# Raped woman sentenced to 90 lashes. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 6, 2007, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837 "2007-03-06T18:54:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/281 "2007-03-13T20:29:20Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] No, I’d hold the line at 100% The whole point of my argument is holding people responsible for what they’ve done, not for what people who share one or two attributes in common with them might have done. [/quote] Yes, I agree that we should not arrest Muslims and convict them for the 9/11 attacks when the 9/11 attacks were carried out by other people who happen to be Muslims. So yes, I agree we should not hold people responsible. But is an increased level of scrutiny in particular voluntary and potentially deadly situations the same as “holding people responsible”? > [@](#): > > That’s not a very honest presentation against the argument against racial profiling. It’s a simplification, yes. But I hardly think it’s dishonest, unless I was claiming to have made a comprehensive and perfectly indisputable and complete argument, which I hardly was. > [@](#): > > Yes, if you screen everyone who looks like an Arab, forcing terrorists to recruit non-Arabs for their suicide missions, then you’ve made the terrorist’s job harder. However, you’ve also devoted so many of your resources to looking at Arabs that you’re more likely to miss non-Arab terrorists. The ground gained by making Arabs work harder to find suicide bombers is lost by your decreased ability to detect non-Arab bombers. It is? How do you know that? Are you a security expert? Have you run a cost/benefit analysis? It might be. But it might not. I don’t claim to know. And (to address the rather sarcastic remarks that others have been making) it’s entirely possible that there are practical reasons that make any sort of profiling pointless. I’m just responding to the argument of principle, not in practicality. That is, “no matter how clearly distinguishable a group is, and no matter how large (but less than 100%) a portion of that group has (characteristic or behavior X), it would be racist of us to treat any individual member of that group as if they’re any more likely to have that characteristic or behavior, even in situations such as security screening before air travel, which can hardly be said to relate to fundamental inalienable rights.” It’s very important to note the differences between something like varying levels of screening before air travel, and (for instance) Japanese-American internment camps. Air travel is a voluntary act, and one which, when one engages in it, one is agreeing to give up many rights. While travelling on a plane, you don’t have the right to joke about bombs, or carry a gun, or keep your shoes on while going through the metal detector, or refuse to be searched, or any number of other things. Everyone who travels by air agrees to give up those rights. If the precise level at which those given-up rights are violated varies some by race, well, that’s certainly ooky and unfair, but is a WORLD different from a case where we just randomly go and lock people up in camps based on race. > [@](#): > > Plus, you’ve just ceded the moral high ground by violating our much touted value of diversity and equality by treating members of one race worse than we treat members of other races. Aside from the generally scummy feeling that should engender in all of us, it also serves as a propaganda coup for our enemies. I can’t dispute this point, which is one reason why (as I’ve said over and over again) I find the whole issue troubling. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone is denying or ignoring that. The question is, are we so afraid of terrorism that we’re going to abandon our principles to fight it? And one of our core bedrock principles is that while doing security screening before voluntary air travel, when we have limited resources which we need to allocate as effectively as possible so as to keep people from the very real and present risk of imminent death, we should not potentially apply varying levels of scrutiny based on physical appearance? I hate to bring this up lest I sound in favor of censorship, which I am not ever at all, but even the most sacred and important right (free expression) has not just one, but MANY constraints and limitations: libel/slander, invasion of privacy, breach of national security, incitement to riot/fighting words, shouting fire in a crowded theater, advertisement of illegal services, etc. I realize this makes me sound like a weasel, but stamping your foot and saying “I will not compromise my principle at all ever no matter what at all ever even a teeny bit” is not always the right decision. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/282 "2007-03-13T21:26:52Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] I don’t endorse profiling. As I’ve said many times in this thread. I find it a thorny issue and have not come up with a firm position I’m happy with. [/QUOTE] If there’s no number _less_ than which would counterindicate profiling, then it makes little sense to ask what number greater than which would _indicate_ profiling. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/283 "2007-03-13T21:34:49Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] If there’s no number _less_ than which would counterindicate profiling, then it makes little sense to ask what number greater than which would _indicate_ profiling. [/QUOTE] unless, of course, the questioner was attempting to play “gotch ya” ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/284 "2007-03-13T21:37:45Z")
> [@](#): > > And (to address the rather sarcastic remarks that others have been making) it’s entirely possible that there are practical reasons that make any sort of profiling pointless. I’m just responding to the argument of principle, not in practicality. What good is a principle that doesn’t exist in the real world? If terrorists had signs on their backs, then it would make sense to treat them differently. They don’t have signs on their backs. This isn’t just a matter of implementation, it IS a principle: to discriminate against a person simply because he is the same color as another person who happened to commit a crime serves no useful purpose and is morally wrong. