# More Muslim Marvelousnous **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [February 5, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243 "2011-02-05T03:19:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 62
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1221 "2011-02-21T16:14:08Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Not if you’ve got a limited amount of time and resources. Using a filter that’s so coarse that only a tiny percentage of the people it applies to are actually in the subset of people you’re looking for is not an efficient search strategy. > > Like I said, for example, if you’re looking for a beautiful female model, you don’t start by compiling a list of all females and then applying further filters to it. You skip the superfluous first filter and go straight to looking for the much smaller subset of people who have the **specific** characteristics you’re interested in. > > Yes, if you started out by compiling a list of all females and then filtering that list for beautiful models, you could be theoretically more certain that you couldn’t possibly miss any of your potential search targets. But no sane person would actually conduct the search that way, because it’s so grossly inefficient. > > Likewise, if you’re looking for radical-extremist Islamist terrorists, it just doesn’t make practical sense to start with a top-level search filter as broad and vague as “Muslim”. Such a tiny proportion of Muslims are terrorists that applying such a broad filter is going to waste much more time in your search than it saves. > > AFAICT, there are only two reasons to defend such an inefficient practice: either because one is obsessed with the abstract ideal of a completely infallible filter to the point of ignoring all practical considerations of efficiency and resource limitations, or else because one is looking for an excuse to express negative sentiments about Islam as a whole, rather than just about particular radical violent subcategories of Islam. > > As you’ve seen from my earlier posts, I’m not in any hurry to assume you’re bigoted, and I’ve explicitly resisted suggestions to that effect. But if you go on advocating a critical stance towards Islam _as a whole_ that simply makes no practical sense in the context in which you advocate it (i.e., terrorism prevention), then you can’t be surprised if people start trying to explain your puzzling and apparently irrational behavior by inferring ulterior motives on your part. Nonsense. You are assuming that I advocate applying the first filter—Muslimness—and then will be spending an inordinate and unjustifiable amount of time scrutinizing each and every one. As I’ve stated numerous times now, yet for some reason you choose to ignore, I do not advocate that at all. That is just the FIRST filter. The only action I advocate after we sort for Muslimsness and identify that subset is to apply additional filters. Probably the very filters you deem wise. Now (and this time perhaps you can trouble yourself to answer what is asked of you) how is it how is it more efficient to do whatever further filtering or scrutinizing the authorities would do after filtering for, say, travel to the ME then it would be if their were two filters applied: travel and Muslimness. The two filters result in a smaller group of people than just the one. So whatever further filtering or scrutinizing YOU advocate would be applied to a _smaller_ group. In what world is it MORE efficient to apply those additional filters and investigative actions (again, whatever filters and investigative efforts you deem wise) to a larger group? That makes no sense. What does make sense is to seek to shrink the group you’re going to expend resources on to make it as small as possible. As far as you’re little ad hominem game. It is telling that even amid the completely rational argument I’m making for having one of many filters be for Muslimness (wrong or right), you insist on having that on the table. It’s comical, and suggests a blindness due to political correctness on your part. Now, if you wouldn’t mind please answer the questions I’ve put to you in this and my last post. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1222 "2011-02-21T17:08:00Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That is just the FIRST filter. The only action I advocate after we sort for Muslimsness and identify that subset is to apply additional filters. And why that seems completely irrational is that instead of spending so much time “identifying that subset”, a subset of which only a tiny percentage will actually be in your target category, we could just jump to the “additional filters” directly. That is, we don’t have to waste time sorting the entire population for “Muslimsness”. We can just go directly to the key filters that you mistakenly call “additional”, such as: - Who in the US is involved with radical extremist mosques whose leaders endorse the teachings of radical Islamists in the Muslim world? - Who is donating money to radical organizations supporting terrorism? - Who is distributing, and who is receiving, radical-Islamist propaganda material currently widespread among prison populations? - Who are the proponents and adherents of extreme Muslim-fundamentalist communities in educational institutions? - Who is a recent immigrant with a background of radical-Islamist or insurgent-group connections overseas? - Who is a close associate of persons in the above five categories? All those questions and many like them involve applying scrutiny only to Muslims, but they don’t waste time filtering for Muslims _qua_ Muslims. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1223 "2011-02-21T20:13:24Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > And why that seems completely irrational is that instead of spending so much time “identifying that subset”, a subset of which only a tiny percentage will actually be in your target category, we could just jump to the “additional filters” directly. > > That is, we don’t have to waste time sorting the entire population for “Muslimsness”. We can just go directly to the key filters that you mistakenly call “additional”, such as: > > - Who in the US is involved with radical extremist mosques whose leaders endorse the teachings of radical Islamists in the Muslim world? > > - Who is donating money to radical organizations supporting terrorism? > > - Who is distributing, and who is receiving, radical-Islamist propaganda material currently widespread among prison populations? > > - Who are the proponents and adherents of extreme Muslim-fundamentalist communities in educational institutions? > > - Who is a recent immigrant with a background of radical-Islamist or insurgent-group connections overseas? > > - Who is a close associate of persons in the above five categories? > > All those questions and many like them involve applying scrutiny only to Muslims, but they don’t waste time filtering for Muslims _qua_ Muslims. While you’re refusal to answer questions that have been asked of you is an answer in itself, until you deign to answer the specific questions I have asked you in a straightforward manner—as I have done for you—we are done. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1224 "2011-02-21T21:22:51Z")
