This issue is closely related to the burden of proof — specifically, in those cases where an existence claim implies evidence should be available yet such cannot be adduced, the burden of proof falls onto the claimant rather than the proposer.

Consider, for example, Russell’s Teapot — a canonical example where absence of evidence doesn’t disprove the claim — in comparison to Philolaus’ Antichthon, for which the absence of evidence does disprove the claim.

(In short, where evidence is to be expected by the very nature of an existence claim, the absence of such evidence is indeed evidence of the non-existence of that which is claimed)

–

* Perhaps you are familiar with the principle of explosion, too.

Yes!

Here’s a profile: “Middle Eastern-looking”. Or how about “Anyone not Caucasian”?

Right, so we’re back at racial profiling. Which is precisely what Sam Harris denied suggesting.

Those profiles would have caught most, if not all, of the terrorists I mentioned in my previous post…

Colour me unconvinced. Many of them could easily pass for Caucasion or non-middle eastern.

That may, however, be too inclusive to be feasible. So let’s narrow it down to weirdos in gowns with beards.

Which is exactly how the 9/11 highjackers weren’t dressed. They were wearing t-shirts, jeans, and were clean-shaven.

Too exclusive? The terrorists will figure out to shave and put on jeans? Let’s find some middle ground then.

No, they won’t “figure it out.” That’s what they’re already doing. Look at the image. And what “middle ground?” How exactly do you recognise a Muslim terrorist at a glance? That’s the entire point of what I wrote. Honestly, if you’re not going to even bother reading my post or even learn the most rudimentary facts, why the Hell should I take your opinions seriously?

I fail to see the outrage?

Yes, but you also have a massive failure of reading comprehension and fact-checking, so it’s not surprising.

Here’s a quote from the Wikipedia article on Suicide attacks: “According to a report compiled by the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, 224 of 300 suicide terror attacks from 1980 to 2003 involved Islamist groups or took place in Muslim-majority lands.[67] Another tabulation found a 4.5 fold increase in suicide bombings in the two years following Papes study and that the majority of these bombers were motivated by the ideology of Islamist martyrdom.[68]”

Here’s a profile: “Middle Eastern-looking”. Or how about “Anyone not Caucasian”? Those profiles would have caught most, if not all, of the terrorists I mentioned in my previous post…

I am well aware that all Muslims do not look Middle Eastern, but most of the aforementioned terrorists did. I’m seeing a trend.

That may, however, be too inclusive to be feasible. So let’s narrow it down to weirdos in gowns with beards. Too exclusive? The terrorists will figure out to shave and put on jeans? Let’s find some middle ground then.

My point, and the one I think Harris was trying to make, is that checking old ladies, and little children in the name of PC is stupid. It makes sense to focus less on some individuals, and more on others. This focus must be based on looks and behavior. This is called profiling. If most of the previous attacks were committed by terrorists fitting a certain profile, it makes sense to target this profile. I fail to see the outrage?

However, I’ll gladly play this game. Show me some actual statistics to suggest that suicidal Muslim terrorists pose a significantly higher risk than any other kind. So far I’ve only seen flat assertions and anecdotal evidence.

Regarding how it doesn’t make sense to target a certain profile, if most suicidal terrorists fit it, I’ve already addressed that. The onus is on Sam Harris (and perhaps you) to show what this supposed profile actually consists of. How do you recognise Muslims at a glance exactly? Oh, yes. That’s right. They’re going to show up in Arab garb while loudly singing praise to Allah and preaching death to infidels, aren’t they?