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/285 "2007-03-13T21:38:30Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] If there’s no number _less_ than which would counterindicate profiling, then it makes little sense to ask what number greater than which would _indicate_ profiling. [/QUOTE] I’m not sure I follow you, but… I’m not saying such a number doesn’t exist, I’m saying I personally have no idea what it is, nor do I have the knowledge and skills necessary to make a meaningful calculation of what it might be. It’s in no way a contradictory or untenable position for me to say “If 99.99% of group x were murderers, I wouldn’t hire a member of that group to babysit my kids. If 0.0000001% more of that group were murderers than the public as a whole, then I would have no problem hiring such a person to babysit my kid. Somewhere in between is a line and I don’t know where it is”. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/286 "2007-03-13T21:42:33Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] What good is a principle that doesn’t exist in the real world? If terrorists had signs on their backs, then it would make sense to treat them differently. They don’t have signs on their backs. This isn’t just a matter of implementation, it IS a principle: to discriminate against a person simply because he is the same color as another person who happened to commit a crime serves no useful purpose and is morally wrong. [/QUOTE] You said two things… that it: (a) serves no useful purpose and (b) is morally wrong I’m not certain about (a). Certainly, the arguments for (a) that I have seen have been simplistic and facile. And I don’t disagree with (b), but I also don’t think that it’s necessarily the sole determining factor. Reread my paragraph above about the difference between profiling at airport security and internment camps. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2007, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/287 "2007-03-13T21:49:46Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] Yes, I agree that we should not arrest Muslims and convict them for the 9/11 attacks when the 9/11 attacks were carried out by other people who happen to be Muslims. So yes, I agree we should not hold people responsible. But is an increased level of scrutiny in particular voluntary and potentially deadly situations the same as “holding people responsible”? [/quote] Yes, I would say that it is. Ali blows up a building, so Saied gets strip searched every time he tries to get on an airplane. I’d say that’s holding Saied responsible for Ali’s actions, in so far as we’re treating Saied differently based on what someone else did. > [@](#): > > It’s a simplification, yes. But I hardly think it’s dishonest, unless I was claiming to have made a comprehensive and perfectly indisputable and complete argument, which I hardly was. It’s simplified to the point where it bears little resemblence to the actual position you were discussing. If there’s a flaw in that position, you should be able to demonstrate that flaw without first reducing the position to an absurdity that no one has ever advocated. That strikes me as slightly dishonest, intellectually. YMMV. > [@](#): > > It is? How do you know that? Are you a security expert? Have you run a cost/benefit analysis? > > It might be. But it might not. I don’t claim to know. That didn’t stop you from putting forward racial profiling as a possible solution to policing terrorism. If not being a security expert is reason enough to discount an argument against racial profiling, it should also be reason enough to discount an argument _for_ racial profiling. > [@](#): > > And (to address the rather sarcastic remarks that others have been making) it’s entirely possible that there are practical reasons that make any sort of profiling pointless. I’m just responding to the argument of principle, not in practicality. Unfortunetly for you, if you want to argue that we should infringe on our principles, you’re going to have to start by providing a solid, practical reason for the infringement. Just saying, “I don’t want to discuss that part of the issue,” isn’t going to cut any ice, because that’s the absolute most important part of making your argument. > [@](#): > > That is, “no matter how clearly distinguishable a group is, and no matter how large (but less than 100%) a portion of that group has (characteristic or behavior X), it would be racist of us to treat any individual member of that group as if they’re any more likely to have that characteristic or behavior, even in situations such as security screening before air travel, which can hardly be said to relate to fundamental inalienable rights.” How is air travel unrelated to fundamental inalienable rights? Quite a few people do indeed need to fly as a function of their career. Far more than needed to, say, eat at a lunch counter or sit in the front of a bus, two activities that were central to the dialogue on equal rights in this country not too terribly long ago. > [@](#): > > It’s very important to note the differences between something like varying levels of screening before air travel, and (for instance) Japanese-American internment camps. Air travel is a voluntary act, and one which, when one engages in it, one is agreeing to give up many rights. While travelling on a plane, you don’t have the right to joke about bombs, or carry a gun, or keep your shoes on while going through the metal detector, or refuse to be searched, or any number of other things. Everyone who travels by air agrees to give up those rights. If the precise level at which those given-up rights are violated varies some by race, well, that’s certainly ooky and unfair, but is a WORLD different from a case where we just randomly go and lock people up in camps based on race. Of course, the central point of disputation here is that some people are being asked to give up _more_ of their rights because of their