Actually, **magellan01** , I **have** in fact answered the questions you asked. Still, if you want to see your actual question marks quoted from the previous two posts you specified, I’m happy to oblige you. > [@magellan01](#): > > Tell me this: how does it make sense that you would look for characteristics that correlate with radical Muslim extremism, but consciously and stubbornly avoid looking at Muslim-ness? Please answer that for me. Because, as I keep saying, “Muslim-ness” by itself is such a broad category and so weakly correlated with terrorism that it’s a waste of time and resources to look at it _per se_, as distinct from particular virulent subcategories of it. What it makes sense to look at are the characteristics that correlate more **closely** with actual radical Muslim extremism, like the specific activities/affiliations I listed in my last post. > [@magellan01](#): > > Do you really think tossing out ad hominems is helpful to your argument? Nothing I’ve said here is an _ad hominem_ argument. An _argumentum ad hominem_ is a logical fallacy based on attacking the argument due to an **unrelated** characteristic of the person propounding it. For instance, if I said “We can’t take **magellan01** seriously on debates about Islam because he’s over 50”\*, that would be an _ad hominem_. Accusing or suspecting somebody of prejudice **about a subject related to their arguments, on the basis of the content of their arguments** , is not an _ad hominem_ attack. There’s nothing illogical or unfair about noting that if you persistently try to justify irrational criticisms of Islam _per se_ as a proxy for specific dangerous groups **within** Islam, it’s reasonable to wonder whether that might be motivated by anti-Muslim prejudice. > [@magellan01](#): > > Now (and this time perhaps you can trouble yourself to answer what is asked of you) how is it how is it more efficient to do whatever further filtering or scrutinizing the authorities would do after filtering for, say, travel to the ME then it would be if their were two filters applied: travel and Muslimness. As I said, I’ve been answering this all along. It is more efficient to skip the “Muslimness” criterion as a separate filter altogether, for the reasons I’ve repeatedly stated. > [@magellan01](#): > > In what world is it MORE efficient to apply those additional filters and investigative actions (again, whatever filters and investigative efforts you deem wise) to a larger group? Skipping the separate, over-broad “Muslimness” filter doesn’t require applying the narrower filters “to a larger group”. As you can plainly see from the examples I listed, filtering by characteristics specifically associated with radical-extremist Islam **automatically filters out almost all non-Muslims in the same step**. Applying a general “Muslimness” filter separately is from a practical standpoint redundant, superfluous, and a waste of time and resources. > [@magellan01](#): > > […] until you deign to answer the specific questions I have asked you in a straightforward manner—as I have done for you—we are done. As I said, I’ve been answering these questions all along. You can still be done if you want to, of course, but I hope I’ve now made it clear why your insistence on conflating Islam in general with radical-extremist violent Islam in particular makes no rational sense. Except, of course, in the light of a rationalization of anti-Muslim prejudice. - Mind you, I have no idea whether **magellan01** actually **is** over 50 or not, it’s just a random frinstance. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1225 "2011-02-22T00:45:31Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > - Mind you, I have no idea whether **magellan01** actually **is** over 50 or not, it’s just a random frinstance. Are you talking age or IQ? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1226 "2011-02-22T00:45:57Z")
Sperm count. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1227 "2011-02-22T02:20:47Z")
Chromosomes, maybe? ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1228 "2011-02-22T02:43:12Z")
> [@villa](#): > > Are you talking age or IQ? Uh, I don’t think he’s in the second grade anymore, **villa**. Haven’t you missed him during all this time you’ve been repeating the class? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1229 "2011-02-22T06:57:53Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > > [@villa](#): > > > > Are you talking age or IQ? > > Uh, I don’t think he’s in the second grade anymore, villa. Haven’t you missed him during all this time you’ve been repeating the class? Just to clear up your misconception underlying your joke there, **Starving Artist** : Measured IQ, unlike other characteristics such as height, weight, reading comprehension level, etc., doesn’t actually change that radically over a normal person’s lifetime. For instance, no adult of normal intelligence (and whatever beef we may have with **magellan01** , I don’t think that any of us would argue that he’s actually of subnormal intelligence) would have had an IQ score of 50 when he was in the second grade. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1230 "2011-02-22T07:50:13Z")
