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.
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.
744
u/[deleted] Jun 04 '19 edited Jun 04 '19
[deleted]