# 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:** 1\ **Showing post:** 1195
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2011, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243/1195 "2011-02-19T00:13:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But if you know that the radical Xs are most likely to be _within a particular little bag INSIDE the big bag of Xs_, then **why would you waste your time sifting through the WHOLE bag of Xs??** Focus your scrutiny on that little bag instead. You _don’t_ know who all the radicals are. And no one is saying you then start looking at each X individually. You keep applying as many filters as you can: gender, age, travel, mosque affiliation, family relationships with known terrorists, etc. You keep looking at this as if my first filter is the only filter. It’s not. It’s one of many. And the more filters the better. What is so difficult about this? Here’s another way to look at it. Let’s look at the Christian religions. Let’s say they there were a group of serial killers killing people and leaving passages from the bible scribbled on the walls. and there was some evidence at the scenes that the killers had some reverence for Christianity. One characteristic that you might assign to these killers would be that their Christian, right? Now in the U.S., that alone wouldn’t be very helpful, given the numbers. But it would be a start, and you look at other characteristics you can assign to the killers and further reduce the pool of potential suspects. But let’s say these killings happened in Japan, where Christians are a small minority. Starting with those who are Christian would be a good place to _start_, for a first filter. > [@Kimstu](#): > > This insistence on focusing on the “big bag” as an object of scrutiny, even though **we have already identified the salient characteristics of the “little bag” where the problem is actually located** , is the part of your argument that seems totally, persistently irrational. Ah. Here’s the mistake you’re making. You’re assuming that we _can_ identify all those individuals that belong in the little bag from the get go. We don’t. And in our efforts to determine who they are (in the U.S., where they are a small minority), we do know that radical Muslims belong to the larger set called “Muslims”. Why is it that you think that looking for radical Muslims in the larger pool of Muslims is illogical? You KNOW they are contained in the group. > [@Kimstu](#): > > Since we have a very clear picture of the particular types of **radical extremist Islam** where this religious violence is actually located, why are you still so insistent about the need to scrutinize or mistrust Islam **as a whole**? I’m not following you here. > [@Kimstu](#): > > If somebody’s looking for, say, a beautiful female model to be his true love, would it make sense for him to say “well, a female model is a woman so I’ll start by looking among groups of women in general”? > > Should he try to scope out all the places where women are more likely to be found than men, from mall shoe stores to knitting clubs to roller derby leagues to Tupperware parties, and look for beautiful models among them? Would that be “a sensible, hell, a tautological first step” in his search, as you suggest? > > _ **Of course not.** _ If our hypothetical model-hunter has any sense, he’ll concentrate his search **on the places where he’s likely to find female models RATHER than other types of women**. He’ll check out modeling agencies, fashion shoots, hell I don’t know, where else do models hang out? The point is that **he’ll use the _specific_ characteristics of the type he’s looking for to narrow his search right away**. He won’t start his search with her most **general** characteristics and then try to screen out the vast majority who don’t meet his specific criteria. But he won’t be looking at modeling agencies that deal exclusively with _male_ models, will he? What you’re advocating makes sense, but all your doing is choosing places where attractive WOMEN hang out. You need to filter for women or you’d be wasting your time, right? That’s the first cut. Next, you filter for other characteristics that might correlate with models: gym membership, yoga membership, shopping at Barney’s New York, Prada, etc. > [@Kimstu](#): > > That type of ridiculously over-broad and diffused search strategy is exactly what you’re advocating in the case of hunting radical-Islamist terrorists. Do you see why your argument is coming across as so inexplicably bizarre and irrational? Please, please, please, PLEASE try to digest this, as it it getting old: I have not and do not advocate applying one initial filter and then scrutinizing every individual. If you cannot grasp that by now, or for some other reason insist on attributing that belief to me, any future discussion is pointless. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/more-muslim-marvelousnous/570243)._