Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, just wow, this is absolutely incredible. According to Alabama's Homeland security terrorist information page - if you think the following things, there's a good chance you're a terrorist:

1. Are against gun control
2. Think the constitution has been subverted
3. Think the US has lost its sovereignty

I'm actually speechless. They're probably getting ready to arrest Ron Paul as a terrorist as we speak.

Check out the "anarchist" and "anti-government" links

[/ QUOTE ]

So exactly how many terrorists on U.S. soil have there been who fit that profile (obviously we're talking rather recent times, not 250 years ago)? Possibly McVeigh and his cohort, and...who??? What I'm getting at is that I would guess it is so small a statistic as to be meaningless. If that's the case then they have no intellectual justification for creating such a profile. Can anyone think of others? Maybe the Unabomber?

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, just wow, this is absolutely incredible. According to Alabama's Homeland security terrorist information page - if you think the following things, there's a good chance you're a terrorist:

1. Are against gun control
2. Think the constitution has been subverted
3. Think the US has lost its sovereignty

I'm actually speechless. They're probably getting ready to arrest Ron Paul as a terrorist as we speak.

Check out the "anarchist" and "anti-government" links

[/ QUOTE ]

Link no longer working but the Pennsylvania link works. Really amazing.

[/ QUOTE ]

So this hit digg and they probably got a million hits and a thousand angry emails so they've caved and taken it down. You can still see the archived version here.

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, just wow, this is absolutely incredible. According to Alabama's Homeland security terrorist information page - if you think the following things, there's a good chance you're a terrorist:

1. Are against gun control
2. Think the constitution has been subverted
3. Think the US has lost its sovereignty

I'm actually speechless. They're probably getting ready to arrest Ron Paul as a terrorist as we speak.

Check out the "anarchist" and "anti-government" links

[/ QUOTE ]

So exactly how many terrorists on U.S. soil have there been who fit that profile (obviously we're talking rather recent times, not 250 years ago)? Possibly McVeigh and his cohort, and...who??? What I'm getting at is that I would guess it is so small a statistic as to be meaningless. If that's the case then they have no intellectual justification for creating such a profile. Can anyone think of others? Maybe the Unabomber?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park Bomber. I don't know if he fits this profile perfectly, though.

But either way, like elwood said earlier, this is a great example of why profiling "works", right?

Surely people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are "more" likely to commit acts of terrorism than your average person.

Oh, now I'm not saying all people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are terrorists! Of course not! Some of my best friends are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted! But remember the old adage: not all people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are Oklahoma City and Olympic Park bombers, but all Oklahoma City and Olympic Park bombers are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted!

So at the next security screening, let's allow Grandma go unmolested, and let's make sure we pull angry-looking white guys aside for an extra pat down. And remember to lecture anyone who disagrees about how "irrational" they are, and how they're just rubes who don't "understand basic probability".

Besides, we wouldn't have to take these steps if moderate anti-gun control advocates and subverted-Constitutional theorists would strongly disavow the acts of terrorists in their ranks! Where are those moderate voices!?!? We need to hear a constant din of disapproval from them before we stop profiling them! Plus, I have some polling here that shows gun control advocates and people who think the Constitution has been subverted think that "sometimes" violence against the state is justified -- and they responded affirmatively to that survey question at a much higher rate than those who believe in gun control, or are ambivalent about it. Again, these people should, nay must be profiled and watched closely. If you disagree, you're just a product of left-wing propaganda organs like our public schools, who don't teach our children basic probability and instead replace it with bleeding-heart messages that put us all in danger from these radical gun control opponents.

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, just wow, this is absolutely incredible. According to Alabama's Homeland security terrorist information page - if you think the following things, there's a good chance you're a terrorist:

1. Are against gun control
2. Think the constitution has been subverted
3. Think the US has lost its sovereignty

I'm actually speechless. They're probably getting ready to arrest Ron Paul as a terrorist as we speak.

Check out the "anarchist" and "anti-government" links

[/ QUOTE ]

So exactly how many terrorists on U.S. soil have there been who fit that profile (obviously we're talking rather recent times, not 250 years ago)? Possibly McVeigh and his cohort, and...who??? What I'm getting at is that I would guess it is so small a statistic as to be meaningless. If that's the case then they have no intellectual justification for creating such a profile. Can anyone think of others? Maybe the Unabomber?

