An example of "tolerance"

[childofGod1]

Even if we take your use of 'something', the argument doesn't hold up. Firstly, it can be rationally construed that there is something to fear about everyone. Maybe that particular 'something' isn't even directly apparent. Does that mean it is rational to fear everyone?
Second, the argument still suffers from circularity.
A: There is something to fear about X.
B: Why should I fear it?
A: Because it is rational.
B: What makes it rational to fear X?
A: Because there is something to fear.
Thirdly, the 'something to fear' aspect differs between individuals. Someone afraid of cockroaches believes that there is something about cockroaches to fear. It doesn't follow however that the particular 'something to fear' is rational. .



That doesn't explain why you don't have the same 'rational' reaction to anyone and everyone else. Your argument singles out Muslims as though they are somehow special in this 'uncertainty' respect, when the same can be said of everyone. Unless you have some means for determining 'friendly' and 'diabolical gremlin' non-Muslims, then you cannot say 'Those Muslims... I can't tell the good ones from the bad ones.' That's true for everyone: 'Those humans... if only they all wore tags that said either friend or foe.' As I've said before, you are the one assigning tags here, and you've decided that it is 'rational' to give all Muslims a particular tag, even though the very same argument that you use to make this assignment could easily apply to everyone else.

You forgot to factor in denial. Most people have some fear of Muslims on planes, but a few are in denial about the possible danger of another terrorist attack. It's irrational to feel no fear in a situation where you are confronted with a possible threat.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You forgot to factor in denial. Most people have some fear of Muslims on planes, but a few are in denial about the possible danger of another terrorist attack. It's irrational to feel no fear in a situation where you are confronted with a possible threat.

Who is in denial?

 

[lordbt]

Even if we take your use of 'something', the argument doesn't hold up. Firstly, it can be rationally construed that there is something to fear about everyone. Maybe that particular 'something' isn't even directly apparent. Does that mean it is rational to fear everyone?

That would depend upon the circumstances and conditions. But then again, no one is advocating the fear of all muslims at all times and in all circumstances. Rather the fear of certain muslims in certain situations--situations where certain muslims have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate themselves as a potential threat and something, therefore, to fear.

Second, the argument still suffers from circularity.
A: There is something to fear about X.
B: Why should I fear it?
A: Because it is rational.
B: What makes it rational to fear X?
A: Because there is something to fear.

A: There is something to fear about X.
B: Why should I fear it?
A: Because it is has the potential to do you harm.
B: What makes it rational to fear X?
A: Because it is rational to fear things that might harm you.

Thirdly, the 'something to fear' aspect differs between individuals. Someone afraid of cockroaches believes that there is something about cockroaches to fear. It doesn't follow however that the particular 'something to fear' is rational.

Sure, someone who runs a restaurant will certainly have a great deal more to fear from roaches than you or I.

That doesn't explain why you don't have the same 'rational' reaction to anyone and everyone else. Your argument singles out Muslims as though they are somehow special in this 'uncertainty' respect, when the same can be said of everyone. Unless you have some means for determining 'friendly' and 'diabolical gremlin' non-Muslims, then you cannot say 'Those Muslims... I can't tell the good ones from the bad ones.' That's true for everyone: 'Those humans... if only they all wore tags that said either friend or foe.' As I've said before, you are the one assigning tags here, and you've decided that it is 'rational' to give all Muslims a particular tag, even though the very same argument that you use to make this assignment could easily apply to everyone else.

I single out muslims as something to be feared in a particular situations. I dont fear muslims in all situations. I dont fear white males boarding my plane, because white males arent blowing them up. I did, however, fear white (all) males when I would take my young children to public places. But that fear would vanish if I was by myself since no one was looking to kidnap me.

But here is a partial list of people I dont fear boarding my plane:
Whites
Blacks
Latinos
Asians

I do have my own special watch list that includes the Germans, who everyone knows are always up to no good. But next to muslims the two groups that deserve special scrutiny are those nefarious Australians and Croatians. Gotta watch them at all times.

 

[BoltNut]

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I get in the water and see sharks in Muslim garb, I get a little ....... nervous.

