clarification for Andy Fox

As requested, here is the brief follow-up in a new thread:


AF: You said, "I'd rather not give money to those who are more likely to be supporting terrorists."


AF: "I didn't see anywhere in his post that he has information that money given to a middle-eastern immigrant is likely to end up in the hands of Al Qaeda. I did see him post that he assumes this."


M: the problem appears to be the omission of the word "more" in front of the word "likely" in the first sentence of the second statement. Removing that word changes the whole meaning, and when you said I posted that I assumed it, I knew that I had not.

In other words, "more likely" (than others, that is--as implied by my previous context in that post)--means something quite different than merely "likely."


I dont think it very likely that any one Middle-Eastern shop owner in the USA will (at least directly) financially contribute to terrorism, but I do think it more likely than if we were talking about say a farmer from Wisconsin--WAY more likely.

A very basic tenet of Islam is to be charitable to the poor. It is hugely emphasized with even special periods of time in the year when a Muslim must make donations to the less fortunate. This is a very loving and honorable tenet of Islam as well as most religions. The problem has been that many of the Islamic-based charities have been found to be run by corrupt operators who funnel the money to fund terrorism-based activities including the direct support of homicide-bombers families in the aftermath of these killers carefully constructed, murderous demise as well as financing terrorist camps in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

I, as a raised-in-the-faith Catholic, am very saddened, disheartened and angry that pedophiliac priests are a huge drain on the Church's resources and that the Church heirarchy has spent a mind-boggling and inexcusable amount of resources to do everything to thwart the removal and punishment of these sexual predators.

This, however, does not make Catholicism itself a "bad" religion, just like these corrupt charities do not reflect on Islam as being a corrupt religion. In fact, Islam has been victimized by these terrorists and the money launderers that funnel money to them under the guise of charitable donations. And the Catholic population has been victimized by a corrupt power structure that refuses to be brought into the light, dragging their heels, kicking and screaming at every turn.

I agree for the most part and I don't think that either Islam or Catholicism are inherently "bad" belief systems (deluded, perhaps, in light of scientific knowledge and logic, but not inherently evil). I do think that perhaps the fundamental architecture of the power structure within the Church and the tendency towards working through intermediaries (I mean like confessing to priests rather than directly to Jesus or God) may enhance the control of some over others and thus facilitate abuses which, in a sense, are abuses of power. Also, proscibing sex for priests of course creates huge underlying conflicts within the priests, and generally speaking, fighting against Mother Nature doesn't work too well. I don't know a great deal about the internal workings of the Church so I must speak in very broad terms here, and I know less about the power structures within Islam. However I think it noteworthy that highly developed power structures may inherently be more susceptible to abuses and may indirectly encourage such activities. If this is so, it would raise the question of why aren't there more widespread abuses within the US military (assuming abuses there don't occur at a similar rate.) since te US military of course has very highly developed power structures. One answer to this may be that those in the military don't have so much direct control or influence over children as do priests, and abuses of power are of course easiest to perpetrate against those who are most defenseless (children are generally the most defenseless members of society). Also noteworthy along this line is the concept that many psychologists consider both crimes of pedophilia and rape to be acts of violence and control rather than acts of sex. In other words the motivation for these crimes is psychological rather than sexual.

n/t

Got it. There is a difference between "likely" and "more likely." "More likely" can still be unlikely to happen.


So it is I that owes you an apology for a misinterpretation and/or misread.


However, I think your argument would have merit if you had said what I wrongly said you said instead of what you actually said. That is, if it is likely that money spent in store A would end up in the hands of terrorists, it would make sense to spend your money in store B instead. If it is only more likely (yet still unlikely) that this will happen, than you are displaying a prejudice by allowing the actions of a very few members of a certain group to effect your treatment of the entire group.

Only the people in the know about ilegal internet gambling, and the governmemnt authorities, know your name. Please tell us your entire name to avoid being an anonymous troll.

Well I could have made the distinction clearer in my original post by not relying upon context to illuminate with whom I was comparing it.


Indeed it is a question of just how likely it may be for such funds to somehow in terrorists' coffers. Since I don't know what the percentage likelihood actually may be, and I know that patronizing US-owned businesses will bolster our economy (again who knows by how much), I'm jus taking the shortcut. All I know for sure in this case is that A>B. I also believe that anti-American sentiment amongst Arabs is more widespread than most Americans would think. So yes it may not be necessary but I feel it will probably have at least SOME effect, however small. Of course I will treat Arabs with whom I come into contact with, with respect, even if as a group they have fallen to the bottom of my list as for those I wish to do business with. On a related note, I am also instituting a near-boycott of products made in China due to their prison-camp slave labor exploitation and their horrid oppresion of freedom of speech and imprisonment of political dissidents. My institution of such a policy may have little effect in this matter also, but I feel like it is a step in the right direction. If the entire free world were to tell China this via actions as well, maybe those iron-fisted tyrants in power would lossen up a bit--or maybe not. Who knows. I just feel better knowing that I am doing a small part to not contribute financially to what I see as evil in government in the world today.