[/ QUOTE ]

Eric Rudolph, the Olympic Park Bomber. I don't know if he fits this profile perfectly, though.

But either way, like elwood said earlier, this is a great example of why profiling "works", right?

Surely people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are "more" likely to commit acts of terrorism than your average person.

Oh, now I'm not saying all people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are terrorists! Of course not! Some of my best friends are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted! But remember the old adage: not all people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are Oklahoma City and Olympic Park bombers, but all Oklahoma City and Olympic Park bombers are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted!

So at the next security screening, let's allow Grandma go unmolested, and let's make sure we pull angry-looking white guys aside for an extra pat down. And remember to lecture anyone who disagrees about how "irrational" they are, and how they're just rubes who don't "understand basic probability".

Besides, we wouldn't have to take these steps if moderate anti-gun control advocates and subverted-Constitutional theorists would strongly disavow the acts of terrorists in their ranks! Where are those moderate voices!?!? We need to hear a constant din of disapproval from them before we stop profiling them! Plus, I have some polling here that shows gun control advocates and people who think the Constitution has been subverted think that "sometimes" violence against the state is justified -- and they responded affirmatively to that survey question at a much higher rate than those who believe in gun control, or are ambivalent about it. Again, these people should, nay must be profiled and watched closely. If you disagree, you're just a product of left-wing propaganda organs like our public schools, who don't teach our children basic probability and instead replace it with bleeding-heart messages that put us all in danger from these radical gun control opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

No I don't think this is an example of why profiling "works" and that's precisely why I was asking for other cases that fit the profile. My suspicion is that this specific profile is statistically non-correlated with terrorism (or violent crime, for matter of that too).

[ QUOTE ]
Surely people who are against gun control and think the Constitution has been subverted are "more" likely to commit acts of terrorism than your average person

[/ QUOTE ]

Baseless without the statistics to back it up, and that's exactly why I asked for some more cases or statistics. My suspicion is that the government agency that posted this did so based on supposition rather than statistics.

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
No I don't think this is an example of why profiling "works" and that's precisely why I was asking for other cases that fit the profile. My suspicion is that this specific profile is statistically non-correlated with terrorism (or violent crime, for matter of that too).

[/ QUOTE ]

You named two examples of the profile in question, and I gave you one more. I don't know any grandmothers who blow up the Murrah Building. I don't know any black guys who set off bombs in Centennial Park. So there you go. Profiling "works", right? Target the angry white guys, and we'll get those terrorists before they get us!

I mean, c'mon, do you really want to talk about statistically significant correlations? Since when did we need "statistically correlated with terrorism" to justify profiling? There are something like 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. How many need to be terrorists before we start profiling them?

Well, the right-wing, foaming-at-the-mouth Islamophobes will respond "SEPT. 11TH! WE ONLY NEED 19! Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the 9/11 bombers were Muslim! Some of my best friends are Muslims, but they need an extra pat-down at La Guardia before I get on a plane with them!"

So there you go. Apparently the "statistical correlation" needed to justify profiling of Muslims is .000000019% (19 divided by 1 billion -- I generously left out four hundred million Muslims).

We've got 3 examples of the anti-gun control and 'the Constitution has been subverted' crowd committing acts of terrorism. There are 300,000,000 Americans, but let's assume only about 100,000,000 are white males. The "statistical correlation" of white males committing acts of terrorism in the US is .00000003%

ZOMG, .00000003% > .000000019% -- white American males are almost twice as likely to be terrorists than Muslims! Better profile these guys. If you deny this, you clearly just don't understand probability.

[ QUOTE ]
Baseless without the statistics to back it up, and that's exactly why I asked for some more cases or statistics. My suspicion is that the government agency that posted this did so based on supposition rather than statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, because the statistics cited to justify profiling of Muslims that so many on the right advocate is beyond reproach.

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No I don't think this is an example of why profiling "works" and that's precisely why I was asking for other cases that fit the profile. My suspicion is that this specific profile is statistically non-correlated with terrorism (or violent crime, for matter of that too).

