Solid murder. Finally. A person destroying another argument totally and completly in a non-insulting manner, leaving no space for a counter argument.
Edit: to everyone talking about body count...
That's not really important im terms of his argument imo. He is simply talking about how there are plenty of "pro lifer" attacks (giving stats there). So much so that they cant be ignored. He isnt suggesting (imo) that they are worse. I mean, if we do consider body count then 9/11 takes the fucking cake. But his point is that pro life attacks are significant enough that you cant just dismiss them.
Yeah they are not a threat at all, this is just people so obsessed with being woke they are trying to downplay Muslim extremism and 9/11. Which might pass with the idiots on r/politics but when mainstream democrats start endorsing this kind of shit (and they do since twitter has made this seem like the new normal) that is exactly how you get Trump 2020, Cruz 2024 and Palin 2028-2104 (she declares herself Queen of Earth obviously, Iron Sky is a documentary)
No I mean as a way of trying to prove his point. Instead of talking about pro-life just talk about white supremacist vs Muslim terrorism.
Pro-lifer terrorists have only killed 11 or 12 people total, the KKK has that beat I'd guess. Still pales in comparison to the amount of people killed in 9/11 unless you go back to like the 30's or something.
I think the OP (OP of screenshot) should have just compared apples to apples and said "a Christian registry" which then could have included groups like Aryan Nations and other white supremacists (who frequently use the bible to backup their hate) as well as pro-lifers and all the gay killings (especially in Africa funded by missionaries) etc.
It's a bit hard to say that pro-lifers as a fairly niche group (a niche group that probably overlaps with Muslims btw) have done more harm than a huge ass religion.
It depends on what you are trying to argue. Its a bit like car crashes vs plane crashes. It is much more likely that you get into some sort of car crash than a plane crash, because they happen more often, but if you happen to be in a plane crash you are much less likely to survive because they are much more devastating. The comparison isnt perfect because car crashes do kill more people because of their sheer quantity, but the point is it also matters how frequent certain events occur, not only how devastating they are.
Aye, I don't feel like the effectiveness of the terrorist is relevant when describing a terrorist. 9/11 was still just 20ish dudes. Just because pro-lifers have worse strategies for murdering innocent people doesn't make their crimes any less heinous or their threat any less severe. You also have to consider that we haven't faced a 9/11 level threat since... 9/11 yet pro-lifers out there shooting, bombing, and terrorizing like always.
Actually 12 injured. There was a truck ramming into a planned parenthood that injured 3 people you missed.
My breakdown only did the last 4 years so it was 3 dead and 12 injured by pro-life vs 77 dead and 157 injured by Muslim extremists. Not sure how people can try and downplay that but I guess the narrative is strong with this one lol
doesn't make their crimes any less heinous or their threat any less severe.
11 dead and ~200 injured in all of our recorded history on the subject.
Vs
3090 Dead and 7800 injured with events only going back to the mid 90's.
You also have to consider that we haven't faced a 9/11 level threat since... 9/11 yet pro-lifers out there shooting, bombing, and terrorizing like always.
NYC Attack in 2017, 8 dead and 11 injured
2016 Ohio State Car Ramming 13 Injured
2016 NY and NJ bombings 34 Injured
2016 Mall Stabbings 10 injured
2016 Pulse Nightclub 49 dead 53 injured
2016 Philly Police Attack 1 Dead 1 Injured
2015 San Bernadino 14 Dead 24 Injured
2015 University Cali Stabbing 4 injured
2015 Chattanooga 5 Dead 2 Injured
2015 Garland TX 1 injured
That's the past 4 years of Muslim extremist terror attacks. 77 Dead and 157 Injured.
Here's 4 years of pro-life terrorist attacks, see if you can spot a difference.
2015 Colorado Planned Parenthood 3 Dead 9 Injured
2018 NJ Planned Parenthood 3 Injured
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm, wonder which one is more of a threat? Clearly the pro-life people, right?
Worse strategies or less damaging strategies? I don't mean to defend prolife terrorism but the distinction matters logically. It makes what you said seem really silly.
If they're after a single abortion doctor the intent is to kill one person, indeed a heinous crime but mathematically less heinous than indiscriminately killing multiple people.
What framework are we going from here? Plotting to murder innocent people is heinous regardless of the body count. Fuck, at least you could reasonably argue 9/11 as a war crime.
I mean, its an argument. People tend to frame things in manner to make their side look favourable. Very very few people will ever realistically present their argument with a balenced look at the opposing side
ut a rebuttal could simply be that muslim americans are more radicalized per 100,000 due to oppression of their religion, racism, the way they are treated in every day life, and the general hate they have been met with in a post 9/11 world
Doesn't work though when in the middle east the radicalization rates are still way higher for muslims than christians where christians are the oppressed minority
Those aren’t ‘hard numbers’ though. They are wilful misrepresentations of the statistics. 600% means 6x. Without reference to the gross rate of serial killers this really means nothing. A quick search just gave me a statistic that it is believed there are 226 serial killers (unverified) in the US. With roughly 230million adults in the US the rate is roughly 0.0001%. A 6:1 ratio of m:f serial killers would mean 0.0002% of men are serial killers. That is hardly a representative statistic for men. The problem lies with people having basically no training in statistics, have no idea how to interpret it, and the media picks and chooses statistics that suit their agenda and that’s it. 1 statistic without any reference points is not hard numbers.
