used in California legislation (detachable magazines, pistol grips, more than X many rounds etc) is virtually identical to the NZ government’s stated guidelines. I doubt NZ’s firearms experts are any better than American ones.

As for the comparison where you live, California is not a clutch of very remote islands in the South Pacific, it borders several other states, one been Arizona which is widely seen as having the loosest gun laws in the country.

That would be illegal. I’m referring to going into the local California purveyor of fine firearms and legally buying an AR-15 type weapon despite the repeated attempts by the legislature to prohibit people from doing so. The PM of NZ has announced to great fanfare guidelines for legislation which basically match with those already in force for lawful California firearms shops and shooters. I expect the NZ shops to offer for sale rifles which generally match those lawful in California as a result. They may be ugly as hell, but they’re the same rifle, legal, and easily modified to illegal configuration as has been done now in a couple of spree shootings.

Boggles

Manic Moran wrote: »

I would think it is reasonable to presume that whatever final legislation is passed it will generally be tailored to achieve the aims announced by the PM

I think it would be far more reasonable to see the actual legislation before writing it off.

As she said herself in the same press conference.

These aren’t simple areas of law. So that’s simply what we’ll be taking the time to get right

Again, sensible.

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

So should we sit here shouting "non sensical" at each other all day or do you actually want to explain what yuo think is problematic in my post.

The former is easy to do. 4 year olds can do it. The latter - you ain't done yet kiddo.

And if 20% of terrorism comes from Muslims - or 90% then their efforts at profiling should reflect that in kind.

How do you apply that to searching people in an airport when you are searching for more that just terrorists? What formula are you using?

Deleted User wrote: »

What it is saying is that if you have a large group of people - and you can not search them all - only a proportion of them - then you should choose who to search somewhat intelligently.

I asked - but you ignored - why is that in any way actually controversial? It only seemingly becomes controversial after you have imported the bits you made up yourself and he never actually said.

He specifically spoke of the pointlessness of searching an elderly couple in front of him. It's controversial because it ranks people's trustworthiness based on things like race, nationality and religion. It just does it from the other end of the spectrum.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you cite the relevant laws and rights to which you refer here? Are you talking international rights and laws here? Or some specific law or right in one specific jurisdiction? You are not at all attempting to be clear to what you are referring here.

Most jurisdictions have their own version of the right against unwarranted search or seizure. Powers to search are legislated. Reasonable grounds or probable cause has to be focused on the individual. In cases where there is no reasonable grounds or probable cause there are three approaches that can be taken. Search everybody, search nobody or search randomly. Once you introduce an element of choosing somebody based on a protected status, in Ireland there are nine, you are acting illegally.

MrFresh

MrFresh wrote: »

How do you apply that to searching people in an airport when you are searching for more that just terrorists? What formula are you using?

I have no formula. Because it is not my job to do that. I am talking about the theory behind the type of things that should be included in forming such a formula. As was he. What the end result of that process might actually be is the work of people on higher pay grades than me and - I suspect strongly - you too.

MrFresh wrote: »

He specifically spoke of the pointlessness of searching an elderly couple in front of him. It's controversial because it ranks people's trustworthiness based on things like race, nationality and religion. It just does it from the other end of the spectrum.

Now who is being non-sensical? And rather than just shout "Nonsensical" at you and run away like you did - I am going to say why. You said in the first breath "elderly couple" and then in the next breath "things like race, nationality and religion". Nothing about "elderly couple" is contained in "things like race, nationality and religion".

But it is only controversial because _you_ are saying it is. What is actually controversial about any of that? If 80% of incidents are caused in the name of a specific religion - then why exactly is it controversial that our efforts in security reflect that? You might not personally like that - but your preferences do not make a controversy.

MrFresh wrote: »

Most jurisdictions have their own version of the right against unwarranted search or seizure. Powers to search are legislated.

So you did not despite my request cite anything at all did you? I will round it down. I live in Ireland. Sam Harris lives in the US. Please cite for me the specific rights you are referring to from those jurisdictions and the specific laws you feel are being broken by such a proposal.

Further many of the laws about "unwarranted search or seizure" refer to being in public or the privacy of your own home. So be careful the laws you cite - assuming you do actually get around to citing any at all which I am doubting at this stage - are relevant to the context.

It is kinda like when people on boards.ie moan about "Free speech" when they get banned or censured by the moderators. Free speech laws exist. They simply do not apply to the context of a privately run platform like boards.ie and no law or right is actually contravened in terms of free speech when someone here is banned or has their posts infracted or deleted.

