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

[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.

 

[micromass]

Also, I'm sure you will consider this irrelevant, but do answer this:

How many muslims do you know personally? What are your experiences with them?

 

[fresh_42]

If live in a town with a significant ratio of muslim citizens. We have six mosques and religion isn't a big issue in everyday life. There are some problems with young male muslims and their behaviour towards women. To some extent this is due to religion. At least it is distinctive and IMO it displays a different system of values which is the center of why religion becomes an issue.
Nevertheless, the general consensus is to live and let live. There is even a young jew who offers sightseeing tours including the visit of a mosque.

The most complaints about islam, however, arise by far in parts of Germany where only very few muslims live. I can't see any logic behind it but pure fear of the unknown and propagandists who try to use those fears to their political benefit.

I wonder if it is similar in the US?

 

[Davephaelon]

This is a very strange story. You can hardly go anywhere in the US without encountering people with foreign accents. I never pay attention to it because it's so commonplace. Also, it's as if this woman had never seen a person with dark, curly hair - kind of impossible. The majority of people of Euro descent have dark hair; it's also the dominant hair color worldwide. For example, growing up in a family of 8 there was one straw blond (brother), one curly redhead (mom), and the rest of us (had) dark brown hair (not curly). So that's 75% dark hair, and we're of northern Euro descent.

I would have been delighted to have sat next to this young man, as I'm planning to study differential equations. I would have asked lots of questions, assuming he was OK with being distracted.

 

[dipole]

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.

I've actually made my opinion about this clear in other threads. Many religions are dangerous, including Christianity, but some are worse than others. How can you make that last statement. Are you claiming that a system of belief is never dangerous?

Consider a more extreme case. Suppose, as a thought experiment, there are two religions - in the first, it is believed that the Sun God requires human sacrifice to appease him, and every month on the full moon people must be slaughtered to earn the Sun God's blessing, or terrible things will happen to everyone else. The Sun God is most pleased when non-believers are chosen for the sacrifice. In the second, it is believed that all living things are part of a cycle of death and rebirth, and that one should avoid causing harm or suffering to living beings, because they have souls and will one day be reborn as a human, and that that one's cruelty and selfishness in life can affect them in their next.

Would you, with a straight face, claim that people from the first religion are less dangerous than people from the second? Neither of these are that far off from real religions which have existed in human history.

If you will concede, that in this more extreme example, the first system of belief is very dangerous, and the second is very benign, then you must also concede that a line exists where a system of beliefs can create the propensity for dangerous behavior. If so, then how can you outright reject the claim that a religion can be dangerous? That is just absurd.

If, however, you agree with me, then you should at least admit the possibility that Islam, as a system of belief, is problematic in the modern world, and may be more so than most other religions.

But what proof would you like that would convince you? I can give you names of people who have written about this, and are much more knowledgeable on the subject than myself, but would it change your mind? You seem steadfast in your belief.

Also, I'm sure you will consider this irrelevant, but do answer this:

How many muslims do you know personally? What are your experiences with them?

One of my fellow PhD students is devout Muslim. Wears the special garments and headdress, long beard, the whole thing. He's a very brilliant guy, and from my interactions with him a very nice person. However, I feel sad for him that he was born into a poisonous ideology and hasn't been able to free himself from it. I would feel the same way were he a devout Christian.

 

[collinsmark]

Today's SMBC seems relevant to this thread.

[Source: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4148]

 

[Davephaelon]

I find myself embarrassed by the stereotyping of us Americans, in this article, as dumb, clueless, Neanderthals, intolerant of anyone who appears different from us. I cringe at the thought of what people, elsewhere in the world, think of us now, perhaps as some monolithic, inbred tribe. The reality is that this young man doesn't look that different from many of us average Americans, and would fit right in here. So, I dug through some old photos of my fellow Americans - my 36th birthday party with coworkers, and a vacation trip with friends. Out of 4 individuals, guess what? - two (the females) had dark, curly hair! http://starflight1.freeyellow.com/Waistline.html

This article underscores the fact that we have entered another "silly season" (presidential election cycle); rather like past UFO waves when we Americans were divided into two camps - a rigid PC position, and those who espoused a more flexible, realistic attitude - like the late Dr. J. Allen Hynek.

