The two can't be compared. One is, or is not born black.
FPrice- thank you for making the point that I was just sort of alluding to. I was probably too specific in my statement. But you're right, any organization be it governmental, corporate, or four guys sitting around drinking beer will work to protect their own.
Our rather copious coverage of the AFA scandal has probably seared itself into the back of my mind, so it was the first thing to pop up when I was trying to think of an example. I would like to think that the media's spotlight on the AFA scandal is an example of what the media is supposed to do- bringing wrongdoing to the public eye in order to allow it to be examined. However, I am neither optimistic or naive enough to buy into that belief in even a majority of the stories covered by the media. It would be a self-evident cliche to say that the media's ability to put things before the public is often times twisted and abused.
Yes they can. Whether the variable is "inborn" or "acquired" is no relevance to the logic of what I presented. What I presented was a demonstration of correlations not equating causality (black-crime high correlations does NOT mean black CAUSES crime; likewise Islam-terrorism correlations does not mean Islam causes terrorism). In both cases, there are other factors that may be of higher correlations. There may even be yet another factor that causes both (and hence create a perfect correlations between the two without one being a causal factor for the other).
Very true, but irrelevant to the logic exposition I stated above.
They are also consistent with people who are mal-adjusted, violent and use religion as a justificaton for existing bias (anti-Americanism, for example).
I am not surprised by what they did. Who says I was? I merely question the notion the generalization that Islam is what caused these acts. Islam (which can be many different things to many different people like any religion) is, or was, the excuse.
Well, what people say and what really motivate them can be two different things. For example, OBL could claim that he attacked America because it has stationing troops in ("occupying") Saudi Arabia or that he hates American for its support of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land - while his true motiviation was radical, fundamentalist Islam.
Malkin wrote a provocative piece that uses a lot of logical fallacies imply that a particular religon is more violent than another (that she belongs to). It's an illogical piece of writing that fails to separate people who are very different (and lump them altogether), and appeal to certain kinds of previously held biases.
I'm not saying that Islam caused their crimes. Most adherants of Islam do not commit violent crimes.
We agree.
He objects to our "occupation" because we (the infidels) are anathema in the Holy land(s), ditto for the situation in Israel. Making his "true motivation" that you offer as an example, a distinction without a difference. I am certain that many followeres of different religions, or sects thereof, dislike the American presence in Saudi Arabia. The difference (and the difference is vast) is that followers of The Religious Society Of Friends - as an example of people that would rather that we didn't have a military presence anywhere - don't fly planes into buildings over it.
Then WE agree, but that does not appear to be Malkin's position (her position is not clear, because she is very vague about her evidence and intermediate conclusions, but she appears to be implying that Islam is somehow a culprit).
It is NOT "a distinction without a difference." It is very likely that even if the US troops were not stationed in Saudi Arabia, OBL would have attacked the US. Furthermore, the plan and organization for the attack were in place when the US was pressuring Israel to make peace with the Palestinians - when, in fact, the US was helping the Palestinians to achieve statehood as it never has before. So it is illogical for OBL to claim that he did the attack to aid the Palestinians.
Well, that's because you are hunting just about any deer you see. That's about as obvious as saying "when we go wage a war on an Arab nation (Iraq), we don't go attacking a Hindu nation (say, India)." What's your point?
Now you are making my point for me. OBL attacked us because his lunatic belief system demands him to. It doesn't matter if we are helping or hindering other Muslims. He, like Sgt. Akbar, must in the end, attack us because we don't subscribe to their death-cult sect(s) of Islam.
Come deer hunting with me sometime. Learn about it before you make statements that do not reflect the actual process. The sex of the animal, it's physical location, antlers vs. no antlers, and even it's species (there are 6 different ones in the lower 48 states alone) are all factors in whether or not shooting it would be legal. To put a finer point on it, when I am hunting for Blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus), I spend no time hunting where Columbia whitetail deer (Odocoileus viginianus leucurus) might also be likely to be found. But, even if I did, I would know the difference between the two. Ergo deer aren't "just deer" to me, nor are they to folks with training similar to mine.
