Quote:
Originally Posted by shinerbock
I hope you mean that the whole "we can't violate the constitution this time, because where will it lead" falls under the slippery slope fallacy.
|
Both fall under the classical definition of the Slippery Slope Fallacy, clearly, as they're inferring a preordained outcome (or are denying an outcome based on an action) - this is entirely the problem with this discussion...
Past that, I don't think we're far off from each other - profiling is successfully used in many parts of the world, and doesn't have to rely simply on demographic information (although it is integrated as well).
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel
You can't say "bomb" in an airport, and you can't yell "fire." There is a limit to the Constitution. While putting down the U.S. does not violate "freedom of speech"-- it was not a single reason why they were removed from the airplane. It is the combination of their suspicious actions which resulted in their removal.
|
My point was entirely that relying solely on statements like these are insane.
Of particular note (and why I introduced the topic) is that the other suspicious actions are being widely reported in completely different ways, and that the most extreme sources are from somewhat specious (and not exactly primary) sources - it's almost like a giant game of telephone - and as such, it seems like the anti-American statements are taking a strong front seat . . . this is pretty goofy, to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueangel
You're right, the reports are different. It is a "he said, she said" account of what was said. There will always be different interpretations by witnesses as to what actually happened.
|
OK - I really didn't need additional sources to prove that the journalism sucks here, that was kind of my point. Thanks for the legwork though.
Still no primary source on the "al Quada bomb formation" line?
Threaded Mode
