Total Posts:82|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why We Should Not Profile Muslims

bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:08:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
That doesn't make sense and cannot be justified without relying on hate and poor logic.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:11:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:08:28 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
That doesn't make sense and cannot be justified without relying on hate and poor logic.

+1
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:16:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:12:54 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Facts and statistics? Pfft.

Lol. Indeed.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:20:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

People respond to fear. Now with that said, Islam sucks rocks, but no. I am not frightened enough to loose all our principles to fight it. I just wish the religion would go the hell away.
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:23:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:20:45 AM, TBR wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

People respond to fear. Now with that said, Islam sucks rocks, but no. I am not frightened enough to loose all our principles to fight it. I just wish the religion would go the hell away.

I wouldn't go that far. I think all religion spawns strains that turn violent, and most religions have gone through a violent phase. I think that Islam is not different in that respect. Plus, I think promoting Western liberal values can help moderate what Muslims who grow up exposed to those values believe.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:28:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

Those numbers aren't being compared to any baseline, making them pretty useless. Plus, isn't it the prevailing wisdom that backlash against terror attacks further radicalizes Muslim populations? If you look at Europe, you can definitely see a feedback loop between terrorist attacks and spikes in recruiting. So when you look at the issue as a three-dimensional, evolving one, it makes much more sense to keep that current population percentage of US Muslims small, seeing how jihadists are fond of using the backlash against terror attacks to fuel radicalization and recruitment. You could also just look at Europe as an example of what happens when a country allows lower SES Muslims to flood the population unchecked.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:30:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:28:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

Those numbers aren't being compared to any baseline, making them pretty useless.

What do you mean?

Plus, isn't it the prevailing wisdom that backlash against terror attacks further radicalizes Muslim populations?

Or, you know, you could just not engage in anti-Muslim backlash and, as Trump wants, profile them.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:33:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:30:20 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:28:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

Those numbers aren't being compared to any baseline, making them pretty useless.

What do you mean?

Well, we're talking about whether Muslims are particularly dangerous and merit special attention. That means comparing the per capita rate of mass violence to other religions, not just posting a standalone statistic.

Plus, isn't it the prevailing wisdom that backlash against terror attacks further radicalizes Muslim populations?

Or, you know, you could just not engage in anti-Muslim backlash and, as Trump wants, profile them.

That's an absurd expectation. Years of that narrative being pushed haven't prevented a nativist backlash in Europe, and they certainly haven't done so here. You can't make policy expecting men to behave like angels; that's a recipe for disaster.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:39:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

Way to scare us 0.0
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 4:53:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:33:34 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:30:20 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:28:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

Those numbers aren't being compared to any baseline, making them pretty useless.

What do you mean?

Well, we're talking about whether Muslims are particularly dangerous and merit special attention. That means comparing the per capita rate of mass violence to other religions, not just posting a standalone statistic.

Firstly, no, you don't need that kind of comparison to make judgement about whether the characteristic of "Muslim" is a high enough risk factor to merit intrusion and profiling. Looking at Muslims in the US, .009% is simply not enough to justify that kind of intrusion.

Secondly, I am less concerned with Muslims in general and more concerned about Muslims in the US. Let's take that homegrown stat, and add it to the 6-14 people who tried to return home after joining ISIS [http://time.com...]. Far right violence, which in the US is often connected to various Christian sects and beliefs, killed 48 people in that same time. So, we're comparing 48/255m vs. 108/3.3 million. Sure, there is a difference, but it is absolutely too small to matter. We're talking about hundredths of percents.

Plus, isn't it the prevailing wisdom that backlash against terror attacks further radicalizes Muslim populations?

Or, you know, you could just not engage in anti-Muslim backlash and, as Trump wants, profile them.

That's an absurd expectation. Years of that narrative being pushed haven't prevented a nativist backlash in Europe, and they certainly haven't done so here. You can't make policy expecting men to behave like angels; that's a recipe for disaster.

