If you look a bit foreign, don't do math on a plane

[Pepper Mint]

Different ?
OK, I made these statements
P1: So many people from the ME have been terrorists (ME->P->T)
P2: So many terrorists have been from the ME (ME->T)
P1 structure can be reduced to ME->T that is also P2's.

Why do you say they are different ?

 

[micromass]

Different ?
OK, I made these statements
P1: So many people from the ME have been terrorists (ME->P->T)
P2: So many terrorists have been from the ME (ME->T)
P1 structure can be reduced to ME->T that is also P2's.

Why do you say they are different ?

I advise you to go through a basic logic book. You're falling in a well-known trap.

Statement 1: So many numbers in $\{2,...,7\}$ are prime. True, $4$ of the $6$ numbers in $\{2,...,7\}$ are prime.
Statement 2: So many prime number are in $\{2,...,7\}$. Obviously false.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What a ridiculous statement. There are well over a hundred million people in the Middle East, millions more of ME descent around the world and to top it off there is no one ethnicity or look for the region.

Your statement of being wary sitting next to a middle-eastern person because middle-eastern terrorists exists is as non-sensical as not wanting to sit near an Irishman because of the Troubles.

 

[wrobel]

The most ridiculous thing is that this thread it will be blocked by moderators soon despite of freedom of speech and other ridiculous things :)

 

[micromass]

The most ridiculous thing in this thread is that it will be blocked by moderators soon despite of freedom of speech and other ridiculous things :)

Locking of a thread on an internet forum has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

 

[Pepper Mint]

What a ridiculous statement. There are well over a hundred million people in the Middle East, millions more of ME descent around the world and to top it off there is no one ethnicity or look for the region.

Your statement of being wary sitting next to a middle-eastern person because middle-eastern terrorists exists is as non-sensical as not wanting to sit near an Irishman because of the Troubles.

I advise you to go through a basic logic book. You're falling in a well-known trap.

Statement 1: So many numbers in $\{2,...,7\}$ are prime. True, $4$ of the $6$ numbers in $\{2,...,7\}$ are prime.
Statement 2: So many prime number are in $\{2,...,7\}$. Obviously false.

That is kind of a double attack , isn't it ?

Why don't you give me an example of the range {2, 100000000} ? No matter how many is supposed to be many enough, all terrorists must be punished, and people from ME are suspects to me.

 

[ZapperZ]

The most ridiculous thing is that this thread it will be blocked by moderators soon despite of freedom of speech and other ridiculous things :)

And veering off topic with something like this is a sure way to get this thread lock. So thanks to you.

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

That is kind of a double attack , isn't it ?

Why don't you give me an example of the range {2, 100000000} ? No matter how many is supposed to be many enough, all terrorists must be punished, and people from ME are suspects to me.

Just you wait till, some day, you are on the receiving end of the same type of prejudice. And that is what you have, isn't it?

Zz.

 

[micromass]

That is kind of a double attack , isn't it ?

Why don't you give me an example of the range {2, 100000000} ?

OK, according to the prime number theorem, the amount of primes in $\{2,..., 100000000\}$ is approximately $100000000/\log(100000000) \sim 5000000$. So $5000000/100000000*100 = 5\%$ of the numbers in the range you mentioned are prime. I'd say that is still many, if $5\%$ of the americans would be terrorist then that would amount to $1000000$ terrorists which is huge.

So indeed, many numbers in $\{2,...,100000000\}$ are primes. But "many primes are in $\{2,...,100000000\}$ is still false since you're comparing a finite amount to an infinite amount.

Also, the good thing about logic is that it works for every case. So I didn't really have to do the case $\{2,...,100000000\}$ for you in order for your logical fallacy to be exposed. I just wanted to mention the prime number theorem.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could at least try to acknowledge your logical error.

No matter how many is supposed to be many enough, all terrorists must be punished, and people from ME are suspects to me.

