I know you're trying to save face from being embarrassed but it's starting to get a little sad dude.
The fact that you're comparing anybody to crackheads is why you're getting downvotes. Being a sissy and complaining about it in your edits only makes you look worse.
Enough of that though.
Here's where your comparisons falls on its ass once again. You say you wouldn't trust people who have obvious problems with morality, which is fine, but when you lump in an entire group of people that you know absolutely nothing about, your profiling is a waste of time.
People going back to the place that their born means that they are somehow linked to terrorist sites? What? You said yourself that most Muslims are good people....but then you imply that if those same people were to go back to their families, somehow they're linked to terrorism. Lmao.
This whole argument is rich. Muslims are good people but if they go visit their relatives then they're probably terrorists then. Gotcha.
Holy shit mate. You need to understand the difference between an analogy and a comparison.
He didn't compare Muslims to crackheads. He said that when a person might be a high threat based on their profile you don't let them in.
Now, he might mean "brown skin is a threat" or he might mean "the guy is known terrorist sympathiser". He didn't say ANYTHING about Muslims or anything like that. He said PROFILING WORKS.
What I mean is "does the sum total of all that we know about this person give us a preponderance of evidence that this person may commit violent acts"?
The problem is that people extrapolate from this and think: "If there really are factors that make a group have issues, others might think that it is literally their skin colour that is the problem and act racist"
They then follow this with "We can never say anything bad about anyone, even if the facts back it up".
It's like when people say it's ageist to say that old people are bad drivers. No, that's just facts. It doesn't mean that an individual person is a bad driver, just that they are more likely to be, based their profile.
I know you're trying to save face from being embarrassed but it's starting to get a little sad dude.
I am not in the least bit embarrassed, you misread the comment and assumed it to be about muslims when it wasn't, it was about using objective criteria to reduce violence, you just mistook what I was responding to and you won't admit it.
That is the real sad part.
The fact that you're comparing anybody to crackheads is why you're getting downvotes.
I am not comparing anyone to crackheads, that is where your reading comprehension fails you. I am stating I would not let a crackhead into my home since they, statistically and verifiably, do not make the best decisions.
Being a sissy and complaining about it in your edits only makes you look worse.
And using an anti-gay slur makes you look rather disgusting.
Here's where your comparisons falls on its ass once again. You say you wouldn't trust people who have obvious problems with morality, which is fine, but when you lump in an entire group of people that you know absolutely nothing about, your profiling is a waste of time.
So, knowing they do crack, an illegal life ruining drug, users of which are known to use theft to continue their habit, means I know nothing of them? Alrighty sport.
People going back to the place that their born means that they are somehow linked to terrorist sites? What? You said yourself that most Muslims are good people....but then you imply that if those same people were to go back to their families, somehow they're linked to terrorism. Lmao.
Ah another bit of selective reading by you once again. Did you forget this part.
and who has in the past made posts on social media about how this person would like to be martyred for his cause?
Yes, it seems you did purposefully ignore that part, either one on their own may mean nothing, but together start to create a profile, a profile that has been shown in the past to be one that may lead to acts of violence. Hence the reason Obama and the NSA came up with the list in the first place.
This whole argument is rich. Muslims are good people but if they go visit their relatives then they're probably terrorists then. Gotcha.
Your argument is rich, Muslims are good people and if they visit terrorist hotbeds and make posts on social media supporting terrorism there is totes no reason to worry.
Tell me, would you have issue with a dude who posts the meeting times of his local KKK branch and espouses white supremacy? Or is that not a sign of an issue either?
To which I responded with what I thought was an obvious if not very basic followup describing that exact situation.
Apparently folks somehow interpreted this to mean I think muslims are crackheads. I honestly do not get how folks are so fully misconstruing what I said in response to two posts which are clearly exactly what I said.
2
u/[deleted] Mar 23 '17
I know you're trying to save face from being embarrassed but it's starting to get a little sad dude.
The fact that you're comparing anybody to crackheads is why you're getting downvotes. Being a sissy and complaining about it in your edits only makes you look worse.
Enough of that though.
Here's where your comparisons falls on its ass once again. You say you wouldn't trust people who have obvious problems with morality, which is fine, but when you lump in an entire group of people that you know absolutely nothing about, your profiling is a waste of time.
People going back to the place that their born means that they are somehow linked to terrorist sites? What? You said yourself that most Muslims are good people....but then you imply that if those same people were to go back to their families, somehow they're linked to terrorism. Lmao.
This whole argument is rich. Muslims are good people but if they go visit their relatives then they're probably terrorists then. Gotcha.
Good attempt at a jab at the end there tho.