Is this a good counterargument or does it validate the premises?

[lemur]

Similar numbers? What happened to the 100,000:1 ratio you claimed just a few posts back?

 

Do you see what you're doing? You're arguing over the numbers to imply that there is some legitimate threshold where you can hold individuals accountable for actions attributed to a collective identity.

[swansont]

Do you see what you're doing? You're arguing over the numbers to imply that there is some legitimate threshold where you can hold individuals accountable for actions attributed to a collective identity.

 

Really? I thought I was pointing out the goalposts being moved.

 

I really would appreciate it if you would focus on the discussion itself rather than try and guess my motives.

[lemur]

Really? I thought I was pointing out the goalposts being moved.

 

I really would appreciate it if you would focus on the discussion itself rather than try and guess my motives.

 

So the "goalpost" are where you have to shoot to successfully incriminate Muslims as a species and Islam as a religion? Why, so you can justify uniform discrimination against anyone who practices faith in Islam?

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

He's just pointing out that jryan switched the ratio he claimed at 100,000:1, to 1:1 when it came time to actually use real numbers. Posts 45 and 50.

[swansont]

So the "goalpost" are where you have to shoot to successfully incriminate Muslims as a species and Islam as a religion? Why, so you can justify uniform discrimination against anyone who practices faith in Islam?

 

Again, I would appreciate it if you would not do this. It's a personal attack and is counterproductive and inflammatory.

 

jryan made a claim, and the numbers provided (though unsubstiantated; I don't see a way to check them on that site) do not come close to backing up that claim. Discussions will almost always go awry when the arguments are built upon falsehoods. I don't know why one needs to manufacture any motive beyond facilitating honest debate.

[lemur]

Again, I would appreciate it if you would not do this. It's a personal attack and is counterproductive and inflammatory.

 

jryan made a claim, and the numbers provided (though unsubstiantated; I don't see a way to check them on that site) do not come close to backing up that claim. Discussions will almost always go awry when the arguments are built upon falsehoods. I don't know why one needs to manufacture any motive beyond facilitating honest debate.

 

Ok, I apologize if this sounds like I am personally attacking you. I would however like to know if you recognize that using a certain threshhold as a "goalpost" to support the general conclusions that muslims or Islam should be associated with violence collectively promotes prejudice against any individual that identifies with the religion, regardless of their personal attitude toward violence and/or terrorism. In other words, don't you think it is unfair to suggest that a particular individual has a certain relationship with violence or terrorism just because they practice Islam?

[swansont]

Ok, I apologize if this sounds like I am personally attacking you. I would however like to know if you recognize that using a certain threshhold as a "goalpost" to support the general conclusions that muslims or Islam should be associated with violence collectively promotes prejudice against any individual that identifies with the religion, regardless of their personal attitude toward violence and/or terrorism. In other words, don't you think it is unfair to suggest that a particular individual has a certain relationship with violence or terrorism just because they practice Islam?

 

I'm not suggesting this. I don't see how one might construe my remarks to think that I am.

[lemur]

I'm not suggesting this. I don't see how one might construe my remarks to think that I am.

 

It's a simple logic of association that follows from group-generalizations. If a certain group is defined as violent, sexually promiscuous, lazy, intelligent, physically strong, etc. etc., then that attribute will be associated with individuals identified with the group-identity. So if you were, for example, comparing average IQ scores of different religions, you would be suggesting that individuals would be more likely to be intelligent or stupid based on which religion they practice. In this case, you're doing it with violence and terrorism, but this is just generally true of group-associative logic. You can't seriously be totally unaware of how this kind of groupist logic works to prejudice individuals against each other at the individual level based on identity-labels?

Edited September 12, 2010 by lemur

[swansont]

It's a simple logic of association that follows from group-generalizations. If a certain group is defined as violent, sexually promiscuous, lazy, intelligent, physically strong, etc. etc., then that attribute will be associated with individuals identified with the group-identity. So if you were, for example, comparing average IQ scores of different religions, you would be suggesting that individuals would be more likely to be intelligent or stupid based on which religion they practice. In this case, you're doing it with violence and terrorism, but this is just generally true of group-associative logic. You can't seriously be totally unaware of how this kind of groupist logic works to prejudice individuals against each other at the individual level based on identity-labels?

 

I'm not doing any association, or group generalization.

 

 

But I am really getting tired of this crap.

[lemur]

I'm not doing any association, or group generalization.

 

 

But I am really getting tired of this crap.

 

What do you call it, then, when you are trying to compare religions in terms of the number of violent acts committed by people who identify with that faith? How are you not associating the violence committed by individuals with the group-identity, "Muslim?"

[Pangloss]

It's a simple logic of association that follows from group-generalizations.

 

In general it's best not to read between the lines of people's posts here. We have a pretty diverse group of folks in this international forum, and sometimes associations that seem obvious or familiar to you may not seem that way to others. Easier for everyone if you just make your point in more independent terms.

