State of Alabama: Libertarians are terrorists

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't mind discussing that later, but right now I am trying to see if there are more than even just 2 or 3 examples. I don't think of any but that doesn't mean there weren't. If the state website posted that based on 3 examples then "what were they thinking?!" and how did it ever get approved for posting.

[nietzreznor]

[ 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 ]

good post

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

good post

[/ QUOTE ]

...which means little or nothing without some evidence to back it up. So far nobody has listed even a modest number of persons who fit the profile and were involved in terrorism. The state website might nearly as well have been saying that green-eyed people are more likely to be terrorists if all there is is 3 cases.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

good post

[/ QUOTE ]

...which means little or nothing without some evidence to back it up. So far nobody has listed even a modest number of persons who fit the profile and were involved in terrorism. The state website might nearly as well have been saying that green-eyed people are more likely to be terrorists if all there is is 3 cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you actually reading any of this thread MMMMMM?

Recall:

"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. "

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you actually reading any of this thread MMMMMM?


[/ QUOTE ]

Whahuh? Is JK really 6M? Enquiring minds want to know.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you actually reading any of this thread MMMMMM?


[/ QUOTE ]

Whahuh? Is JK really 6M? Enquiring minds want to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd lay 3 to 1 he is. Same writing style, same political beliefs, same tone. I'd ask iron to IP check but since Mx6 wasn't banned that may be out of line or whatever. And I don't care all that much to bother asking iron to do it. But I'm fairly certain. At least, certain enough to throw out the accusation a couple of times now. JK hasn't denied it, FWIW.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

good post

[/ QUOTE ]

...which means little or nothing without some evidence to back it up. So far nobody has listed even a modest number of persons who fit the profile and were involved in terrorism. The state website might nearly as well have been saying that green-eyed people are more likely to be terrorists if all there is is 3 cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you actually reading any of this thread MMMMMM?

Recall:

"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. "

[/ QUOTE ]

I am reading this thread, but apparently...you think I am some other poster? I had been thinking that your previous posts and responses to me might have seemed slightly odd, but I assure you, I am no other poster, and I post only as myself.

Some profiling can be statistically supported and some cannot. Statistically supported profiling is not necessarily ethically or morally supportable, though. I would think it only supportable as a policy in time of war, perhaps, and even then I would be very chary of infringement of rights. God knows the Neo-Cons are eroding our rights lately at an ever faster clip, it seems.

My question is whether this particular profile has any basis to support it. Have domestic terrorists other than McVeigh and his cohort, and perhaps one or two mentioned elsewhere in this thread, espoused the views cited on the state website? So far only a few uncertain examples have been offered.

I agree that government officials may not need much in the way of facts to derive agendas or profiles that suit their likings, and that is what I think is happening with this state website - which is why I have asked several times if anyone can think of other examples. If someone can provide numerous other examples then I will admit that the state's profile might have some basis, but even still I would think it odd for them to be making such a point of it. I am actually quite curious(!) if there are other examples, or if the state developed and published this profile based on less than half-a-dozen examples.

Aren't you curious how many examples fit the profile, and don't you think the whole rather odd too? I wonder if the Pennsylvania page will remain up for long.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I am reading this thread, but apparently...you think I am some other poster? I had been thinking that your previous posts and responses to me might have seemed slightly odd, but I assure you, I am no other poster, and I post only as myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, whatever, I might be wrong. I still have my suspicions you're MMMMMM.

[ QUOTE ]
My question is whether this particular profile has any basis to support it. Have domestic terrorists other than McVeigh and his cohort, and perhaps one or two mentioned elsewhere in this thread, espoused the views cited on the state website?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your question is silly.

Let's take a step back. What do you mean by "domestic terrorists"?