[/ QUOTE ]

You named two examples of the profile in question, and I gave you one more. I don't know any grandmothers who blow up the Murrah Building. I don't know any black guys who set off bombs in Centennial Park. So there you go. Profiling "works", right? Target the angry white guys, and we'll get those terrorists before they get us!

I mean, c'mon, do you really want to talk about statistically significant correlations? Since when did we need "statistically correlated with terrorism" to justify profiling? There are something like 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. How many need to be terrorists before we start profiling them?

Well, the right-wing, foaming-at-the-mouth Islamophobes will respond "SEPT. 11TH! WE ONLY NEED 19! Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the 9/11 bombers were Muslim! Some of my best friends are Muslims, but they need an extra pat-down at La Guardia before I get on a plane with them!"

So there you go. Apparently the "statistical correlation" needed to justify profiling of Muslims is .000000019% (19 divided by 1 billion -- I generously left out four hundred million Muslims).

We've got 3 examples of the anti-gun control and 'the Constitution has been subverted' crowd committing acts of terrorism. There are 300,000,000 Americans, but let's assume only about 100,000,000 are white males. The "statistical correlation" of white males committing acts of terrorism in the US is .00000003%

ZOMG, .00000003% > .000000019% -- white American males are almost twice as likely to be terrorists than Muslims! Better profile these guys. If you deny this, you clearly just don't understand probability.

[ QUOTE ]
Baseless without the statistics to back it up, and that's exactly why I asked for some more cases or statistics. My suspicion is that the government agency that posted this did so based on supposition rather than statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, because the statistics cited to justify profiling of Muslims that so many on the right advocate is beyond reproach.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. There have been more Muslim terrorist acts than 9/11.

2. Counting all the Muslims in the world is inappropriate. Just count the ones in this country.

Doing these statistics right makes it much more lopsided the other way. By including all the Muslims in the world and only the white men in this country, you're just making obviously biased statistics that make you look bad. (also, you overestimated the number of white men in this country)

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No I don't think this is an example of why profiling "works" and that's precisely why I was asking for other cases that fit the profile. My suspicion is that this specific profile is statistically non-correlated with terrorism (or violent crime, for matter of that too).

[/ QUOTE ]

You named two examples of the profile in question, and I gave you one more. I don't know any grandmothers who blow up the Murrah Building. I don't know any black guys who set off bombs in Centennial Park. So there you go. Profiling "works", right? Target the angry white guys, and we'll get those terrorists before they get us!

I mean, c'mon, do you really want to talk about statistically significant correlations? Since when did we need "statistically correlated with terrorism" to justify profiling? There are something like 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. How many need to be terrorists before we start profiling them?

Well, the right-wing, foaming-at-the-mouth Islamophobes will respond "SEPT. 11TH! WE ONLY NEED 19! Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the 9/11 bombers were Muslim! Some of my best friends are Muslims, but they need an extra pat-down at La Guardia before I get on a plane with them!"

So there you go. Apparently the "statistical correlation" needed to justify profiling of Muslims is .000000019% (19 divided by 1 billion -- I generously left out four hundred million Muslims).

We've got 3 examples of the anti-gun control and 'the Constitution has been subverted' crowd committing acts of terrorism. There are 300,000,000 Americans, but let's assume only about 100,000,000 are white males. The "statistical correlation" of white males committing acts of terrorism in the US is .00000003%

ZOMG, .00000003% > .000000019% -- white American males are almost twice as likely to be terrorists than Muslims! Better profile these guys. If you deny this, you clearly just don't understand probability.

[ QUOTE ]
Baseless without the statistics to back it up, and that's exactly why I asked for some more cases or statistics. My suspicion is that the government agency that posted this did so based on supposition rather than statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, because the statistics cited to justify profiling of Muslims that so many on the right advocate is beyond reproach.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. There have been more Muslim terrorist acts than 9/11.

2. Counting all the Muslims in the world is inappropriate. Just count the ones in this country.

Doing these statistics right makes it much more lopsided the other way. By including all the Muslims in the world and only the white men in this country, you're just making obviously biased statistics that make you look bad. (also, you overestimated the number of white men in this country)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this went over your head.

