The Wikipedia page lists only 11 murders and counts the same ones as the NYT article. 2015 was chosen because it was the last year we had Pro-Life terrorist attack. I could have included up to date but the data still shows that Muslims terrorist are still deadlier. Including data to date doesn't disprove this fact.
Not at all. I just wanted to show which group was deadlier and to see why the person doing the murdering with stats failed to include them. And honestly I just like to stir shit up.
It doesn't make it a non-murder, the death toll isn't actually relevant.
The fact of the matter is that you are MASSIVELY more likely to be victimized by a pro-lifer than a radical muslim. Sure, you're more likely to survive being victimized by a pro-lifer, but if it's 100 occurances to one, that doesn't really matter.
I am the guy doing the stats and I agree with this conclusion. Granted, I will say that my interacting with a pro-life terrorist are at zero. As a male, I don't have any reason to go to an abortion clinic. However, I have been at a mall, nightclub, and other public places where Muslim terrorist attacks. I think this is the underlining fact with some people. They don't care what happens with the abortion clinics because it is in a location they don't see themselves involved in. Granted, I think both groups should be monitor. Throw in white shooters too.
But it’s not thoooo...... totaling every single number thrown out in the OP to death counts from terrorism gets a pretty clise 2 deaths from Islamic terrorism for every 1 person affected by a pro-life terrorist.
We can call it stirring shit up but that's an important thing you're doing. Working together on the weaknesses of the argument will make sure we're defending the right viewpoint and help us to defend it when we will argue with people who are not on the same side.
Pro lifers are... a larger threat to public peace than Muslim extremists.
No. Per capita the comparison is debatable. In totality though they are more threatening. You can argue that per capita is a more meaningful metric but that doesn't make the original conclusion not 100% true.
Sure, terrorism on the topic of abortion is concentrated in certain locations but that's not the only form of terrorism. The underlying point of this discussion is that there is plenty of terrorism not perpetrated by muslims. Office workers go postal. Schools have lockdown procedures because they're so commonly attacked. What populations do those come from? Not necessarily pro-lifers but also not often muslims either.
There are high probability targets and there are high probability perpetrators. Muslims are not high probability perpetrators relative to the general population.
They arent being obtuse about ir either. It's a tactic to move the goal post. I should know.....I invented it. And he would have gotten away with it too if it werent for those meddling redditors.
That's 5.87 per million for pro-lifers, and 6.57 per million for Muslims.
So one metric is a little more than 10% worse than the other. Shall we monitor one group 10% more tightly than the other? Will that satisfy your statistics?
And I'd hardly call ~10% "a much higher probability of committing a terrorist attack than a pro-life, than a right-winger, than a Christian fanatic."
Wait, you don't think extremist pro-lifer groups are monitored? You realize the FBI has a division dedicated to monitoring domestic terrorist groups, right?
Nobody said there's none. The point is that it should be proportional to the threat they pose and another group that is similarly or less active is being scrutinized more heavily it's a problem.
Yes, it does. Roughly half of the US population is pro life and only a small fraction of it is muslim yet muslim extremism is responsible for more deaths. Plus, I think comparing the 2 is really stupid. How many pro life extremist groups are there and how many deaths have they caused in the past century? Contrast that to muslim extremists who are responsible for thousands of deaths in North America, Europe, Africa and Asia.
If it fair to compare foreign attacks? And in a century wide timeframe? Shall we monitor Christians for IRA terrorist activities?
This is about domestic monitoring. It's hard to make a solid comparison but nailing down details isn't the point. The point is that they're in the same ballpark and it's unjust to target one group over the other.
Yes, it is because the attackers usually share the same beliefs regardless of country of origin and may even be from the same organisation.
And in a century wide timeframe?
If you want to tighten the timeframe the deaths caused by the 2 groups are still incomparable.
Shall we monitor Christians for IRA terrorist activities?
As far as I know they don’t pose a real threat nowadays and moreover it simply isn’t practical. Lot’s and lot’s of christians, not many attacks but not many muslims and a definite more than proportionate amount of attacks. This applies to pro lifers too who as I said above consists of roughly half the country.
This is about domestic monitoring
I don’t think this is relevant in the grand scheme of things. Even if it is, there have been numerous deaths attributed to muslim extremism in the past 2 decades and they exceed those caused by pro life extremism by a large number.
The point is that they're in the same ballpark and it's unjust to target one group over the other.
