Comment by SherlockeHolmes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SherlockeHolmes | Hacker News Reader

SherlockeHolmes

The fact that some of us here mentioned "reasonable doubt" explains the shortcomings we currently have in depth of analysis beyond anything superficial. Our justifications sound like this - "while we murdered them in millions earlier, and now we murder them in thousands - we reserve the right to interrogate, disservice, and harass any of them on our soil should they speak the wrong way". If we are true Americans, we'd say this instead - "I believe in their right to liberty as much as ours. I will not be afraid because someone is speaking Arabic, or because someone's skin in brown, or because someone's face is bearded. I share the dangerous climate on our planet with my Muslim brothers, and I will take on the risks without stooping to bigotry. I will walk the straight path, and I will uphold the fundamentals of the very constitution our nation is built upon. We will fight terrorism together, for I understand it is a disease that has roots in no religion but in apathy."

Edit: omit "sickening". changed "you" to "we". Changed "three people" to "some of us"

Chart Shows How Irrational Fear of Terrorism Is:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11516085

It's not good to be disablingly fearful of Islamic terrorism, but we do need to be prudent, and proactive in preventing it.

What those silly charts get wrong, is that the other 'fearful' things they compare terrorism to are well understood phenomena with linear input, outputs. More vehicles on the road, more traffic casualties, more smoking, more lung cancer, more overeating, more diseases of obesity, etc. etc.

In taking precaution against terrorism we must be aware that there is potential for nonlinear type events. A single event can drastically alter any metrics of average terrorism damage over a given time frame.

A little inconvenience for somebody now or then if it means heading off a potential explosive black swan type event, is just a fact of the modern world as long as there is Islam in the west.

>A little inconvenience for somebody now or then if it means heading of a potential explosive black swan type event, is just a fact of the modern world as long as there is Islam in the west.

But the salami slicing of convenience means hundreds of millions of people have been inconvenienced (by having to remove their shoes) because one guy one time tried to set fire to his plastique explosive footwear. How many human hours have been spent in queues at airports for this?

That's a good point, the way that the collateral inconvenience is dispensed is obviously far from perfect and definitely needs calibration.

What's ironic about the point you raise, is that it stems from one of the main topics of this thread.

Our collective refusal to admit that perpetrators of Islamic terrorism are heavily concentrated under a narrow band of characteristics means we all have to endure abject silliness like grannies and children being groped, and having to take off our shoes.

There's no nice way to say this, what you're saying is racist; it's sickening that you'd publicly make such statements.

What's next, suggesting for everyone's safety people are seperated from other people based on their beliefs or ethnic background?

No nice way to say it, and no accurate way to say it, because nothing that was said was 'racist.' (whatever that word even means anymore)

Notice how my comment laid out a logical sequence of statements that amounted to coherent reasoning.

While yours is nothing more than a hostile attack, attempting to a apply a witchhunt type label.

What are you trying to contribute to this conversation?

Edit:

I initially took your comment for sarcasm. I guess it's probably not, but I find it really strange.

There isn't even an implied or explicit mention of race in the comment you attacked.

Should Muslims, the followers of Islam, be treated differently, and if so, why and how?

In working to prevent Islamic terrorism obviously more attention should be given to muslims than non-muslims.

Are there racial restriction on who is allowed to join Islam?

Can you explain to me why you took such umbrage to me stating the obvious, which is, that chart is flawed because the calculus around terrorism is different in important ways to the calculus around heart disease and car accidents?

At the very least that's illegal and unconstitutional:

https://www.aclu.org/cases/raza-v-city-new-york-legal-challe...

Still believe you're right, and if so, why?

It'd be nice if you answered some of my questions as I've done for you. Also, I'll point out that your attitude is unbecoming, and you seem to be interpreting wrongly or to narrowly or in the wrong context the things I've said. I never said the nypd should monitor all muslims indiscriminately.

From the document I provided, NYPD agreed to, "Prohibiting investigations in which race, religion, or ethnicity is a substantial or motivating factor." - monitoring anyone because they're Muslim is illegal and unconstitutional.

What questions have I not answered?

We will fight terrorism together, for I understand it is a disease that has roots in no religion but in apathy.

What are you basing such a claim on? If you ask the Islamists committing attacks, they will tell you just the opposite. If you read their literature, it will tell you just the opposite. I'm guessing you've done neither of those.

How one can conflate apathy, and the numerous proactive measures and actions necessary to carry out one of these attacks is beyond me...

If more people aren't disabused of these silly, naive, indoctrinated notions, we aren't going to make any progress in solving this problem.

The fact that I'm just stating facts, but many will no doubt read it as 'radical' or 'racist,' should give everyone pause.

> ...true Americans...

Careful with that; it's the no true scotsman fallacy. The sad thing is that these people are, in fact, True Americans.

Here it's used as a rhetorical device, "true Americans" is an appeal to our sense of national identity. Be careful identifying fallacies by the superficial qualities they have, pay attention to the context where phrases are used.

Isn't "no true Scotsman" an appeal to national identity?

No it's not. It's a redefinition of terms to exclude counterexamples. I could say "no sandwich is vegetarian" and you show me a grilled cheese sandwich and I say "no true sandwich is vegetarian."

The problem is that people have been passing around a cheat sheet of logical fallacies, but using the mental version of a regex to try and match them. This is not a reliable technique for identifying fallacies. Usually, you would want to recognize them by their content, not their form, and it's essential to know the difference between formal and informal fallacies.

Thank you for the great post! I especially agree with your second paragraph. I admit that my post constitutes a mixture of ethos, pathos, and logos - as opposed to being perfectly aligned with logical stipulations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com