You cannot intrude in people's lives just because they fall into a religious group where only a small fraction of them have been proven dangerous. You cannot justify the kind policy Trump wants based on the concrete data in existence.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:01:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Moreover, just because we can't prevent a backlash doesn't mean we can't minimizing. Profiling Muslims as Trump wants is one way to not engage in a backlash.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 9,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:06:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:53:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:33:34 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:30:20 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:28:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

Those numbers aren't being compared to any baseline, making them pretty useless.

What do you mean?

Well, we're talking about whether Muslims are particularly dangerous and merit special attention. That means comparing the per capita rate of mass violence to other religions, not just posting a standalone statistic.

Firstly, no, you don't need that kind of comparison to make judgement about whether the characteristic of "Muslim" is a high enough risk factor to merit intrusion and profiling. Looking at Muslims in the US, .009% is simply not enough to justify that kind of intrusion.

Secondly, I am less concerned with Muslims in general and more concerned about Muslims in the US. Let's take that homegrown stat, and add it to the 6-14 people who tried to return home after joining ISIS [http://time.com...]. Far right violence, which in the US is often connected to various Christian sects and beliefs, killed 48 people in that same time. So, we're comparing 48/255m vs. 108/3.3 million. Sure, there is a difference, but it is absolutely too small to matter. We're talking about hundredths of percents.

Muslim: 3.272727 e-5
Far Right: 1.882352 e-7

How on earth do you get a few hundredths of a percentage? They're separated by two orders of magnitude. I don't think that saying that we might want to limit the number of people who are, statistically, over 100 times more likely to commit mass killings is unreasonable, especially since the very rhetoric used to defend them indicates that that number is capable of increasing substantially. The low number which you cited just proves that the number of mass killings in general is itself low, not that it's especially low amongst Muslims.

Plus, isn't it the prevailing wisdom that backlash against terror attacks further radicalizes Muslim populations?

Or, you know, you could just not engage in anti-Muslim backlash and, as Trump wants, profile them.

That's an absurd expectation. Years of that narrative being pushed haven't prevented a nativist backlash in Europe, and they certainly haven't done so here. You can't make policy expecting men to behave like angels; that's a recipe for disaster.

You cannot intrude in people's lives just because they fall into a religious group where only a small fraction of them have been proven dangerous. You cannot justify the kind policy Trump wants based on the concrete data in existence.

That's a bald assertion. And changing immigration policy wouldn't affect people here, it would just influence future demographics.
"See now Oblivion shimmering all around us, its very tranquility deadlier than tempest. How little all our keels have troubled it."
- Lord Dunsany -

"Over her head the stars, the thoughts of God in the heavens,
Shone on the eyes of man, who had ceased to marvel and worship"
- Henry Longfellow -

"We enjoy, we see nothing by direct vision; but only by reflection, and in anatomical dismemberment."
- Thomas Carlyle -
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:15:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 5:06:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:53:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:33:34 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:30:20 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:28:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

Those numbers aren't being compared to any baseline, making them pretty useless.

What do you mean?

Well, we're talking about whether Muslims are particularly dangerous and merit special attention. That means comparing the per capita rate of mass violence to other religions, not just posting a standalone statistic.

Firstly, no, you don't need that kind of comparison to make judgement about whether the characteristic of "Muslim" is a high enough risk factor to merit intrusion and profiling. Looking at Muslims in the US, .009% is simply not enough to justify that kind of intrusion.

Secondly, I am less concerned with Muslims in general and more concerned about Muslims in the US. Let's take that homegrown stat, and add it to the 6-14 people who tried to return home after joining ISIS [http://time.com...]. Far right violence, which in the US is often connected to various Christian sects and beliefs, killed 48 people in that same time. So, we're comparing 48/255m vs. 108/3.3 million. Sure, there is a difference, but it is absolutely too small to matter. We're talking about hundredths of percents.

How on earth do you get a few hundredths of a percentage?

I mean that each represents less than .009% of the total population of faithful.

I don't think that saying that we might want to limit the number of people who are, statistically, over 100 times more likely to commit mass killings is unreasonable

Actually, I think it is completely and utterly unreasonable. Just because X is 100x more likely than Y does not mean X is "likely," or, in this case, "likely enough" .009% is simply not enough to merit intrusions into and profiling of 3 million people.

As I said above: "you don't need that kind of comparison to make judgement about whether the characteristic of "Muslim" is a high enough risk factor to merit intrusion and profiling. Looking at Muslims in the US, .009% is simply not enough to justify that kind of intrusion."

Plus, isn't it the prevailing wisdom that backlash against terror attacks further radicalizes Muslim populations?

Or, you know, you could just not engage in anti-Muslim backlash and, as Trump wants, profile them.

That's an absurd expectation. Years of that narrative being pushed haven't prevented a nativist backlash in Europe, and they certainly haven't done so here. You can't make policy expecting men to behave like angels; that's a recipe for disaster.

You cannot intrude in people's lives just because they fall into a religious group where only a small fraction of them have been proven dangerous. You cannot justify the kind policy Trump wants based on the concrete data in existence.

That's a bald assertion. And changing immigration policy wouldn't affect people here, it would just influence future demographics.

I am not talking about immigration policy. I am talking about Trump's proposal of profiling people. Reintroducing profiling sounds like profiling people already here, people who are legally here, possibly citizens.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:18:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Gonna add this here:

"After doubling down on his proposal to ban some immigrants by including those from countries with a history of terrorism, Donald Trump is now doubling down on another controversial idea in the wake of the Orlando massacre: profiling Muslims already in the United States."

[https://www.washingtonpost.com...]
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 6:27:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense"
LOL ! bsh1 !
America hates Muslims.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 7:57:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, I agree with you OP. It just doesn't make sense based on the numbers. All the fear mongering going around is sad. Yes, radical Islam is a threat to, well, everyone. But the idea of profilling all Muslims because of something a few of them might do just sounds like guilty until proven innocent and to me that is just profoundly anti-American.

Some people will scream out "Land of the free, home of the brave" during the national anthem and chant USA! USA!, but then turn right around and say "All Muslims are terrorists! We can't let them into our country!" How quick some people are to give into their fears and throw all the principles they claim to cherish right under the bus.
UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,923
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 2:01:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:39:05 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

Way to scare us 0.0

Shoot, we've been exposed *flies away*
DDO Discord Link:
https://discordapp.com...
Wylted
Posts: 24,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 3:14:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

Lol, I think it is obvios nobody would profile them all. Not the white or black ones. What is the number when you just count non white and non black muslims.

The DC sniper was black, but we all know he was an exception to the terrorist rule. Everybody was expecting a white there.
Fat owned account
Wylted
Posts: 24,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 3:16:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:08:28 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
That doesn't make sense and cannot be justified without relying on hate and poor logic.

That's why not a single person has seriously reccomended that. The people who mention profiling just mean keeping a more watchful eye on mosques that churn out extremist ideologies and other similar types of things
Fat owned account
Wylted
Posts: 24,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 3:18:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 4:16:56 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:12:54 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Facts and statistics? Pfft.

Lol. Indeed.

See my response to Ore El. Nobody has proposed what you are saying. It is a big strawman. When people like Trump mention profiling, he only means keeping a more watchful eye on mosques that have a solid reputation for churning out radical extremists. Nobody seems to have a problem with it when they profiles whites by putting undercovers in these militia groups.
Fat owned account
vortex86
Posts: 770
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 3:29:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 3:18:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:16:56 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:12:54 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Facts and statistics? Pfft.

Lol. Indeed.

See my response to Ore El. Nobody has proposed what you are saying. It is a big strawman. When people like Trump mention profiling, he only means keeping a more watchful eye on mosques that have a solid reputation for churning out radical extremists. Nobody seems to have a problem with it when they profiles whites by putting undercovers in these militia groups.