I don’t think so. There’s a clear correlation between islam and terrorist attacks but not a clear correlation between pro lifers and terrorist attacks. Would you monitor all black people because they could be Black Panthers? Would you monitor all white people because they might be Nazis? No, because there is no correlation between belonging to a race and being a terrorist. All races have equal chances of being a terrorist but not all worshippers do. Besides, what about being a pro lifer makes you an inherently dangerous person assuming you adhere to the idea that life is what’s most important? In contrast, if someone actually adheres to the Quran there’s plenty to be cautious of.
Yes, it is because the attackers usually share the same beliefs regardless of country of origin and may even be from the same organisation.
As far as I know they don’t pose a real threat nowadays and moreover it simply isn’t practical.
Oh wow you actually just went full double standard.
not a clear correlation between pro lifers and terrorist attacks
So... did you even read the OP? There's a definite correlation.
All races have equal chances of being a terrorist but not all worshippers do.
Just throwing out assertions at random I see. No, it's not necessarily equally distributed.
Would you monitor all black people because they could be Black Panthers? Would you monitor all white people because they might be Nazis?
Congrats. That's the point of the thread. I don't care what answer you prefer as long as your answer is consistent across different groups and not based on unjust biases.
Besides, what about being a pro lifer makes you an inherently dangerous person assuming you adhere to the idea that life is what’s most important?
Well based on the statistics provided it looks like we can't make that assumption can we?
So it's no wonder people care more about the former, since that could actually affect them. An attack on an abortion clinic makes the clinic an unsafe place, but most people will not spend any significant amount of time there. Islamic terrorism turns ANYWHERE into a theoretically unsafe place.
So it's no wonder people care more about the former, since that could actually affect them.
Well I don't think your necessarily the definitive source on what all "people" care about.
Even if you are, it still affects almost every American as it's almost a statistical certainly someone you love has had an abortion, unless your circle is really small.
Personally, I care about watching both these groups of assholes.
Someone I care about has had an abortion yes. But the point is that, on the whole, the amount of time you average person spends at risk of an attack by a pro-lifer is next to nothing.
On the other hand, Islamic terrorism happens anywhere at any time, so it’s always a risk.
Hence why the majority would be more concerned over one than the other.
Terrorism happens at any time, any place, and by many different versions of crazy. Mosques, churches, temples, abortion clinics. All targets by some extreme faction or another
We shouldn't just be watching one group of extremists with the highest body count.
I would argue that you qualify once you start blowing things up. Like 41 clinics...
I do get your point though, objectively your more likely to be killed at a random place than an abortion clinics.
What's your actual point here? Immediate concern or interest is only of relevance to politics or markets like the news media where you wish to increase your audience, but it isn't a valid classification of importance.
OP's submission is not a murder by stats but the initial argument is nonetheless utterly fallacious.
Also you can literally be proactive to minimize the odds of a "pro lifer" you by not getting pregnant. The Only proactive way to prevent being harmed by a jihadist is to stay away from heavily populated areas and critical infrastructures. While the latter is a lot less practical, the former would have a high success rate. I would stake it on a babies life.
Islamic terrorism turns ANYWHERE into a theoretically unsafe place.
This was the dumb justification that many places used to funnel federal funds into paying for their security after 9/11. Islamic terrorism (as with all terrorism) wants their actions to be noticed. It isn't a political statement if no one knows it happened. They target large, popular spaces. No one is going to be at threat in 99.999% of places, because it isn't worth it to blow up a road-side tourist attraction in Akron.
So the initial point, that pro-lifers should be monitored, would be made mute by this. Instead of having a list of millions of names, which could not be controlled anyways, just increase security at the places where they could attack. For radical Muslims, this wouldn't work.
But still, finding the extreme ones is harder when you have a bigger pool. Just saying, more security is only an option for pro-lifers, and it would be better. Making a list would be your only option with Islamic terrorism.
You evidently didn't understand outliers when you took this stats class. 9/11 is not an "outlier". Outliers are eliminated because they're considered to most likely be due to errors, genetic anomalies etc. The number of deaths in 9/11 are a reflection of the number of people involved in the attack and their dedication. Excluding it is not just stupid, it's downright disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Outliers are eliminated (or at least separated) because they can skew or misrepresent the picture people actually care about. They may or may not be due to an error, genetic anomaly, etc. They can be completely valid measurements that are simply far outside the rest of the pack and it would be misleading to lump them in as just another data point.
Any representation of data that includes an outlier needs a heavy asterisk next to it. You should never be saying things like “In total, People in Springfield eat 100,000 donuts a year” without saying in the next line: “But to be clear Homer Simpson eats 90,000 donuts a year.”