race or their perceived religion. And I do not think the gap between that and internment camps is as wide as you’d like to think. Japanese internment did not spring all unheralded from a society of perfect racial unity. It was, rather, the end result of a society that regarded race-based social inequities as normal, and even desirable. In the last fifty years, we have come a long way towards eradicating that attitude in our society. I think we should be extrordinarily wary of any attempt to reintroduce it. > [@](#): > > And one of our core bedrock principles is that while doing security screening before voluntary air travel, when we have limited resources which we need to allocate as effectively as possible so as to keep people from the very real and present risk of imminent death, we should not potentially apply varying levels of scrutiny based on physical appearance? No, I was thinking more along the lines of, “All men are created equal.” Treating some men differently, based solely on the color of their skin, strikes me as seriously incompatabile with that ideal. If you can reconcile the two positions, I’d be keenly interested in hearing how. > [@](#): > > I hate to bring this up lest I sound in favor of censorship, which I am not ever at all, but even the most sacred and important right (free expression) has not just one, but MANY constraints and limitations: libel/slander, invasion of privacy, breach of national security, incitement to riot/fighting words, shouting fire in a crowded theater, advertisement of illegal services, etc. I realize this makes me sound like a weasel, but stamping your foot and saying “I will not compromise my principle at all ever no matter what at all ever even a teeny bit” is not always the right decision. That’s really an incredibly poor comparison. We allow certain restrictions on free speech because certain forms of speech are inherently dangerous or destructive. Unless you want to argue that certain races are inherently dangerous or destructive, there’s simply no analogy to make between the two situations. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/288 "2007-03-14T00:02:39Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] Yes, I would say that it is. Ali blows up a building, so Saied gets strip searched every time he tries to get on an airplane. I’d say that’s holding Saied responsible for Ali’s actions, in so far as we’re treating Saied differently based on what someone else did. [/quote] If there’s a report of a crime committed by a white suspect in a black truck wearing a red hat, and the police stop a white guy in a black truck wearing a red hat, and question him for a while before determining he’s innocent and releasing him, they’re treating him differently based on what someone else did. It’s his bad luck, and it sucks for him, but is it treating him unfairly? > [@](#): > > It’s simplified to the point where it bears little resemblence to the actual position you were discussing. If there’s a flaw in that position, you should be able to demonstrate that flaw without first reducing the position to an absurdity that no one has ever advocated. That strikes me as slightly dishonest, intellectually. YMMV. The thing is, I’m not really endorsing a position. I’m just attacking a particular anti-profiling argument, not making a pro-profiling argument. Admittedly, that’s pretty weasely. BUT, as I’ve said several times, I honestly don’t know where I stand on profiling. I’m just bothered by what I see as flaws in the anti-profiling arguments many people make. As for reductio ad absurdum, the point I’m trying to make is that one of two things should be true: (1) Your anti-profiling position is based on a bedrock principle that is so strong and absolute that it stands up even to hilariously exaggerated hypotheticals (which, if it is, is a fine and logically consistent position to hold, whether or not I agree with it) OR (2) Your position is based not on an absolute, but on a weighing of tradeoffs of security vs. civil rights. Which is also a fine and logically consistent position to hold, and which (at least, imho), does NOT make you a monster. At that point, reasonable people can disagree about precisely where to draw the line. And drawing such a line is in no way a precursor to a descent into apartheid-style racism. > [@](#): > > > [@me](#): > > > > And (to address the rather sarcastic remarks that others have been making) it’s entirely possible that there are practical reasons that make any sort of profiling pointless. I’m just responding to the argument of principle, not in practicality. > > Unfortunetly for you, if you want to argue that we should infringe on our principles, you’re going to have to start by providing a solid, practical reason for the infringement. Just saying, “I don’t want to discuss that part of the issue,” isn’t going to cut any ice, because that’s the absolute most important part of making your argument. There MAY be a practical reason, in that it may make us measurably safer while flying. I don’t know if it would. But I also don’t know that it wouldn’t, and I’d lean (admittedly uninformedly) towards at least the possibility that it would. I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that if someone says “most suicide bombers are young middle-eastern-looking men… we should give such people added scrutiny”, then pointing out the numerous ways in which this description both might miss some people and might catch extra people does NOT mean that such a policy would do no good at all, it just means it would not be perfect. There might be OTHER arguments that would demonstrate that it would do no good at all, or even more harm than good, but simply pointing out that appearances can be deceiving does not singlehandledly render the whole idea pointless. > [@](#): > > How is air travel unrelated to fundamental inalienable rights? Quite a few people do indeed need to fly as a function of their career. Far more than needed to, say, eat at a lunch counter or sit in the front of a bus, two activities that were central to the dialogue on equal rights in this country not too terribly long ago. But there’s a big