Similarly in the specific context of airport security - laws of "unwarranted search or seizure" in completely different contexts are not actually relevant at all.

So cite away - lets see what you got exactly. This is not a gotcha or anything. I genuinely do not know what laws and rights exist in legislation and constitution that is actually relevant in those jurisdictions. Which law percisely would it be breaking and how, and which "right" exactly. And what is the justification for having whatever law or right it is? Because I think the opposite - that if a private company is allowing the public onto their airplanes they should absolutely have the right to perform security as they deem warranted.

Finally though you have to note that what Sam Harris offered up was a proposal on a system we could build. So citing the current system and laws is not likely to rebut his point. You would be then only rebutting a proposed change to law by merely stating what the current law is. Which is kinda stating the blatantly damn obvious is it not? If I started a thread on changing the law to allow medically assisted dying for example - it would be a pointless excercise in nonsense to roll in and say "but thats currently against the law!!!!!"

Billy86

suicide_circus wrote: »

what i'm wondering is how one man's actions are supposed to trigger some sort of ethno flaggilation amongst the pale faces with ominous warnings of the rise of white nationalism but any suggestion that the followers of mohammed need to tackle extremism in their own house following any of the atrocities committed in their name is met with accusations of islamophobia.

do you honestly not see an imbalance there?

I pretty much agree here, asking all white people to apologise or feel guilt for what this a*sehole did is every bit as stupid as the many, many times we hear AH regulars complaining about Muslims not organising "not in my name" type marches against terrorism (despite the fact that many of them do).

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

I have no formula. Because it is not my job to do that. I am talking about the theory behind the type of things that should be included in forming such a formula. As was he. What the end result of that process might actually be is the work of people on higher pay grades than me and - I suspect strongly - you too.

There is no formula. It doesn't exist and it can't exist because there is no correlation between the number of terrorists that are Muslim and the number of Muslims that use airports.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now who is being non-sensical? And rather than just shout "Nonsensical" at you and run away like you did - I am going to say why. You said in the first breath "elderly couple" and then in the next breath "things like race, nationality and religion". Nothing about "elderly couple" is contained in "things like race, nationality and religion".

First of all, age is also a protected status. Second, Mr Harris brought in race and nationality when he referred to the person in the queue with him as someone who "could have played the villain in a Bollywood film".

Deleted User wrote: »

But it is only controversial because _you_ are saying it is. What is actually controversial about any of that? If 80% of incidents are caused in the name of a specific religion - then why exactly is it controversial that our efforts in security reflect that? You might not personally like that - but your preferences do not make a controversy.

No, I'm not the only one who sees it as controversial. Profiling is widely condemned. It's just more commonly associated with race. But the same
principle applies.

Deleted User wrote: »

So you did not despite my request cite anything at all did you? I will round it down. I live in Ireland. Sam Harris lives in the US. Please cite for me the specific rights you are referring to from those jurisdictions and the specific laws you feel are being broken by such a proposal.

Further many of the laws about "unwarranted search or seizure" refer to being in public or the privacy of your own home. So be careful the laws you cite - assuming you do actually get around to citing any at all which I am doubting at this stage - are relevant to the context.



It is kinda like when people on boards.ie moan about "Free speech" when they get banned or censured by the moderators. Free speech laws exist. They simply do not apply to the context of a privately run platform like boards.ie and no law or right is actually contravened in terms of free speech when someone here is banned or has their posts infracted or deleted.

Similarly in the specific context of airport security - laws of "unwarranted search or seizure" in completely different contexts are not actually relevant at all.

So cite away - lets see what you got exactly.

In Ireland the Equal Status Acts prohibit discrimination based on nine grounds, including religion. In the US it's the Fourth Amendment. The most relevant SC case to Harris's proposal is probably U.S. v Brignoni where a man was arrested for looking Mexican. Both the Eqaul Status Acts and the Fourth Amendment would apply to airport staff.

Deleted User wrote: »

Finally though you have to note that what Sam Harris offered up was a proposal on a system we could build. So citing the current system and laws is not likely to rebut his point. You would be then only rebutting a proposed change to law by merely stating what the current law is. Which is kinda stating the blatantly damn obvious is it not? If I started a thread on changing the law to allow medically assisted dying for example - it would be a pointless excercise in nonsense to roll in and say "but thats currently against the law!!!!!"

First of all, the laws in question exist for a reason. That reason is so that people don't get punished for being different. And despite Harris's insistence he would be burdened by the law because someone might think he could be Muslim, it's much more likely he wouldn't. So it's no surprise he sees it as logical.


