The Religion of Peace

[Greg the dogsitter]

That was absolutely fascinating. Really, I've never seen a situation where I've been told, several times, that I was talking about something I specifically said I'm not addressing. In fact, I'll say it again, just for kicks.

I wasn't talking about terrorism. I was talking about a particular argument that came up regarding the topic of terrorism.

I'm proud of my character. I'm proud that, when confronted with a piece that's beyond my capability to examine and understand, I don't insult the author. I'm also proud that I try to support my arguments, all the way down to the initial premises.

kj wrote:
What I get from Deckeda, and the rest of you, is, "We're right, so who cares whether anything we say makes any sense." That's fine, but don't try to hide behind some logic mumbo jumbo. You might as well just call people names. The only difference is it wouldn't be so tedious to read through. kj.

And what I get from you is that you're unable to comprehend what I've written. Perhaps you're just short on time. Since you can't comprehend it, you dismiss without saying why you dismiss it. Perhaps you would find it tedious to do so.

Edit: I'd also suggest that, if you're equating logic and argumentation with name-calling, you might want to read something like this: http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-Criti...521530202/. They're really separate things.

[kj]

>>The principle here is that just because thing x occurs in a certain way y, one cannot say that something which occurs in way y will be thing x.

For my edification, fill in the x, y, and maybe the something that is occurring in way y. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

I provided some above. Here they are, with a few more:

A company hires people from a certain country. A dog sleeps in a certain position. I stand up from my desk and walk to the right. I fill a glass with water.

x: the company hiring, the dog sleeping, me walking somewhere, filling a glass
y: using workers from a certain country, sleeping in a certain position, heading to the right, using water

[kj]

And how does that apply to terrorism, muslims, and stereotyping? Maybe you could substitute those things in for x, y. etc. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

A thing was blown up by young, Muslim men.

x = a thing was blown up
y = by young Muslim men

[kj]

So you're just simply saying that Swampy didn't provide enough information in that post to come to the conclusion that a terrorist is more likely to fit his/her demographic. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Thanks for reading; I sincerely appreciate the questions.

kj wrote:
So you're just simply saying that Swampy didn't provide enough information in that post to come to the conclusion that a terrorist is more likely to fit his/her demographic. kj.

Hm. I didn't frame it in terms of Swampy not supporting her argument sufficiently. In fact, I said:

Greg the dogsitter wrote:
Swampy's conclusion is correct; the conclusion in the argument is not.

To use the orange example again, that I eat an orange four days in row makes it not-unreasonable that I'll eat an orange on the fifth day. Whether I will or not, as you point out, depends on lots of details which a model really couldn't include. But it's perfectly reasonable to assume I'm an orange-eating kind of guy, and the fifth day will see me eating an orange.

This is what Swampy seemed to be saying; extrapolating from a series of events to how the next event might pan out. As I said, I don't disagree with her conclusion.

However, the quoted argument comes to a totally different conclusion. What it does it assert is...

Mrs. Conclusion wrote:
...that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist...

...is totally backwards. That a terrorist is going to be a MEM...okay. That a MEM is going to be a terrorist, no.

Though I've disagreed with you and her about this and that, my long-assed post was not directed at anyone here. I was only thinking about the quoted argument, as it was phrased...

Mrs. Argument wrote:
We know that the 19 (9-11) hijackers were Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23. We know that the people who hit the Cole were the same profile. We know that the people who hit the embassies in Africa were the same profile. So not using what we know--that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist--not using that, is folly. And I think we should use it. But it's not racial profiling, it's terrorist profiling.

...and tried to show how nobody here was really agreeing with what it said.

[kj]

>(the terrorists we're worried about are muslim, therefore all muslims are terrorists)?

>That a terrorist is going to be a MEM...okay. That a MEM is going to be a terrorist, no.

Aren't these equivalent statements?


You said:
>>Nobody said all Muslims are terrorists.

Then you say Swampy was implying:
>>That a MEM is going to be a terrorist, no.

and you disagree.

I agree with the first statement, that no one has said in this whole thread (or the article) that "a MEM is going to be a terrorist". Including Swampy. Yet, I know that several people think that's what Swampy is saying. And they probably assume that's what I'm saying too. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Okay, it's late, so I can't provide answers just now. However, I think we're getting to heart of things, and I look forward to getting back to this tomorrow.

Good night!

[Greg the dogsitter]

Good afternoon!

After reading this whole thread again, I don't think that anyone here believes that even a significant portion of MEM are terrorists. I think that some opinions have been a bit hyperbolic, so conclusions drawn from them may have reasonably reflected the post contents, but not reflected the author's thoughts.

kj wrote:
You said:
>>Nobody said all Muslims are terrorists.

Then you say Swampy was implying:
>>That a MEM is going to be a terrorist, no.

and you disagree.

The "that a MEM is going to be a terrorist" is the implication of the Safir argument which Swampy included in a post, above. However, Swampy doesn't agree with that conclusion.

I'll say explicitly that the conclusion of Safir's argument...

...that the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist...

...appears to be something which you, me, and Swampy, and everyone else here disagrees. Nobody here believes that a MEM is likely to be a terrorist. (Right, everyone?)

That was the point of my initial long-ass post. Safir is wrong, but nobody here agrees with him, anyway. That Swampy included his argument in her post is merely a no-big-deal oversight, because she explicitly drew different conclusions than he. Swampy's conclusion is different from Safir's conclusion, even though Swampy included Safir in her post.

Oh, and in case my only attempts at humor in my recent posts have been too subtle, the "Mrs. Premise", etc., references are to a Monty Python sketch. I'll feel stupid if that's the case, but I've certainly felt stupid before, so no biggie.

GtDS