difference between “you are allowed to do this whenever and wherever you want, but we will apply stricter security to you than to some white guy, and here are objective reasons why, even if they’re unfair” and “you aren’t allowed to do this, because we said so, and think you’re inferior”. > [@](#): > > Of course, the central point of disputation here is that some people are being asked to give up _more_ of their rights because of their race or their perceived religion. Side note: I’d assume that it would be perceived ethnicity, not perceived religion. Which I think doesn’t make the civil-rights-violation factor either worse or better. But no, they are not being asked to give up more of their rights. Anyone who gets in line to get on a plane gives up the right against search of their body and effects. That search being carried out more often against some than against others does not mean that some have more rights than others. All have been stripped of rights equally, and then different policies and procedures are applied to different groups. Which is not to say that that’s a GOOD thing, but no one is unequally giving up rights. > [@](#): > > And I do not think the gap between that and internment camps is as wide as you’d like to think. Japanese internment did not spring all unheralded from a society of perfect racial unity. It was, rather, the end result of a society that regarded race-based social inequities as normal, and even desirable. In the last fifty years, we have come a long way towards eradicating that attitude in our society. I think we should be extrordinarily wary of any attempt to reintroduce it. Regardless of the historical context, internment was violating preexisting rights, doing so on an ongoing basis against which there was no defense, and applied to everyone no matter what they were doing in their lives. Searches at airports violate no rights (other than the ones that everyone agrees to surrender when they choose to travel by air), once you pass through the search safely you go merrily on your way, and they only apply to people who choose to take a voluntary action. The two are just not comparable. > [@](#): > > No, I was thinking more along the lines of, “All men are created equal.” Treating some men differently, based solely on the color of their skin, strikes me as seriously incompatabile with that ideal. If you can reconcile the two positions, I’d be keenly interested in hearing how. Much like limiting free speech, I would only support treating people differently based on the color of the skin when there was a compelling, justified, objective, and extremely precisely limited reason to do so. Which is very very very very rare. But not necessarily never. And it’s possible that airport profiling might be such a case. > [@](#): > > That’s really an incredibly poor comparison. We allow certain restrictions on free speech because certain forms of speech are inherently dangerous or destructive. Unless you want to argue that certain races are inherently dangerous or destructive, there’s simply no analogy to make between the two situations. I’m puzzled by your use of the word “inherent” here, which implies that if I believe that a higher percentage of Muslims today are terrorists than people on a whole, it must be due to something inherent. Which is something I do believe (although it’s still a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the whole). ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/289 "2007-03-14T01:14:35Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] If there’s a report of a crime committed by a white suspect in a black truck wearing a red hat, and the police stop a white guy in a black truck wearing a red hat, and question him for a while before determining he’s innocent and releasing him, they’re treating him differently based on what someone else did. It’s his bad luck, and it sucks for him, but is it treating him unfairly? [/QUOTE] you’re joking, right? the real comparison would be if after having a dsecription of the suspect as “white guy” with no additional descriptors, then the cops stopping every single white guy. and yes, that would be idiotic as well as problematic. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/290 "2007-03-14T01:39:09Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] You said two things… that it: (a) serves no useful purpose and (b) is morally wrong I’m not certain about (a). Certainly, the arguments for (a) that I have seen have been simplistic and facile. And I don’t disagree with (b), but I also don’t think that it’s necessarily the sole determining factor. Reread my paragraph above about the difference between profiling at airport security and internment camps. [/QUOTE] You mean where you say that _everyone_ is giving up rights to fly on an airplane, therefore it’s o.k. for one race to give up more rights than another? Nope - I disagreed with that argument the first time I read it, and I still do. If you think profiling is useful, then prove it. Start by answering my question as to what percentage of Muslims must be “bad” to indicate profiling. If you can’t do that, then you must concede the point. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/291 "2007-03-14T01:51:36Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] If you think profiling is useful, then prove it. Start by answering my question as to what percentage of Muslims must be “bad” to indicate profiling. If you can’t do that, then you must concede the point. [/QUOTE] Not a fair comparison. You’re putting the percentage of Muslims who are “bad” in no context. In other words, only a very tiny percentage of the world wants to crash an airplane. But, judging from the fact that every single one (am I wrong on this? Is there one that wasn’t?) that has been intentionally been brought down in the past few decades has been brought down by a Muslim (or five), a very large percentage of that very tiny percentage is, in fact, Muslim. We have correctly decided, as a society, that the very tiny percentage that wants to bring down a plane is significant enough a threat that we have to have security. No one in their right mind would fly if there were none. It’s not a matter of how many Muslims in the world are “bad”, it’s a matter of how many people who have brought down planes are Muslims. You don’t have to profile based on Religion. If it assuages your guilt, you can profile based on country of origin, which would end up amounting to a similar thing. It would just taste a little better. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/292 "2007-03-14T02:05:36Z")
