Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 119
  1. #61  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    Can anyone?
    Sure. Mrs. Toby.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  2.    #62  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Why exactly would you put stock in hearsay? You answered your question more effectively in whatever search you performed after my question than 3000 posts about 'what everyone else had heard' probably could.
    Because this is a forum and I'm interested in the opinions and exeriences of my fellow posters. I see no harm in taking such an interest! Believe it or not I'm not here to conquer everyone and make them all think the same as me! I also don't attack people when they are looking for other information.
  3.    #63  
    Originally posted by Toby
    The observed trend so far is that nearly all terrorists who have attacked US citizens have been Arab or muslims (the only exception seeming to be Timothy McVeigh). I thought that such 'logic' was perfectly alright with you.
    I can only assume you were referring to me, not Yardie. Anyway, being a terrorist definitely reduces the standing of someone in my mind. Therefore it is immoral to use macro data to predict someone's terroristicity (cool word!). My logic is more robust and not as simple as you think.
  4. #64  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Because this is a forum and I'm interested in the opinions and exeriences of my fellow posters.
    Nothing wrong with that, in theory. Spreading urban legends, though, isn't going to help anyone.
    I see no harm in taking such an interest!
    Unless it generates a new urban legend to fill my inbox.
    Believe it or not I'm not here to conquer everyone and make them all think the same as me! I also don't attack people when they are looking for other information.
    You think I'm attacking you? Weird.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  5. #65  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I can only assume you were referring to me, not Yardie.
    You assume incorrectly and without basis. Yardie was the one who originally used that 'logic'. You only naively defended it thinking that he was using reliable information.
    Anyway, being a terrorist definitely reduces the standing of someone in my mind.
    Why? Terrorism, like history, is usually defined by the victors or the powerful. Suicide bombers are not the be all end all of terrorism.
    Therefore it is immoral to use macro data to predict someone's terroristicity (cool word!).
    If all of the terrorists who hijack or attack planes are arabs and/or muslims, why isn't is logical to investigate them more closely? I'm not saying to put them in jail or assume they're bad people. I'm just saying they should be the ones looked at most closely.
    My logic is more robust and not as simple as you think.
    I've yet to see any significant evidence of that, so using my experience, I'll have to ignore your protests.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6.    #66  
    Originally posted by Toby
    If all of the terrorists who hijack or attack planes are arabs and/or muslims, why isn't is logical to investigate them more closely? I'm not saying to put them in jail or assume they're bad people. I'm just saying they should be the ones looked at most closely.
    The logic is that it is bad for a society to single out someone on the basis of their skin color of background. A free society loses something everytime such prejudicial actions are made, especially when sanctioned by the state. I am not saying you are right or wrong (indeed, I'm slightly inclined to your point of view on a cost/benefit analysis). I'm simply explaining the logic behind the (quite powerful) argument that we not single out Arabs in airports (sounds like a Dateline NBC story title).

    A very interesting editorial:
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001128
  7. #67  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    The logic is that it is bad for a society to single out someone on the basis of their skin color of background.
    Why is it bad if there is a demonstrated correlation?
    A free society loses something everytime such prejudicial actions are made, especially when sanctioned by the state.
    Even when not sanctioned by the state.
    I am not saying you are right or wrong (indeed, I'm slightly inclined to your point of view on a cost/benefit analysis).
    To briefly break from character, FYI, my statement was the antithesis of my view.
    I'm simply explaining the logic behind the (quite powerful) argument that we not single out Arabs in airports (sounds like a Dateline NBC story title).
    Dateline NBC the people who brought you the exploding pickup fraud.
    A very interesting editorial:
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001128
    Of course he's going to say that, he's an arab.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #68  
    Dictionary.com:

    ter·ror·ist   Pronunciation Key  (trr-st)
    n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
    adj. Of or relating to terrorism.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ter·ror·ism   Pronunciation Key  (tr-rzm)
    n.

    The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    serial killer
    n.
    A person who attacks and kills victims one by one in a series of incidents.

    Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


    In my opinion, backed by the above, the sniper' should be referred to as a serial killer.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  9. #69  
    From KRamsauer:
    A very interesting editorial:
    This may be nitpicking, but I don't think so. This was not an editorial but rather just an opinion essay written by a graduate student. To state that it was an editorial (almost always unsigned) would seem to imply htat this essay was the official position of the WSJ. I believe it is more like an essay appearing, perhaps, on the OpEd page of the NY Times.
    Jonathan
  10.    #70  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Why is it bad if there is a demonstrated correlation?
    Wow, flip flop! Seems like just five minutes ago we were on the other side. Didn't you say that it's wrong to apply parameters to samples? Where is the study that shows Arabs are terrorists? Are you using anecdotal evidence here? To answer your question, it's bad because it is making a judgement about the worth of the individual, just as I've said all along.

    Even when not sanctioned by the state.
    Hey, we agree again. I said the same thing. I said it's bad, especially when sanctioned by the state. That implies it's always bad (like Celine Dion music) just especially bad in some situations (played loudly while I'm watching football ).