[swansont]

What do you call it, then, when you are trying to compare religions in terms of the number of violent acts committed by people who identify with that faith? How are you not associating the violence committed by individuals with the group-identity, "Muslim?"

 

I'm not the one making that comparison!

 

For f*%$'s sake, go back and reread the thread. jryan is the one who said that 99.999% of terrorists are Muslim, and linked to the site that was purporting to tally acts in the name of religion.

[lemur]

In general it's best not to read between the lines of people's posts here. We have a pretty diverse group of folks in this international forum, and sometimes associations that seem obvious or familiar to you may not seem that way to others. Easier for everyone if you just make your point in more independent terms.

 

The point, in more general terms, is that when you compare group-identities in terms of characteristics or behavior, it promotes the assumption that individuals do not act individually but rather that groups are responsible for actions attributed to them. This means that if a certain number of muslims commit violent acts, that others will be blamed for those acts for no other reason than that they are also muslim. It does not matter how much violence is committed in the name of islam. If you want to find connections between Islam and violence, you have to base it on case-studies of individual perpetrators and you have to recognize that the same process that leads one individual to commit violence with reference to scripture would not occur for another individual. It really depends on a particular individual's interpretation of a religious text or something someone else tells them how they will act on religion. Some people can get motivated to act violently while others just want to live well and set a good example for others to follow. Still others will choose to spread the word and enlighten others about their beliefs. This is the case in any religion. So when you start trying to generalize about a religion based on what some people who practice that religion are doing, you are ignoring the fact that all religions are practiced in diverse ways by different individuals.

[Mr Skeptic]

What do you call it, then, when you are trying to compare religions in terms of the number of violent acts committed by people who identify with that faith? How are you not associating the violence committed by individuals with the group-identity, "Muslim?"

 

!

Moderator Note

If by "you" you mean jryan, then we call that discrimination and stereotyping. If by "you" you mean swansont, then we call it lemur is lying/confused and personally attacking swansont. Please go back to reread posts 45, 47, and 50. Decide who you mean by "you", because one of these will get you in trouble and the other will end dozens of nonsense and off-topic posts.

[lemur]

!

Moderator Note

If by "you" you mean jryan, then we call that discrimination and stereotyping. If by "you" you mean swansont, then we call it lemur is lying/confused and personally attacking swansont. Please go back to reread posts 45, 47, and 50. Decide who you mean by "you", because one of these will get you in trouble and the other will end dozens of nonsense and off-topic posts.

 

It's not my job to police these people's posts for discrimination or stereotyping; and it certainly wasn't my intent to personally attack anyone on these issues. All I was doing was trying to raise awareness that the logic of the discussion was veering in the direction of generalizing group characteristics, which has the POTENTIAL to promote stereotyping and discrimination. Whether that constitutes that as itself discrimination and stereotyping I don't know. If it did, I would expect it to be illegal but since it's not illegal I would assume there's a certain grey area where you could still argue that there are other reasons to correlate group/religious identity with various rates, such as rates of violence, etc. I really don't want to get into the game of accusations and defense; but I also don't think I should have to keep quiet about the potential stereotyping and discrimination that can result when people start associating muslims or anyone else with violence more than other religions/groups. Is it bad social science to point that out?

[Mr Skeptic]

It's not my job to police these people's posts for discrimination or stereotyping; and it certainly wasn't my intent to personally attack anyone on these issues.

 

I asked you to read them, not to police them. You are attacking someone for arguing against discrimination and against the use of logical fallacies, and that part is indeed your own responsibility. If you don't understand, go back and read what I told you to go back and read.

[lemur]

I asked you to read them, not to police them. You are attacking someone for arguing against discrimination and against the use of logical fallacies, and that part is indeed your own responsibility. If you don't understand, go back and read what I told you to go back and read.

 

I did read the posts you mentioned. One was arguing that Islam was associated with the vast majority of religion-related violence while the other was claiming that religion in general was the culprit. I was the one repeating the position of both GWB and Obama that terrorism is the culprit and that religion gets "hijacked" for the purpose of pursuing violence for political reasons. I don't know why you keep accusing me of attacking anyone. Every time someone expressed that they felt attacked, I assured them personal attack was not my intent and I was just pointing out how this logic of measuring violence as a function of religious identity can have the effect of suggesting that muslims or religious people as a group are responsible for violence or other things that other groups are not responsible for. My main intent was to note that only individuals can be responsible for violence individually and that even if a terrorist or criminial is religious, this need not be the causal factor behind the act of violence they engaged/participated in.

[ParanoiA]

I think post 56 is where the confusion started....

 

Similar numbers? What happened to the 100,000:1 ratio you claimed just a few posts back?

 

Do you see what you're doing? You're arguing over the numbers to imply that there is some legitimate threshold where you can hold individuals accountable for actions attributed to a collective identity.