For one, I'm sure I overestimated the number of white men in this country. Two, why would we count "just the Muslims in this country". The 9/11 terrorists weren't Americans. I doubt anyone knows exactly how many "Muslims" are here in the US right now because .

Third, and most importantly, I'm sure all of the statistics I cited were crude and useless, which is exactly my point. Why are we using "statistically significant correlation to terrorism" as a justification for profiling? When we're talking about numbers as monstrously small like one-millionth of a percent, claiming we need "statistically significant proof" to justify profiling fringe-right wing extremists while simultaneously ignoring that no such rigorous proof is demanded to justify profiling Muslims, I think we can correctly label that "goal-post moving".

A handful of Muslims hijack some planes, and we hear demands for Muslims, Arabic speakers, and anyone who's read the Koran to be shaken down by the authorities, or have their phones calls listened in on, or get stripped down before they get on an airplane, or have their library book choices overseen. A handful of angry white guys blowup the Murrah building or set off a bomb at the Olympics, and calls by the state of Virginia to keep a watchful eye over their supposed ideological allies are met with cries of injustice, where we've all become victimized by government authority gone mad.

If you look at my first post in this thread and substitute "people who are anti-gun control and believe the Constitution should be subverted" with "Muslim", you get the exact same right-wing narrative used to justify profiling Muslims.

But once we substitute 'Muslim' with a more-favored minority class, like "libertarians", everyone cries foul and rightly points out how fallacious said narrative is -- because the narrative is just that, fallacious.

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No I don't think this is an example of why profiling "works" and that's precisely why I was asking for other cases that fit the profile. My suspicion is that this specific profile is statistically non-correlated with terrorism (or violent crime, for matter of that too).

[/ QUOTE ]

You named two examples of the profile in question, and I gave you one more. I don't know any grandmothers who blow up the Murrah Building. I don't know any black guys who set off bombs in Centennial Park. So there you go. Profiling "works", right? Target the angry white guys, and we'll get those terrorists before they get us!

I mean, c'mon, do you really want to talk about statistically significant correlations? Since when did we need "statistically correlated with terrorism" to justify profiling? There are something like 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. How many need to be terrorists before we start profiling them?

Well, the right-wing, foaming-at-the-mouth Islamophobes will respond "SEPT. 11TH! WE ONLY NEED 19! Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the 9/11 bombers were Muslim! Some of my best friends are Muslims, but they need an extra pat-down at La Guardia before I get on a plane with them!"

So there you go. Apparently the "statistical correlation" needed to justify profiling of Muslims is .000000019% (19 divided by 1 billion -- I generously left out four hundred million Muslims).

We've got 3 examples of the anti-gun control and 'the Constitution has been subverted' crowd committing acts of terrorism. There are 300,000,000 Americans, but let's assume only about 100,000,000 are white males. The "statistical correlation" of white males committing acts of terrorism in the US is .00000003%

ZOMG, .00000003% > .000000019% -- white American males are almost twice as likely to be terrorists than Muslims! Better profile these guys. If you deny this, you clearly just don't understand probability.

[ QUOTE ]
Baseless without the statistics to back it up, and that's exactly why I asked for some more cases or statistics. My suspicion is that the government agency that posted this did so based on supposition rather than statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, because the statistics cited to justify profiling of Muslims that so many on the right advocate is beyond reproach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please calm down; I'm just trying to analyze this factually.

Could we please discuss one thing at a time and resolve it if possible before moving on?

To be resolved: is the "profiling" cited on the website statistically supported or not? Let's answer this, then we can tackle the other types of profiling, implications, and discussion of ethical matters such as what we should be teaching our children. Conflating everything all at once doesn't answer anything without more specific basis for support or discreditation of particulars.

I asked if anyone could provide more examples of the profile given on the state website matching domestic terrorists. So far we have 2 or 3 cases perhaps. Can anyone else venture more case examples to support the profile given on the state's website?

We do wish to discuss things based on facts not guesswork, don't we?

