advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 07, 2008 09:10AM
Quote
mikeylikesit
I screwed that one up. It was aimed at Screwy Swampy and it came out different. Not to say Greg isn't screwy also -- did I cover enough bases or do I need to grovel further?

The way you did it was a bit more surreal, so I like it better.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Black Landlord
Date: December 07, 2008 10:01AM
Quote
MacGurl
Quote
Black Landlord
The moral of this thread: Don't piss off mac gurl :-)

Ahh, if I was actually pissed I would have just told Swampy to F-off, but I didn't. Instead I tried to reason with "her", forgetting there is no reasoning with trolls. It takes a lot more than a cranky old troll to get me pissed.

Unfortunately it seems what you've done is driven the obsessive hate-mongering christian jihad underground to the private message trenches. How special on a Sunday morning.



[www.papanicholas.com] coffee smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: MacGurl
Date: December 07, 2008 10:13AM
Yes, but silly PM's (unlike your's) are so easy to ignore.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: swampy
Date: December 07, 2008 01:32PM
Well, this "silly old troll", has reached a point in life where I have time to give back to my community. There is pain and suffering all around and you really don't have to go far to find it. You just have to get off your butt and out from behind your computer and meet your neighbors, talk to people and get involved. I spend about 30 hours a week doing volunteer work. Humane Society, Abused Family Shelter, Karamah, Head Start, Chamber of Commerce, Cancer Society, Habitat for Humanity are some of the organizations that I try to help.

I don't have all the answers to all the problems, but that doesn't mean that my experiences are not valid. It might be selfish on my part, but I can't tell you the joy I get when a child's face lights up when "the light bulb goes on" and they understand a concept. There is elation in hearing that a cancer patient that you have driven 250 miles round trip three days a week for two months for treatments learns they are in remission. There is pride in watching a single mom with three kids receive the keys to her new home and knowing you had some small part in making it possible.

There is also sadness when a dog comes into the Humane Society that has been so abused and broken that it must be put down. There is an ache in my heart for my Doctor friend and his wife. Tears flow freely when a cancer patient succumbs to that terrible disease. There is fear when a client and her children at the Family Abuse Center are being stalked by a vengeful ex husband and he's standing outside with gun. There is real pain when a head start student is critically wounded by a random bullet fired by a drug pusher on the street when a deal went bad.

There's real life out there. Even in my little town of 25,000 people, I've managed to experience these realities because I'm not content to just sit safely behind my computer and discuss theoretical ideology with you.

And so you complain about my opening post in this thread as being "inflammatory". "Frightening! And it is spreading...Great Britain, Canada, Holland, Germany, Spain, France. Sharia law is making headway. We cannot afford to lose the war on terror because this is what the Religion of Peace holds in store if we do."

Why does the term "terrorist" offend you? Radical Islamic Fundamentalists? Jihadis? I give you guys credit for having intelligence enough to know there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. I assumed you knew that. I thought that was tacit in any discussion of the War on Terror among intelligent people. Maybe you guys aren't as intelligent as I had assumed if it has to be explained to you. You, on the other hand, seem to assume that I don't know the difference.

The "good Muslims" don't abuse women. The "bad" ones do. If you find that inflamatory, so be it.

Good article here on Terrorist Profiling: [www.cbn.com]


"Radical Islam believes that killing Americans -- killing, murdering Westerners -- is fulfilling God's will. When you are fighting that kind of war, you can't be politically correct."..."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."..."“We know that the 19 (9-11) hijackers were Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23,” Safir remarked. “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.”



If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.t



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/07/2008 01:33PM by swampy.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 07, 2008 02:45PM
Quote
swampy
Why does the term "terrorist" offend you? Radical Islamic Fundamentalists? Jihadis? I give you guys credit for having intelligence enough to know there are good Muslims and there are bad Muslims. I assumed you knew that. I thought that was tacit in any discussion of the War on Terror among intelligent people. Maybe you guys aren't as intelligent as I had assumed if it has to be explained to you. You, on the other hand, seem to assume that I don't know the difference.

You don't write as if you know the difference. "We cannot afford to lose the war on terror because this is what the Religion of Peace holds in store if we do" necessarily equates Islam with terrorism.

You should try to stop belittling others.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Gutenberg
Date: December 07, 2008 08:31PM
"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.”

Pardon me? You believe this guy? Who says that any Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23 is likely to be a terrorist? And you don't understand why most of the people on this forum don't want to take you seriously. Un-be-freaking-lievable.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: swampy
Date: December 07, 2008 10:39PM
Quote
Gutenberg
"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.”

Pardon me? You believe this guy? Who says that any Middle Eastern male between the ages of 18 and 23 is likely to be a terrorist? And you don't understand why most of the people on this forum don't want to take you seriously. Un-be-freaking-lievable.

