More right-wing argumentation: why pro-profiling arguments don’t hold water August 15, 2006
Posted by Evil Bender in bigotry, wingnuts.trackback
I’ve been in a discussion with “Josephnadir” on this thread, and it seems like time to bring that discussion to the main page. He manages to combine a number of misinterpretations of my words, logical errors, and rhetorical dodges, so before I get to the specifics, I want to recap my most important points from that thread:
- Profiling singles out those who have been charged with no crime and treats them differently because of another factor–religion, race, gender, location, etc.
- Forcing Muslims to endure targeted searches because of their background singles out innocent Muslims unfairly.
- White Christian men woudln’t tolerate a similar set of rules, and so they should not inflict it upon others.
Nadir still hasn’t really addressed this point. He has made one argument on it that, as we shall see, does not truly relate. With that said, let’s move on to nadir’s specific arguments:
His first claim, and one he comes back to later, is that
Given that the enemy justifies their actions on Islamic grounds it reasonable that the US Government profile the populations from which these terrorists receive their support in higher percentages: the Muslim population.
First of all, this does not follow: the reasons a criminal gives for their actions is not justification for pursuing people who claim to believe similar things. But this position is further undercut by his own comments later on. When I pointed out that Muslims don’t universally support terrorism any more than Christians support killing doctors, he responds that
People who murder *in the name of* Christianity do so *illogically*. The same can’t be said about the Muslim terrorists. Therefore, *if* you had a wide problem with people who illogically justify their murders in the name of Christianity then it would be appropriate to more closely examine the people who fit this trait. In the case with abortion clinic bombings, these murderers are not Christians and they are widely condemned by the Christian community so profiling Christians would not be reasonable.
But this contradicts his earlier argument that claiming the Koran by terrorists was sufficient cause to distrust all who believe in it. Apparently nadir hasn’t noticed that Christian terrorists wave the Bible around like crazy, as well. He says that the Cristian community doesn’t approve, and I agree, but by his own argumentthis doesn’t matter. All that matters is that bad people claim the ideology, therefore everyone who claims it should be singled out as a potential threat. Again I say that if this logic is true for Muslims, it must be true for Christians as well. And indeed, by his reasoning, any time ANYONE claims a philosophical justification for their evil, we must specifically focus on anyone who agrees with them.
I have repeatedly asked him to justify his position morally, and he responds with appeals to expediency, then claims Iam the moral relativist. I have outlined my position: he has done nothing but argue that his method might be more efficient.
Furthermore, his position is demonstrably racist. He demands proof from me that the majority of Muslim’s AREN’T terrorists, as though the burden of proof is to prove they are innocent, not the other way around. Meanwhile, he assumes–without evidence–that Christian terrorists do not represent Christianity. Only Muslim terrorists represent their religion, you see?
So, nadir, when I claim you are racist, it is not an ad hominem attack, because it is directly related to my critique of your position. You assume that Muslims are guilty until proven innocent, and assume the majority are a violent, terrorist-riddled lot.
Furthermore, you are racist because you would have us discriminate againt Muslims, but it it not always possible to tell a Muslim–they don’t all dress like we might think. In practice, this type of profiling is against those who are Arab, or who look like they might be Arab, or have dark skin or strange customs. It is a racist position, one you would never tolerate in reverse, and so cannot be justified.
So no, nadir, you have not said all Muslims are violent terrorists. You have simply said we should assume they are terrorists until they prove they’re not. That’s much better.
I will end this here, with one final note: nadir, you have challenged me to present an objective moral stand for my position. I will give you an easier challenge: make any moral stand on your position, at all, that is coherent. Explain to me why we should scrutinize more closely those accused of no crime simply because the color of their skin. I’ll be waiting.
By your reasoning you would have police ignore a murder suspect’s race, sex, and other characteristics just because innocent people happen to share those characteristics. In the case of Muslim terrorists, the thing that they all share in common is their religion and this is the one thing you would have the police ignore.
> When I pointed out that Muslims don’t universally support terrorism any more than Christians support killing doctors
Surely you realize there is a difference between justifying an action via logical steps from a set of premises versus justifying an action where there are no logical steps to substantiate it from a different set of premises.
Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists that we are fighting in the war on terror (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) are Muslims. Furthermore, Muslims who commit murder to spread their religion are logically using Islam’s founding documents to do so http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20455 :
Nor are these jihadists misrepresenting, twisting, or hijacking what the Qur’an says. Indeed, they are fiercely literalistic, taking the book’s many martial verses at face value. There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (Sura 9:73). “Strive hard” in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield: “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Qur’an 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly: “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Qur’an 9:123).
This warfare was to be directed against both those who rejected Islam and those who professed to be Muslims but did not hold to the fullness of the faith: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate” (Qur’an 9:73). This warfare was only part of the larger spiritual conflict between Allah and Satan: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan” (Qur’an 4:76). “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful” (Qur’an 9:5). The “poor-due” in this verse is zakat, which is a central obligation for Muslims. Thus the verse is saying that if the “idolaters” become Muslims, leave them alone.
Jews and Christians were to be fought along with “idolaters”: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
Jihad is the highest duty of Muslims: “Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to the pious service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah [jihad fi sabil Allah]? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah’s cause [jihad fi sabil Allah], with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will achieve salvation” (Qur’an 9:19-20). In Islamic theology, jihad fi sabil Allah refers specifically to taking up arms for Islam.