Yes, but he's intentionally playing into these strawmen and that's the rhetoric I'm growing tired of. It was brilliant in the primaries and allowed him free publicity to overtake his competition. Now he's going up against a flawed candidate and he should stop and stick to issues.

I hate to point out that undercovers were planted with Omar Mateen in an effort to uncover his plots and nothing was discovered. By the way I completely agree with his underlining meaning, I'm just tired of his message getting lost in the rhetoric (that he's doing on purpose).
PetersSmith
Posts: 6,894
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:03:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 2:01:40 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:39:05 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

Way to scare us 0.0

Shoot, we've been exposed *flies away*

Don't you dare crash that plane.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 17,279
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 5:49:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Even by the FBI's curious standard, the sort of truly violent terrorism that most concerns Americans is extremely rare in the United States. Only 29 attacks on their list of incidents between 1980 and 2005 resulted in actual death. Of these, Islamic extremists were responsible for 24%, accounting for 2,981 kills, while non-Muslim attackers racked up 196.

Thus, what the FBI report is really saying is that a demographic which makes up only 1% of the American population accounts for one-fourth of all deadly terror attacks in the U.S.

(and 94% of related fatalities)....

spin spin spin....
I find myself intrigued by your subvocal oscillations.
A singular development of cat communications
That obviates your basic hedonistic predilection,
For a rhythmic stroking of your fur to demonstrate affection.
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 8:19:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 5:06:22 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:53:52 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:33:34 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:30:20 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:28:26 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:07:02 AM, bsh1 wrote:
There are approximately 3.3 million Muslims in the United States. [1]

There have been 10 violent, jihadist attacks in the US since 9/11, killing a total of 94 people. [2] If we assume 2 attackers per assault, that's 20 assailants. Another 250 Muslim Americans have attempted to join or fight with ISIS abroad. [3] So, we have about 270-300 people who have either carried out attacks on the US or joined ISIS abroad from the US, out of a total of 3.3 million. In fact, there are more loyal Muslim Americans--about 5,000--that have served in our military than attacked us in cases of homegrown terror since 9/11. [4]

That means, that for the sake of .009% of Muslim Americans who went bad in either of these ways, we would profile all of them. That doesn't seem to make much sense, and the danger doesn't seem to merit the intrusion. But, Trump has called for just that kind of profiling. [4] I just don't understand the hysteria over Islam, call me blind if you will, but I don't think the numbers support it.

1 - http://www.pewresearch.org...
2 - http://securitydata.newamerica.net...
3 - http://www.breitbart.com...
4 - http://abcnews.go.com...
5 - https://www.yahoo.com...

Thoughts, comments, reactions?

Those numbers aren't being compared to any baseline, making them pretty useless.

What do you mean?

Well, we're talking about whether Muslims are particularly dangerous and merit special attention. That means comparing the per capita rate of mass violence to other religions, not just posting a standalone statistic.

Firstly, no, you don't need that kind of comparison to make judgement about whether the characteristic of "Muslim" is a high enough risk factor to merit intrusion and profiling. Looking at Muslims in the US, .009% is simply not enough to justify that kind of intrusion.

Secondly, I am less concerned with Muslims in general and more concerned about Muslims in the US. Let's take that homegrown stat, and add it to the 6-14 people who tried to return home after joining ISIS [http://time.com...]. Far right violence, which in the US is often connected to various Christian sects and beliefs, killed 48 people in that same time. So, we're comparing 48/255m vs. 108/3.3 million. Sure, there is a difference, but it is absolutely too small to matter. We're talking about hundredths of percents.

Muslim: 3.272727 e-5
Far Right: 1.882352 e-7

How on earth do you get a few hundredths of a percentage? They're separated by two orders of magnitude. I don't think that saying that we might want to limit the number of people who are, statistically, over 100 times more likely to commit mass killings is unreasonable, especially since the very rhetoric used to defend them indicates that that number is capable of increasing substantially. The low number which you cited just proves that the number of mass killings in general is itself low, not that it's especially low amongst Muslims.

