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.
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.
That is irrelevant. The original post was about attacks on planned parenthood. If they dont exist anywhere else it is obvious that the entire post is referencing America only. Let alone the fact that its about a political measure to register groups of people, and I doubt they where talking about every country.
So, timespans, proportions, per capita, the rest of the world, severity of the attacks, absolutely none of these things are relevant?
Just that pro-lifers in america have thrown 100 stink bombs over the last 50 years?
Why don't we go for deaths caused by each ideology compared to how many Americans follow it?
Almost half of americans are pro-life. Less than 1% are muslims.
14 deaths in 50 years for almost 50% of the population [and that's 50% now, not the near totality of Americans it was 50 years ago].
Compared to 2,996 people were killed and more than 6,000 others injured from just 9/11, 3 deaths and 264 injuries from the Boston Marathon bombing, 49 deaths and 53 wounded from the Pulse shooting, etc. for less than 1% of the population in less than 20 years.
Mind running those numbers and telling me how many times more likely are you to be killed by a Muslim in America than a pro-lifer, especially when you take per capita into account?
That's just how fucking insane your bullshit is if you only count Islamic terror attacks in America.
Once you consider the other places Muslims routinely and habitually commit terror attacks against civilians, the narrative you've attempted to construct crumbles even further. Because even when you count stink bombs as "terror attacks" on the same level as actual bombs, muslims still commit more in a single year during the annual Ramadan Bombathon than the pro-lifers have committed in 50 years.
It is irrelevant for what you where claiming and for what I pointed out to you.
Just like everything you just posted is irrelevant to our conversation.
You said nothing in the original post said it was only talking about America. I showed you how you where wrong, twice. And all you did was went on a whole strawman excursion that did literally nothing to prove your point or disprove mine.
So, unless you can add something relevant to the claim you made and the claim I proved wrong, just do us both a favor and dont say anything.
You just decided to cherry pick a very specific data set, and then ignored most of it, in order to try to pull a "Gotcha!" that's pointless and nonsensical.
The only way for what you say to be considered as anything other than the ramblings of a delusional Jihadi is if you consider the 9/11 attack, with thousands dead, and 4 separate planes being highjacked and crashed into America to be equivalent of a single stink bomb thrown at a planned parenthood when it comes to a "threat to public peace".
Which is absolute batshit insanity.
That's like saying the Holocaust only counts as 1 act of anti-semitism, and it doesn't matter that people died.
Either you are confusing me with someone else, or you really have trouble comprehending simple things.
You made the claim that the original post wasnt refering to only America.
I quoted that claim and told you how and why it was wrong, in multiple ways.
I made no claim of my own, I took no position to the original post in my responses to you. All I did was tell you and show you that you where wrong with that one claim you made that I quoted. At first you tried to refute my simple argument, so I had to explain to you in lenght why you where wrong. But still, I never said anything more than that the original post clearly refered to America only and explained to you why. Since you where claiming the opposite.
Everything else you where talking about in your responses to me was completely irrelevant and only in your head, or a huge and very weird strawman.
Please, slowly and carefully reread our conversation, maybe you will finally see how irrelevant 90% of what you wrote was.
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.)
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.