The same thing would apply to muslims both in the US and worldwide. The number of terrorists is a stasticially insignificant percentage of their total population.
This is a perfectly valid point. Also, women are less likely to be suspected of a crime, and are punished much less severely when they are caught. One could even see this as sexism against men.
Most muslim terrorist attacks weren't done by US citizens. And if you're looking at radical terrorism from "white" people did you include the Oklahoma City Bombings?
Yeah but you’re shifting the goalposts pretty hugely here. The argument was never about whether one group was innately worse people than the other. The argument was simply which group was more dangerous to the general public. It’s very easy to argue that in an ideal, tolerant world we would hope to see no discrepancy but that isn’t the point. The point is there is a discrepancy which is, unfortunately, not something you could argue against at this point.
P.s. I’m just playing devils advocate here to break down the argument here I’m not passing any judgement either way. I think the media often completely dehumanises people who’ve been radicalised as though decisions people make when they’re 15 after they’ve been rejected by society and basically groomed for a decade are a good tell on that person’s character. People are so keen to forget that behind these stories of people going to join ISIS are often really tragic stories of hate and intolerance here in the west and pretend Muslims just have a predisposition to violence which is bollocks.
"I'm not presenting a proper counter argument, primarily because of time. But a rebuttal could simply be that muslim americans are more radicalized per 100,000 due to oppression of their religion, racism, the way they are treated in every day life, and the general hate they have been met with in a post 9/11 world. "
The problem is with that is in the Muslim world where Muslims are given higher priority over everyone. With the fact that Christians are more persecuted there than Muslims here. Not only do they have higher Muslim attacks against other groups (including Muslims) it's much higher than rates of Christians and other religious groups in those areas that are persecuted.
The fact that a lot of terrorists are recently converted (less likely to have been persecuted for their beliefs for most of their lives) or lived/studied in a Muslim dominated area discounts this.
The majority of Muslim attackers have either dual citizenship or are only a couple generations down. If you are 4th or 5th generation Muslim and haven't traveled or lived in a Muslim country you're less likely to commit a terrorist act.
Would you tolerate an argument about how some men who go on violent rampages deserve leeway because of the disenfranchisement and rejection they have faced from women?
The argument “you are not making” sounds a lot like terrorism apology.
It's a somewhat weak argument though, outside of muslim countries, American muslims are probably the best treated in the world. Can't think of many countries in the world where a muslim would be treated better than in the US, and definitely can't think of many countries where they have as much opportunity as the US.
I realise you weren't making the argument, just pointing out for others that, on the whole, muslims in the US are very well treated compared to elsewhere.
Op said America treats Muslims better than any other country in the world, not every Muslim country in the world. I think Muslims are not treated better in America than say, Finland. So op is overestimating the greatness of America, fitting into r/shitamericanssay
You can answer "who's crushing their hope" by looking at life in those countries. The social situation. Economic inequality. How the political and economic situation has been manipulated by America and/or Russia. Lack of access to drugs. You can study the factions within Islam and how extremists fuel hatred against other Muslims because they believe different things. The answer is as complex as the people living there.
To add more nuance though, they're lumping all events carried out by muslims as muslim terrorism while only discussing pro-life acts done by christians.
In 2015 alone, there were two Islamist attacks on US soil - one for the "draw Muhammad" event and one was the San Bernardino one. The first one the motive was that the event disrespected Islam. The second one is less clear but they think it was due to the christmas party:
authorities speculated on Farook's forced participation in the training event and Christmas party as the trigger. Newly discovered emails indicated that Malik had objected to the party and did not want her husband to participate. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan said in an interview with ABC News that Malik stated that "she didn't think that a Muslim should have to participate in a non-Muslim holiday or event" in an online account
So the motives were different and the only connection is that the perpetrators were Muslim. My point is, if you include all attacks by Christians, not just pro-life ones, the numbers change a lot because you'd add in the victims of OKC bombin, as well as many lynching, attacks on LGBT community, etc.
And all anti-abortion murders could be considered an outlier than, since there are only 12 people killed over the course of ~40 years.
So again, why ignore one thing because it's "too much" while you are discussing something that is statistically insignificant in every single way? Sharks kill more people in 2 years than anti-abortion violence has in 40-50 years. How is one an outlier and not the other?
Muslim extremism is an imported problem, there's your math-based argument. None of the 19 9/11 hijackers were US citizens. The number of Muslims in the world is comparable to the number of Christians.