Extremist right-wing movements of varied sorts put themselves in compounds in places like rural Idaho, stock up on copies of The Turner Diaries, get angry about Ruby Ridge and Waco, and train themselves into rag-tag militias and paramilitary groups. They generally believe the Constitution has been subverted, feel the federal government is no longer sovereign or legitimate, and are fervently anti-gun control. They have names like "Christian Defense League", "Posse Commitatus", "Montana State Militia", etc. Americans associated with these movements probably number in the thousands, if not tens of thousands.

Are they "domestic terrorists"? Of course not, unless you have a rather loose definition of 'terrorist'. As far as I know, outside of random and ostensibly lone-wolf acts like McVeigh's and Rudolph's, who have but tangential connections to such groups, they don't do a whole lot.

But there aren't a whole lot of "domestic terrorists" in the US, period. So asking for some kind of "statistical evidence" to demonstrate a correlation to terrorism is nothing but goal-post moving. As I've pointed out numerous times, no one requires such statistical evidence when advocating for the profiling of Muslims. In fact, they outright deny such a requirement exists -- "3,000 people died on 9/11, and Muslims flew the plane; that's all the justification I need!" is a typical mantra we hear.

Terrorism is quite rare in the US, so by nature, there's no group more than a few people large we could "profile" where a statistically significant cohort of members would be correlated to prior acts of terrorism. I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. It's a rather obvious and clear point, I think.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Whahuh? Is JK really 6M? Enquiring minds want to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd lay 3 to 1 he is. Same writing style, same political beliefs, same tone. I'd ask iron to IP check but since Mx6 wasn't banned that may be out of line or whatever. And I don't care all that much to bother asking iron to do it. But I'm fairly certain. At least, certain enough to throw out the accusation a couple of times now. JK hasn't denied it, FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just wrote a long post and lost it thanks to "form expired" or something.

I'm not posting as someone else, but that does explain a few oddities I thought I had noticed in your posts.

I try to explain things and support them in my posts, but sometimes fail. I do favor and admire analytical style and substance.

Since you may have missed some of the discussions a few months ago (I don't recall your posting until recently), I will offer a summary of my positions (previously posted and hopefully supported).

*Iraq War: great mistake from the beginning

*Neo-Con philosophy: deeply flawed, "ugh"

*Death Penalty: strongly against

*Punishment for non-violent offenders: opposed to (yes, I think even thieves should not be sent to prison: see my discussions with jman about this in earlier threads. Restitution not prison.)

*Christian ethos: strongly in favor of. If people had the love of Jesus in their hearts, most of the world's manmade and political problems would not exist.

*Catholic Church: misguided and flawed in placing authority in the Pope and hierarchy. The only Christian authority is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church and Pope have both been demonstrably and clearly wrong: best example: Inquisition.

*Small government, anti-gun control, narrow and rather inflexible interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

*Authority: should not reside in man but in God. Man is inherently flawed and corruptible. Yet I reject the notion of theocracy because that relies upon man for interpretation and enforcement. Theocracy cannot exist without being turned to evil due to man's sinful nature. This is why Iran scares me, and any Islamic groups that wish to impose Shari'a. If Pat Robertson and his ilk had similar designs and power, they would scare me too. I believe in God not in those claiming to be his henchmen.

*Prayer in schools (though I don't think I have discussed this one yet: in favor of, but silent prayer, which each student may use if preferred as a period of rest or meditation or introspection)

*Reduction of criminal code: by a huge amount, like 90% or more. Most criminal statutes shouldn't be on the books at all.

*Prison Reform: make them safe clean places. Send only violent offenders to prison, and stop sending people there until the prisons are made clean and safe. Release all non-violent offenders immediately and if appropriate fit them with a restitution plan. Do not allow prisoners to have cigarrettes, sex or drugs.

*Cut government spending hugely (along with taxes)

*Repeal all forms of censorship

*Maintaining tax-exempt status for churches (some wish to repeal that status). I don't think I have discussed this one yet on this forum.

If you find these views of interest, I'd be happy to discuss
them further.

Thanks for reading.