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker] Not a fair comparison. You’re putting the percentage of Muslims who are “bad” in no context. In other words, only a very tiny percentage of the world wants to crash an airplane. But, judging from the fact that every single one (am I wrong on this? Is there one that wasn’t?) that has been intentionally been brought down in the past few decades has been brought down by a Muslim (or five), a very large percentage of that very tiny percentage is, in fact, Muslim. [/quote] Please go back and read the whole thread, because you’re missing the context of my question. It started with _him_ asking a “hypothetical” question as to what percentage would indicate profiling. > [@](#): > > We have correctly decided, as a society, that the very tiny percentage that wants to bring down a plane is significant enough a threat that we have to have security. No one in their right mind would fly if there were none. Not really. Those in power have decided that they need to look like their doing something “against terrorism”. This has included a lot of really stupid policy decisions, one of which is having ineffective “beefed up” security at airports which is nothing more than window dressing. > [@](#): > > It’s not a matter of how many Muslims in the world are “bad”, it’s a matter of how many people who have brought down planes are Muslims. And how many is that? How many flights are crashed by Muslims in a year as compared to deaths by _other_ modes of transportation? > [@](#): > > You don’t have to profile based on Religion. If it assuages your guilt, you can profile based on country of origin, which would end up amounting to a similar thing. It would just taste a little better. You don’t have to profile at all. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/293 "2007-03-14T02:46:18Z")
[QUOTE=MaxTheVool] If there’s a report of a crime committed by a white suspect in a black truck wearing a red hat, and the police stop a white guy in a black truck wearing a red hat, and question him for a while before determining he’s innocent and releasing him, they’re treating him differently based on what someone else did. It’s his bad luck, and it sucks for him, but is it treating him unfairly? [/quote] The difference there is that our behatted white guy in a truck is being inconvenienced because he resembles actual person who committed an actual crime. Profiling involves hassling people because they look like the sort of person who might commit a crime. > [@](#): > > As for reductio ad absurdum, the point I’m trying to make is that one of two things should be true: > (1) Your anti-profiling position is based on a bedrock principle that is so strong and absolute that it stands up even to hilariously exaggerated hypotheticals (which, if it is, is a fine and logically consistent position to hold, whether or not I agree with it) > OR > (2) Your position is based not on an absolute, but on a weighing of tradeoffs of security vs. civil rights. Which is also a fine and logically consistent position to hold, and which (at least, imho), does NOT make you a monster. At that point, reasonable people can disagree about precisely where to draw the line. And drawing such a line is in no way a precursor to a descent into apartheid-style racism. The problem is, you’re not talking about trading off _your_ civil rights, unless you’re of Arab ancestry, or look like you are. You’re talking about trading off _someone else’s_ civil rights. We all have to go through an incredible amount of bullshit if we want to get on airplane. But when you point at another group of people and say, “Let’s make them go through even more bullshit, so that I personally can feel safer about being on this plane,” you’ve crossed a line that’s simply unacceptable. You may be able to invent some ridiculous hypothetical in which this sort of behavior is justifable, but I honestly don’t give a shit. We’re talking about the real world, not FantasyHypothetical Land. > [@](#): > > There MAY be a practical reason, in that it may make us measurably safer while flying. I don’t know if it would. But I also don’t know that it wouldn’t, and I’d lean (admittedly uninformedly) towards at least the possibility that it would. And it may be that the Gray Panthers are just waiting for us to be sufficiently distracted by our Muslim witch hunt to unleash their crack Granny Sucide Bomber squad, and so bring this country to its knees. I don’t know if that would happen. But I don’t know if it wouldn’t, either. And if your argument can’t stand up to this patently idiotic hypothetical, that demonstrates just how deeply flawed your argument is. > [@](#): > > I guess the point I’m trying to make here is that if someone says “most suicide bombers are young middle-eastern-looking men… we should give such people added scrutiny”, then pointing out the numerous ways in which this description both might miss some people and might catch extra people does NOT mean that such a policy would do no good at all, it just means it would not be perfect. There might be OTHER arguments that would demonstrate that it would do no good at all, or even more harm than good, but simply pointing out that appearances can be deceiving does not singlehandledly render the whole idea pointless. The argument isn’t that it wouldn’t do any good at all, the argument is that it wouldn’t do _sufficient_ good to justify the moral evil of racial discrimination. You end up treating a bunch of innocent people like shit, and while you’re wasting time on them, you’re not able to use those resources to look for terrorists who don’t fit your description. And you’re not going to catch _any_ real terrorists, because