Plus, isn't it the prevailing wisdom that backlash against terror attacks further radicalizes Muslim populations?

Or, you know, you could just not engage in anti-Muslim backlash and, as Trump wants, profile them.

That's an absurd expectation. Years of that narrative being pushed haven't prevented a nativist backlash in Europe, and they certainly haven't done so here. You can't make policy expecting men to behave like angels; that's a recipe for disaster.

You cannot intrude in people's lives just because they fall into a religious group where only a small fraction of them have been proven dangerous. You cannot justify the kind policy Trump wants based on the concrete data in existence.

That's a bald assertion. And changing immigration policy wouldn't affect people here, it would just influence future demographics.

Even if .009% of Muslims get involved in terrorist activity and commit 24% of Terrorist actions it still isn't representative of the religion of Islam. Since .009% of the Religions followers are committing terrorist attacks no matter how big their percentage is in Terrorist attacks.
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Lsumichiganfan
Posts: 267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/20/2016 8:21:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 7:57:32 AM, Cryo wrote:
Well, I agree with you OP. It just doesn't make sense based on the numbers. All the fear mongering going around is sad. Yes, radical Islam is a threat to, well, everyone. But the idea of profilling all Muslims because of something a few of them might do just sounds like guilty until proven innocent and to me that is just profoundly anti-American.

Some people will scream out "Land of the free, home of the brave" during the national anthem and chant USA! USA!, but then turn right around and say "All Muslims are terrorists! We can't let them into our country!" How quick some people are to give into their fears and throw all the principles they claim to cherish right under the bus.

+1
Please vote on this debate: http://www.debate.org...
"You have displayed the political understanding of a tortoise thus far in this election" -Harder
Wylted
Posts: 24,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 12:05:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/20/2016 3:29:08 PM, vortex86 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 3:18:37 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:16:56 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 6/20/2016 4:12:54 AM, 1harderthanyouthink wrote:
Facts and statistics? Pfft.

Lol. Indeed.

See my response to Ore El. Nobody has proposed what you are saying. It is a big strawman. When people like Trump mention profiling, he only means keeping a more watchful eye on mosques that have a solid reputation for churning out radical extremists. Nobody seems to have a problem with it when they profiles whites by putting undercovers in these militia groups.


Yes, but he's intentionally playing into these strawmen and that's the rhetoric I'm growing tired of. It was brilliant in the primaries and allowed him free publicity to overtake his competition. Now he's going up against a flawed candidate and he should stop and stick to issues.

I hate to point out that undercovers were planted with Omar Mateen in an effort to uncover his plots and nothing was discovered. By the way I completely agree with his underlining meaning, I'm just tired of his message getting lost in the rhetoric (that he's doing on purpose).

Why does the rhetoric even matter? Inly his policies matter, the ones he will actually be able to implement
Fat owned account
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 1:54:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
IDK what sort of point is ostensibly being made by pointing out the majority aren't terrorists/violent/whatever.

basically everyone ('cept maybe brontoraptor) accepts that.

the obvious reason for profiling Muslims is that they are disproportionately likely to be radicalized.

OP's own sources show as much.

the reason demographic profiling is and should remain a thing seems to be lost on the apologists.
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
bsh1
Posts: 28,812
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/21/2016 1:57:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/21/2016 1:54:21 AM, someloser wrote:
the obvious reason for profiling Muslims is that they are disproportionately likely to be radicalized.

Whether they are more likely than Christians to be terrorists is *not* the issue. It's whether the characteristic of being Muslim is sufficiently predictive of terrorism to warrant intrusion and profiling. The point being made is that the trait is *not* sufficiently predictive.

The .009% chance that you're a terrorist because your a Muslim American doesn't merit profiling. Period.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...

Mafia Replacement Needed: http://www.debate.org...