Re:Profiling is worse than random searches. (Score 1)

I have to wonder, do you seriously think the post I responded to put forth its arguments in a reasonable, balanced and appropriate fashion ? No, rather unreasonable for all the points you mentioned. However, setting the unreasonable portions aside, I do find some logic to the argument. I disagree with one of your statements: If someone has a rational point, then they should be able to make it *with a rational argument*. To me, the problem lies in the definition of rationality. Every human being has their own personal definition of rationality. As it turns out, many societies hold common definitions of rationality. However, that does not require that all individuals of a given community agree on all aspects of rationality. Some Americans believe in Christianity, some believe in Islam. In the current Iranian nuclear crisis, the Iranian president insists that Iran must be treated fairly before it treats the rest of the world fairly. America insists that Iran must act fairly while simultaneously being subjected to threats of economical and "under consideration" threats of invasion. The only way I see out of such a delimma is for one party to yield insistence of the other party's "fairness." Most Westerners will agree that Iran should yield first. Most Islamic fundamentalists will agree that America should yield first. Bombs will continue to explode until someone yields. Surely there is a way of "yielding" while simultaneously protecting one's own interests? In this case, I suspect the definition of "protection" or "national interests" is likely to change before any "yielding" happens. Back to the realm of rational argument making: verbal bombs will continue to explode until one party "yields" by either finding inaccuracies in someone's objective arguments while not responding to stylistic bombs, or the discussion is aborted with no progress (as in this case). One universal truth I follow: There is no objective "always right" perspective. However, when some poor soul who is incapable of making arguments that respect *my* definition of rationality argues with me, the lease I can do is correct the error of his ways not by faulting him, but rather by faulting myself for not defining my sense of rationality more explicitly. I stand corrected.