the terrorists know what your security procedures are, and simply avoid any avenues of attack that would run afoul of your screening process. Sure, you’re making the terrorists work harder, and strike at less appealing targets, but you’re not doing jackshit to actually _stop_ them. Where ever you may draw the line between civil rights and security, at the very least it ought to be over something a little more substantial than _inconveniencing_ the bad guys. > [@](#): > > But there’s a big difference between “you are allowed to do this whenever and wherever you want, but we will apply stricter security to you than to some white guy, and here are objective reasons why, even if they’re unfair” and “you aren’t allowed to do this, because we said so, and think you’re inferior”. Not big enough. > [@](#): > > But no, they are not being asked to give up more of their rights. Anyone who gets in line to get on a plane gives up the right against search of their body and effects. That search being carried out more often against some than against others does not mean that some have more rights than others. All have been stripped of rights equally, and then different policies and procedures are applied to different groups. Which is not to say that that’s a GOOD thing, but no one is unequally giving up rights. We have the right, in this country, to be treated the same regardless of our race, gender, or creed. If members of certain races, genders, or creeds are being subjected to additional scrutiny, then they are surrendering more rights than people who are not of their race/gender/creed. > [@](#): > > Regardless of the historical context, internment was violating preexisting rights, doing so on an ongoing basis against which there was no defense, and applied to everyone no matter what they were doing in their lives. Searches at airports violate no rights (other than the ones that everyone agrees to surrender when they choose to travel by air), once you pass through the search safely you go merrily on your way, and they only apply to people who choose to take a voluntary action. The two are just not comparable. Not everyone is flying because they want to. A lot of people have jobs that require them to frequently travel by plane. So if you’re an Arab, or just look like one, who has a job as, say, a consultant, you’re given the choice of either willfully giving up your rights under the 14th ammendment, or finding a new job. Similarly, if you were a Japanese American living in California during WWII, you had a choice: give up your job (and your home) and move into a camp, or get the fuck out of California. No one had to go into a camp, they just couldn’t stay on the West coast if they didn’t want to get locked up. And it was only for the duration of the war. Afterwards, they were allowed to “go on their merry way.” Not comparable? The two situations were different in magnitude, but not in kind. They are eminently comparable. But, hey, I’m not wedded to that analogy. I’ve got other ones. I don’t think you ever addressed my comparison with making blacks sit in the back of the bus, for example. That’s a pretty good analogy, isn’t it? They both involve mass transit, no one _has_ to ride a bus, and the unfairness only lasts for the duration of the trip, right? What was Rosa Parks complaining about, anyway? > [@](#): > > Much like limiting free speech, I would only support treating people differently based on the color of the skin when there was a compelling, justified, objective, and extremely precisely limited reason to do so. Which is very very very very rare. But not necessarily never. And it’s possible that airport profiling might be such a case. Fine. Make that argument, or shut up. “It might be possible to argue X, but I don’t know if it is, and I don’t have an opinion about it, except that I kind of think it might be right, but I don’t know,” is bullshit. Take a stand, or sit down. > [@](#): > > I’m puzzled by your use of the word “inherent” here, which implies that if I believe that a higher percentage of Muslims today are terrorists than people on a whole, it must be due to something inherent. Which is something I do believe (although it’s still a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the whole). No, it doesn’t. It implies that you think that _all_ Muslims, _without exception_, are terrorists. The examples of illegal speech you listed are inherently dangerous or damaging. It is _always_ dangerous to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater. If only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of Muslims are violent fanatics, then violent fanaticism is not inherent to Islam. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/294 "2007-03-14T03:37:03Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] And how many is that? How many flights are crashed by Muslims in a year as compared to deaths by _other_ modes of transportation? [/QUOTE] In those other modes of transportation, you’d be an idiot not to wear a seatbelt. You do what you can. Every flight that has been brought down intentionally has been brought down by a Muslim, that’s either a statistically amazing coincidence, or more likely there is a pattern. I’ll morbidly put my money where my mouth is and say the next one will be too. The odds are against me, are they not? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/295 "2007-03-14T04:48:16Z")
