The Religion of Peace

[Greg the dogsitter]

kj,

First of all, a sincere thanks for reading my big post. I'm glad to know there was an audience. :-)

The simplicity was deliberate, as I'm not trying to construct a true analogy or metaphor for the particular case. Rather, I'm boiling it down to "a thing that happens a certain way."

Really, it could be anything. Greg eats an orange. A company hires people from a certain country. A dog sleeps in a certain position.

Any of these will illustrate why the quoted argument fails. It's reasonable to say that I might eat an orange, but not that a given orange will be eaten by me. It's reasonable to say that the company might hire someone from the same country, but not that someone from that country will be hired by the company. It's reasonable to say that the dog will sleep in the same position, but not that something sleeping in that position will be that dog.

The real-life situation is not that simple, but the principle is the same. 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.

[kj]

>>The real-life situation is not that simple, but the principle is the same. 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.

Yes Greg, a symmetrical relationship. You're assuming I'm a knob. Where did someone assert that it's a symmetrical relationship (the terrorists we're worried about are muslim, therefore all muslims are terrorists)? Someone may have, but I didn't see it.

You are constructing a model of the terrorist situation. You're making the complex situation fit your simple model, rather than developing a reasonable model. How does it explain why it's stupid to strip search a 90yr old grandmother? It doesn't. To get a half decent model, you'd have to weight this or that, add more variables, etc. For example, if you are searching people, you might want to pay particular attention to Swampy's demographic. Not exclusive attention, just more attention. Paying more attention to them doesn't mean you think they're all guilty, but you've got limited resources, and you need to spend them wisely. Spending hours on 90yr old grandmas doesn't make any sense. Right? You want to cut that pool of people who is likely to be a terrorist down to as small a number as you can. That said, if people decide it's unethical to do this, that's fine. But you can't say it's illogical. kj.

[Greg the dogsitter]

That is a phenomenal misinterpretation of what I was saying.

Nobody said all Muslims are terrorists. The quoted paragraph, somewhere above, asserted the probability of a certain segment of Muslims being terrorists. That's what "the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist" means.

I am not constructing a model of the terrorist situation. I am constructing a model of the faulty thought process behind the analysis of the terrorist situation.

Edit: Ought to be "the faulty thought process behind an analysis of the terrorist situation."

[kj]

Well, I'm sure the point you're trying to make is a good one, but it doesn't make any sense to me, unless you're trying to say Swampy's demographic isn't any more likely to be a terrorist than my 90yr. old grandma. In that case it's an empirical question, not a logical one. kj.

[kj]

Greg says: Nobody said all Muslims are terrorists.

MacGurl wrote:
[quote=michaelb]

In any case, it is over. This is almost sad: what are we going to talk about next?

Apparently how every male Muslim between the ages of 18-24 is guaranteed to be a terrorist.




Wow. I suppose this is just a joke? kj.

[deckeda]

Um, yeah. It has been effectively asserted here. Original post left little other "conclusion."

[mikeylikesit]

I suspect kj sees himself as non-judgmental. Without malice kj, I see you as being undiscerning.

[Greg the dogsitter]

kj wrote:
Well, I'm sure the point you're trying to make is a good one, but it doesn't make any sense to me, unless you're trying to say Swampy's demographic isn't any more likely to be a terrorist than my 90yr. old grandma. In that case it's an empirical question, not a logical one. kj.

I wasn't making any assertions about anyone, or any demographic. I was just trying to analyze whether the premises in the quoted argument supported the conclusion. That's all.

Philosophy is far more my thing than trying to make sweeping analyses of policy.

Especially on internet forums. :-)

[kj]

>>>I wasn't making any assertions about anyone, or any demographic.

That was the topic. You participated. Whether you admit it or not, you were making assertions, demographic and otherwise.

>>>I was just trying to analyze whether the premises in the quoted argument supported the conclusion. That's all.

And the premises you put forth did not accurately represent the situation (the terrorist situation is not like your orange example, in principle, or in any other way). But you're not willing to defend what you say, so that's fine.

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.

[kj]

mikeylikesit wrote:
I suspect kj sees himself as non-judgmental. Without malice kj, I see you as being undiscerning.

I see you as choosing not to understand what's being said. I know you can, but for some reason you want to believe something that's not true. kj.