If there’s a current trend of racists smacking black people with pies, then yes; he’s probably a racist. This is hardly some isolated incident. This is just “brown guy must be a terrorist incident #3185”.
Not black guys - guys who appear to be middle eastern.
Other incidents do not provide evidence for this incident–they don’t say anything at all about what specifically motivated the actions in this specific case. And I’ve already explained why the laws of physics aren’t implicated here.
Did I skip into the wrong board here? It appears that a single story, from the viewpoint of the aggrieved party is enough for some to cry “racism”.
Nowhere has anyone offered the airline view of this, All we have is the view of one annoyed man who’s motives we don’t know and who’s recollection we should be wary of.
And yet given that, people are making free with all sorts of wild accusations and theories. Not good enough people. I only hope I never have to rely upon you as jurors.
Is it possible that this was racial profiling? yes. Is it equally possible that the man in question is not being entirely truthful?..yes. Might be a good idea to wait until the evidence is in.
Or perhaps there are unbiased sources who corroborate his story? That would make a difference but I’ve seen no-one come forward with that yet.
They provide evidence all right, by demonstrating a general pattern.
The laws of physics are involved, because they invalidate your comparison.
On the first part, that sounds like an argument for racial profiling–the general pattern of bombs and other shenanigans on planes is that it’s done by Arab-looking people. In any event, a general pattern of behavior is not evidence for anything that happens in any specific case. To say otherwise is simply ridiculous and betrays a rather shallow intellect, as if a poor black guy on trial for robbery could have to face evidence that he likely did it because of the general pattern of robberies done by poor black guys.
On the second part, you simply don’t understand the comparison. I’m comparing how Dio and christians stick to their preferred explanations without evidence for them. any other features of the christian’s belief don’t matter–it just matters that they like that explanation and don’t see any other possibilities and stick to it without any evidence for it.
No; it’s more like assuming that a bunch of gun wielding men who burst into a bank are there to rob it. Maybe it’s something like a training simulation scheduled wrong, but a bank robbery is the way to bet. Racial profiling fails because race is a a terrible predictor of behavior; the vast majority of people who look Middle Eastern aren’t terrorists. And as here, many of them aren’t even Middle Eastern in the first place.
This isn’t a trial.
Christians stick to impossible beliefs that are internally contradictory and violate the laws of physics. No matter how you spin it, claiming that this is a racist incident isn’t an example of outright craziness like Christianity is.
The part that I find amusing is that they ask him about his reading material, as if he would formulate his airplane hijacking plan en-route.
He had the plan, he was just reading up on how to execute it. Terrorists don’t prepare, man!
Unless you ever flew Eastern Airlines, where malice sufficed.
I’m pretty sure that being a stewardess doesn’t automatically make someone an expert on aircraft design & history. Perhaps the sky waitress retained some dim memory of being briefed on terrorist warning signs that included a warning about passengers carrying aircraft schematics or diagrams.
Stupidity, yes. Racial profiling…eh, maybe.
Der Trihs, you are continuing to talk at cross purposes with me. That means that you aren’t disagreeing with me, you are just talking about something different.
Actually, Christians have a pretty good take on things. First, we’re all sinners. Second, we’re all going to die. Third, nothing in this world is going to change either of the above.
Whatever, the points remains. Der Trihs is making the same mistake. A general pattern may permit us to make inferences about the overall population that defines that pattern. It does NOT make any definitive statement about any one occurrence in the population. For example, analysis might show that blacks are disproportionately turned down for loans, relative to whites with similar financial circumstances. That does NOT mean that a given instance of a black man being denied a loan is indicative of racism.
This is a classic logical fallacy. Ask your old logic prof, he’ll tell you.
That first item is a pure religious belief. The entire concept of “sin” is a religious belief with no objective meaning.
No, but you can evaluate situations on a case-by-case basis, which is all I’m doing here. I would not be saying this man’s racial appearance was a factor if any of the other factors had even a minimal potential to cause alarm in a reasonable person. I’m also not extrapolating, that “OMG, the whole airline is racist and racism is endemic to the system.” I think, in this once case, a flight attendant got way too paranoid about a bearded, swarthy man, of indeterminate ethnicity, and totally overreacted to other factors that would not have caused a second look if he’d been white.
But if we accept the man’s account, the reaction of the flight attendant was not reasonable whether race was a factor or it was not. She is not a reasonable person in this scenario. Why would we assume she’s reasonable in instances where the guys racial appearance isn’t a factor? That’s the question. Why is that so remotely plausible when it’s a given, for you as well, that she did not behave reasonably. It makes no sense to proceed from that basis and say that race must have been a factor since no other factor would have alarmed a reasonable person. She is not a reasonable person.
So, where do you stand on killing another human being for pleasure, profit, or shits & giggles? Depending on the time & place, it might not be a crime. Is it still wrong?
I don’t see anyone arguing that the flight attendant acted reasonably. The argument is about why she acted unreasonably. Some people are able to entertain several different possible explanations, while others pick the one they think makes the most sense and cling to it like a christian clings to their belief about the origin of the universe.
Take the discussion of faith and religion to another thread. It was brought up in this discussion as an analogy, and it’s served its purpose or at least run its course. The particulars of religion and Christianity are not relevant to this discussion.
What other possible explanations? That the airline has a policy allowing you to stow bags under the seat in front of you, but that occasionally if you follow this policy they’ll call the cops? That occasionally airlines like to call the cops when they see people reading books on aeronautics, just in case you’re a terrorist who’s finalizing the plans for blowing up the plane by reading about the history of powered flight? That this dude is lying, and that really he whispered to the flight attendant, “I’m gonna blow your ass out of the sky”? What other possible explanations are we entertaining here?
Maybe we’re entertaining the “crazy people are crazy” explanation, in which rather than try to figure out what specific misconception some jackass has, we just wave our hands and act like paranoia renders a person completely inscrutable. But that’s not an explanation, that’s a deliberate refusal to consider explanations.
If you’ve got a plausible alternate explanation, go ahead: I’m all agog.