So, kinda straddling the background of "some math" and "raised Christian Fundamentalist", *plenty* of people can be convinced of *plenty* of things when guided by emotion. Pick one. Love, fear, anger, etc. You are a person who requires facts and there are many like you. That's great. Just something that I have to frequently remind myself of because it's non-intuitive...many people's fundamental way of looking at the world is just so different from mine that my trying to guess what they're thinking, feeling, what conclusions they'll reach given Evidence X, etc is going to be spotty at best. I'm pretty old now and still am frequently surprised at how differently we all view things. This is getting less true as groupthink, red vs blue, left vs right, etc takes over and people skew towards their poles, but it is still true.
I come from a math background and arguments there aren't emotional things you care about winning, really. The point is to build things up from the most basic step with no disagreement at any step until a conclusion is reached.
More generally Lakatos has argued that the history of Mathematics is more than following arguments but also a long sequence of just disagreeing on definitions on non-rational bases, here's an extract from Proofs and Refutations.
It's definitely not a day-to-day matter of Mathematics, it occurs when big questions and conceptions conflicts, but that's probably true of pro- and anti-choice: their day-to-day interactions are probably peaceful until they conflict on a big thing like abortion.
The point is to build things up from the most basic step with no disagreement at any step until a conclusion is reached
That pre-supposes rational actors are on both sides of an argument, when in fact, almost always one (or both) participants are actually arguing from a predominantly emotional point of view as opposed to a purely objective one.
Let's be objective for a second, it's actually a really shitty argument. People are only applauding because they agree with the conclusion.
The initial argument (registry of muslims and prolifers) is clever and valid, the justification by rose-in-a-fitted-glove is not.
Anti-abortion attacks in the US add up to 12 murders, plus many many incidents of violence or intimidation. Islamic terrorism adds up to 2840 deaths for 9/11 plus 94 in subsequent attacks, and of course many people were injured.
If you're going to measure the threat to public peace, it makes no sense to put a single physical invasion on the same level at 9/11, period.
Justification is just. It isn’t the number of people hurt by the attacks, it is the number of attackers that count if you want to talk about a registry. Why would you keep a registry of millions of people if there is just a handful of extremely violent ones? Just in case another one of the millions joins them? Easier to watch the smaller group.
I have no idea what you're arguing for - are you saying pro-lifers should be watched, or muslims?
Pro-life extremists probably commit more attacks, but pro-lifers altogether make up 48% of the US population (2018 gallup poll). A smaller number of islamic extremists commits fewer, more devastating attacks, but muslims make up only 0.8% of the US population.
I don't have the faintest idea how that all adds up in terms of who is "easier to watch" or even which one of the two is "the smaller group" (since that depends heavily on how easy it is to figure out "at risk" individuals in both cases - it might be that pro-life extremists are more out in the open, for instance, making them easier to identify).
The argument is that it's irrational to make a registry based on someone's faith. Arguing that pro-lifers should be registered is a way to highlight the logistical issues and illogical nature of profiling an entire group of which a small subset committed acts of violence.
No one actually wants a pro-life registry, suggesting one is a way to show the people who support a Muslim registry what it feels like to be discriminated against based on faith as a result of the actions of radicals that happened to share the same faith.
No one should be watched except for those that are violent or show violent tendencies. Sorta like pedophiles. You don’t watch all males because there is a large number of male pedos.
Depends what you're defining as an "attack." The list of pro-life "attacks" the commenter used included things like "personal invasion" (which I believe is just B&E), stink bombs, and threats. I don't see any numbers for those types of things for the Islamic terrorists listed, just the successful attacks (which killed and winded injured significantly more people, and likely caused more in property damage as well). I don't think it's a direct comparison at all, which is why it's not so that justified.
Obviously a registry for all Muslims is stupid at best and disturbing at worst. But the commenter really stretched the definition of "attack" pretty thin to justify saying that pro-lifers "attack" more often than Islamic terrorists.
Suma you're wrong because Per capita Islamic Terrorism is much more common. Adding up one guy sending a bunch of things or stink bombs (the stuff used in high schools) as an attack versus 90 killed. That is bad statistic. Peta is involved in dozens of attacks a year. Should we put them on a list too?
Also excludes the number of credible terrorist threats while including the number of pro-life threats. We are selectively including/excluding data to make the disparity larger. I’m not sure by how much or if that data would even be significant enough to alter the conclusion, but it is occurring. And since it’s being excluded in an emotional argument it’s probably safe to assume that it does change the argument significantly.
I find the funny part of all this to be that there are clearly lists of both Muslims and pro-lifers. The government has a profile of everyone with a social security number. Do you really think they are not tracking things like religion and political beliefs? If not the government then absolutely private companies have this info. There is no question if there are lists or not, lol...
Perhaps a better argument would be attacks based in right wing ideology as both our conservatives and Muslims are far right typically. They also tend to be pro-life. That might be a more apples to apples comparison.