[QUOTE=Miller] The difference there is that our behatted white guy in a truck is being inconvenienced because he resembles actual person who committed an actual crime. Profiling involves hassling people because they look like the sort of person who might commit a crime. [/QUOTE] So it is okay to use the tactic to aprehend a criminal, but not to prevent a crime before people are hurt? How about gang members? Can they be given extra scutiny? If a retaliation hit is in the wind and a one gang member is found in an enemy’s territory, can he be given more scrutiny than you, or me? [QUOTE=Miller] The problem is, you’re not talking about trading off _your_ civil rights, unless you’re of Arab ancestry, or look like you are. You’re talking about trading off _someone else’s_ civil rights. [/QUOTE] I won’t speak for **Max** , but I am a fan of the principle. It may very well effect me tomorrow. I would not whine. I, of Mediterranean desecnt and often bearded, have been pulled out of line more than once, moreso right after 9/11. I was glad they were pulliing out people who _might_ resemble a terrorist rather than an eighty-year old Norwegian woman. [QUOTE=Miller] We all have to go through an incredible amount of bullshit if we want to get on airplane. But when you point at another group of people and say, “Let’s make them go through even more bullshit, so that I personally can feel safer about being on this plane,” you’ve crossed a line that’s simply unacceptable. [/QUOTE] I disagree. We’re all members of the same society. And it makes sense for the authorities of the society to keep us safe using all reasonable tools. If a group of blonde Episcopalians are committing crimes in thne suburbs of Minneapolis it wouldn’t make much sense to profile white blonde males. But if the same group was committing crimes in Harlem and you see a car load of them, pull them over. Perfectly reasonable. [QUOTE=Miller] And it may be that the Gray Panthers are just waiting for us to be sufficiently distracted by our Muslim witch hunt to unleash their crack Granny Sucide Bomber squad, and so bring this country to its knees. I don’t know if that would happen. But I don’t know if it wouldn’t, either. And if your argument can’t stand up to this patently idiotic hypothetical, that demonstrates just how deeply flawed your argument is. [/QUOTE] What? Because it can’t stand up to a a super-contrived hypothetical? This is ridiculous. [QUOTE=Miller] The argument isn’t that it wouldn’t do any good at all, the argument is that it wouldn’t do _sufficient_ good to justify the moral evil of racial discrimination. [/QUOTE] This is the rub, some PC notion that the profiling is automatically a moral evil. Everything else is noise. And calling a moral evil is prepackaged bull. Society should be able to use tools that keep people safe. If a threat can be identified as a minority (red mohawks, plaid dashikis, albinos, wearers of tatoos on their foreheads, people over 6’6" tall, whatever) that is a tool those who are there to protect are duty bound to use. Not doing so puts you in line for a Darwin Award. This is what “profilers” do, they seek to paint a picture of the criminal(s) that allow them to focus their resources. Banging some gavel and saying that some valuable piece of information is off the table because you feel icky about it is fine in your own house when you and yours are the only ones who might suffer. You have no right to put society at greater risk because you feel icky and your ACLU friends tell you it’s soooooo bad. [QUOTE=Miller] We have the right, in this country, to be treated the same regardless of our race, gender, or creed. If members of certain races, genders, or creeds are being subjected to additional scrutiny, then they are surrendering more rights than people who are not of their race/gender/creed. [/QUOTE] Agreed, as a baseline. But if a threat arises that is identified with a race or creed that is small enough (percentage-wise) to allow more scrutiny on those of the group that is responsible for the crimes, we should use that info. Today you may be inconvenienced, tomorrow I may be. Such is life. [QUOTE=Miller] Not everyone is flying because they want to. [/QUOTE] Immaterial. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/296 "2007-03-14T05:31:38Z")
Lengthy, angry post deleted. I’m going to take a crack at this tomorrow after I’ve cooled down a little. ---
**Author:** ![lowbrass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/dc4da7/32.png) [@lowbrass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lowbrass)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/297 "2007-03-14T07:51:05Z")
[QUOTE=Fiveyearlurker] In those other modes of transportation, you’d be an idiot not to wear a seatbelt. You do what you can. Every flight that has been brought down intentionally has been brought down by a Muslim, that’s either a statistically amazing coincidence, or more likely there is a pattern. I’ll morbidly put my money where my mouth is and say the next one will be too. The odds are against me, are they not? [/QUOTE] Every abortion clinic that has been bombed has been bombed by a Christian. Every Oklahoma Federal Building that has been blown up was by white people. I don’t see the usefulness of this type of reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![Fiveyearlurker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/da6949/32.png) [@Fiveyearlurker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fiveyearlurker)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/298 "2007-03-14T13:13:44Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] Every abortion clinic that has been bombed has been bombed by a Christian. Every Oklahoma Federal Building that has been blown up was by white people. I don’t see the usefulness of this type of reasoning. [/QUOTE] I do. If an abortion clinic is bombed tomorrow, chances are that you are correct and that it was a Christian fundamentalist. If there is a threat to an abortion clinic, investigating the local Jewish temple is not your first trip. Investigating the local Baptist minister who preaches fire and brimstone about the evils of abortion might be a better bet. Of course, abortion clinic bombings are exceptionally rare these days, no? But, nonetheless, their bombings are, and should be, profiled toward Christian fundamentalists. Bravo for making the first step and being willing to put the blame for that where it belongs. As for Federal buildings, as you are well aware, there is an N of 1. That’s just silly. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/299 "2007-03-14T17:35:19Z")
