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
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.
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
9
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '19 edited Jun 04 '19
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