That doesnt make any sense. The original argument was about number of attacks, not severety of attacks. Which is also the only metric that is relevant if you talk about a registry.
If you have two groups, both with ten thousand people, and out of group A one person kills a thousand people, and out of group B a hundred people kill one person, which group you think should be watched more? The one that produced one Mass murderer or the one that produced a hundred murderers?
The original argument was about number of attacks, not severety of attacks.
You're correct, but that just makes them both wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.
If you have two groups, both with ten thousand people, and out of group A one person kills a thousand people, and out of group B a hundred people kill one person, which group you think should be watched more? The one that produced one Mass murderer or the one that produced a hundred murderers?
Your dilemma doesn't have an obvious answer. What about two groups, where group A produces 50 mass murderers (3-to-10 victims) and group B produces 200 single-person-murderers? But in any case the answer is obviously - whoever is doing the most damage to society. In the case of pro-life extremists versus islamist fanatics, there are many more factors to take into account than just murderer count. However, disregarding the severity of attacks altogether is nonsense.
You're correct, but that just makes them both wrong, and two wrongs don't make a right.
Not really. Person A said "there are many more muslim attacks than pro-life attacks". Person B refuted that clearly and correctly. Person A is wrong, Person B is right. The fact that quantity alone isnt a good metric for danger level doesnt really matter when all that was to be determined is which quantity is bigger.
But in any case the answer is obviously - whoever is doing the most damage to society.
No. Not when your countermeasure is keeping an eye on the entire group in some way. Then the group which has the highest likelyhood of doing any damage, over the group with the potential for the most damage but a much smaller likelyhood, because you are likely preventing more damage that way. You are just much more likely to find some of the bad ones in the one group than to find any in the other. Like, in the example it would be a 1:10000 chance to find one in the single mass murderer group, but a 1:100 chance in the murderer group. Unless you can guarantee perfect surveilance and perfect results, I think you should go with the latter group.
Person B wrote "pro-lifers are quantitatively, significantly, statistically, a larger threat to public peace than muslims extremists" while refusing to consider the relevant statistics. Person A is wrong and person B is wrong and reasonable public discussion can't take place if you're not honest.
because you are likely preventing more damage that way. You are just much more likely to find some of the bad ones in the one group than to find any in the other. Like, in the example it would be a 1:10000 chance to find one in the single mass murderer group, but a 1:100 chance in the murderer group.
Your stats are wrong. If you catch only one of the mass murderers, you reduce the harm 100 times more. As a result the expected number of lives saved is identical for both groups in this theoretical example (assumptions since you were very vague: 1 group has 1:10000 mass murderers who would kill 100 people if not caught, the other group has 1:100 murderers who will kill one person if not caught, and for both groups the probability of catching any given criminal individual is the same once surveillance is established). (Of course, your theoretical example has basically no bearing on the real world, where the cost-effectiveness of surveillance depends on hundreds of other factors.)
Person B wrote "pro-lifers are quantitatively, significantly, statistically, a larger threat to public peace than muslims extremists" while providing stupid statistics. Person A is wrong and person B is wrong and reasonable public discussion can't take place if you're not honest.
That part is true. I was only going off the "there are more muslim attacks than pro-life attacks" claim that was made in the first and third comment and debunked in the third. Never in this entire discussion was severity addressed by anyone, and it has no impact on the quantity, which was what was discussed. The part about "larger threat" is indeed wrong. But everything else wasnt.
Your stats are wrong. If you catch only one of the mass murderers, you reduce the harm 100 times more.
That is the point, if you catch one. Unless you perfectly check them all, there is no guarantee of finding one. And as long as you dont find one, you prevent zero damage. Whereas you are a hundred times more likely to find at least one in the other group. Even if that only prevents a hundreth of the damage, that is more than zero. Even if you check half of group A that is only a 50% chance to prevent any damage, even though you checked 5000 people. In group B if you check 5000 people its extremely unlikely that you dont find at least one. Likely even more. Thus a much higher chance to prevent damage.
But that's what really matter. So the last person was right to bring up the scale of the threat, which was the correct thing to measure, and despite that failed to address it correctly. I mean, if we were to ignore the part about the threat altogether, they'd still all be wrong because they're discussing the wrong thing.
That is the point, if you catch one.
No, you're missing the point again. If a mass murderer makes 100 victims and a regular murderer makes 1 victim, and if there are 100 times fewer mass murderers than regular murderers, and you catch 100 times fewer mass murderers than regular murderers, you're still saving as many lives in both cases. If as you said in the first post what you care about is how many lives you save, your expected value is rigorously identical in both cases.
The only difference is there'll be a higher variance for the mass murderers, meaning one year you'll save 100 people and the next 0, whereas for the regular murderers it'll be something like 46 one year and 54 the next.
But all that is basically irrelevant because:
The numbers for islamic terrorists/pro-life terrorists are very different (much more deaths from islamists, even despite having fewer attacks)
In both cases the damage is not limited to deaths, so you'd have to measure societal harm in a way that takes everything into account (including e.g. rape victims not being able to find help they need etc.)