    Of course he's going to say that, he's an arab.
    I don't follow.
    Last edited by KRamsauer; 10/22/2002 at 02:43 PM.
  11.    #71  
    Originally posted by jhappel
    From KRamsauer:

    This may be nitpicking, but I don't think so. This was not an editorial but rather just an opinion essay written by a graduate student. To state that it was an editorial (almost always unsigned) would seem to imply htat this essay was the official position of the WSJ. I believe it is more like an essay appearing, perhaps, on the OpEd page of the NY Times.
    You're right. I misused the word. I should've said opinion piece. Sorry.

    FWIW, the editorial board of the WSJ shares the same view, if I recall correctly, though I'm not going to go searching for true editorials at this moment.
  12.    #72  
    Originally posted by Yorick
    In my opinion, backed by the above, the sniper should be referred to as a serial killer.
    I think he's both. Serially killing is a means to an end, namely the disruption of the way of life around DC. It seems to me like the killing is auxilary to the real goal of making people afraid to leave their houses. Serial killing is a method. Terrorism is kind of a goal: "the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments." So in my opinion, backed by the above, the sniper can be referred to as a serial killer and/or a terrorist, though the former is 100% true (assuming it is the same party doing all the shootings) and the latter a reasoned guess. Perhaps he doesn't mean to disrupt life. If that is the case, he isn't a terrorist.

    I think this is a fairly solid stance, what do you think Yorick?
  13. #73  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Wow, flip flop! Seems like just five minutes ago we were on the other side.
    Ever consider it was done for effect?
    Didn't you say that it's wrong to apply parameters to samples?
    No, I said it was wrong to try to extrapolate to a whole population from a non-random sample.
    Where is the study that shows Arabs are terrorists?
    There is none. That was the point.
    Are you using anecdotal evidence here?
    Yep, and a liberal dose of all sorts of bad statistical practices.
    To answer your question, it's bad because it is making a judgement about the worth of the individual, just as I've said all along.
    Ohhhh...I'm so sorry, but thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
    [...] I don't follow.
    Tell me about it.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14.    #74  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Ohhhh...I'm so sorry, but thank you for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
    Tell me about it.
    Instead of playing word games and making cryptic remarks how about you answer my question. Why are the remarks of Mr. Masoud typical of Arabs? Why does being Arab mean he's going to say Arabs should be searched more heavily than non Arabs?
  15. #75  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Instead of playing word games and making cryptic remarks how about you answer my question. [...]
    Because the answer to your question should be self-evident.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16. #76  
    Originally posted by Yorick
    In my opinion, backed by the above, the sniper' should be referred to as a serial killer.
    Logical, and barring future information, I agree.
  17.    #77  
    Originally posted by Toby
    Because the answer to your question should be self-evident.
    Should be. I can't figure it out. It would seem to me that Arabs would hold the exact opposite stance as Mr. Masoud. Could you please explain this? I'm curious. And please don't just say "you should know" because we've already established I cannot figure it out on my own.
  18. #78  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    I think he's both. Serially killing is a means to an end, namely the disruption of the way of life around DC. It seems to me like the killing is auxilary to the real goal of making people afraid to leave their houses. Serial killing is a method. Terrorism is kind of a goal: "the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments." So in my opinion, backed by the above, the sniper can be referred to as a serial killer and/or a terrorist, though the former is 100% true (assuming it is the same party doing all the shootings) and the latter a reasoned guess. Perhaps he doesn't mean to disrupt life. If that is the case, he isn't a terrorist.

    I think this is a fairly solid stance, what do you think Yorick?
    I still think he's a serial killer, perhaps on a power trip of some kind (the messages, the flaunting of power by striking where the police say should be safe). It's difficult to say because we don't know what the person's motivation is. (unless more info has come out today that I don't yet know about, since I haven't seen or looked for the news yet.) Most serial killing is sexually motivated, often in a perverse way, and there is some connection between the victims, which helps investigation. Given recent pop culture fascination with serial killers, the sniper might be a media addict who wants the attention, and has some sort of warped world-view where he really *does* believe he is god.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  19.    #79  
    Originally posted by Yorick

    I still think he's a serial killer, perhaps on a power trip of some kind (the messages, the flaunting of power by striking where the police say should be safe). It's difficult to say because we don't know what the person's motivation is. (unless more info has come out today that I don't yet know about, since I haven't seen or looked for the news yet.)
    Today (fyi) he (she?) said something along the lines of "your children are never safe, anywhere." That leads me to believe the act of killing is not his thrill but rather the disruption of people's way of life. So you're right, he's definitely a serial killer. You're also right that it's difficult to say for sure anything about the motivations, especially since we do not know who he is! So all this is speculation. I guess it's just my personal opinon that he wants to have an effect beyond the people he murders. That broadening of targets from individuals to a whole society is what inclines me to think he's a terrorist. Of course it's clear from my first post in this thread that I consider him as such.
  20. #80  
    I agree with this statement. But I think you missed the point. If the sniper turn out to be Arab or Muslim, I am sure CNN would have no problem calling him/her/them a terrorist. IN fact, I wouldn;t be surprised if they try to make a link wih Al Qaida. If it turns out that the sniper is some disgruntled Black or White dude, then he will be referred to as a serial killer and/or psychopath.


    Originally posted by Toby
    The observed trend so far is that nearly all terrorists who have attacked US citizens have been Arab or muslims (the only exception seeming to be Timothy McVeigh). I thought that such 'logic' was perfectly alright with you.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions