12-09-2008, 10:24 PM
Thanks for reading; I sincerely appreciate the questions.
Hm. I didn't frame it in terms of Swampy not supporting her argument sufficiently. In fact, I said:
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...
...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...
...and tried to show how nobody here was really agreeing with what it said.
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.