The Religion of Peace

[Greg the dogsitter]

Tell us, please, the relevance behind your bus example.

[kj]

>>Who says that any Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23 is likely to be a terrorist?

That's not what Safir said. If you can't understand the difference, nothing I say is going to help.

Greg, the relevance is in explaining what Safir said. If the terrorist is likely a middle-eastern muslim, then you are extra vigilant with people who fit that description. In no way does this mean all middle-eastern muslims are terrorists. It may not be ethically acceptable, but to deny the usefulness of the strategy would be wrong. In a sea of people, if you can cut the number of suspects down significantly, it's bound to help. In doing so, you are not saying all of the suspects are guilty. kj.

[Gutenberg]

The context does not help that post one bit. Safir is still saying that you can take the population of millions of Middle Eastern males ages 18-23 and infer that most of them are terrorists. It's ridiculous, it's racist, and on top of that, profiling does not work.

I will tell you what works. Education works. Diplomacy works. Aid works. The previous administration has invested precisely nothing in these methods, choosing to go to war half-cocked and really bunging up the works. Good riddance to them.

This is more evidence that swampy is determined to wreck this board. She refuses to take the excellent advice of Greg and Kathy and instead posts more provocative balderdash. I wish I could say good riddance to her.

[Greg the dogsitter]

"All men are mortal. Socrates was a mortal. Therefore, all men are Socrates." -- Woody Allen

We understand the humor in the above. It's an argument, with premises and a conclusion, but the elements have been scrambled.

The argument here is:

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.

Swampy's conclusion is correct; the conclusion in the argument is not.

The premise part of the argument is this:

Mrs. Premise 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.

From the above, what can we conclude? Let's take a less emotional example.

Say I eat oranges five days in a row. Sunday, Greg eats an orange. Monday, Greg eats an orange. Tuesday, Greg eats an orange. Wednesday, Greg eats an orange. Thursday, Greg eats an orange.

What can we conclude? Given the above, we might conclude something about Greg, about Friday, or about oranges. I think we might conclude that Friday, Greg will eat an orange.

Of course, I might not eat an orange on Friday, because Friday might be lasagna day. However, given the above, the statement "Friday, Greg will eat an orange" would not seem unreasonable.

Can I assert something about any given random orange? I don't think so. I can't assert something about the orange in Spain, or under the Atlantic, or in my neighbor's house. The only conclusion I can draw (even with vague confidence) is about what Greg will do, not about an element of the group with which Greg does a thing.

Now, back to the argument.

Swampy's assertion:

Swampy wrote:
if there were a terrorist attack on NYC, it will probably be done by a Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23

...is analogous to declaring what Greg will eat on Friday. Is it a sure thing? No. Might it be reasonable? Yes.

However, that is not the quoted argument's conclusion.

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

...is an assertion about oranges, and is therefore unsupportable. QED.

We also had the bus example. The problem with the bus example is that it points to the orange sitting on my counter Friday morning and says, "I consider is probable that Greg will eat this orange." Well, of course. But the quoted argument is not talking about (forgive me) Ahmed on the bus wearing a coat in the summer and mumbling to himself and holding the Koran. (Again, forgive me.) The argument is talking about Ahmed, anywhere. Read it again:

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

This states that all men are Socrates. Formally speaking, the argument is invalid; casually speaking, it is bogus, as the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

So much for Greg the philosopher. Now, let's turn to Greg the orange-eating liberal.

The thread is disgusting. Sarcasm is using words to imply their opposite meaning. "He's so tall" means he's short. "I feel great" becomes "I'm sick." Etc. Referring to Islam as "The Religion of Peace" sarcastically is either calling Islam the Religion of War, or the Religion of Violence, or - at minimum, the Religion of Not Peace. I wonder how might everyone feel about "Once again, the Catholic Church helping little boys," or "Hey, how about those Jews? Sure are acting Chosen again!" It's inflammatory, it's loutish thinking, and I feel bad for a Muslim who might wander across this place and get turned off.

Thanks,

GtDS

[MacGurl]

Personally - I think it would be more realistic to be concerned if you are sitting on the subway, next to a young man of any color, who is wearing a heavy coat, looking about nervously, with a dark backpack between his feet, and thumbing a "holy book" of any sort, reciting verses from it to themselves. Thinking this is the behavior of Muslim-looking men (whatever the heck that is - is that the same as thinking all child molesters are unshaven and smelly?) only is foolish.
I don't know about you all, but I remember this guy -



Nice, white, Catholic, served in the Gulf War, Bronze Star decorated, as American as all get out. What's not to like and trust there?

[swampy]

GTD..."This is more evidence that swampy is determined to wreck this board. She refuses to take the excellent advice of Greg and Kathy and instead posts more provocative balderdash. I wish I could say good riddance to her."

What? You don't have an ignore button?

Gutenberg..."I will tell you what works. Education works. Diplomacy works. Aid works."

But it has to work both ways, G. Let's take Ahmadinejad for example, what does he teach his people? (Kill the infidels!!!). What Diplomacy? (Wipe Israel off the map). Aid? (Yeah, their non-existent contributions to fight world hunger, aids, Tsunami victims.)

"The previous administration has invested precisely nothing in these methods, choosing to go to war half-cocked and really bunging up the works. Good riddance to them."

Previous administration? Did I miss something? Obama's been sworn in already? /sarc

American is the most generous nation in the world. I guess you didn't know that Bush has tripled humanitarian aid to Africa? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...00941.html When ever there's an earthquake, hurricane, famine, or other disaster, who's always the first there with the most? I didn't see Iran donating to Katrina victims, but I guess you did?

The war, the war, the war. Too bad we lost in Iraq. Oops... the libs are sorry we won in Iraq. But, I see Obama is going to withdraw troops immediately just like he promised.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Kind of interesting how you didn't respond to anything I said.

[swampy]

MacGurl... Apparently you didn't read the article either. It did mention McVeigh.

"Critics of racial profiling say that terrorists come in all shades - just look at Timothy McVeigh. But the fact remains that the overwhelming majority of today's terrorist attacks are committed by young Muslim men of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and North African descent. "

Just jump in with your counterpoint, but it would be more valid if I thought you read the link. I wasn't trying to 'hide' that information on McVeigh. I expected you to read the link and find it for yourself.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Still nothing.

[Greg the dogsitter]

Also, I'd like to see you modify your approach of specifying inflammatory exceptions to general principles with something more thoughtful.