There is no underlying misconception, **Kimstu**. Or at least not on my part. I was simply referring to **villa’s** childish ‘age or IQ?’ joke, which is on about the same level as “I know you are but what am I?” I had given no weight to his assessment of **magellan’s** IQ at all, possibly for the reason that you state which is that his intelligence is obviously a good deal higher. Plus there are people who would argue that IQ tests are flawed to begin with because they reward formal education and experience taking tests rather than assessing a person’s innate intelligence, which if true would likely result in a person scoring lower and lower as they grow older and further away from the experiences and classroom learning of their youth. So I don’t know that it’s accurate to say that a person maintains roughly the same IQ score as they grow older, although I think it’s perfectly possible that they maintain their same basic intelligence. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1231 "2011-02-22T08:13:25Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I was simply referring to villa’s childish ‘age or IQ?’ joke Oh, I see. > [@Starving Artist](#): > > So I don’t know that it’s accurate to say that a person maintains roughly the same IQ score as they grow older, although I think it’s perfectly possible that they maintain their same basic intelligence. Apparently [it is accurate](http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/559366.html), depending on how you interpret “roughly”: IQ scores fluctuate only within one or two standard deviations over a subject’s lifetime. Like I said, nobody with a normal IQ level in adulthood would have tested with an IQ of 50 in childhood. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 22, 2011, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1232 "2011-02-22T19:36:50Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Uh, I don’t think he’s in the second grade anymore, **villa**. Haven’t you missed him during all this time you’ve been repeating the class? Awwww, don’t pout, pumpkin! I think you are just as dumb as **Magellan** , if not dumber… Feel better now? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1233 "2011-02-23T04:07:48Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > And one characteristic of those who are radical Islamic extremists is that they are Muslim. Hang on, this seems like an assumption in and of itself. We’re presumably after anyone who intends trouble, and you don’t need to be a Muslim to desire to aid radical Islamic extremists. You make the point that, by applying Muslim as your first filter, you ensure that we do not miss anyone; by that same standard, by applying Muslim as your first filter, you miss any potential non-Muslim leads. It’s not only an inefficient filter, as Kimstu argues, but also inaccurate. We’d miss out on non-Muslim knowing or unknowing confederates. In a sense it’s both too large _and_ too small a filter. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1234 "2011-02-23T04:25:39Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > In a sense it’s both too large _and_ too small a filter. With a little tinkering, we can make it work. We just need to enlarge the filter a bit; since the vast majority of terrorist attacks on America are by immigrants, we can catch all the non-Muslim terrorists by putting all the immigrants up against the wall. But, dammit, there are still some non-immigrant, non-Muslim terrorists, so we need a larger filter. Hmmm, the terrorists are overwhelmingly male, so we simply treat all guys as suspects, and fewer terrorists will slip through our fingers. Unless, of course, they are CHICKS (you fiendish females!). OK, this is it; all humans are suspects, that is the perfect filter, no terrorist can elude that profile, and the rest is just good police work. They will never see us coming. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1235 "2011-02-23T06:17:41Z")
I think I debated with **magellan** a while ago about whether, in terms of preparing oneself against the most likely threat, he should be prioritising against white males for most crimes and family members for others (as a rhetorical point), but I don’t think we came to an agreement on that one. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1236 "2011-02-23T15:41:35Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > OK, this is it; all humans are suspects, that is the perfect filter, no terrorist can elude that profile, and the rest is just good police work. They will never see us coming. I hear Rin Tin Tin recently converted to Wahhabi Islam, and was last seen crossing the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1237 "2011-02-23T18:22:22Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I hear Rin Tin Tin recently converted to Wahhabi Islam, and was last seen crossing the Khyber Pass into Afghanistan. D’oh!! ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1238 "2011-02-23T19:18:57Z")
Well, dog gone! ---
**Author:** ![Shot\_From\_Guns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ccd318/32.png) [@Shot\_From\_Guns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shot_From_Guns)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1239 "2011-02-23T21:49:26Z")
> [@Capitaine\_Zombie](#): > > Does this thread reboot when we reach page 30? > Edit: oh sorry, apparently it reboots every page. I just wanted to call this out for being awesome. > [@Kimstu](#): > > You know, **magellan01** , I’m really starting to question my earlier acceptance of your assurance that you’re not bigoted against Muslims in general. Just now? Really? C’mon. Dude is clearly scared of brown people, which he equates Muslims to be. > [@Monty](#): > > You’re melting down and I, for one, am glad of it. I hope you kick that melt-down into overdrive and get banned soon. Your stupidity, your prejudice, and your total lack of honesty seem to qualify you for the baninator. It’s becomingly increasingly hard to distinguish your behavior from any other troll. Unfortunately, this is par for the course for **mag**. He’s just going to keep doing it over, and over, and over again. > [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > I was simply referring to **villa’s** childish ‘age or IQ?’ joke, which is on about the same level as “I know you are but what am I?” Yeah, but \*his \*joke was funny, while yours was just kind of sad. Not surprising, coming from yet another poster whose age and IQ are a matched set. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [February 23, 2011, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1240 "2011-02-23T22:45:55Z")
> [@Shot\_From\_Guns](#): > > Not surprising, coming from yet another poster whose age and IQ are a matched set. I dispute this. That would mean **Starving Artist** has gotten smarter over the years. Any review of his posting history would indicate how false that is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243.md?page=63)