That seems to be nothing more than selectively changing the definition to try to make your argument.
Profiling is making judgments about individuals from among a crowd of strangers. Encouraging people that match specific criteria to volunteer to come forward is hardly the same thing.
And your definition omits patterns of behavior.
Even under your definition, how was Gift of Life engaged in profiling? What decisions were they making based on the perceived ethnicity (not religion in this case, as they were looking for genetic matches) of a given individual?
Gift of Life was based on the need to get as many Jews of eastern European descent as possible registered. The religion, per se, was not necessary for tissue matching, but help to identify those who were most likely to have rare genetic markers, for historical reasons.
Unless I’ve confused them with another organization?
Everyone makes judgments about individuals from among a crowd of strangers, don’t they? It doesn’t matter unless policy and decisions are based on subjects’ perceived characteristics, rather than their behavior.
I wouldn’t call it “profiling” if the judgments are based on behavior.
Right, that’s my understanding of the situation. But where’s the profiling? Asking Jewish people or Eastern Europeans to come forward and donate or register isn’t profiling.
It’s basing policy and decision making on an individual’s characteristics, specifically those not directly related to the issue, rather than their behavior.
It was necessary, and prudent, and based on religion and ethnicity as possible indicators, but religion and ethnicity were not the actual desired characteristic.
Race and ethnicity and phenotype to a lesser extent religion as used as possible indicators of genotype in medicine. It’s not a bad thing, it’s using the information available when nothing better is.
Sorry, but I’m just not following you at all. If the problem is a relative lack of Jewish/Eastern European and African bone marrow in the registry, then the characteristic of being Jewish, Eastern European, or African-American is directly related to the issue; whereas being a Muslim or a white male isn’t directly related to political violence.
To clarify:
Situation A: a Middle Eastern-looking guy is in line to board an airplane. A security team pulls him out of line for extra scrutiny in a back office.
Situation B: a group of Jewish people are attending their synagogue. A Jewish leukemia patient speaks to them about registering at Gift of Life, which is in need of bone marrow that genetically matches ethnically Jewish folks.
A is profiling, B is marketing.
My neighborhood is about 10% black, 20% latino, 20% asian and 50% white. All ethnic groups are pretty evenly distubuted. We have no problems with any of the ethnic groups that live in the neighborhood.
We do have some problems with car thefts and to a lesser degree burglary. Most of these crimes are commited by outsiders. The perpetrat are probably 70% black, 20% hispanic and 10% white. These are rough figures just based on observation and could easily bve skewed.
It appears the police will pull over anyone they feel is suspicious for one reason or another. Nearly all the stops I see are either hispanic or black. But at the same time I rarely ever see whites or asians doing anything that would appear to be suspicious. It appears that our police force is profiling but if you look at the daily activity it doesn’t appear as bad as it might seem on the surface.
There seems to be no reason for you to make that distinction. How many people act nervous in an airport? Thisarticle says that 2-10% of people at any one time have a phobia of flying and that 20-30% are apprehensive. Most of those people are going to avoid flying but some are going to have to. I would say conservatively that 5-10% of passengers are going to be either apprehensive about flying or phobic. Muslims make up 1% of the US population and young male Muslims about one quarter of one percent. Just by the numbers it would seem to make alot more sense to target young, male, muslims than nervous people.
Huh? Do you believe that only people with anxiety disorders are ever nervous?
Well, no, it wouldn’t. Nervousness (with the same caveats re: whether it’s actually something worth screening for) actually has some tangible connection to imminent violence. Being a Muslim does not. Further, if you look for nervousness, suspicious behavior, discrepancies, and so forth, you’ll have a chance at catching the many non-Muslim people engaged in political violence. I’m just as interested in catching the next Eric Rudolph as I am the next Mohamed Atta.
So then, you *are *screening everyone.
Because they might not be known.
and then based on that- why not let known terrorist fly? They have no weapons, right?:rolleyes:
Some groups have higher crime rates then others but no one deserves to be discriminated against/profiled. In USA 2016, men are the only group against whom profiling is fashionable.