"The Guy" is the Former New York City Police Commissioner Howard Safir.. Is there some reason I shouldn't believe him? If you had read my link, you would have known who said it.

And if you are going to quote my quote, at least quote it in context.

Here, let me make it easy for you. I'll bold type the parts of the quote you found convenient to leave out.

"We know that the 19 (9-11) hijackers were Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23,” Safir remarked. “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.”

From which I conclude that 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 and that to not use this information in profiling probable terroists would be folly.

Based on the full context, that's a wrong conclusion? Why is it "Un-be-freaking-lievable"?

Gutenberg.. you used to make some sense sometimes, but in your desire to vilify my every post, you're going off the deep end. Take a deep breath. Don't let "silly old Swampy" rattle you so much.



If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.t
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 07, 2008 10:52PM
Thr quote is wrong because it infers from a very small sample to a very large population, regardless of which racist said it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 07, 2008 11:41PM
Profiling, be it racist or "terrorist" is a crutch that historically is used by law enforcement unwilling or unable to do their homework. It's an incomplete checklist of characteristics, to be plain. And it's a whole bunch like treating someone as guilty before proven so. The worse part about it, from a crime-solving perspective, is that it's ultimately an inefficient and unreliable means to the solution. It's foolish to take that ex-cop's assessment as "the thing" to look for when gettin' the bad guys.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: swampy
Date: December 07, 2008 11:54PM
Wait, you have 100 terrorist, 96 of them fit the profile. So the profile is wrong? You have 10,000 terrorists and 9,235 of them fit the profile. Not valid? You have 13,000,000 terrorist and 12,765,942 fit the profile, The numbers are out of whack?

Here's the deal....

You get on the subway and sit next to a guy who appears to be in his 20's who has a backpack on the floor between his legs, and he's wearing an oversized coat that looks kind of lumpy, he's rather middle eastern looking, he keeps looking at his watch, seems a little nervous and he's carrying a Koran and mumbling something that sounds like "Allahu Akbar".

Are you
A. Getting off at the next stop?
B. Play the odds because you know 'the numbers are wrong'?

Just curious.



If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.t
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 12:26AM
Tell us, please, the relevance behind your bus example.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 08, 2008 01:34AM
>>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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Gutenberg
Date: December 08, 2008 06:32AM
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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 07:41AM
"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:

Quote
Mrs. Argument
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:

Quote
Mrs. Premise
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:

Quote
Swampy
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.

Quote
Mrs. Conclusion
...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:

Quote
Mrs. Conclusion
...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



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2008 07:44AM by Greg the dogsitter.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: MacGurl
Date: December 08, 2008 11:53AM
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? rolleyes smiley
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: swampy
Date: December 08, 2008 12:10PM
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? [www.washingtonpost.com] 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.



If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.t
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 12:13PM
Kind of interesting how you didn't respond to anything I said.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: swampy
Date: December 08, 2008 12:17PM
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.



If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.t
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 12:19PM
Still nothing.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 12:21PM
Also, I'd like to see you modify your approach of specifying inflammatory exceptions to general principles with something more thoughtful.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 12:22PM
Are you still defending the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Gutenberg
Date: December 08, 2008 12:29PM
Dubya's still working? Gee, I hadn't noticed. The nation is going to hell in a bucket and he's cowering at Camp David.

You ain't got nuttin, Swamp Thing. Not that you will ever admit it.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: MacGurl
Date: December 08, 2008 01:05PM
Quote
swampy

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.

The fact is you are the one who chose to start this thread highlighting only Muslim men in your statement, leading us all to believe that you are the one who thinks only Muslim men are terrorists. You can plead innocence all you want - but this is how you present yourself to us. You want to be seen differently, try a different approach.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: swampy
Date: December 08, 2008 01:23PM
MacGurl..."The fact is you are the one who chose to start this thread highlighting only Muslim men in your statement, leading us all to believe that you are the one who thinks only Muslim men are terrorists. You can plead innocence all you want - but this is how you present yourself to us. You want to be seen differently, try a different approach."

Stop right there.... NOWHERE in my opening message did I mention Muslim men. Kathy do you even read my posts?

------ (Let's Refresh Kathy's memory)
"WARNING! Violence contained in this video

[www.nmatv.com]

Frightening! And it is spreading...Great Britain, Canada, Holland, Germany, Spain, France. Sharia law is making headway. We cannot afford to lose the war on terror because this is what the Religion of Peace holds in store if we do."

----------
"You want to be seen differently, try a different approach" You seem to assume I care what you think about me, Kathy.

Greg..."Are you still defending the probability that a Middle-Eastern male between 18 and 23 is going to be a terrorist?"