[QUOTE=lowbrass] If you think profiling is useful, then prove it. Start by answering my question as to what percentage of Muslims must be “bad” to indicate profiling. If you can’t do that, then you must concede the point. [/QUOTE] I’ve entirely lost track of what point it is you want me to concede and why. So I will summarize my position and hope that it is clear. It may or may not be the case that a higher proportion of young male middle-eastern-looking people are terrorists than people-as-a-whole. If that is the case, and if that higher proportion is high enough, then lives can be saved and attacks prevented by applying added scrutiny to people who appear to be in that group. The higher the proportion is, the greater the potential savings in lives. At some point, the savings in lives becomes great enough to justify taking an action that carries with it substantial ethical and practical drawbacks. I have no particularly clear idea where that point is, and I believe reasonable people can certainly disagree on where it is. BUT, I feel like some people in this thread are saying that making a tradeoff like that is wrong/evil/stupid/bigoted no matter what always period paragraph end of story. THAT is the position that I am arguing against. Why do I have no particularly clear idea where that point is? Because it’s a fantastically complicated issue concerning topics on which I am in no way an authority. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2007, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837/300 "2007-03-14T17:57:09Z")
I’ve skipped over some of the less important parts of this discussion just to keep it of manageable length. If there’s a point you’d particularly like me to respond to that I ignored, let me know. > [@Miller](#): > > The problem is, you’re not talking about trading off _your_ civil rights, unless you’re of Arab ancestry, or look like you are. True. So? I agree that if I happened to look Arab it would give my argument an extra imprimateur of authority, but it doesn’t really affect the logic of it one way or the other. > [@](#): > > And if your argument can’t stand up to this patently idiotic hypothetical, that demonstrates just how deeply flawed your argument is. Now I have no idea wha tyou’re talking about. > [@](#): > > The argument isn’t that it wouldn’t do any good at all, the argument is that it wouldn’t do _sufficient_ good to justify the moral evil of racial discrimination. If that is your position, I have no objection to it at all. But that’s not the vibe I got from reading (say) posts #275 through #279 of this thread. > [@](#): > > and while you’re wasting time on them, you’re not able to use those resources to look for terrorists who don’t fit your description. That depends on how you’re doing it. Suppose our baseline level of security for airline passengers is 6 out of 10. If profiling leaves it at 6 for most people and increases it to 9 for some, that would cost extra time/effort. But if it decreases it to 5.5 for most people and increases it to 9 for some, it might end up costing the same amount and still have a net-positive impact on actual safety. > [@](#): > > And you’re not going to catch _any_ real terrorists, because the terrorists know what your security procedures are, and simply avoid any avenues of attack that would run afoul of your screening process. That is definitely an irrelevant argument, as by that argument, we should never protect ANYTHING. “Well, we COULD put big concrete walls and guards around this nuclear power plant… but if we do, the terrorists will know they’re there, and will attack something else, and then we’ll never catch the terrorists at all.” > [@](#): > > But, hey, I’m not wedded to that analogy. I’ve got other ones. I don’t think you ever addressed my comparison with making blacks sit in the back of the bus, for example. That’s a pretty good analogy, isn’t it? They both involve mass transit, no one _has_ to ride a bus, and the unfairness only lasts for the duration of the trip, right? What was Rosa Parks complaining about, anyway? A fair question. And the difference is… there IS a legitimate and objective reason for the profiling. It IS the case that lots of terror attacks have been carried out by people resembling the profiled group. The motivation behind racial profiling may be misguided, impractical, or making poor ethical choices, but it is NOT just some random racist paranoid delusion. You yourself seem to have conceded a few paragraphs ago that profiling might actually have some effect, but just not (in your opinion) enough to justify it. THAT is the difference. > [@](#): > > Fine. Make that argument, or shut up. “It might be possible to argue X, but I don’t know if it is, and I don’t have an opinion about it, except that I kind of think it might be right, but I don’t know,” is bullshit. Take a stand, or sit down. What an odd thing to say. People can’t argue about specific parts of issues, or point out what they believe to be flawed arguments for or against issues, if they don’t have a firm opinion about the issue overall? And it’s not like I’m playing devil’s advocate here, just arguing for the sake of arguing. I think some of the arguments people have been making against racial profiling have been simplistic and facile. I have attempted to point that out, and point out that the issue is a complicated one. Why should I not be able to do that? > [@](#): > > No, it doesn’t. It implies that you think that _all_ Muslims, _without exception_, are terrorists. The examples of illegal speech you listed are inherently dangerous or damaging. It is _always_ dangerous to shout “Fire” in a crowded theater. If only a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of Muslims are violent fanatics, then violent fanaticism is not inherent to Islam. I can’t think of a good example right now, but if there were some verbal action that was similar to the proverbial “shouting-fire-in-a-crowded-theater” which had a provably real but fairly low risk of causing hundreds of deaths… so the vast majority of the time it would not matter, and every once in a while it would kill a bunch of people… should that speech be prohibited? (For that matter, shouting fire might fit into that category. It’s not like every single time you did it, an immediate mob scene would result and babies would be trampled…) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/raped-woman-sentenced-to-90-lashes/394837.md?page=16)