 

[ZapperZ]

If you will concede, that in this more extreme example, the first system of belief is very dangerous, and the second is very benign, then you must also concede that a line exists where a system of beliefs can create the propensity for dangerous behavior. If so, then how can you outright reject the claim that a religion can be dangerous? That is just absurd.

If, however, you agree with me, then you should at least admit the possibility that Islam, as a system of belief, is problematic in the modern world, and may be more so than most other religions.

But what proof would you like that would convince you? I can give you names of people who have written about this, and are much more knowledgeable on the subject than myself, but would it change your mind? You seem steadfast in your belief.

There are several issues here:

1. To show that there is an inherent problem with something, you need to actually look at that something directly. In other words, if you wish to show that there is an inherent problem with Islam, more so than other religion, then you need to look and study what it actually says, and then show that this is problematic. We're not talking about citing passages without context here.

2. If you can't do that, then you need to do a scholarly citation. Yes, I said scholarly citation, not just some newspaper article or someone's opinion of the internet.

3. Show that it is fundamentally different than other religions, because after all, you are singling out one particular religion in particular.

One of my fellow PhD students is devout Muslim. Wears the special garments and headdress, long beard, the whole thing. He's a very brilliant guy, and from my interactions with him a very nice person. However, I feel sad for him that he was born into a poisonous ideology and hasn't been able to free himself from it. I would feel the same way were he a devout Christian.

Look at what you said here. From all indication, this person that you've described is a "nice person", had not done anything wrong to you or anyone else. But you have JUDGED him and piled on your prejudice towards him not based on his ACTIONS, but based on your perceived understand of his beliefs BASED ON HOW HE DRESSED! The problem here isn't him. It is YOU!

And yes, if i wish, I can easily form a lot of negative impression about you based on this, all without knowing who you truly are or what is in your heart.

Zz.

 

[dipole]

There are several issues here:

1. To show that there is an inherent problem with something, you need to actually look at that something directly. In other words, if you wish to show that there is an inherent problem with Islam, more so than other religion, then you need to look and study what it actually says, and then show that this is problematic. We're not talking about citing passages without context here.

2. If you can't do that, then you need to do a scholarly citation. Yes, I said scholarly citation, not just some newspaper article or someone's opinion of the internet.

3. Show that it is fundamentally different than other religions, because after all, you are singling out one particular religion in particular.

Well I'm not a religious scholar, but frankly neither is anyone else participating in this discussion - so at this point, unless someone goes to the effort of obtaining peer-reviewed articles, then I suppose the discussion has come to a wall. I am at a slight disadvantage here, because my position is more easily falsifiable (though I think it is more likely I am correct), and so the burden of proof rests more on myself. If I find I have more free time this summer, then I may post articles I feel are worth sharing, but I don't see myself spending a great deal of time trying to win an argument on the internet.

Look at what you said here. From all indication, this person that you've described is a "nice person", had not done anything wrong to you or anyone else. But you have JUDGED him and piled on your prejudice towards him not based on his ACTIONS, but based on your perceived understand of his beliefs BASED ON HOW HE DRESSED! The problem here isn't him. It is YOU!

And yes, if i wish, I can easily form a lot of negative impression about you based on this, all without knowing who you truly are or what is in your heart.

Zz.

This I don't understand. What have I judged about him? I know for a fact he is a devout Muslim, even if he didn't wear the religious clothing, I was just giving an easy visual example. What prejudice have I piled against him? Are you referring to my dig against Islam as a "poisonous ideology"?

Sorry, but that's not judgement or prejudice. I don't owe it to anyone to respect their beliefs. I may use softer language to someone's face, because it's not my intention to offend someone, but at the end of the day if someone is offended because I think their beliefs are wrong, poisonous, immoral, silly, or whatever - that's their problem, not mine. I don't demand the world the rest of the world respect and refrain from criticism of my beliefs. After all, it was you who compared me to Adolf Hitler for my position on this subject...