I'm defending that if there is a terrorist attack it will probably be done by Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 23. (Echo, echo, echo.. Greg's brain is empty so I keep getting the echo. He doesn't comprehend my simple statement, but keeps interjecting his own...echo, echo).



If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.t
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 01:29PM
Your opening post was referring to Muslims, and only Muslims.

I'm glad you don't believe any stereotype about young Muslim men. The quote you were defending did just that, so it's good to make sure.

Edit: You've again lapsed from your self-proclaimed Southern etiquette. Did you mean Southern playground etiquette, or the kind of grownups?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2008 01:30PM by Greg the dogsitter.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: MacGurl
Date: December 08, 2008 01:47PM
I'm sorry - you were specific about Muslim men in subsequent posts.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: swampy
Date: December 08, 2008 04:57PM
Thank you, MacGurl.

Greg... The word "Muslim" never appeared in my opening post. But the linked movie is very accusatory because the way radical Muslims treat woman was the subject. It was not about the Christian, Jews, Shinto, or any other religious sect treats women. Or didn't you understand that? The movie was not made to compare the treatment of women by various religious sects. I'm assuming that is because not many other religious sects do treat their woman like that. Perhaps the FCLDS would fall into that minority group, but again that was not the point of the movie.



If you don't stand for something, you'll probably fall for anything.t
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 05:06PM
Quote
swampy
Greg... The word "Muslim" never appeared in my opening post. But the linked movie is very accusatory because the way radical Muslims treat woman was the subject. It was not about the Christian, Jews, Shinto, or any other religious sect treats women. Or didn't you understand that? The movie was not made to compare the treatment of women by various religious sects. I'm assuming that is because not many other religious sects do treat their woman like that. Perhaps the FCLDS would fall into that minority group, but again that was not the point of the movie.

You mean the post with the subject "The Religion of Peace", right? The one that linked to a video about oppression in the Muslim world? It was also the one that directly linked Islam to terrorism. Absolutely right; you didn't use "Muslim"; you used a sarcastic euphemism.

Quote
Swampy
We cannot afford to lose the war on terror because this is what the Religion of Peace holds in store if we do.

The first post linked Islam and terrorism. You later decried linking young Muslim men to terrorism, but defended a quote of someone who apparently did. I don't want to put words in your mouth (you insult me when I do that), but I seriously am not sure what your thoughts are.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 08, 2008 05:11PM
... Neither is she, by the evidence.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 08, 2008 05:15PM
...is analogous to declaring what Greg will eat on Friday. Is it a sure thing? No. Might it be reasonable? Yes.

It's not analogous _at all_. But it is a good illustration of why _simple_ logic is rarely useful in the real world (nothings that simple). You've simplified the situation in such a way as to make your logic work, but in the process, you've misrepresented the situation (it's not that simple). Plus, I think you're mixing up probability and logic because you're not quite sure what model best fits the circumstances. The last part of your post is a fair enough opinion though. kj.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 05:50PM
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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 08, 2008 10:49PM
>>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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 08, 2008 11:03PM
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."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2008 11:11PM by Greg the dogsitter.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 09, 2008 12:11AM
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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 09, 2008 01:10AM
Greg says: Nobody said all Muslims are terrorists.

Quote
MacGurl
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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: deckeda
Date: December 09, 2008 06:17AM
Um, yeah. It has been effectively asserted here. Original post left little other "conclusion."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: mikeylikesit
Date: December 09, 2008 07:26AM
I suspect kj sees himself as non-judgmental. Without malice kj, I see you as being undiscerning.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 09, 2008 08:16AM
Quote
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.

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. :-)
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 09, 2008 12:18PM
>>>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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 09, 2008 12:23PM
Quote
mikeylikesit
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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 09, 2008 12:34PM
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.

Quote
kj
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: [www.amazon.com]. They're really separate things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2008 12:43PM by Greg the dogsitter.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 09, 2008 01:09PM
>>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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 09, 2008 01:20PM
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
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 09, 2008 02:22PM
And how does that apply to terrorism, muslims, and stereotyping? Maybe you could substitute those things in for x, y. etc. kj.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 09, 2008 02:39PM
A thing was blown up by young, Muslim men.

x = a thing was blown up
y = by young Muslim men
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 09, 2008 04:09PM
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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 09, 2008 04:24PM
Thanks for reading; I sincerely appreciate the questions.

Quote
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.

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

Quote
Greg the dogsitter
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...

Quote
Mrs. Conclusion
...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...

Quote
Mrs. Argument
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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: kj
Date: December 09, 2008 11:07PM
>(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.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 09, 2008 11:13PM
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!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: The Religion of Peace
Posted by: Greg the dogsitter
Date: December 10, 2008 12:42PM
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.

Quote
kj
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...

Quote

...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
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 222
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018