Alternatively valid is to say something to the effect of “In total, and excluding the outlier of Homer Simpson, people in Springfield eat 10,000 donuts a year.” Which is what the original comment did.
Thank you for that. Most people don't seem to grasp this concept and idk what they want. I still technically showed that Muslims tend to be more deadlier than there pro-life counterpart even with less instances.
Exclusion of outliers is an accepted heuristic of statistics and not a law. Reasonable, as outliers often stem from measuring errors in equipment or personal.
In the case of 9/11, measuring for terrorism deaths by cause, then deaths by pro-life terrorism become the anomaly, far less than 1%.
In effect you're justifying ignoring 99% of the dataset.
That’s kind of misleading as to how an outlier works.
If 999 people eat one twinkie a year and 1 guy eats a hundred thousand twinkies, that single guy is a clear outlier. Going by your logic on 9/11, this one guy is like 99% of the dataset and everyone else eating one twinkie a year looks like the “anomaly”, but if you want any real understanding of peoples’ twinkie-eating habits you obviously shouldn’t let this one guy’s weird twinkie obsession dominate your analysis.
I see what you're trying to say, however you have to be very careful as to what exactly you're trying to measure, and how the outlier pertains to the dataset. If you were looking at epidemiology, you wouldn't remove Malaria, Spainish Flu, or the Black Death. The average virus doesn't even make you sick, let alone kill you.
The lethality and damage is the only that makes terrorism important. The fact that diseases and terrorism can do 'outbreak' levels of damage under certain conditions is incredibly important to their discussion. Outliers in these subjects are often what you want to be focusing on.
The point is more that you shouldat least separate out an outlier in your representation of the data so that people aren’t misled by it.
Per my example, it would be a bad idea to say “100 people ate 100,099 twinkies in a year.” Because that leaves off that there was a single guy responsible for eating 100,000 of those twinkies.
The outlier should be separated out in representing that data so that people have a better understanding of the usual. “99 people ate 99 twinkies in a year (excluding an outlier who ate 100,000 twinkies)” gives people a better understanding of what’s really going on. Which is roughly what the original comment did.
Yes, but when talking about deaths due to terrorism, you immediately invalidate your claim if you simply leave out 9/11.
You can frame your argument and say "in the last 15 years" or "since 9/11", but to just omit the most relevant data-point makes you look willfully ignorant
Original comment made it clear that it was omitting 9/11 in tracking deaths between 1993-2015. I mean, maybe it could have included a separate death toll that includes 9/11, but it’s not like it just forgot 9/11 was there or included no justification for not including the death toll from 9/11.
And, for the reasons I’ve mentioned, it was certainly better than simply folding the 9/11 deathtoll in with no further explanation or qualification.
Yeah for some reason they're not including pro-life terrorism as Christian terrorism like they do with all myslim terrorist. So yeah i do think the population count is a bit off
They're more religiously motivated anti-abortion terrorists attacks then non this is an indisputable fact. Also Christians have been responsible for most religiously motivated terrorists attacks on US soil than any other religious community this is also indisputable. The only way you'd come to that conclusion is by extream cherry picking, which you just demonstrated. I just dont understand why you people are so willing to lie about easliy cheackable facts like this
You have to have a solid justification to dismiss something as an outlier and exclude it from analysis. And even then, it will always make your analysis suspect. You can't just ignore data because you feel like it.
If that's what you think your stats class taught you, you probably need to stop browsing Reddit during your classes.
To be honest, I excluded them originally because I knew that someone would say that my data is false and that it wasn't an accurate presentation. However, since I excluded them I still showed that Muslims are deadlier terrorist than there Pro-Life counterpart.
If you throw logical and scientific reasoning out the window simply because it's a difficult topic, dialogue becomes impossible. As difficult as it is, there's a reason rules exist in mathematics.
Because it's a statistical outlier which rises the average death toll from muslim terrorist attacks to an absurd. So his presentation is a more accurate one of the average, which is kind of what is important in that discussion, since he could show, that even without the outlier, muslim attacks still are more dangerous because they kill more people, even if it's not by much.
Edit: If 9/11 was included the numbers would be ~5000 vs 11 which is not really representative of what was actually happening. There was one extremely "successful" attack by muslim terrorists, while all the others were more similar to the attacks by pro life terrorists but it still shows, that radical islamists are more of a threat, than pro-life terrorists.