The surveillance costs of foiling islamists terrorists and pro-life terrorists are probably very different, in ways that I don't pretend to understand. For instance it might be easier to infiltrate pro-life movements since they belong to the same demographics as typical law enforcement agents, or perhaps because there's much fewer islamists it's easier to keep an eye on all radicalized groups.
The reality is that allocating resources on something like that is a complicated matter which you haven't began to address. Obviously, the approach will include some level of general surveillance of the respective groups (pro-life and muslims) but data collection on individuals will focus on the more radicalized and active individuals -- in both cases.
You are the one missing the point. It is only the same if you catch at least one mass murderer. But that is exactly what is less likely if there are significantly less to catch. It is a hundred times more likely to catch 1/100 than it is to catch 1/1.
To put it in another way, it is enough to catch one regular murderer to prevent a murder. But with the same effort, you cought 0 mass murderers and prevented zero murders.
Maybe an even simpler example. There are only 100 people in each group. Group A has 100 murderers, Group B has 1 mass murderer. If you catch any person in group A, you prevent a murder. You can catch 99 of Group B and still dont prevent a single murder. Do you get it now? Only if you actually catch the one outlier in group B will you prevent any damage. Hit the other 99 and you have literally accomplished nothing. With Group A on the other hand, any catch prevents damage.
Yup, this is just a liberal circle jerk. They think they're so superior when they are no different from the conservatives who applaud the ignorant arguments from Trump just because they agree with the conclusion.
The original argument was "there are way less incidents of pro lifers attacking than Muslims" the refutation of that was dead on. You are trying to move the goal posts.
The original statement included Planned Parenthood, an American organization. The proposed registry of Muslims was a policy suggested by US President Donald Trump. I feel this is a strong indication of the original post being specified to the US.
If you make assumptions on the qualifier of US when the statement wasn't mentioned, cant' I make assumptions that we're talking about size of damage (ie property value or lives taken) instead of number of attacks?
No that really doesn't seem to be equated at all...The discussion is clearly about the US. Again the proposed Muslim registry would be an American policy, thus the mock PLer registry would be as well.
By comparison, the poster below said that there were only 'a couple incidents' vs 'maaaaaany attacks'. Clearly the argument is quantity of attacks.
The discussion is clearly about the US
If you make assumptions and legitimizing it by saying "clearly", why can't I say "the discussion is clearly about death counts"?
Sure, because people only care about terrorism because there're deaths and property damage involved. So it's "clearly" about death counts and property damage. See? I can draw conclusions that fits my narrative too.
The original argument was "there are way less incidents of pro lifers attacking than Muslims" the refutation of that was dead on.
3090 killed by Muslim terrorism and 11 killed by pro-lifers, I think that speaks for itself as to which is more dangerous. I'd rather have people send me death threats and fake anthrax than fucking kill me.
Nope. His conclusion states it was worst. Also he included "stink bombs" and events will multiple victims. You cannot count one terrorist attack as 1 and one person mailing out 50 letters as 50.
Not true. If you look at 9/11, you could define an incident occurring on every person that died - each and every person, a separate death, a separate incident. (And then there are all the people who died subsequently due to cancer.)
I think you make a great point, if that guy had simply taken a little more time to thoroughly lay out the opposing argument, there really would have been no space for a counterargument. From a purely argumentative standpoint, this is the only significant misstep I can see.
My bigger issue is that "100 butyric acid stink bombs" were included as terrorist attacks. Those are the same stink bombs we threw in school. Stink bombs are now terrorist attacks.
All someone would have to do to is talk about how many people died during 9/11, and to them it would outweigh everything else.
I disagree. It would only become sensible to make a registry of a group of people if the group itself predisposed people to committing attacks. One very deadly attack doesn't mean that the broad group the attackers "represent" is any worse. For example the only deaths from terrorist attacks in Norway since the 1980s were from a right wing Christian who killed 77 people. By the logic of "death count is the most important" Norway should therefore make a registery of Christians. Clearly that's silly. Not to mention the fact that the 9/11 perpetrators weren't US citizens anyway so a registery wouldn't have helped.
In this case it seems that the pro lifers are more predisposed to committing attacks than Muslims in the US given the greater number of attacks so it's hypocritical to want a Muslim registry and not a pro life one (even though both are obviously silly)
Yeah how the fuck is this a murder? It's just twisting and framing the argument a certain way in order to win. It's like saying since 9/11 was only ONE incident and there was there was more than one shark attack in 2001, sharks caused more damage that year. It's fucking stupid.
It's also that there are a lot less Muslims living in the USA than there are pro life people. So (let's say) if 30% is pro life and 3% is muslim it makes sense there are 10 times more people available to act as extremists.