Secondly, I've already said that profiling doesn't work. There simply is no logical correlation between the statistics and the procedure. If I told you that 80% of bank robbers are black would you think it's logical to stop and search every black person who goes into a bank? It's the same principle as above. But all you'd really be doing is inconveniencing people of a certain race and leaving a gap in security for a white bank robber.


To add to that, when you focus on racial profiling you do so at the expense of behavior profiling, a much more effective tool.

MrFresh

MrFresh wrote: »

There is no formula. It doesn't exist and it can't exist because there is no correlation between the number of terrorists that are Muslim and the number of Muslims that use airports.

Depends what you mean when you say it can or can not exist. No perfect formula is ever going to exist. But that does not mean formulas do not and that some are going to be more successful than others. Saying none exist is quite the assertion and as expected, one you do not move to evidence in any way. Here is a formula "Search only people under 5 years of age". Here is another "Search only people between 30 and 50 years of age". You think both of those formula will have equal results in the long run? If you do - hello fantasy land. If you do not - then my point holds. Formula exist and some are going to be more effective than others. Now our goal is to find out what factors to use when finding out which. And if the majority % of your incidents come from source X than a formula acknowledging and acting on that has more potential than one who does not. If 99% of incidents are caused by men then a formula targeting 99% women is not going to be helpful - now is it?

MrFresh wrote: »

First of all, age is also a protected status. Second, Mr Harris brought in race and nationality when he referred to the person in the queue with him as someone who "could have played the villain in a Bollywood film".

Again with the cherry quoting. His entire position is one that is not race dependent and never was. And he clarified that even further in the addendum which you did not bother to read. He very clearly distinguished between race and creed and said if you are targeting Muslims you do not target dark skin. You target anyone who could potentially be one - including him himself a white American male.

So the only one actually making his position based on race is you. He certainly never did. He in fact did the exact opposite.

MrFresh wrote: »

No, I'm not the only one who sees it as controversial. Profiling is widely condemned. It's just more commonly associated with race. But the same principle applies.

I never said you are the only one now did I? Again with your straw. When I say "you" here I mean you and people like you for whom it is only controversial because "reasons". In that you merely declare it to be a problem without actually telling us how or why - even when asked multiple times.

MrFresh wrote: »

In Ireland the Equal Status Acts prohibit discrimination based on nine grounds, including religion. In the US it's the Fourth Amendment. The most relevant SC case to Harris's proposal is probably U.S. v Brignoni where a man was arrested for looking Mexican. Both the Eqaul Status Acts and the Fourth Amendment would apply to airport staff.

That is quite the "would". Does it? Just like Free Speech laws do not actually apply to a private context like boards.ie - have you any actual legal arguments showing the things cited are relevant and applicable? As expected - and I said it before you even did it - you cited an arrest in a completely different context entirely. Arresting someone in public for merely looking Mexican and choosing to search someone in an airport based on a religious criteria are entirely different issues and entirely different contexts.

MrFresh wrote: »

First of all, the laws in question exist for a reason. That reason is so that people don't get punished for being different.

But no one is being "punished" here. And the "exist for a reason" argument is a nonstarter. It is an appeal to the status quo. When homosexuality was on the DSM for example and people like me questioned why - the response "Well it is on there for a reason" begged the question. If we have these laws and wish to keep them then lets explore why rather than merely declare they must for "reasons".

I understand why we have such laws in the context of the general public sphere. I amnot seeing a single argument for them in the context of airport security. Nor am I buying your narrative that being selected for a search - a search we all consent to the possibility of by choosing to fly - is a "punishment". Again your hyperbole is showing.

MrFresh wrote: »

And despite Harris's insistence he would be burdened by the law because someone might think he could be Muslim, it's much more likely he wouldn't. So it's no surprise he sees it as logical.

So your rebuttal of his proposal is to describe a situation different to his proposal - and to attack that instead? Not exactly an honest move from you but certainly fitting with the fork fulls of straw you have been hoisting so far on the thread. If you want to discuss his proposal and position lets do that. If you want to imagine scenarios that do not fit his proposal and discuss them instead - youre on your own.

MrFresh wrote: »

Secondly, I've already said that profiling doesn't work. There simply is no logical correlation between the statistics and the procedure. If I told you that 80% of bank robbers are black would you think it's logical to stop and search every black person who goes into a bank?