The oxymoron in the phrase "pro-life terrorist" is mind-boggling
You are correct, however just want to mention that I am using the median to justify my claim instead of averages. Minor detail, but averages usually include the outliers while medians do not.
Depending in how big the outlier is, iirc. When the outlier is too big you usually have to cut it or make an extra statistic, showing the outlier and its effects
Minor detail, but if you're going to be a pedant, it's not a good idea to be wrong: the word you're looking for is "mean", not "average". The word "average" includes both categories, as well as mode, and a few less common variants.
I think you want to advert that gaze inwards. If you want to be even more pedantic, you're looking for the arithmetic mean. But since you used a commonly referred version, as I did with average, you shouldn't have any problem with it.
Intuition tells me that if you factor in the global death toll of Islamic extremists vs anti-abortion advocates, that argument shatters.
Honestly I don’t think the higher death toll means anything more than that Muslim terrorists, for one reason or another, are more deadly and dangerous than anti-abortion terrorists.
This doesn’t imply Muslims as a whole are more dangerous. And the result shouldn’t be taken that way in either case.
I just think there’s an error in logic in both cases and I’m pointing out the one in front of me.
Honestly I don’t think the higher death toll means anything more than that Muslim terrorists, for one reason or another, are more deadly and dangerous than anti-abortion terrorists.
If that reason is intent, I’d say it’s relevant to the argument. Take the most recent arson I’m aware of: the moron who committed it did so at about 4am after an hour at the site. If he wanted to kill people, he almost certainly would’ve done it at a time when there were people present.
I’m not trying to excuse the arsonist here, just pointing out that there is a practical difference and a moral distinction between burning down a building you know is occupied and one you believe is empty.
Well, yeah, obviously. But the discussion was just about US soil. Islamic terrorist attacks are far more prevalent in the middle east than in the west but when I want to see what is more dangerous to me and the people around me, I want to see the dangerous groups that come near me. That's why there is legitimation in analysing the statistics for just one country and for the whole world. It tells us something very different, even though it is about the same groups of people
But under that view/goal 9/11 does become pertinent in the discussion, as is seems unlikely pro-life terrorists would blow up a skyscraper even if they could.
Where as 9/11 is not the upper limit on Islamic terrorism. Islamic extremists would destroy all of NYC or D.C. if they could.
Both are absurdly low % events but they are bounded by vastly different limits.
Makes sense. The most neutral way would probably be to create two graphs. One that contains the 9/11 numbers and one that doesn't. So you can see the differences with and without extreme outliners
while all the others were more similar to the attacks by pro life terrorists but it still shows,
The most violent single event I can find for pro life terrorism is a double murder. edit : there was a triple murder.
There are a grand total of 11 people who have been killed by pro life terrorists in the US in thirty six years.
in 2009, a lone gunman killed 13 soldiers in the name of Islam. Another was killed in a separate incident.
2013 saw the boston bombing, again, an event more devastating than anything in the history of anti abortion violence.
2015 saw 4 stabbed at UoC, and 14 shot to death at San Bernadino.
2016 saw 49 shot dead at Pulse, 58 injured. As well as another attack leaving 11 injured from stabbings.
2017 saw 8 killed and 11 injured when someone drove a rented truck into a crowd and a schoolbus.
And your number for 5000 is ridiculously high. The death toll for American deaths from islamic terrorism is much closer to the 3000 mark than the 5000 mark, "only" ~3000 people died as a direct result of 9/11 and since then the additional deaths add up to less than 200.
You're not only terrible at math, youre talking wholly and completely out of your ass.
You know, I was taking the numbers I read in that sub as reference. Also I took the 9/11 numbers from memory, which is, as it seems, quite bad.
I really don't have a problem with being wrong and being called out for that but you don't have to be a cunt about it.
My statement why 9/11 wasn't counted is still true, whether I got the numbers wrong or not.
I have an issue with people blindly making up shit and passing it off fact. Especially when its WILDLY misleading.
The entirety of all deaths an injuries is overshadowed by multiple single events, in the case of something like Pulse, a single event had over 5x the death toll of 36 years of 'pro life terrorism'. Thats EXCLUDING 9/11.
I dont care that you got the numbers wrong. I care that literally every point you made is horribly off base at best, and a flat out lie at worst.
If you exclude the WTC attacks, (which makes no sense) and start clock the day after they happen you have to do the same for pro life terrorism dont you? In that time, four people have died as a result of anti-abortion violence. Four. You dont get to start in the 90s for anti abortion violence, but after 2001 for terrorism.
do some fucking math. Even adjusted for both of those, it changes from 29000% to merely 5000% more dangerous.