I'm going to ignore the obvious racism here. Anyway, you should probably look up "innocent until proven guilty". It's a small notion that is somewhat important in democracies.

Anyway, according to your logic, I will say the following:
- Many nazi's have been white people. I guess that's obviously true.
So according to you:
- Many white people have been nazi's.
So will you be consistent and see every white person as a suspect of nazism from now on?

 

[wrobel]

Locking of a thread on an internet forum has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

It depends on a theme. Sometimes moderators block a thread because they do not want that the whole forum will be blocked or because they do not want to get troubles for themself. I believe that actually you understand what I am speaking about

 

[micromass]

No matter how many is supposed to be many enough, all terrorists must be punished, and people from ME are suspects to me.

Also, there are about 300 million people in the middle east. So you just incriminated every person in a population larger than the US! This includes new born babies!

 

[micromass]

It depends on a theme. Sometimes moderators block a thread because they do not want that the whole forum will be blocked or because they do not want to get troubles for themself. I believe that actually you understand what I am speaking about

And that still doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech which protects people from persecution from the government!

 

[wrobel]

And that still doesn't have anything to do with freedom of speech which protects people from persecution from the government!

If it really protects moderators then why all the threads of well-known type are being blocked?

 

[micromass]

If it really protects moderators then why all the threads of well-known type are being blocked?

What does "freedom of speech" have to do with protecting moderators on an internet forum?

 

[Pepper Mint]

...
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could at least try to acknowledge your logical error...
I'm going to ignore the obvious racism here. Anyway, you should probably look up "innocent until proven guilty". It's a small notion that is somewhat important in democracies.

Anyway, according to your logic, I will say the following:
- Many nazi's have been white people. I guess that's obviously true.
So according to you:
- Many white people have been nazi's.
So will you be consistent and see every white person as a suspect of nazism from now on?

I totally understand I should never make such a comparison in dealing with subjects like this and I am definitely not racist but I can't stop thinking "Many white people have been nazi's" as true. So I will say, No I won't or shouldn't suspect any white man but I will be cautious and keep myself informed of i.e any of his activities, I won't let him know I am always "watching" him.
You are not seemingly afraid of terrorists but I am.

 

[micromass]

I totally understand I should never make such a comparison in dealing with subjects like this and I am definitely not racist but I can't stop thinking "Many white people have been nazi's" as true. So I will say, No I won't or shouldn't suspect any white man but I will be cautious and keep myself informed of i.e any of his activities, I won't let him know I am always "watching" him.
You are not afraid of terrorists but I am.

I am afraid of terrorists. I acknowledge that if I were on a plane and a bearded middle eastern guy with a quran would sit next to me, then I would feel uncomfortable. But I immediately also acknowledge that this fear I have is irrational. There is nothing wrong with seeing a bearded man with a quran and feel afraid: there is nothing you can do about it, you can't rationalize or argue with fear. But things are different when you give into your fear and judge that person without knowing him.

 

[Pepper Mint]

I am afraid of terrorists. I acknowledge that if I were on a plane and a bearded middle eastern guy with a quran would sit next to me, then I would feel uncomfortable. But I immediately also acknowledge that this fear I have is irrational. There is nothing wrong with seeing a bearded man with a quran and feel afraid: there is nothing you can do about it, you can't rationalize or argue with fear. But things are different when you give into your fear and judge that person without knowing him.

Excellent! that sounds very good. Thanks micromass for your explanation.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

You are not seemingly afraid of terrorists but I am.

I am vastly more worried about being hit by a car or knifed in a mugging than getting killed by a terrorist. The latter might be loud and horrific but the chances of it actually happening to you are miniscule. I don't treat every car and driver like some sort of imminent murderer so why treat someone of the same ethnicity as some terrorists the same? I'm not wary, scared or otherwise phased by sitting next to arab people on planes/trains etc. If I was I'd likely spend every day in fear given the diversity of people's in London and the business of transport. At that point the terrorists have won.