No I would not. But that is not what I or Harris are suggesting. So your analogy is a rampantly dishonest one. To make the analogy actually honest and relevant imagine you had a bank - you put me in charge of security - and you said to me "I want you to keep my bank as safe as possible but as it is not plausible to search every person who comes in here as it would cause a huge back up in queues and dealing with customers I will allow you to only stop and search 30% of them - then I would find it reasonably that 80% of the 30% I did search would be black in the light of your hypothetical statistic. If you told me further than in the entire history of the bank not a single woman over the age of 70 ever caused a single problem - you would likely find that close to 0% of my 30% would be women over the age of 70.

That would actually be an honest analogy here rather than the one you threw out.

MrFresh wrote: »

To add to that, when you focus on racial profiling you do so at the expense of behavior profiling, a much more effective tool.

Again showing you did not read Harris' essay - the evidence for which is really mounting at this stage. As he directly rebutted that assertion too. And an assertion it is. No one - except you - has suggested focusing on any method to the mutual exclusion of any other. Combine them and use them all. Direct quote from the essay you ignored reading "There is no conflict between what I have written here and “behavioral profiling” or other forms of threat detection."

Again however "Racial profiling" is your phrase not mine or harris'. You keep making it about race while the people you are pretending to rebut never did. Harris essay which you have not bothered to ever read is a defense of the concept of profiling itself - specifically a form he calls anti profiling. That the profiling should focus on race is an attribute _You_ are bringing to the table where he never did.

Does it give you no pause whatsoever to notice that every issue you appear to have with his position is one only you brought to the table and he never did? Where do you find the straw in such quantities I wonder to myself.

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

Depends what you mean when you say it can or can not exist. No perfect formula is ever going to exist. But that does not mean formulas do not and that some are going to be more successful than others. Saying none exist is quite the assertion and as expected, one you do not move to evidence in any way. Here is a formula "Search only people under 5 years of age". Here is another "Search only people between 30 and 50 years of age". You think both of those formula will have equal results in the long run? If you do - hello fantasy land. If you do not - then my point holds. Formula exist and some are going to be more effective than others. Now our goal is to find out what factors to use when finding out which. And if the majority % of your incidents come from source X than a formula acknowledging and acting on that has more potential than one who does not. If 99% of incidents are caused by men then a formula targeting 99% women is not going to be helpful - now is it?

Those aren't formulas, they are parameters. What i said was, there is no formula to link the statistic of the proportion of terrorist incidents committed by Muslims to the proportion of Muslims that should be searched in airports. If it was logical then such a formula would exist.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again with the cherry quoting. His entire position is one that is not race dependent and never was. And he clarified that even further in the addendum which you did not bother to read. He very clearly distinguished between race and creed and said if you are targeting Muslims you do not target dark skin. You target anyone who could potentially be one - including him himself a white American male.

So the only one actually making his position based on race is you. He certainly never did. He in fact did the exact opposite.

But race and nationality would play a part because a Muslim person is more likely to be from the Middle East. It would affect those from that area of the world more. The term "anyone who could potentially be Muslim" is basically everyone. If that's what he meant then it wouldn't be profiling would he but we know that's not what he meant because the title of his article tells us he is advocating profiling. We also know by his description of the elderly couple and the "Bollywood villain" what kind of profiling he actually meant.

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said you are the only one now did I? Again with your straw. When I say "you" here I mean you and people like you for whom it is only controversial because "reasons". In that you merely declare it to be a problem without actually telling us how or why - even when asked multiple times.

If you'd meant that you wouldn't have highlighted the word "you" would you? In any event it doesn't matter, it's considered controversial because it discriminates. Simple as that really.

Deleted User wrote: »

That is quite the "would". Does it? Just like Free Speech laws do not actually apply to a private context like boards.ie

That's what you call a strawman. An argument I never made being used against me.

Deleted User wrote: »

- have you any actual legal arguments showing the things cited are relevant and applicable? As expected - and I said it before you even did it - you cited an arrest in a completely different context entirely. Arresting someone in public for merely looking Mexican and choosing to search someone in an airport based on a religious criteria are entirely different issues and entirely different contexts.

Are you arguing that the TSA doesn't fall under the remit if the Fourth Amendment or that Dublin Airport doesn't have to comply with the Equal Status Act? Both public and private companies must comply with the Equal Status Act. That's stated int he legislation. And the U.S. stuff is covered by U.S. vs Davis where it was ruled that they do fall under the remit of the Fourth Amendment because the searches are for the basis of enforcing regulation.

Deleted User wrote: »

But no one is being "punished" here. And the "exist for a reason" argument is a nonstarter. It is an appeal to the status quo. When homosexuality was on the DSM for example and people like me questioned why - the response "Well it is on there for a reason" begged the question. If we have these laws and wish to keep them then lets explore why rather than merely declare they must for "reasons".

Because it makes life harder for people who have done nothing to deserve it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I understand why we have such laws in the context of the general public sphere. I amnot seeing a single argument for them in the context of airport security.

Why wouldn't it? Why is it suddenly right in the airport when it is wrong everywhere else?

Deleted User wrote: »

Nor am I buying your narrative that being selected for a search - a search we all consent to the possibility of by choosing to fly - is a "punishment".

That doesn't surprise me.

Deleted User wrote: »

So your rebuttal of his proposal is to describe a situation different to his proposal - and to attack that instead? Not exactly an honest move from you but certainly fitting with the fork fulls of straw you have been hoisting so far on the thread. If you want to discuss his proposal and position lets do that. If you want to imagine scenarios that do not fit his proposal and discuss them instead - youre on your own.

Considering he left his proposal purposely vague I think it's reasonable to infer it from the rest of his article. Such is the benefit of having read it.

Deleted User wrote: »

No I would not. But that is not what I or Harris are suggesting. So your analogy is a rampantly dishonest one. To make the analogy actually honest and relevant imagine you had a bank - you put me in charge of security - and you said to me "I want you to keep my bank as safe as possible but as it is not plausible to search every person who comes in here as it would cause a huge back up in queues and dealing with customers I will allow you to only stop and search 30% of them - then I would find it reasonably that 80% of the 30% I did search would be black in the light of your hypothetical statistic. If you told me further than in the entire history of the bank not a single woman over the age of 70 ever caused a single problem - you would likely find that close to 0% of my 30% would be women over the age of 70.

That would actually be an honest analogy here rather than the one you threw out.

And it would still be a completely ineffective and illegal search policy.

Deleted User wrote: »

Again showing you did not read Harris' essay - the evidence for which is really mounting at this stage. As he directly rebutted that assertion too. And an assertion it is. No one - except you - has suggested focusing on any method to the mutual exclusion of any other. Combine them and use them all. Direct quote from the essay you ignored reading "There is no conflict between what I have written here and “behavioral profiling” or other forms of threat detection."

Again however "Racial profiling" is your phrase not mine or harris'. You keep making it about race while the people you are pretending to rebut never did. Harris essay which you have not bothered to ever read is a defense of the concept of profiling itself - specifically a form he calls anti profiling. That the profiling should focus on race is an attribute _You_ are bringing to the table where he never did.

Does it give you no pause whatsoever to notice that every issue you appear to have with his position is one only you brought to the table and he never did? Where do you find the straw in such quantities I wonder to myself.

Saying I didn't read it doesn't make it so. But seeing as you consider yourself to have such greater knowledge than me on his "essay", can you elaborate what his actual policy would be?

BBFAN

Anyone else tired of the multi-quote war?????

MrFresh

BBFAN wrote: »

Anyone else tired of the multi-quote war?????

Yes

Wibbs

BBFAN wrote: »

Anyone else tired of the multi-quote war?????

kowloon

DS86DS wrote: »

Liberals will look for any excuse to ban the right to bear arms and self defence. After all, it was a man with a gun that stopped the shooter, not a non-armed person. But that won't stop Liberals attempting to confiscate guns and impede people's right to defend themselves.

Most people who know me would consider me quite liberal and I collect guns. People being polarised/pushed into one camp or another and then digging in a large part of the problem.

Boggles wrote: »

I think you trying to add equivalency to a book written nearly 100 years ago by one of the greatest mass murders in history, an actual leader of a country who's actions redefined a planet, a very "unique" individual and "story" with some cowardly simpleton copycat who spunked out 16 pages of nonsense in MS Word is bizarre.

I'm pretty sure history will remember this guy, we just don't know. Regardless, controlling the record controls the history and I don't think governments should be involved in that.

batgoat wrote: »

Also profiling would tend to increase the likelihood of them being susceptible to radicalisation. Applies to doing it against any group.

I think that's a valid concern, people who look safe have been used in the past where it was recognised they would arouse less suspicion, I recall there being a suicide bomber in a wheelchair a good while back.

suicide_circus

Billy86 wrote: »

I pretty much agree here, asking all white people to apologise or feel guilt for what this a*sehole did is every bit as stupid as the many, many times we hear AH regulars complaining about Muslims not organising "not in my name" type marches against terrorism (despite the fact that many of them do).

that comparison would work if people of western extraction born in or guests of Muslim majority countries had committed or planned hundreds if not thousands of murderous attacks on their neighbours in the name of western values.