Thanks for your help in this matter.

edit: if the profile is not statistically supported (as I suspect), then it leads to wonder what rationale or motivation might the state have had in posting it? But again, let's first try to determine if that profile is supportable or not.

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No I don't think this is an example of why profiling "works" and that's precisely why I was asking for other cases that fit the profile. My suspicion is that this specific profile is statistically non-correlated with terrorism (or violent crime, for matter of that too).

[/ QUOTE ]

You named two examples of the profile in question, and I gave you one more. I don't know any grandmothers who blow up the Murrah Building. I don't know any black guys who set off bombs in Centennial Park. So there you go. Profiling "works", right? Target the angry white guys, and we'll get those terrorists before they get us!

I mean, c'mon, do you really want to talk about statistically significant correlations? Since when did we need "statistically correlated with terrorism" to justify profiling? There are something like 1.4 billion Muslims in the world. How many need to be terrorists before we start profiling them?

Well, the right-wing, foaming-at-the-mouth Islamophobes will respond "SEPT. 11TH! WE ONLY NEED 19! Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all the 9/11 bombers were Muslim! Some of my best friends are Muslims, but they need an extra pat-down at La Guardia before I get on a plane with them!"

So there you go. Apparently the "statistical correlation" needed to justify profiling of Muslims is .000000019% (19 divided by 1 billion -- I generously left out four hundred million Muslims).

We've got 3 examples of the anti-gun control and 'the Constitution has been subverted' crowd committing acts of terrorism. There are 300,000,000 Americans, but let's assume only about 100,000,000 are white males. The "statistical correlation" of white males committing acts of terrorism in the US is .00000003%

ZOMG, .00000003% > .000000019% -- white American males are almost twice as likely to be terrorists than Muslims! Better profile these guys. If you deny this, you clearly just don't understand probability.

[ QUOTE ]
Baseless without the statistics to back it up, and that's exactly why I asked for some more cases or statistics. My suspicion is that the government agency that posted this did so based on supposition rather than statistics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, of course, because the statistics cited to justify profiling of Muslims that so many on the right advocate is beyond reproach.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please calm down; I'm just trying to analyze this factually.

Could we discuss one thing at a time and resolve it if possible before moving on?

To be resolved: is the "profiling" cited on the website statistically supported or not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I don't think you get it. Of course it's not "statistically supported". You can't "statistically support" it, because no one knows how many people are sufficiently "anti-gun control", and no one knows exactly how many people believe that "the Constitution has been subverted" to be part of the profile. The profile is just vague nonsense.

So of course it's not "statistically supported", but my question is: since when has that mattered when people call for the authorities to use profiling? Hence why "statistically support this instance of profiling" is nothing more than moving the goal posts. You don't *need* to statistically support it based on arguments used in the past to justify profiling. Recall: what's the justification for profiling Muslims before they get on airplanes? As far as I can tell, the "statistical proof" is 19/1,400,000,000. Well, okay. If that stands as "statistically significant proof", then so does 2/100,000,000 (or for AlexM's sake, 2/70,000,000 or whatever number he wants to assign to the white male population of the US).

Re: State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists
 

[ QUOTE ]
why would we count "just the Muslims in this country". The 9/11 terrorists weren't Americans.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what if they weren't Americans. They were certainly in America for some time, so they were part of the "Muslims in this country."

[ QUOTE ]
A handful of Muslims hijack some planes, and we hear demands for Muslims, Arabic speakers, and anyone who's read the Koran to be shaken down by the authorities, or have their phones calls listened in on, or get stripped down before they get on an airplane, or have their library book choices overseen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only one of these conforms to reality (aka non-extremeist position). The problem is the absurdities in airport security. I don't agree with what's being done, but if you're implementing a vast airport security system to try and prevent another 9/11, it would be silly not to screen Muslims more carefully. If you agree with me on getting rid of the airport security, that's great.

[ QUOTE ]
But once we substitute 'Muslim' with a more-favored minority class, like "libertarians", everyone cries foul and rightly points out how fallacious said narrative is -- because the narrative is just that, fallacious.

[/ QUOTE ]

If "libertarians" had committed as successful a terrorist attack as 9/11, the same thing would be happening to "libertarians." I wouldn't like it any more or less.