> You have simply said we should assume they are terrorists until they prove they’re not
I have said no such thing. I’ll spell it out for you since you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. You should focus your policing efforts on those who fit the profile. For example, if a murder suspect is a young black male I would have the police focus their attention searching for young black mails, despite the fact that the majority of young black males are innocent, for the simple fact that the suspect is a young black male . You seem to be advocating a position that would purposefully discard the profile of the suspect.
> his position is demonstrably racist
Muslims are not a race, your statement is by definition false.
> I have repeatedly asked him to justify his position morally
As I pointed out earlier your position would have police ignore a murder suspect’s race, sex, and other characteristics just because innocent people happen to share those characteristics. I think that position is immoral for it puts innocents at more risk of peril.
Given the government’s limited amount of policing resources we should prioritize those resources in the areas that are likely to yield more leads. Ignoring this rational and self-preserving principle puts us at a higher risk of peril.
Re: Moral Relativism
You’ve admitted on a separate thread that you are a moral relativist (i.e., your stance is that there is no objective morality). Your position is self-refuting and it is therefore not reasonable to adhere to it. I’ll elaborate further at http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/morality-a-primer-for-moralists/
By your reasoning you would have police ignore a murder suspect’s race, sex, and other characteristics just because innocent people happen to share those characteristics. In the case of Muslim terrorists, the thing that they all share in common is their religion and this is the one thing you would have the police ignore.
> When I pointed out that Muslims don’t universally support terrorism any more than Christians support killing doctors
Surely you realize there is a difference between justifying an action via logical steps from a set of premises versus justifying an action where there are no logical steps to substantiate it from a different set of premises.
Not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists that we are fighting in the war on terror (Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc) are Muslims. Furthermore, Muslims who commit murder to spread their religion are logically using Islam’s founding documents to do so http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20455 :
Nor are these jihadists misrepresenting, twisting, or hijacking what the Qur’an says. Indeed, they are fiercely literalistic, taking the book’s many martial verses at face value. There are over a hundred verses in the Qur’an that exhort believers to wage jihad against unbelievers. “O Prophet! Strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell, an evil refuge indeed” (Sura 9:73). “Strive hard” in Arabic is jahidi, a verbal form of the noun jihad. This striving was to be on the battlefield: “When you meet the unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads and, when you have laid them low, bind your captives firmly” (Qur’an 47:4). This is emphasized repeatedly: “O ye who believe! Fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him” (Qur’an 9:123).
This warfare was to be directed against both those who rejected Islam and those who professed to be Muslims but did not hold to the fullness of the faith: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate” (Qur’an 9:73). This warfare was only part of the larger spiritual conflict between Allah and Satan: “Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject faith fight in the cause of evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan” (Qur’an 4:76). “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them captive, and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful” (Qur’an 9:5). The “poor-due” in this verse is zakat, which is a central obligation for Muslims. Thus the verse is saying that if the “idolaters” become Muslims, leave them alone.
Jews and Christians were to be fought along with “idolaters”: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).
Jihad is the highest duty of Muslims: “Do ye make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Sacred Mosque, equal to the pious service of those who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and strive with might and main in the cause of Allah [jihad fi sabil Allah]? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah: and Allah guides not those who do wrong. Those who believe, and suffer exile and strive with might and main, in Allah’s cause [jihad fi sabil Allah], with their goods and their persons, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah: they are the people who will achieve salvation” (Qur’an 9:19-20). In Islamic theology, jihad fi sabil Allah refers specifically to taking up arms for Islam.
> You have simply said we should assume they are terrorists until they prove they’re not
I have said no such thing. I’ll spell it out for you since you don’t seem to understand what I’m saying. You should focus your policing efforts on those who fit the profile. For example, if a murder suspect is a young black male I would have the police focus their attention searching for young black mails, despite the fact that the majority of young black males are innocent, for the simple fact that the suspect is a young black male . You seem to be advocating a position that would purposefully discard the profile of the suspect.
> his position is demonstrably racist.
Muslims are not a race, your statement is by definition false.
> I have repeatedly asked him to justify his position morally
As I pointed out earlier your position would have police ignore a murder suspect’s race, sex, and other characteristics just because innocent people happen to share those characteristics. I think that position is immoral for it puts innocents at more risk of peril.
Given the government’s limited amount of policing resources we should prioritize those resources in the areas that are likely to yield more leads. Ignoring this rational and self-preserving principle puts us at a higher risk of peril.
Re: Moral relativism
You pointed out on another thread that you are a moral relativism (i.e., you believe there is no objective morality). Moral relativism is a self-refuting belief system and therefore it is not reasonable to adhere to it. I will elaborate further in the comments section of http://evilbender.wordpress.com/2006/08/15/morality-a-primer-for-moralists/
Due to comment size limitations at this blog I’ve posted my replies at http://josephnadir.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/debating-a-moral-relativist-about-profiling/ and http://josephnadir.wordpress.com/2006/08/16/debating-a-moral-relativist-about-moral-relativism/
Due to comment size limitations I’ve posted my replies at http://josephnadir.wordpress.com