MrFresh

I will compress this down due to the complaints of multi quoting we are getting. But your fails here come in four main categories so I will address them in order by responding to your post as follows and get your 11 sections, some of them pointless 1 liners, down to about 5 in my reply:

1) The idea of a slection criteria formula at all.
2) The idea race is the issue here.
3) The idea that some law is broken or some right infringed by doing this.
4) The idea that you are rebutting a proposed change in the law by merely stating what you think the law is now.

MrFresh wrote: »

Those aren't formulas, they are parameters.

Now that is just linguistic pedantry at it's finest there. The point is clear and you can not dodge it by pedantry. The point being that there are different mechanics by which you can make these selections and that each one is going to have a different success rate. That is basically the core point Harris' entire essay is about.

If the majority of your problems come from men - then clearly a mechanic selecting women and children will be a fail. If the majority of your problems are coming from people who are muslim - then similarly a mechanic selecting Christians and Atheists will not do the deed.

MrFresh wrote: »

But race and nationality would play a part because a Muslim person is more likely to be from the Middle East.

Then you are proposing a solution different to the one Harris did and attacking that instead. Not for the first time either with your bales of straw. The fact is however what he proposed was an algorithm that ignores skin color and focuses on the likelyhood you are in the group being selected for. So he would be much much higher on the list for example than a little old lady from texas.

Your entire issue with his position is based on making up a position of your own - different to his - and taking issue with it instead. The only mention of race in his essay comes when he discusses why race is _not_ part of his position. Which you would know had you bothered to even read it.

You ask what his policy would be? Once again I ask you to actually go read the article that you time and time again have shown you have not bothered to actually read. I think his policy is pretty clear which is that he would A) Compile all the statistics on what groups are mostly causing troubles on our airplanes and then Construct a semi-random selection criteria with weightings built into it to skew towards those most likely to be part of those identified groupings - but with random elements to also occasionally hit people outside them (which is why for example in your bank example I said approaching 0% and not exactly 0% when I mentioned little old ladies over 70).

And what the quote you started this conversation means - the one you cherry picked out of context or likely had fed to you from another source who did so - is that if the result of that procedure means we are mostly profiling Muslims we should not be embarrassed about that or shy away from it.

MrFresh wrote: »

Are you arguing that the TSA doesn't fall under the remit if the Fourth Amendment or that Dublin Airport doesn't have to comply with the Equal Status Act?

I am not saying they do not - I am asking you to evidence your assertions that they do. Which you have not done - referring only to someone arrested for looking Mexican. You have offered not a single citation - precedent - or anything to support the notion.

What you stupidly called a strawman was actually an analogy so I will repeat it here. There are free speech laws. But a private company like boards.ie is not breach such laws if it bans you or de-platforms you from this site. That is because there is a difference between public sphere and a platform offered by a company. And despite the number of banned users screaming about their free speech being impinged upon - it simply has not been.

Similarly discrimination laws in the public sphere designed to stop a cop walking up and arresting someone for nothing other than appearing to be mexican are a completely different context to a group of people who submit to the possibility of being searched when they choose to fly with an airlne. And as such the onus of evidence lies on _you_ not me to show that this entirely different context still maintains the laws and a selection criteria used in deciding who to search in that context would be breaking such a law.

This you have not yet done.

MrFresh wrote: »

Because it makes life harder for people who have done nothing to deserve it.

Which is what most airport security is doing most of the time anyway so nothing in the proposal is changing that. How many people stopped in airport security are actually planning any wrong doing whatsoever? We are _all_ having our lives made "harder" (lets face it, its minute really) due to the little hoops we have to jump through to simply get on a plain and none of us have done anything to deserve that.

So stop trotting this nonsense out like you think you are making a point. Any algorithm used in this context is mostly going to inconvenience the innocent. All people like myself and Harris are saying is that in the face of that reality - at least let us create a selection criteria that has a rational and informed basis behind it.

And this seems to be the only approach you can take to the proposal - to moan that it contravenes current law. Well duuuhhhh it is a proposal to _change_ the current law and procedures - so of course it is going to contravene current law and procedures - otherwise why bother proposing to change it???

So you lack any arguments against the proposed change of the current laws and procedures, so the best you can do is moan that it is a change to the current laws and procedures. Funny stuff.

MrFresh wrote: »

Saying I didn't read it doesn't make it so.