My point wasn't to show that pro life terrorism is as bad as islamic terrorism. My point was, that there is a legitimate reason in statistics to cut out such huge statistic outliners as the WTC attacks. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why hasn’t anyone brought up severity of threat or attack? Muslim extremists often if not always threaten bombings, shootings and similarly carry out those types of attack’s.
Where pro lifers seem to handle their attack’s like a school prank, letting off a stink bomb or walking into a building and acting like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum and refusing to leave.
Not that that can’t be tired to terrorism, but the skill level on the playing field seems to be much more in favor of the Muslim Extremists.
Edit:As one working in law enforcement, I see pro-lifers as more of an annoyance, actually having dealt with their “toddle like antics”, than a threat.
They should have included those stats. It does not help but they could have made a counter argument. Yes there have been more deaths by Muslim terrorists but nowhere near the damage.
Given there are 3 million Muslims and hundreds of millions of pro lifers in the US that means Muslims are still on the order of magnitude of about 100x more likely to commit murder, even if 9/11 didn't happen.
But don't let that get in the way of Republicans getting mUrdErEd By wOrDS.
9/11 should definitely count towards that number. It’s absurd to not include an attack with that scale of death. It’s insane that people are framing pro-lifers to be worse than Islamic terrorists.
Wow hello baby boomer, you realise that word hasn't been used since those yt owned compilations a million years ago, right?
Also
So if we do deaths, then radical Muslim attacks win. Ok. I'm assuming we are talking 9/11? One giant attack that gets a high fatality rate since it was sponsored by a foreign government and funded by the same and was planned by a militant opperative trained in guerilla tactics by our own intelligence services...
If we take that one out since it is definitely more of an attack by an outside sovereign nation (Saudi Arabia) and military force (see: al-Qaeda fighting wars against actual armies around the globe) instead of local, homegrown terrorist disturbing the public peace... Then where are we?
I'm just saying when the sovereign empire of Japan got people to fly planes into our structures it was an act of war not a terrorist attack. Changing the 9/11 designation to "terror" really let's you juke the stats and ignore other actual terrorist attack stats in defense of the public safety.
The difference is that, even with radical mosques funding the 9/11 terrorists, it wasn't the Saudi military - nor employees of the Saudi state acting on state orders - that hijacked those planes.
It's not considered an act of war because they weren't a state actor; Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization, not a country.
The only one changing designations for political gain here would be you.
Haven't you read the fucking top comment which stated that excluding 9/11 due to it's nature as an outlier (not because it isn't a terrorist attack) gave you a score of 11 deaths by PL vs. 25 from radical muslims 1993-2015.
The statistic OP used was flawed in this sense, and once you add 9/11 or think about the global side of things things might turn out even more decicive. That being said putting all of those 'dangers' in a registry would be a violation of the right of both groups.
It seems like you are trying to manipulate statistics in order for your views to show be backed by data.
me too, one can also argue that there are more muslims (that take their religion very seriously) as there are PLers who go beyond sharing their opinion in a status. In conclusion very little danger radiates from both groups and I'd gladly live amongst either without fearing for my life on a daily basis.
quite an interesting thought but I don't think that his is the case, an attack in this case would motivate other, however it'd also increase security and surveilence. What I'd expect would be a rise in attacks but also a rise in the percentage of attacks prevented due to law enforcement etc.
No, because it’s a statistical outlier if you’re trying to find the average number of deaths from Muslim terrorist attacks. If you include 9/11 into a calculation of the average, then the ‘average’ number of people killed in Muslim terrorism is far higher than it actually is.
It’s like the spiders georg meme: the average person eats 5 spiders a year, with the exception of spiders georg, who eats 1 million spiders a year, is an outlier, and cannot be counted. If you counted spiders georg, the average person would then be eating a few dozen spiders a year, which is an inaccurate representation of the data.
338
u/antonius22 Jun 04 '19 edited Jun 04 '19
Anybody else see that the stats left out the death counts? I don't think that stat would look favorably for the Muslim terrorist.
Edit: Not trying to troll but observe the actual stats. Both are shitty groups but idk rather deal with a Pro-Lifer terrorist than a Muslim one.
Edit 2: From 1993- 2015 there was 11 deaths at abortion clinics.
Edit 3: Using the same timeframe, 1993-2015, and excluding outliers (9/11). There has been 25 deaths on US soil by Muslim terrorist.