 

[micromass]

I am vastly more worried about being hit by a car or knifed in a mugging than getting killed by a terrorist. The latter might be loud and horrific but the chances of it actually happening to you are miniscule. I don't treat every car and driver like some sort of imminent murderer so why treat someone of the same ethnicity as some terrorists the same? I'm not wary, scared or otherwise phased by sitting next to arab people on planes/trains etc. If I was I'd likely spend every day in fear given the diversity of people's in London and the business of transport. At that point the terrorists have won.

No, that wouldn't mean the terrorists have won. If I were the victim of a terrorist attack on the subway by people from middle eastern origin and I would be afraid of taking the subway together with people of such origin ever since, would I be wrong? Would that mean the terrorists have won? No, it wouldn't. It's very difficult to control fear. However, the terrorists have won whenever I treat people differently than other people based on their origin. The terrorists have won when I judge somebody on the color of their skin. This is a very important distinction. I hear this a lot that we're not allowed to be fearful or else "the terrorist win". That's complete hogwash. Fear is natural. But prejudice, hate and discrimination, THAT is what we need and CAN avoid.

 

[fresh_42]

To me the crucial point of the original statement was: "...with a Quran in his hands..."
This would be suspicious to me, too, and I'd probably try to start a conversation about this fact. At least, it indicates some intolerant opinions. One could object that the same is true, if it were a bible. That is true, but within a sample of "terrorist on a plane" I dare to claim, that the Quran version is more likely.

 

[dipole]

No, that wouldn't mean the terrorists have won. If I were the victim of a terrorist attack on the subway by people from middle eastern origin and I would be afraid of taking the subway together with people of such origin ever since, would I be wrong? Would that mean the terrorists have won? No, it wouldn't. It's very difficult to control fear. However, the terrorists have won whenever I treat people differently than other people based on their origin. The terrorists have won when I judge somebody on the color of their skin. This is a very important distinction. I hear this a lot that we're not allowed to be fearful or else "the terrorist win". That's complete hogwash. Fear is natural. But prejudice, hate and discrimination, THAT is what we need and CAN avoid.

And what if the cost of trying to avoid all discrimination is that you and people you love are more vulnerable to terrorism? Are you willing to die, or to see one of your loved ones die, because people wanted to avoid racial or religious profiling?

If people are afraid to speak up about something they see as possibly suspicious, because they don't want to be attacked as racist or Islamaphobic, then how can we prevent these monstrous acts of violence from happening? The way I see it, you have three options.

1) You do nothing and just accept that every now and then there's going to be a mass killing and we just have to grit our teeth and smile, and hope it goes away at some point and doesn't kill us or someone we care about.

2) You have to do something about it, but not at the expense of discrimination. We can't single people out based on race, ethnicity, or religion, and we must treat everyone equally.

So what does that leave us with? Mass surveillance of everyone? Do we monitor e-mails, phone calls, bank transactions, and try to single out people who are a likely threat based on their activity. Maybe we develop machine-learning algorithms to pick out terrorists and live in a perpetual state of survalience and suspicion.

3) You forgo political correctness and single out groups of people most likely, from past experience, to be a threat.

Life will be less fun for these people, but if we can prevent a lot of innocent people dying a horrendous death, then I am most in favour of option 3.

I would really like all those echoing micromass's sentiment to explain what they think we should do about terrorism, and if someone they care about gets shot tomorrow or blown to pieces by some religious fanatic, if they'd still think their approach was the best way.

 

[micromass]

And what if the cost of trying to avoid all discrimination is that you and people you love are more vulnerable to terrorism? Are you willing to die, or to see one of your loved ones die, because people wanted to avoid racial or religious profiling?

If people are afraid to speak up about something they see as possibly suspicious, because they don't want to be attacked as racist or Islamaphobic, then how can we prevent these monstrous acts of violence from happening? The way I see it, you have three options.

1) You do nothing and just accept that every now and then there's going to be a mass killing and we just have to grit our teeth and smile, and hope it goes away at some point and doesn't kill us or someone we care about.