 

Here, I think Lemur is making the point that by challenging the inconsistent placement of said "goal posts", it is thereby validating the very notion that there even could be properly set "goal posts" that would justify indicting individuals in the same group for actions of other individuals in that group.

 

In other words, if Person A says 5 out of 10 black guys commit theft, concluding that all black people are thieves, then the proper argument against that is to challenge the notion that any ratio of good-to-bad black folks suggests anything about black folks in general - not to argue that 5 out of 10 is inaccurate, and it's really 1 out of 10. That second argument validates the thought process introduced by Person A, even though his ratio may be inaccurate.

 

 

Lemur, my apologies if this appears like I'm hijacking your argument or misrepresenting you, I don't mean that at all. I just enjoy trying to figure out people - the more they are misunderstood, the more fascinated I get. Let me know if I have more work to do!

[lemur]

I think post 56 is where the confusion started....

 

 

 

Here, I think Lemur is making the point that by challenging the inconsistent placement of said "goal posts", it is thereby validating the very notion that there even could be properly set "goal posts" that would justify indicting individuals in the same group for actions of other individuals in that group.

 

In other words, if Person A says 5 out of 10 black guys commit theft, concluding that all black people are thieves, then the proper argument against that is to challenge the notion that any ratio of good-to-bad black folks suggests anything about black folks in general - not to argue that 5 out of 10 is inaccurate, and it's really 1 out of 10. That second argument validates the thought process introduced by Person A, even though his ratio may be inaccurate.

 

 

Lemur, my apologies if this appears like I'm hijacking your argument or misrepresenting you, I don't mean that at all. I just enjoy trying to figure out people - the more they are misunderstood, the more fascinated I get. Let me know if I have more work to do!

 

 

Wow, you explicated my intent clearly. I am impressed.

 

 

[swansont]

Wow, you explicated my intent clearly. I am impressed.

 

If you are going to use that logic, you have to assume that anyone here that did not expressly disagree with jryan must therefore agree with him, which is a version of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Pangloss was quite correct in pointing out that trying to read between the lines is a dangerous thing. Silence is silence, not assent.

[lemur]

If you are going to use that logic, you have to assume that anyone here that did not expressly disagree with jryan must therefore agree with him, which is a version of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Pangloss was quite correct in pointing out that trying to read between the lines is a dangerous thing. Silence is silence, not assent.

 

Again, you're looking at this as blame-attribution. I'm just pointing out when the deck is stacked to reproduce certain assumptions or patterns of knowledge, regardless of which side people argue for or against. It's like if I post the question, "did God create the universe during the big bang or before?" Whichever side you argue for, you're assenting to the assumption that God created the universe. I was just pointing out the same effect when people debate about how much violence is caused by Islam, another religion, or religion in general. Whether you argue the amount of violence is more or less for one or the other, or for religion or secularism; the assumption is that the group is responsible for the violence instead of individual perpetrators, no?

[ParanoiA]

If you are going to use that logic, you have to assume that anyone here that did not expressly disagree with jryan must therefore agree with him, which is a version of the appeal to ignorance fallacy. Pangloss was quite correct in pointing out that trying to read between the lines is a dangerous thing. Silence is silence, not assent.

 

No, you were not silent one bit. You engaged in that numbers argument loud and clear.

 

 

Not that I think this number came from any credible source, but if we include all forms of violent behavior, does that number still hold? Can I blame all of Christianity for occurrences of e.g. abortion clinic arson?

 

Similar numbers? What happened to the 100,000:1 ratio you claimed just a few posts back?

 

And then you missed the point when it was pointed out to you:

 

Really? I thought I was pointing out the goalposts being moved.

 

I really would appreciate it if you would focus on the discussion itself rather than try and guess my motives.

 

 

The premise of the argument you were engaged in with jryan was challenged. Silence was not assent and doesn't apply. Your position and motives were not assumed, nor referenced. Only the entertainment of an invalid metric was being challenged, and for good reason.

 

When we get locked into battle with people, often we don't see what premises we're validating. It's easier for folks outside of an exchange to see such things. We usually thank them for pointing it out to us.

Edited September 15, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Mr Skeptic]

!

Moderator Note

This thread was split from here: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51723-koran-burning-the-left-feeding-the-left/page__st__40__gopid__564573

[swansont]

I questioned his numbers. That is the only point I addressed.

 

Damn. Made it to 14,500 posts before I had to add someone to my "ignore" list.

[ParanoiA]

If you aren't looking to be challenged, and if you can't take criticism, then why bother posting? I find it very disturbing that a moderator here can't get past his ego enough to give someone a fair point. It's just not that big of a deal. And it doesn't invalidate or counter any of your points and arguments. Just an observation that entertaining that numbers argument was validating the numbers argument.

 

It's the kind of thing that you usually point out to the rest of us. I'm genuinely surprised.

 

I'm also disturbed by the "ignore" comment from a moderator. Such an odd step for an otherwise reasonable logician.

 

But I'll make it easy and split. I think I've had enough, again. The rest of you take care.