Am I a bigot? Is it Islamophobia or Sharkophobia???

 

[Bubbahotep]

A: There is something to fear about X.
B: Why should I fear it?
A: Because radical muslims have declared war on us and are known for targeting air traffic, especially in the west.

And if I were in the Mid East, I'd be suspicious of cars. Context and discernment come into play when assessing a threat. Something ya'll really seem to be lacking here.

That doesn't explain why you don't have the same 'rational' reaction to anyone and everyone else. Your argument singles out Muslims as though they are somehow special in this 'uncertainty' respect, when the same can be said of everyone.

And no one has denied that. But I'm more at risk of being blown up or otherwise attacked by a guy screaming "Allah Akbar" at an airport or on a plane than I am at risk for being kidnapped, or mugged by some random Joe.

And of course no one trusts anyone at an airport. That's why we don't just leave our bags willy nilly and that's why they tell you not take your eyes off your bags. Just as easily have a terrorist put a bomb in your bag as you could a drug runner dropping a key of coke.

 

[Belk]

And if I were in the Mid East, I'd be suspicious of cars. Context and discernment come into play when assessing a threat. Something ya'll really seem to be lacking here.



And no one has denied that. But I'm more at risk of being blown up or otherwise attacked by a guy screaming "Allah Akbar" at an airport or on a plane than I am at risk for being kidnapped, or mugged by some random Joe.

And of course no one trusts anyone at an airport. That's why we don't just leave our bags willy nilly and that's why they tell you not take your eyes off your bags. Just as easily have a terrorist put a bomb in your bag as you could a drug runner dropping a key of coke.

I think you will find that your odds of being kidnapped or mugged by some random Joe are in fact much higher.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think you will find that your odds of being kidnapped or mugged by some random Joe are in fact much higher.

While we're at it, you're 20 times more likely to be murdered by your spouse than by a stranger -- so who should you really be afraid of?

 

[Bubbahotep]

I think you will find that your odds of being kidnapped or mugged by some random Joe are in fact much higher.

At an airport?

 

[Nathan Poe]

At an airport?

Ah -- so maybe you should be afraid of airports; all sorts of unsavory characters hang out there.

 

[Belk]

At an airport?

Yes, at an airport.

 

[rambot]

I don't know about the rest of you, but when I get in the water and see sharks in Muslim garb, I get a little ....... nervous.

Am I a bigot? Is it Islamophobia or Sharkophobia???

You just blew my mind, man.

 

[Bubbahotep]

Ah -- so maybe you should be afraid of airports; all sorts of unsavory characters hang out there.

Everyone's afraid at an airport. Think your not, leave your luggage sitting along for a while. Who knows, people might just think you a terrorist.

Yes, at an airport.

I'd be interested in seeing the numbers.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A: There is something to fear about X.
B: Why should I fear it?
A: Because it is has the potential to do you harm.
B: What makes it rational to fear X?
A: Because it is rational to fear things that might harm you.

The highlighted bit is not at all explicit in the initial argument 'If there is something to fear, then it is rational to fear it'. Nor does it help the argument with respect to what you want to say since virtually everything and everyone 'has the potential to do you harm.' You want to specify a rule that works for describing fear toward people dressed in Muslim garb. A rule that works just as well for everyone else is of no help to that end.

I single out muslims as something to be feared in a particular situations.

And how do you identify which particular situation a person dressed in Muslim garb poses a threat? Easy, as soon as they board the plane, right? This doesn't show that the 'tinge of fear' you get is anything more than a visceral reaction. Did the 9/11 hijackers wear 'Muslim garb' while carrying out their attacks? Will future prospective attackers wear Muslim garb or will they try to blend in? If so, doesn't that mean that it is rational to be suspicious of everyone? The notion that your primitive fears can realistically narrow down who might pose a tangible threat to air-safety solely on the basis of nothing other than their outward appearance is... quite frankly... an appeal to a stereotype.

