Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (3683)	1/27/2001 4:10:06 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I wouldn't put any of that into law, though. I wasn't thinking about laws, either. My context was personal, too. I don't really have any formed position on any of this. I've never given it much thought before. But while that discussion was going on, it just felt odd and I wondered if anyone else found it so. It's a pretty established leftie position, I think, that a cop assuming that a black is more deserving of suspicion than a white or that a woman crossing the street rather than pass a black man are examples of unacceptable profiling. I don't know what the difference is between those examples and the matter of scout chaperones. Obviously when one's children are at stake, one errs on the side of caution. Still, I wouldn't think it easy for a leftie to be so cavalier about the profiling. I don't think I profile much. Mostly when I'm in unfamiliar territory like out of the country. I, too, would cross the street rather than pass someone scary, but I don't know any way to profile scary and I can't recall the last time anyone provoked my crossing the street. I'm just noodling here trying to sort this out. It seemed odd. That's all. Karen

To: epicure who wrote (3683)	1/27/2001 6:33:14 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 82486

Your post does not make it clear whether you think there is a difference between careful scrutiny of people by an individual- and putting that type of scrutiny into a bureaucratic setting. I think the application of such scrutiny to bureaucratic settings is inevitable. We are a litigious society, and anybody setting up an environment where (for example) adults will interact with children, or women with men, knows that if that environment is not adequately protected and subsequently becomes a venue for abuse, they will be the targets of a crushing lawsuit. So there will be scrutiny, and protective measures. Sometimes these may reach the point of absurdity, but if it prevents a single case of abuse, it may be worth it. Whether it is or not, we're stuck with it.