Exactly! Just like you shouting "nonsensical" and running away did not make it so. Which is why I did not just say it. I pointed out examples and evidence showing you didn't - such as when you say something that was already directly dealt with in that text. Which is the difference so far between us! It is not me merely claiming you have not bothered to read it - but me pointing out things you have openly said which strongly indicate you have not. And there is quite a few of those at this point. I can compile them together if required.

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

that comparison would work if people of western extraction born in or guests of Muslim majority countries had committed or planned hundreds if not thousands of murderous attacks on their neighbours in the name of western values.

Oh more than a few Muslims have been killed in their own countries because of "Western Values", they weren't exactly guests all the time though. How many examples do you need?

suicide_circus

Boggles wrote: »

Oh more than a few Muslims have been killed in their own countries because of "Western Values", they weren't exactly guests all the time though. How many examples do you need?

i wont defend western action in the Muslim world. Their dictators should be left in situ.

suicide_circus

And i would say Dick Cheney's policies came about despite western values, not because of western values.

Boggles

suicide_circus wrote: »

i wont defend western action in the Muslim world. Their dictators should be left in situ.

Dictators / Friends of the West. It's hard to keep up.







Either way you got the comparison you called for. Maybe mull it over a bit.

suicide_circus

Ah yes, all problems in the Muslim world originate in the West. Thats convenient.

Billy86

suicide_circus wrote: »

that comparison would work if people of western extraction born in or guests of Muslim majority countries had committed or planned hundreds if not thousands of murderous attacks on their neighbours in the name of western values.

Erm, that is exactly what has been happening there for decades? I'm tempted to raise Boggles' Dick Cheney by an Erik Prince, who may not have the sheer numbers but has some incredible atrocities behind him, in the name of 'western values' and literally views himself as a solider in a holy war (sound familiar?).

Actually you could throw in Obama while we're at it, and not just go for white people but all westerners. The drone strikes only went up under him, and though AH collectively seemed to stop caring about drone strikes the moment Obama left office, they have only got worse again under Trump whose campaign worked very closely with Erik Prince (and who in turn named Prince's sister, also a hardline fundamentalist, as secretary of education), and whose campaign was about how he would "bomb the sh*t" out of the middle east and wipe out whole families if any of them had terrorist involvement (think for a moment how that would have gone over in 1970s Ireland).

People of western extraction are not only already doing what you said, and have not only been doing so for decades, but the public keeps on voting in people who will continue to do so. It's very likely that Trump's opponent would also have continued on with these killings which stretch far, far beyond "hundreds if not thousands".

I would be absolutely certain that across Islamic websites/forums/social media etc, the exact same conversation is being had in reverse. Right now there are both more hardline anti-westerners and even pro-Islamist extremists using this attack as a recruitment tool. And I would be absolutely certain that when others try to point out to them that the killer here does not represent all westerners by any means, they are asking how come we are not marching in our thousands up and down the western world (and why westerners also those living within Muslim parts of the world are not organising them there, either) to show this is "not in our name" and so on.

suicide_circus

would you say the defeat of isis in syria and iraq is to be welcomed? and if so, how was it achieved?

Billy86

suicide_circus wrote: »

would you say the defeat of isis in syria and iraq is to be welcomed? and if so, how was it achieved?

You're aware that you are talking about the defeat of the group that rose from a power vacuum caused by the spreading of 'western values'?

MrFresh

Deleted User wrote: »

Now that is just linguistic pedantry at it's finest there. The point is clear and you can not dodge it by pedantry. The point being that there are different mechanics by which you can make these selections and that each one is going to have a different success rate. That is basically the core point Harris' entire essay is about.

If the majority of your problems come from men - then clearly a mechanic selecting women and children will be a fail. If the majority of your problems are coming from people who are muslim - then similarly a mechanic selecting Christians and Atheists will not do the deed.

It's not linguistic pedantry. I'm trying to explain to you the lack of a link between the statistics you highlight and selection criteria for searches. There's no logical link between the two. That's why profiling in the way you are suggesting doesn't work.

Deleted User wrote: »

Then you are proposing a solution different to the one Harris did and attacking that instead. Not for the first time either with your bales of straw. The fact is however what he proposed was an algorithm that ignores skin color and focuses on the likelyhood you are in the group being selected for. So he would be much much higher on the list for example than a little old lady from texas.

Your entire issue with his position is based on making up a position of your own - different to his - and taking issue with it instead. The only mention of race in his essay comes when he discusses why race is _not_ part of his position. Which you would know had you bothered to even read it.

