Is your moral compass bent?

[beringc]

To continue the line of flawed logic that Ming the meaningless and his dope smoking buddy Irie have started, I hope we can get some issues straight.

It boils down to this:

Do we ignore the Federally mandated protected classes when we seek to uncover possible illegal activity (to include terrorism). Do we somehow loose our rights as Americans when we single out groups that are also in these "protected classes".

The PC answer is, of course, as "Americans" we are all equal and any discrimination is verboten (ref intended).

The reality answer is we must look at from a statistical viewpoint. If the majority of criminal activity is committed by people who belive in Barney the Dinosaur (put your cause in here), then it might make sense to give those folks, because of their affiliation, some extra scrutiny.

It seems like such a simple concept, but the two *experts* cant wrap their backward sloping skulls around it. Maybe the next step is a Venn diagram.
Don't worry though, figuring the change on a Latte is all done by the register anyway.

[Goju - Joe]

I agree I hate Barney the Fucking Dinosaur

He struck me as a pedophile

'I love you, you love me..." MY ASS!!!

Fucking purple dinosaur!!!

[BackFistMonkey]

Is your moral compass bent?

It tends to swing left tho

[battlefields]

You sounded intelligent until you used loose instead of lose.

[Conde Koma]

The reality answer is we must look at from a statistical viewpoint. If the majority of criminal activity is committed by people who belive in Barney the Dinosaur (put your cause in here), then it might make sense to give those folks, because of their affiliation, some extra scrutiny.

It sounds good in theory, but at what point does "extra scrutiny" translate into "oppressive behavior?" Let's say Barney-ists are responsible for the majority of criminal activity. Cops crack down on the Barney-ists, which also causes Barney-ist communities to have decreased property value and educational opportunities. This, in turn, causes an increase in Barney-ist criminals. It becomes a vicious cycle, further justified by those who turn around and point, "See? We were right all along, Barney-ists are no good!"

[Robstafarian]

To continue the line of flawed logic that Ming the meaningless and his dope smoking buddy Irie have started, I hope we can get some issues straight.

Speaking of flawed logic, your assumption that I smoke dope is weakly founded and could be construed as an attempt to poison the well.

Your post doesn't continue the arguments made by Ming, nor my arguments, so what exactly do you mean by "to continue?"

It boils down to this:

Do we ignore the Federally mandated protected classes when we seek to uncover possible illegal activity (to include terrorism). Do we somehow loose our rights as Americans when we single out groups that are also in these "protected classes".

Before I answer your questions—which didn't end with question marks—I'm going to point out that your framing of the argument with "what it boils down to" appears to be an attempt to steer the discussion away from your earlier writing which seemed to be a display of either bigotry or foolishness, such as:

1. http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...3&postcount=36
2. http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...3&postcount=50
3. http://www.bullshido.net/forums/show...2&postcount=55

With that out of the way, I must now ask you to explain exactly what you mean by "protected classes." I can't answer your question with any specificity until you've done this. Your use of these questions to further your argument is an example of the logical fallacy known as "begging the question," since the questions assume that there are such things as "Federally mandated protected classes." I will answer your questions in general terms, however, provided that the first instance of "Do we" was meant to be written as "Should we."

My answer to your first question is that Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure should remain in force at all times. As such, the "protected class" is the American citizenry, and no citizen should be the subject of investigation without cause.

My answer to your second question, assuming you meant to say "lose," is that all Americans lose their rights when one American's rights have been violated.

The PC answer is, of course, as "Americans" we are all equal and any discrimination is verboten (ref intended).

You lost your own thread in the very first post! See: Godwin's Law

Your use of "PC" (apparently meaning "politically correct") and "bleeding heart liberal" to decry justified positions is troubling. What you describe as "PC" is actually the law of the land. Therefore, any other activity is illegal.

The reality answer is we must look at from a statistical viewpoint. If the majority of criminal activity is committed by people who belive in Barney the Dinosaur (put your cause in here), then it might make sense to give those folks, because of their affiliation, some extra scrutiny.

This is a logical fallacy, specifically a fallacy of composition, and your posts which were listed above show that your argument uses it as the basis of much stronger statements than what is quoted above. So, whereas I agree with what is quoted (with emphasis on "might make sense"), my opposition to your argument remains unchanged.

It seems like such a simple concept, but the two *experts* cant wrap their backward sloping skulls around it. Maybe the next step is a Venn diagram.
Don't worry though, figuring the change on a Latte is all done by the register anyway.

Neither Ming nor myself have claimed to be experts on anything relating to this discussion, and comments like "their backward sloping skulls," the insult insinuated as part the completely unrelated subject of making change for selling a latte, and your poor writing aren't helping you sound like less of an idiot.

I'll wait for the new thread since both of these guys moral compass seems to be bent.

Wow! You managed to wait a whole 16 minutes before starting this thread. That is some mighty impressive self-control! It would've been even more impressive if you had included your original posts, instead of attempting to frame the debate without including prior evidence.

[Conde Koma]

Push ups.

Irie, can you teach me the ways of the Force?

[BadUglyMagic]

With that out of the way, I must now ask you to explain exactly what you mean by "protected classes."
.

Currently, in the US all non-white males and females, and white females are protected classes.

In general laws written to provide/address equality, access, opportunity or nondiscrimination were written to address an imbalance between rights as given, and those rights as actually exercisable under a dominant white male administration.

Interestingly, citizens with african ancestry can sue other americans of africanancestry for making disparagng remarks regarding the relative darkness/lightness of their skin color. Both are a protected class and both still enjoy the right to sue each other for racial harrassment. It is a growing subspecialty.

Other than the fact this grew out of Lord S's thread, does this thread belong in the Armory?

[Robstafarian]

Other than the fact this grew out of Lord S's thread, does this thread belong in the Armory?

No, it really doesn't, which is why I won't reply to the other aspects of your post here. I am afraid that this thread is headed for Trollshido because it shouldn't have been created in the Armory (and probably belongs in Ground Zero on Sociocide), but it would be nice if the OP and my reply could be put in a new thread along with the derail from Skeletor's thread.

[BadUglyMagic]

No, it really doesn't, which is why I won't reply to the other aspects of your post here. .

????? My small area of the world has an extremely diverse racial/religious/ethnic/and sexual orientation population. The "definition" purposely was a bit broader than the EEO, Title VII definition and includes civil rights as rights for every US citizen (or subset) and reflects that civil rights go beyond employment.