 

[lordbt]

The highlighted bit is not at all explicit in the initial argument 'If there is something to fear, then it is rational to fear it'. Nor does it help the argument with respect to what you want to say since virtually everything and everyone 'has the potential to do you harm.' You want to specify a rule that works for describing fear toward people dressed in Muslim garb. A rule that works just as well for everyone else is of no help to that end.



And how do you identify which particular situation a person dressed in Muslim garb poses a threat? Easy, as soon as they board the plane, right? This doesn't show that the 'tinge of fear' you get is anything more than a visceral reaction. Did the 9/11 hijackers wear 'Muslim garb' while carrying out their attacks? Will future prospective attackers wear Muslim garb or will they try to blend in? If so, doesn't that mean that it is rational to be suspicious of everyone? The notion that your primitive fears can realistically narrow down who might pose a tangible threat to air-safety solely on the basis of nothing other than their outward appearance is... quite frankly... an appeal to a stereotype.

It isnt a primitive fear that has caused airports around the world to be run like police states. And it isnt a primitive fear that muslims are trying to knock airplanes out of the sky. The threat from muslims to airline travel is real. You can pretend there is nothing to fear all you want, but your argument is far from persuasive.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It isnt a primitive fear that has caused airports around the world to be run like police states. And it isnt a primitive fear that muslims are trying to knock airplanes out of the sky. The threat from muslims to airline travel is real. You can pretend there is nothing to fear all you want, but your argument is far from persuasive.

Another strawman? I never said that 'there is nothing to fear', nor did I pose an argument for that claim. I said, "The notion that your primitive fears can realistically narrow down who might pose a tangible threat to air-safety solely on the basis of nothing other than their outward appearance is... quite frankly... an appeal to a stereotype." Airports around the world are run like police states, not merely as a reaction to the 'threat from Muslims to airline travel'. If that were so, then airline security would react in this manner only toward Muslims since the supposition would be that the threat comes only from Muslims. Of course there are real threats, but I doubt your 'gut feelings' and visceral fear reactions to people's outward appearances are going to identify them for us with any significant measure of success.

 

[brindisi]

It isnt a primitive fear that has caused airports around the world to be run like police states. And it isnt a primitive fear that muslims are trying to knock airplanes out of the sky. The threat from muslims to airline travel is real. You can pretend there is nothing to fear all you want, but your argument is far from persuasive.

Good post lordbt!

I have to say, the distinction art seems so adament to make is moot. What possible reason does one have to make this distinction other than to to make a trivial argument over semantics. What possible practical difference to the world could it make, other than to allow some folks to feel superior to others.

Those of us who are Chrsitians arleady know the frailities and imperfections of human nature. We have a moral system for working to overcome them, which we are not always successful with BTW.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have to say, the distinction art seems so adament to make is moot. What possible reason does one have to make this distinction other than to to make a trivial argument over semantics. What possible practical difference to the world could it make, other than to allow some folks to feel superior to others.

And which distinction would you be referring to here?

 

[brindisi]

And which distinction would you be referring to here?

You insistence that these fears are primal rather than rational. It's of no importance whatever.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You insistence that these fears are primal rather than rational. It's of no importance whatever.

You previously asserted that the fear we are currently talking about is rational. Now you are saying 'It doesn't matter! Who cares whether it's rational or visceral.' I can thank-you for this much at least: conceding the point.

 

[lordbt]

Another strawman? I never said that 'there is nothing to fear', nor did I pose an argument for that claim. I said, "The notion that your primitive fears can realistically narrow down who might pose a tangible threat to air-safety solely on the basis of nothing other than their outward appearance is... quite frankly... an appeal to a stereotype." Airports around the world are run like police states, not merely as a reaction to the 'threat from Muslims to airline travel'. If that were so, then airline security would react in this manner only toward Muslims since the supposition would be that the threat comes only from Muslims. Of course there are real threats, but I doubt your 'gut feelings' and visceral fear reactions to people's outward appearances are going to identify them for us with any significant measure of success.

We would do that sort of thing here, but we cant. That would be racist, dont you know. And we cant have racial profiling, that would be wrong, somehow. Anyway, we are both saying there is something to fear: I am narrowing it down to the obvious threat--radical muslims. You want to pretend it is someone/anyone else.