2) You have to do something about it, but not at the expense of discrimination. We can't single people out based on race, ethnicity, or religion, and we must treat everyone equally.

So what does that leave us with? Mass surveillance of everyone? Do we monitor e-mails, phone calls, bank transactions, and try to single out people who are a likely threat based on their activity. Maybe we develop machine-learning algorithms to pick out terrorists and live in a perpetual state of survalience and suspicion.

3) You forgo political correctness and single out groups of people most likely, from past experience, to be a threat.

Life will be less fun for these people, but if we can prevent a lot of innocent people dying a horrendous death, then I am most in favour of option 3.

I would really like all those echoing micromass's sentiment to explain what they think we should do about terrorism, and if someone they care about gets shot tomorrow or blown to pieces by some religious fanatic, if they'd still think their approach was the best way.

Let me guess, you're not one of those who would get discriminated, hated or racially profiled?

 

[dipole]

That's not relevant. All I'm asking is you defend your position with how you'd choose to approach the problem. I gave three possibilities which seem plausible, you can choose one or suggest another.

It's easy to spout rhetoric and platitudes... I want to know what people think should be done about the problem.

 

[micromass]

That's not relevant. All I'm asking is you defend your position with how you'd choose to approach the problem. I gave three possibilities which seem plausible, you can choose one or suggest another.

It's easy to spout rhetoric and platitudes... I want to know what people think should be done about the problem.

It seems to me that security is high in your priority list. I'm fine with that, no problem. I hope you go all the way and are also for a lot more gun control? After all, I'm sure that it will have much more effect than making every muslim a second rank citizen, don't you think?

 

[micromass]

As for your three-way false dilemma. I don't really buy that those are the only options. But I would gladly die so that my children can live in a world where they are not judged by the color of their skin.

 

[ZapperZ]

3) You forgo political correctness and single out groups of people most likely, from past experience, to be a threat.

Last time they did something similar, they were led by someone named Adolf Hitler.

Or the last time they did something similar, the US imprisoned the entire American Japanese population.

Unless you have DEFINITIVE proof that a belief system, an ideology, a skin color, a racial heritage, etc. is AUTOMATICALLY destructive and harmful, you do make wholesale categorization. After all, using your logic, I would bar ALL heterosexual men from children, because statistics show that the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse of children are done by such a group.

There is also another factor here. The US constitution strictly prohibits such an act. While many have turned a blind eye towards such constitutional transgressions in the past, civil rights movements are more vocal and stronger now than during the early half of the 20th century. Such blatant acts would not be tolerated without challenges in the courts, and I for one do not see how it can stand.

Zz.

 

[micromass]

Last time they did something similar, they were led by someone named Adolf Hitler.

I wish the last time was with Adolf Hitler. But this kind of racism and hate keeps leading to genocide and oppression to this day. The Rwanda genocide. The genocide in Serbia. The actions of ISIS. The genocide in Darfour. All are time and time again seen a consequences from a population that accepts the demonizing of other cultures/races/religions. It has never lead to something good.

 

[dipole]

It seems to me that security is high in your priority list. I'm fine with that, no problem. I hope you go all the way and are also for a lot more gun control? After all, I'm sure that it will have much more effect than making every muslim a second rank citizen, don't you think?

Gun control and terrorism aren't the same issue. There's many instances of terrorism where gun control measures wouldn't have made any difference. Home-made explosives are just as effective at killing unsuspecting people. However, if you would like to know, I do favour more gun control over less.

As for your three-way false dilemma. I don't really buy that those are the only options. But I would gladly die so that my children can live in a world where they are not judged by the color of their skin.

Well I'd like to hear a plausible alternative. I'm sure there are other solutions, but I don't see a way out of the fundamental dilemma that you can't increase security and screen people effectively while also preserving privacy and other freedoms. More security means less freedom. More government protection means more government power. If we choose to place the responsibility of fighting terrorism in the governments hands, then someone has to pay the price for that.