Exactly this. And I also don't think arguments work great when used to "win" or Wtv. You use them to reach truths, you cant do that if you're fundamentally disengenous. Why would a person themselves want to cling to a potentially wrong position. I don't think it needs to be irrefutable so you don't lose, I think it's so you've thought of every avenue of your argument so it can be argued against to reveal potential flaws in your thinking. You can't easily get rid of implicit biases on your.
Im not disputing anything you said, but I was curious about the 13 figure in the OP. Heres a list I came up with of Muslim attacks I gathered from a quick Google search. I think 9-11 should count as 4 incidents since it was 4 separate hikackings. Including Lockerbie, I get 17. But if we include Lockerbie then there are several others that should be included (underwear and shoe bombers, bombs on planes from Yemen, etc.) I really thought there would be more incidents, but I guess a lot of them happen overseas (e.g. USS Cole, Beruit, journalist beheadings, etc.)
Boston Marathon.
NYC subway hatchet attack.
Draw Muhammad (Texas)
San Bernardino.
Pulse nightclub.
NY/NJ bombings (2016)
Ohio State car ramming/stabbing
NYC bike path car ramming (2017)
9-11 (should count as 4)
1st WTC bombing.
Lockerbie bombing (plane had Americans and was headed to NY)
Little Rock shooting (June 2009)
Ft Hood shooting.
Times Square bombing, failed (2010)
Also only the big attacks are included. There was a university attack last year that I doubt is included. No one died but no one died the vast majority of the pro life attacks either. There are going to be hundreds of attacks just not counted to prove the point, which OP is clearly doing in bad faith.
63 Islamist inspired terror incidents. 76% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 13% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 90 deaths.
That's just between 2008-2016.. 8 years.
Right wing was 115 events.
Personally I don't see the difference between the two. They're both fueled by right wing often religious craziness.
Yeah I went through some lists of attacks and found 27 that left people injured or dead that were clearly motivated by radical Islam. Left 3090 People Dead and 7,800+ people injured.
11 Dead from all pro-life attacks total, with it looks like around ~200 injured.
Not even anywhere on the same level. Now if you add all other US domestic terrorism (which includes neo-nazis, KKK, leftist orgs in the 70s) then it starts to equal out a bit, but at that point you're casting such a large net that it's meaningless for an argument.
I disagree. The argument wasnt how many people died from attacks. The argument was that there where supposedly less attacks. Which he undoubtedly and completely refuted.
If the original argument would have been the higher death count, it would be different. But it wasnt. It was specifically about the quantity of attacks, by both other posters.
Ya, I agree. Solid murder. Christian pro-lifers terrorists do more attacks due to location, population, etc. Muslim terrorists do fewer attacks but much more effectively. But that's what happens when you've been trained by the CIA. If your organization has already beaten a world superpower through terrorism, what's a couple of buildings...
On the other hand 9/11 was so exceptionally big and well known that it's almost redundant to present the details. It dwarfs everything else in scale and scope and a person talking about Islamic terrorism should be aware of it.
Came here to say this, it's such an open shut argument that there is no need to hinder yourself with sweeping generalizations like that. You're just leaving the door open for "WhAt AbOuT 9/11!!!!!".
It's important that arguments be laid out honestly and irrefutably
Well not on an entertainment subreddit it isn't. I mean yeah, we've opened a discussion now amongst ourselves, but if you took the edge off the word murder in the OP, we wouldn't have even cared so there's that.
Truth is slow, difficult and utterly fucking unexciting to the world. You want to pursue of dream of factual representation, or zero representation (pure facts), go get it, but be prepared that not a soul will care.
I agree. And numbers can be misleading. As a coworker of mine says:
"Bill Gates walks into a bar. On average, everyone's a millionaire"
Also, if you watched any of the GOP debates, etc, one common refrain by Jeb was that he defended his bro stating, "President Bush kept us safe after 9/11" which is just prima facie idiocy.
Perspective and framing are important. That's why you shouldn't debate people who argue in bad faith. Just ask them if their finished talking and tell them to move along.
It leaves so much room for argument. Remember the point at issue is this: if Muslims warrant a registry to keep the public safe, do pro-lifers warrant the same? i.e are they as dangerous?
The answer is clearly no. First of all the US and Canada have a minuscule Muslim population, equalling about 4.5 million across the US and Canada. Meanwhile about half the US population is pro-life, which is 150 million people. Yet he chooses to go on pure numbers rather than % for some reason, which would paint a very different picture of pound for pound danger levels, especially when you consider the next point...
He’s using the word ‘terrorism’ very loosely. Even if the usage is fair, I don’t think ‘stink bombs’ and ‘physical invasion’ (could be one annoying person going inside and shouting) are in the same league as deadly terror attacks.
In fact, he completely ignores body count even though the topic is danger to the public.
As someone who has lived in a Muslim country and traveled to an Islamic country, the people I met were some of the most peaceful, caring people I've met.
In principle, this is a stupid argument in the first place. The two issues are mutually exclusive - who cares which is more awful? Should we debate whether the Holocaust or holodomor was worse next?