Many women are very decent people. But 28% of women abuse men who are not allowed to defend themselves. And in case of marriage a large percentage of women would take most of their husband’s possessions in divorce. Thus men also are on guard and many do not want to marry – they are called “commitment phobic”.
In short everyone should be suspicious of everyone else.
But, there is no Jewish bone marrow; that’s not quibbling, it’s my point. The goal was tissue with certain rare genetic markers; the population to target was identified by profiling.
If the pitch was made in synagogues rather than … I don’t know, kosher delis … that was another level of profiling.
And marketing is profiling.
Domestic violence perpetrated by women against men is indeed a serious and unfairly trivialized problem. But your statement is misrepresenting the statistics in the study you linked. Specifically, the study found that in heterosexual relationships involving young adults 18 to 28, about one-quarter of the relationships involved some violence, about one-half of the violent relationships involved nonreciprocal violence, and in nearly three-quarters of the nonreciprocally violent relationships the perpetrators were women.
So what that tells us is that of the women between 18 to 28 involved in a heterosexual relationship, approximately 18% of them had committed nonreciprocal violence (which BTW was defined to include threatening violence as well as hitting, kicking, slapping, throwing objects, pushing and shoving ) against their partners.
That percentage is nowhere near the “28% of women” that you claimed.
[QUOTE=CCitizen]
And in case of marriage a large percentage of women would take most of their husband’s possessions in divorce.
[/quote]
That’s an extremely vague claim. You’ll need to have some cites with specific numbers if you want to use this as a debate point.
[QUOTE=CCitizen]
Thus men also are on guard and many do not want to marry
[/quote]
And if that’s how they feel, they don’t have to marry. People in a free society are allowed to lead their own personal lives however seems best to them.
If they’re basing their behavior on realistic quantitative risk assessments, though, the arguments you’ve put forth don’t amount to much.
I don’t mean that the bone marrow itself is Jewish, but that it has genetic markers associated with Jewish people.
We are using totally different definitions of “profiling”, so I don’t think agreement is possible.
Then you are, again, creating a definition to match your argument rather than using the definition that is common to the language. Racial profiling, sexual profiling, ethnic profiling, age profiling, etc. are all types of profiling based on appearance, but profiling, without an adjective, can be based on behavior or other criteria.
it would probably be a clearer distinction to note that the populations of Ahkenazim, Sephardim, Mizrahim, and others are sufficiently closely related to carry a large number of common elements (that would be common within those groups rather than across those groups). It is the same issue that plagues discussions of Sickle Cell Anemia which occurs in many African, European, and Asian groups, but which keeps popping up as a “black” disease in American discussions because, in the U.S., the largest number of people who are subject to the condition happen to have been brought from regions in Africa where it is prevalent, while fewer Asians and Europeans with the condition immigrated to North America and fewer Africans from regions where it is not prevalent were imported as slaves to North America.
Over the past 50 years there have been about 26airliners bombed around the world. Of those you have 1 by North Korea, 1 by Sikh Separatists, 1 by Cuban exiles, and 1 by a chinese man looking for insurance money. The other 80% have been committed by Muslims.
Given those numbers I don’t think non-Muslims should get no screening but Muslims do seem to need higher scrutiny.
Can you show your work? I count 19 bombings: 2 unsolved, 1 by Cuban exiles, 1 by the Fifteen of September Legion (anti-Sandinista group), 1 by Sikh separatists, 1 by North Korea, 1 by Pablo Escobar’s cartel, 1 by the Chinese individual, 1 by a Yemeni prince to kill his father, 4 by Palestinians, 2 by Libyans, 1 by Hezbollah, 1 by Al-Qaeda, 1 by Chechens, and 1 by ISIS.
You could construct some kind of argument about Middle Easterners, or Palestinians/Libyans/Iranians*, then we could have that discussion, but Muslims generally? A random Malaysian or American Muslim should get singled out because of terrorism by Palestinians?
*Edit: Better still, “people from areas with a civil war being fought”, as that accounts for a ton of the bombings.