Tyndmyr wrote:But...about 4.4% of the US population is prisoners. If 9.4% of them are Muslim, and that's still about .9% of the population...that means that nearly half the US Muslim population is in jail right now.
That's kind of significant.
4.4 * 9.4 / 100 = 0.4136
9.4% of 4.4 is 0.41 not 0.9?
.9% = percentage of people in the US who are Islamic, not the percentage in prison. Apologies if I was unclear there.
The 41% is the "nearly half".
kingofdreams wrote:i think your proportions are a little off
US is 4.4% of world population
.91 % of us population is in jail
muslims are about .8% of population but maybe 11% of jail population? alot of those as have been mentioned jailhouse conversions
source : pew report
Ah, accidentally got a "world population" bit in there. That's messy. That changes the percentage of total population, albeit not the percentage relative to other faiths.
The conversions is a factor, sure. It doesn't appear to be the only factor, though. I can't pin down exactly how much, because the data is limited, and appears to vary a good bit by source, which is kind of annoying. That said, we can be quite certain that a significant portion of the Islamic prison population converted since arrival. 30-50%ish, probably. Still, they are overrepresented in jail at a significantly larger rate.
Still, I think the direct rates of crimes, where available, are a lot better than the proxy of incarceration, for a number of reasons. Just got a bit off on a tangent of data found while looking at crimes, and it seemed to be a relatively unexplored one for some reason. Struck me as odd that nobody seemed interested in that, whereas we talk about disproportionate incarceration rates for other demographics all the time.
sardia wrote:The unemployment rate for young men in general is important for reducing violence in general.
Sure. But that's different from cases like these. The guy who turns to selling drugs or theft or muggings because he can't find a job isn't really the same as mass shootings. They have some fundamental differences, and mass violence in the US just doesn't track to unemployment rate. For reducing violence in general, sure, this is great, but it's not particularly relevant to *this* kind of violence.
I do agree that testing, background checks, whatever did not identify anything for this fellow. So, perhaps this calls into question the methodology of those tests, rather than the basis for testing/not. The FBI checked him out, he took tests, all well and good there, but were there signs that those things missed? This gets a little speculative, I'm afraid, but reviewing those to see if they have good predictive value seems appropriate.
Has anyone noticed his childhood background? It's full of violence and incidents. This sounds familiar, but I can't find the source that links this behavior to shooting sprees.
I can't find scientific links at the moment, but anecdotally, I remember similar reports about other mass shooters. I can't tell if this is due to a disproportionate likelihood for such events, or due to media playing up anything like that. It *seems* to make logical sense that someone with an early propensity for violence would be more likely to engage in mass violence later, but it'd be nice to have stats to back up that assumption.
PS Tyndmyr, you still haven't stated what you expect the next step to be, other than bad things probably happening to muslims and getting more guns. I presume you don't want the former from happening? So we should focus on protecting the muslims from reactionary attacks and crack down on hate crimes then?
I don't actually expect a ridiculously high rate of anti-Islamic violence. It's not currently higher than say, anti-homosexual violence, and lower than violence against other demographics, so I don't understand why this particular fear should dominate everything.
I'm more interested in teasing apart the why, and looking at broader solutions. There seems to be a preset idea(in the media, at least) that islamophobia is THE problem, and we must not examine things too closely, less the mere discussion of facts be enough to spawn mass violence. That seems odd. If you fear the facts that much, there's a problem.
CorruptUser wrote: TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:[…] I'm pretty sure that death or injury by gunshot is bad for one's health[.]
Shotgun bullets certainly is.
Maybe you shouldn't load a shotgun with bullets?
That is odd, but so is using "is" instead of "are" in that sentence.
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:My position is that, because of the diversity of opinions within different religious traditions, there's no meaningful question of whether Islam or Judaism or what-have-you are "equal in homophobia." The only sensible answer you could give is "It depends on which Muslims/Jews/whomever you're talking about."
Uh, of COURSE you can compare them.
We compare large groups of people all the time, with statistics. If I ask "is America equal to Norway in murder", the correct answer is "no, Americans murder more".
morriswalters wrote:If Islam is immutably homophobic and if the premise that this is immoral or evil by our standards than we should do something about it. Then it follows that Donald Trump is right and we should ban Muslims from entering the country and if anything we should do more. Would this be your position? If not, than why?
Understanding the problem does not require that one accept the first solution proposed. If Islam promotes violence again homosexuality, it's entirely reasonable to have some discussion over different possible solutions. I am not convinced that Trump has the only solution here. Or best solution.
Data is only the beginning of a discussion, not the end of it.
elasto wrote:During various periods of history, Christian, Atheist and Jewish countries have been horribly illiberal, and Muslim states have been enlightened. It's an accident of history that in 2016 Muslim countries happen to be illiberal as a whole. You can't infer from that that Islam is more intolerant of homosexuality than Judaism any more than you could infer the reverse during a previous period of human history.
Historically, Christianity had many problems, yes. However, the situation *now* is the present problem. Discussing historical superiority is mostly unimportant. We can cheerfully agree that the Crusades were a bad idea, while recognizing that Christianity today doesn't pose a threat of Crusades.
Again, can we infer from this that Christianity is homophobic? No. Factions of it certainly are, just as they are within Judaism and Islam, but we can't conclude any more than that.
Even today, Christianity is at least sort of homophobic. Yes, some factions of it are decidedly more so than others, but there's a correlation overall.
It is, presently, less homophobic than Islam. However, it would be inaccurate to claim that it is not a source of homophobia.
BattleMoose wrote:And I don't really care about tiny christian groups scattered through the western world advocating violence against gay people. Or other tiny ineffectual religious groups. They will die out soon enough and their hatred doesn't result in state sanctioned violence..
I still care about them. A smaller problem is still a problem. But it's important to keep the scale of problems in mind.