I'm not even going to argue this. It's retarded parsing at the highest level. Your spiel doesn't even reach the level of speciousness.
This is most pretentious version of "i'm wrong," that I've ever heard. I make an argument backed by all of modern sociology and its "retarded parsing at the highest level." You post a wikipedia chart made by an 8th grader and i'm supposed to take it seriously. What sort of adult debates in such a manner?
You know why there's an absence of ALL of the world's major religions?
Take a wild guess. I bet you can't guess why. I bet you can never guess why "Christian terrorism" and "Buddhist terrorism" isn't on the list... which would bring the entire conversation back to square one,
an earlier post you chose to ignore.
You're glib. Look up both of those and you'll see they have a far higher death toll than fuckin anti-Castroism. Instead of assuming that maybe your hastily-googled Wikipedia bar graph wasn't a great source, you're trying to convine me that
The Lord's Resistance Army, which has killed an estimated quarter of a million people, doesn't qualify as religious violence. Brool Story, Co.
Using your own logic, Islam kills more as a percentage of extremist attacks than men kill as a whole. So let's please drop this shallow attempt to throw a red herring into the mix.
If I didnt understand how percentages work, this would be a stellar argument. Unfortunately, I do.
So what you're saying that, out of the constant mayhem and outrageous violence that men commit on an hourly basis, there is a small category of that violence that is dominated by Muslim men.
So though the specific point of my argument was to look at violence as a whole rather than this very specific niche of violence, you're saying that I should look at this very specific niche of violence?
Okay.
I never mentioned murder and I figured you'd be able to deduce I was talking about terrorism when I mentioned killing random people.
You responded to me, not the other way around. You engaged me in conversation when I was talking about violence as a whole, not just terrorism. Don't engage in conversation, change the topic, then accuse me of shifting goalppsts when I try to keep to the original discussion.
[quoteEven then, all the points listed above still stand. If you're going to say the vast majority of terrorist attacks that lead to casualties/fatalities are committed by men, you also have to be logically consistent and admit the vast majority of terrorist-related casualties/fatalities are done by Muslims - even grouping in politically-motivated terrorism.[/quote]
This literally has not been up for debate a single time in this conversation.
I'm done. Not really too stoked about debating with someone who thinks Wikipedia is a better source than the entire field of Sociology and its a hassle doing this on my phone. You've started using gifs and memes anyeay, so I think its pretty clear that you've won this one. Congrats.