You ask what his policy would be? Once again I ask you to actually go read the article that you time and time again have shown you have not bothered to actually read. I think his policy is pretty clear which is that he would A) Compile all the statistics on what groups are mostly causing troubles on our airplanes and then Construct a semi-random selection criteria with weightings built into it to skew towards those most likely to be part of those identified groupings - but with random elements to also occasionally hit people outside them (which is why for example in your bank example I said approaching 0% and not exactly 0% when I mentioned little old ladies over 70).

And what the quote you started this conversation means - the one you cherry picked out of context or likely had fed to you from another source who did so - is that if the result of that procedure means we are mostly profiling Muslims we should not be embarrassed about that or shy away from it.

You can keep trying to avoid it but a selection process for people who might possibly be Muslim will disproportionately effect dark skinned males more than anyone. You can't have it both ways. You are simultaneously arguing that targeting Muslims is ok and that your selection process is not targeting Muslims.

Deleted User wrote: »

I am not saying they do not - I am asking you to evidence your assertions that they do. Which you have not done - referring only to someone arrested for looking Mexican. You have offered not a single citation - precedent - or anything to support the notion.

What you stupidly called a strawman was actually an analogy so I will repeat it here. There are free speech laws. But a private company like boards.ie is not breach such laws if it bans you or de-platforms you from this site. That is because there is a difference between public sphere and a platform offered by a company. And despite the number of banned users screaming about their free speech being impinged upon - it simply has not been.

Similarly discrimination laws in the public sphere designed to stop a cop walking up and arresting someone for nothing other than appearing to be mexican are a completely different context to a group of people who submit to the possibility of being searched when they choose to fly with an airlne. And as such the onus of evidence lies on _you_ not me to show that this entirely different context still maintains the laws and a selection criteria used in deciding who to search in that context would be breaking such a law.

This you have not yet done.

I've given you relevant constitution reference and case precedent from the US and legislation from Ireland. Airport security fall under the remit of anti discrimination law in both.

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is what most airport security is doing most of the time anyway so nothing in the proposal is changing that. How many people stopped in airport security are actually planning any wrong doing whatsoever? We are _all_ having our lives made "harder" (lets face it, its minute really) due to the little hoops we have to jump through to simply get on a plain and none of us have done anything to deserve that.

So stop trotting this nonsense out like you think you are making a point. Any algorithm used in this context is mostly going to inconvenience the innocent. All people like myself and Harris are saying is that in the face of that reality - at least let us create a selection criteria that has a rational and informed basis behind it.

And this seems to be the only approach you can take to the proposal - to moan that it contravenes current law. Well duuuhhhh it is a proposal to _change_ the current law and procedures - so of course it is going to contravene current law and procedures - otherwise why bother proposing to change it???

So you lack any arguments against the proposed change of the current laws and procedures, so the best you can do is moan that it is a change to the current laws and procedures. Funny stuff.

A law which makes life harder for people of a particular type, be it because of their religion, race nationality, gender or any of the other criteria that is considered protected status, is an unfair law because it make life harder for people who fall within that class and effectively ranks them as deserving of less freedom. I can't believe I'm having to explain to someone why discrimination is a bad thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly! Just like you shouting "nonsensical" and running away did not make it so. Which is why I did not just say it. I pointed out examples and evidence showing you didn't - such as when you say something that was already directly dealt with in that text. Which is the difference so far between us! It is not me merely claiming you have not bothered to read it - but me pointing out things you have openly said which strongly indicate you have not. And there is quite a few of those at this point. I can compile them together if required.

You think because I don't agree with or accept something he has said or agree your understanding of what he meant I have not read it. You are simply trying to change his original argument, much like he did in his addendum.

suicide_circus

Billy86 wrote: »

You're aware that you are talking about the defeat of the group that rose from a power vacuum caused by the spreading of 'western values'?

you think that was the exclusive cause of isis? nothing to do with ideology? as i said, the western powers have hopefully now learned that dictators need to be left in situ and that democracy is not for everyone. also, i say again, these mistakes were made despite of western values, not because of them

Billy86

suicide_circus wrote: »

you think that was the exclusive cause of isis? nothing to do with ideology? as i said, the western powers have hopefully now learned that dictators need to be left in situ and that democracy is not for everyone. also, i say again, these mistakes were made despite of western values, not because of them

How prominent were ISIS in 2002?

Baggly

Mod

Would anyone care to return to discussing New Zealand?

Tl;Dr get back on topic.

suicide_circus

Billy86 wrote: »

How prominent were ISIS in 2002?

wiki tells me their origins go back to Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad in 1999.

no one would deny they filled the vaccum left my Saddam being deposed but this was a long time in the making.