brianeyci wrote:Take a look at this MoO:
Lagmonster wrote:But because discrimination exists in shades of grey means that there is a point somewhere in the middle where people are going to strongly disagree over whether something is acceptable or not, like the many people who have tried to sue Hooters for discriminatory hiring policies.
Guess what: the only way to talk about discrimination, meaningful discrimination, is to debate these shades of gray. Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you've gone on a quest to prove that seeing differences, discriminating, is needed for meaningful security. Stop the presses, let's go tell everyone, what a great victory! The entire point is to find this point somewhere in the middle which is acceptable, notwithstanding your protestations to the contrary that the shades of grey are meaningless and we should only discuss 1 or 0, discriminate or not discriminate.
I made this exact point to you several posts, ago. I'm sick of you presenting MY OWN ARGUMENTS as if they are some devastating rebuttal of my position.
I say the right spot is where we are now: either you say we need to shift to the right and have more discrimination for Muslims which you provide no proof,
Except for the fact that it leads to a more efficient targeting of resources--something which you've conceded by extension of your acknowledgement that terrorists have historically been disproportionately from Arab Muslim males in the US.
or you say discrimination exists, belonging to the no shit sherlock category since "to discriminate" means to see differences between terrorists and normal people.
I've pointed out that discrimination exists in the current "gut feeling" method because you and your retarded ilk in the thread have been portraying that as if it's so much better and doesn't discriminate like my objective, statistical method does. In fact, there IS the same kind of discrimination involved: you guys just pussyfoot around it by preaching for plausible deniability whereas I suggest that there's a place for such methods.
Whether your position is the former or the latter you either prove nothing at all or you prove nothing of substance. Take your pick Master of Assness.
Neither is the POINT OF THE THREAD, ASSTARD. Go back up to the top of your page. Read the fucking title of the thread. Notice the purpose of the thread in the first place. THE POINT IS TO CITE FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE. I have attempted to do so, backed up with voluminous explanations for why I think this is reasonable. I have even proposed possible counter-arguments that you could reasonably present (but in your fantasy-world, obviously such reasonability is totally unnecessary). I love the way you construct massive piles of strawmen and then go about attacking them with the very reasoning and evidence that I have presented, then come back and argue that such tactics (devastatingly effective against the strawmen that exist only in your mind) somehow defeat my original point. Go back and read the thread--I'm sorry I find it difficult to write at the third-grade level you're obviously used to, but I'm confident you can get through it and figure out what I've been saying the ENTIRE FUCKING TIME.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -
Bagara1000
"Happiness is just a Flaming Moe away."
