|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 3, 2013 18:08:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 3, 2013 18:44:21 GMT
Ah, the New Atheists. Still polarising atheist opinion with their fanatical fundamentalism. Good times!
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Apr 3, 2013 20:29:06 GMT
"We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"- Sam Harris
......woah.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 3, 2013 21:22:55 GMT
That's one juggernaut of an article. I agree it pins Harris' views down accurately. It might have persuaded more people if it weren't written from such an explicitly left-wing perspective, though. "We should profile Muslims, or anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim, and we should be honest about it"- Sam Harris ......woah. Yup, that surely is one dubious statement. Here's the full context: From www.samharris.org/blog/item/in-defense-of-profilingDespite all his considerations, "looking conceivably Muslim" is a criterion that will likely lead to a good deal of effectively racial profiling, mostly affecting Arab Christians, (not that I'm in favour of religious profiling either, just to make clear). Are his critics' sensitive reactions so strange? And this statement: is simply vile.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 4, 2013 4:03:21 GMT
What the hell...
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 4, 2013 7:02:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 4, 2013 16:19:39 GMT
That actually addresses a different article by Hussain. Greenwald has said he doesn't agree with everything in Hussain's column. That won't suffice for the writer of that blog, though: Note the Newspeak here, it looks like a retweet equals helping to engender the spread of misinformation now.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Apr 4, 2013 16:59:02 GMT
"But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance."- Sam Harris, President of the Psychic Friends Network
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 7, 2013 12:01:10 GMT
Interestingly, The Guardian closed the comments section on this article, as the comments neared 4,000 in total (rather more, to say the least, than the usual response).
Harris's supporters rallied around eventually but the overwhelming (and more thoughtful) response seemed to be against Harris.
New Atheism and the Emperor's New Clothes?
|
|
|
Post by himself on Apr 8, 2013 15:04:33 GMT
"But there are people who do not stand a chance of being jihadists, and TSA screeners can know this at a glance."- Sam Harris, President of the Psychic Friends Network Actually, it's much easier to tell who is not likely a jihadist than who is. A 75-year old Norwegian-American grandmother from Minnesota is much more likely to be a Lutheran baker of meat loaf than a muslim suicide bomber. Similarly, when profiling a serial killer, the FBI Behavioral Sciences Unit is more likely to focus on white males of a certain age, because experience shows that neither women nor black men are often serial killers. This does not mean that none have ever been, but that the smart money goes with the short odds. In point of fact, all decision-making rules are subject to two kinds of errors. - To identify X when it is not X. This is Type I error, aka False Positive, aka Cry Wolf, Wild Goose Chase, etc. Its probability, given the decision rules, is the alpha risk.
- To not identify X when it is X. This is Type II error, aka False Negative, aka Fat Dumb and Happy, Asleep at the Switch, etc. Its probability, given the decision rules, is the beta risk.
This applies to scientific measurements and experiments, random acceptance samples, industrial control charts, trials by jury, FDA approvals, and psychological profiling. In general, if you reduce the alpha risk, you increase the beta, and vice versa. Which risk to favor depends on the consequences of the risk, if it should happen to occur. FDA trials emphasize the beta risk even if it means that beneficial and safe medical devices and drugs are withheld from the market. The courtroom rules of evidence otoh favor the alpha risk, even if it means the guilty may walk free. Further comment on Risk Analysis can be found in the old MIL-STD-1629A www.fmeainfocentre.com/handbooks/milstd1629.pdf
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Apr 13, 2013 4:19:30 GMT
I have to side with Sam Harris, especially against the current crop of detractors.
Greenwald retailed the same quote Murtaza Hussain first ripped out of context about fascists; and, while doing so, seems to even have misunderstood Christopher Hitchens as well.
This, from a loony (Greenwald) who routinely argues how right-wing 'Islamo-fascists' critiques of the West are perfectly spot-on. It seems Glenn is only keen on agreeing with one fascist but not another; and apparently believes someone is automatically wrong if they've been branded a fascist.
The profiling thing is terribly obvious. If you are going to profile someone for security risks against commercial airplanes, it might be a good idea to start with religious/ethnic profiling of Muslims and Middle Easterners. All suicide bombings and attempted suicide bombings on commercial airplanes I can think of in the past 15 years have been by Muslims.
True, they are profiled based on religion/ethnicity, but so does affirmative action. I might change my views on racial profiling when Liberals begin decrying AA as something just as wrong. Until then, they're simply talking out both sides of their mouth and I don't know to support or oppose profiling.
As for the White serial killer, I have read (Wikipedia) Whites might not actually be more likely given their population to be serial killers than other groups. Eh, who know? But I certainly don't care about profiling Whites if serial killers were almost exclusively White.
I'm in favor of common sense over ... well, I'm not sure what avoiding reality for political correctness would be called. Stupidity, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 13, 2013 17:47:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by penguinfan on Apr 13, 2013 20:58:25 GMT
Oh dear, I certainly hope you don't have to read every nation's constitution before you criticize their actions.
As for Chomsky, I'm happy to compare his comments on the Jewish community to what any "Islamophobe" mentioned in the article has said about Muslims.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Apr 22, 2013 17:09:02 GMT
Dawkins chips in and is ridiculed by Andrew Brown: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/richard-dawkins-islamophobicRichard Dawkins and Twitter make one of the world's great pairings, like face and custard pie. But whereas more accomplished clowns ram custard pies into the faces of their enemies, Dawkins' technique is to ram his own face into the custard pie, repeatedly. I suppose it saves time and it's a lot of fun to watch. On Sunday afternoon he was at it again, wondering why the New Statesman employs an imaginative and believing Muslim: "Mehdi Hasan admits to believing Muhamed [sic] flew to heaven on a winged horse. And New Statesman sees fit to print him as a serious journalist."I suppose those of us who believe in the resurrection or Jehovah or in the teachings of Buddha, or Hinduism etc are all beyond the pale and not fit for employment by anyone? I suppose agnostics should be allowed to work part-time?
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Apr 22, 2013 18:56:07 GMT
|
|