You say we should all pay the price equally. I don't think I agree.

Last time they did something similar, they were led by someone named Adolf Hitler.

Or the last time they did something similar, the US imprisoned the entire American Japanese population.

Unless you have DEFINITIVE proof that a belief system, an ideology, a skin color, a racial heritage, etc. is AUTOMATICALLY destructive and harmful, you do make wholesale categorization. After all, using your logic, I would bar ALL heterosexual men from children, because statistics show that the overwhelming majority of sexual abuse of children are done by such a group.

There is also another factor here. The US constitution strictly prohibits such an act. While many have turned a blind eye towards such constitutional transgressions in the past, civil rights movements are more vocal and stronger now than during the early half of the 20th century. Such blatant acts would not be tolerated without challenges in the courts, and I for one do not see how it can stand.

Zz.

That's an extremely tired analogy... anything bad = Hitler. I'm not saying it's a good thing to profile Muslims, I'm saying I don't see much alternative that doesn't drive us towards living in a state of constant surveillance, assuming we want to do something about terrorists. It's a bad situation, but I don't think the West is to blame for this one. There seems to be certain cultural and ideological differences between the West and the Middle East that are irreconcilable. Israel has been saying this for sixty years. Our failures in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate this.

There are many people who have spoken out against Islam and why it is more dangerous than other systems of belief. They are shouted down by people like yourself with Nazi metaphors and the conversation goes no where. Most people refuse to even acknowledge such a conversion, because the idea is seen as "racist" or "intolerant".

Further, who are the Nazis and who are the Jews, by your analogy? The Nazis wanted to exterminate a small minority population who were essentially powerless and with no state or land of their own. The Nazis were a strong organization who could crush a weak and defenceless one. Muslims are not weak and defenceless. There are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and many Muslim nations - many of whom are United Nations members. In what sense would the United States be comparable to the Nazi regime if we decided to use extra security screening of certain people?

 

[ZapperZ]

That's an extremely tired analogy... anything bad = Hitler. I'm not saying it's a good thing to profile Muslims, I'm saying I don't see much alternative that doesn't drive us towards living in a state of constant surveillance, assuming we want to do something about terrorists. It's a bad situation, but I don't think the West is to blame for this one. There seems to be certain cultural and ideological differences between the West and the Middle East that are irreconcilable. Israel has been saying this for sixty years. Our failures in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate this.

There are many people who have spoken out against Islam and why it is more dangerous than other systems of belief. They are shouted down by people like yourself with Nazi metaphors and the conversation goes no where. Most people refuse to even acknowledge such a conversion, because the idea is seen as "racist" or "intolerant".

Further, who are the Nazis and who are the Jews, by your analogy? The Nazis wanted to exterminate a small minority population who were essentially powerless and with no state or land of their own. The Nazis were a strong organization who could crush a weak and defenceless one. Muslims are not weak and defenceless. There are over 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and many Muslim nations - many of whom are United Nations members. In what sense would the United States be comparable to the Nazi regime if we decided to use extra security screening of certain people?

It is NOT a "tired analogy", because the analogy is not comparing the events, but the IDEOLOGY, that one can make wholesale profile of entire belief systems.

You claim that there is an inherent danger to Islam. Now prove it!

You simply cannot use the acts of the extreme few, because I can bring out the stupid Wesboro Church followers and make condemnation of the entire Christian faith if I use your logic. And in case you have forgotten or have not looked at history far enough, such atrocities have been done by many groups of people, all using their belief systems to hide behind!

People will use anything established to justify their bigotry or hatred. Unfortunately, you can't see that you are doing the very exact, same thing.

Zz.

 

[micromass]

There are many people who have spoken out against Islam and why it is more dangerous than other systems of belief.

Nope sorry. Unless you can prove this, this is just angry bigotry. I would respect your statement more if you said that any religion is dangerous, although I also don't agree with this.