Is your moral compass bent?

[vigilus]

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.

I agree.

[Robstafarian]

????? 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.

You misunderstood me, apparently. What you quoted of my reply was my response to your question "Does this thread belong in the Armory?" That is why the next sentence mentioned my concern about this thread going straight to Trollshido, and also why I didn't give you as articulate a response as I gave to beringc.

As much as I want to continue this debate until both sides are well articulated, I also don't want to put a lot of time into something that's going to disappear to Trollshido. Partly due to the time of night when I started writing, as well as the complexity of composition and copy-editing, it took me an hour to write my first post in this thread.

Having said that, I think it's somewhat unfortunate that you answered a question posed to beringc before he had a chance to answer it himself. It doesn't matter much, I grant you, but I would rather have heard his opinion before someone was available for him to say "I agree with X, he said what I would have." Such a scenario means that we can never truly know what beringc's answer to that question might've been.

Whereas your point about anti-discrimination legislation is well taken, it has nothing to do with the arguments put forth by beringc in Skeletor's thread—the arguments disputed by Ming Loyalist and myself.

[7thSamurai]

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".

I often wonder how many rights or freedoms we should give up so that the Federal government can successfully pursue criminals and "protect" us from terrorism. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective on this.

Personally, I think it's a power grab and a method of putting all people under the thumb slowly so as not to raise the ire of the people.

[BadUglyMagic]

You misunderstood me, apparently..

Possibly. I was responding to the bolded part of the sentence below:

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

Having said that, I think it's somewhat unfortunate that you answered a question posed to beringc before he had a chance to answer it himself....I would rather have heard his opinion

Understood. Perhaps I jumped the gun. However, imo, the answer is how beringc would have worded it.

Whereas your point about anti-discrimination legislation is well taken, it has nothing to do with the arguments put forth by beringc in Skeletor's thread—the arguments disputed by Ming Loyalist and myself.

You appear to be viewing it with too broad a lens. It is specific to the "protected classes" question and nothing else.



As for the disputed arguments, any responses by him probably ended after post #6.

[beringc]

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.

Your statement assumes that there is no "cause". I completely agree with 4th rights, but we can develop cause or at least resonable suspicion by looking at affiliation.

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.

Thanks for pointing out the typo, meaning is more important and it looks like you were able to discern that from context, good job. Nowhere did I make a distinction for this premise to apply exclusively to only Americans. Agreed, if they are here in the US (legally or not) we generally extend our rights to them.

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

Relevance? Making analogies to major events are important for perspective.

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 law of the land? Please, this is a lame statement. PC is what you are fed by mainstream media. The law of the land is what the majority says it is. You might check on that.


As for this thread continuing here, I think that this is a vital ethical and moral question/ discussion. The issue has specific relevance to what we do as LE/Mil. To make sure I get some mileage out of the Godwin Law again, we run the risk of dangerous groupthink, if we don't think about these things.

To your thoughts on derails etc., my comment to Lord S had nothing to do with these concepts. It was aimed at two things; Scrutiny on who we train and what we train civilians.

The latter addressing need and purpose.

Unfortunately, I don't have hours and hours to devote to writing ancillary arguments and wikipedia references.

[beringc]

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

Oh yeah, before I forget.....

Your pic seems to suggest some sort of affiliation with dope, don't know where I got that impression.

BTW, you would be denied access to the Emerald Triangle if you tried to peddle that Hydro stuff from your apartment closet.

[Phrost]

Going to buck a trend here and leave the thread for now. We'll (relatively) soon be able to move threads directly to Sociocide, and will do so then if necessary.

[Coach Josh]

The law of the land is not what the majority says its is. This would be the case if we lived in a true democracy but we are a republic. Our elected officials decide on the laws of the land. The judicial system is left to decide on the constitutionality of those laws.

Just remember this next time you decide not to vote for a state or federal representative.

I am just picking up bits and pieces from the posts and must say that the rights and freedoms of everyone must be the same. This equality is what we should strive for as humans not only Americans. While the fore fathers of America had a great idea that took 150+ years to be made into a reality we now do have a "free" society in America.

If we remove, suspend or ignore those rights then we are no better than a third world country with a dictator and a strong arm militia. Everyone is entitled to the rights set forth in the constitution. If anyone tries to screw with them then they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By anyone I mean civilian, LE, military, or elected official.

[beringc]

I often wonder how many rights or freedoms we should give up so that the Federal government can successfully pursue criminals and "protect" us from terrorism. I'd be interested in hearing your perspective on this.

Personally, I think it's a power grab and a method of putting all people under the thumb slowly so as not to raise the ire of the people.

I don't want to give up any of my rights. Unfortunately, many people want to give up theirs. I believe in individual freedom as long as it does not infringe on others.

The axiom that "Govt. knows best" is clearly flawed. But, I am willing to tolerate some transperancy in my life to access the greater good. If we could all just take care of our own ****, life would be good. Praise Darwin!

[Ming Loyalist]

i'm still waiting for a mod to move "officer bigot's" posts (and the rest of the related ones) from the other thread.

you know, the ones where he outs himself as a bigot, and where i ask a bunch of questions that he has given no good answers to. i don't feel like repeating myself, so if you want to quote my posts from that thread and reply to them here (assuming that doing that isn't too difficult for your pea brain) i would be happy to continue the discussion.

it would be interesting if you could actually make an argument this time rather than flinging insults like poo (i know that you little brain has a lot of trouble doing more than flinging poo, but for our sake, please try to formulate arguments.)