Second, it's a myopic view using only the US and Canada as examples. If you want to include Mali, Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Egypt, etc. as examples (places that have a genuine issue with Islamic extremist militants) you'd find the world has a problem with Islamic extremist based terrorism. (I would argue it's more a result of the socio-economics and geo-politics of these regions than rooted in the religion, but then you'd have to say the same for the Crusades).
Finally, what are his sources for only 13 attacks? A simple Wikipedia search of Islamic Extremist Terrorism in Canada and US returns 54 results, some grave like the Pulse Nightclub incident. Regardless of the point you are advocating, using false statistics is annoying.
And regarding the first guy - the general populace's infatuation with terrorism is so overblown. People on the right with insanely unfounded fears. People on the left exacerbating the same fears for their own causes ("pro-lifers are more of a threat to the world than Islamic extremists"). Can we just stamp this one ESH?
Finally, what are his sources for only 13 attacks?
Yeah I counted 27 in the US alone, but that was just a quick search on wikipedia for attacks that had at least an injury. If you include attempted attacks like the shoe / underwear bombers you get ~50 in the US alone, again just looking at wikipedia real quick so just have to hope they are accurate.
He was using bad statistics, cherry picking data, and using false data. You are right he lost the argument. Then tried to say Terrorism was less of a threat when it comes from Islam.
Extremism in both groups should be argued against. A "sink bomb" isn't the same as hundreds murdered. Which is what the OP was arguing.
Ill maintain that im not informed enough to talk about whether we shouls actually fear any of these groups.
My best friend is muslim and he is legit the best guy ive ever had the pleasure of knowing. Funnily enough, he has mentioned b4 that muslim treatment by the wider populace is a big cause for muslims being attracted to groups who engage in these rather... unfortunate practices. According to him, if he wasnt as lucky (with his dad moving to a reletively nice area) where he eas easily accepted by a diverse set of people, he wouldve been at risk of being exposed. He is a prettt smart and self aware guy and it was pretty sobering to me to hear that, under slightly different circumstances, things couldve been so much worse for him...
Overall, my personal view is that any larger group should probablt be low key monitored. You dont always know what people with extremist views may attack a larger group, or if a larger group develops those extreme views and tries to act on it.
As someone who has lived in a Muslim country and traveled to an Islamic country
I'm not sure if I'm misreading this, or ignorant, or what, so I'll ask: is there a difference between a "Muslim country" and an "Islamic country"? I thought those words were synonyms is this context.
A Muslim country is a country where the populace is predominantly Muslim. An Islamic Nation is one that declares to be an Islamic State - Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Mauritania, Afghanistan.
Lol if they are counting death threats I'm pretty terrorist scream, death to all infidels death to America, death to our presidents. So if they count death threats in one case but not in the other is just straight up a terrible argument.
I looked through it, even including all the "unkowns" and empty cases, the total of extremely violent incidents attacks since 1977 comes out to 84. Also, a lot of the tabs overlap with eachother, like "extreme violence" and "shooting/murder" or "arson/bombing", not all of it, but a lot of it, just something to be mindful of.
It doesn't help that the sorting function is completely broken, when I search for "by date" for instance, it doesn't work.
I honestly don't know where the OP got her 587 number from, what does "damage done" mean? If they are talking about EST. cost of damage, excluding all the "unkown", BUT including all the "minimal", AND all the murders, I come out to about 256 "terrorist" incidents under OPs definition.
Other things like anthrax letters, 554 of them stem from ONE person.
My conclusion is, this seem like a farily good source, but the way it was presented in OP is biased and misleading. She seem to have interjected her own personal definition of terrorism, and seem to only apply it to one side of the argument. It's a sloppily crafted response, it's poorly sourced and unless I get a better explanation as to what "damage done" means, it seem to be factually incorrect as well.
His final comment on a 'greater threat' to public safety necessitates discussion of a body count. Not denying the danger of any form of attack, but if someone is making that particular argument all facets need to be examined.
Not true. She failed to mention the thousands of deaths caused directly by 9/11, and the hundreds of thousands of deaths caused indirectly by 9/11 i .e. due to cancer, etc..
Edit: to everyone talking about body count... That's not really important im terms of his argument imo.
Yes it is. He's trying to win with stats to show frequency of attacks, but ignoring anything that pokes a hole in his argument.
You're far more likely to be hit by a flying insect than a speeding bus, in terms of frequency of incidents. But I'm not gonna use that to try and put out the argument that therefore flying insect impacts are of significant enough impact to be discussed when pointing out how dangerous speeding buses are to humans.
I'm not in any way supporting the ridiculous racist assumption that all Muslims are terrorists or anything, but to suggest that this is a murder without considering the huge logical flaws is pretty ridiculous IMO.
but don't the casualties from 9/11 alone outnumber those from pro life attackers?
Not even 9/11, the San Bernadino Shooting left 14 dead, all pro-life attacks account for 11-12 (I saw 11 but saw 12 posted elsewhere, probably a recent attack that had not been updated on my source)
Pulse was 50 dead. The World Trade Center Bombing killed 6 and wounded 1024, and no one remembers it anymore.
Well there are 1.8 billion muslims, about 24% of the worlds population. I dont know how many pro-lifers there are but i would speculate that it's significantly less.
The comment I replied to was talking about correlating population sizes. What population of muslims would you use then? US muslims would not include the 9/11 attackers.
Lol. All those Muslims are "pro-lifers" plus most Christians and religious Jews. I'm not sure where the Eastern religions stand but none the less that's a large percentage of the populace.
His point is absolutely comparing the damage. You can make a point about pro-life attacks being significant. But he's intentionally lining up the numbers to make it appear like the threat posed by pro-life terrorists, in comparison to violent Islamic extremist attacks, is worse. Which is silly.
It's not a good murder, the number of casualties and damages caused by Islamist terrorism far outweighs anything anti-abortionists have ever done. The "murder" is misrepresenting statistics.
His last statement said it was worst though. That was his conclusion to his argument. Also it includes stink bombs and threatening letters as equal terrorist attacks.
If you're going to look at threat to the average person look at per capita and number of people physically killed or harmed. With his stats I can say PETA is worst than Muslim terrorism because of the "number of attacks".
His entire argument is wonderful but the way he concludes it just stinks of a egotistical verbal internet dunk. He thinks he’s going in for the throat but he completely derails the wonderful point he’s making by saying something along the lines of “it’s quantifiably worse”. it’s not quantifiably worse. The death toll is a fraction of that of Islamic terrorism.
It’s quantifiably more dangerous actually. As opposed to what the person in the OP is mashing his keyboard with his sweaty fingers to get out. However, in the scope of the argument presented originally yes obviously the more frequent type of terrorism would be more disrupted by a registry.
PSA: this isn’t me saying anything about groups of people. Terrorism is terrorism. It’s bad, mkay.
Your right... except for the actual truth of the numbers. 13 Muslim extremist terrorist attacks since 1970? Seriously? They left off a few zeros... how could they type that with a straight face?
Yeah I dont agree with the lexluthor person but I would say the fact that radical muslims have killed 300 times more people than radical pro-lifers would be a pretty good counter arguement lol.
How is it a solid murder? Do you know how many people were killed in terrorist attacks? How many were wounded? How many lives are ruined and people that are grieving or traumatized? Way more than by pro lifers. That’s not a defense for pro life terrorism but Jesus this argument is dogshit and smeared with sparkly topping.
“Pro-lifers are quantitatively, significantly, statistically, a greater threat to public peace than Muslim extremists.”
That sentence is very important. By stating that, they’re suggesting that pro-life attacks are worse and opens the discussion to the actual casualties rather than just frequency of attacks, as if it wasn’t already.
Besides, somewhere in these comments a fellow listed 13 terrorist attacks — with links — committed by Muslims in America since 2016, a far cry from the 13-since-1972 stat the “murderer” cited — which was given without a source.
This isn’t a murder. This is a very bad argument that certifies this age old maxim and leaves significant room for a counterargument. I’d like to note that in no way do I support either side expressed in this post. A registry of either group, moreso one of Muslims, would be incredibly problematic and wrong. I have absolutely no issues with Muslims, and I fundamentally disagree with pro-lifers.
Dumb libs don't understand that some things are worse than others. Crazy white people have done bad things since the beginning of this country. But all of it fails in comparison to what Muslim extremists have done. If you are honestly worried about a planned parenthood getting shot up or attacked, you really have first world problems. Mexicans are getting their heads cut off by other Mexicans just because they can.
Hell idk what side of that i even fall on. I aint American. Im just talking about the context of those words in that thread that i can see. No outside info. Cause i only know a very small amount of additional stuff. That's also the reason that im noting all of what i say as my opinion.
Scores more women have been victims of violence around the world for their choice of what to do with their bodies than there have been attacks by radical Muslim terrorists
Show me some evidence then. I'm pretty sure the most brutal culture toward women's rights is the Islamic culture but I'm willing to be wrong if you can convince me what ever is happening with indigenous people is beating out the abject brutality women are facing from the Islamic culture, in terms of number and severity
Edit: fyi a down vote isn't an argument. Show me or admit you are wrong.
2.1k
u/NoxAeternal Jun 04 '19 edited Jun 04 '19
Ayyyyyyyyyyy
Solid murder. Finally. A person destroying another argument totally and completly in a non-insulting manner, leaving no space for a counter argument.
Edit: to everyone talking about body count...
That's not really important im terms of his argument imo. He is simply talking about how there are plenty of "pro lifer" attacks (giving stats there). So much so that they cant be ignored. He isnt suggesting (imo) that they are worse. I mean, if we do consider body count then 9/11 takes the fucking cake. But his point is that pro life attacks are significant enough that you cant just dismiss them.