Terrorist attack in London

[The ScorpioN]

Let's walk through this retardedness.

Being a man is intrinsic. It's beyond a male's control. (I'm not going to play the trans game here)

Being a Muslims is external, environmental. It is within anyone's control.

You are trying to divert attention away from the fact that this attacker was a Muslim (environmental factor) and make that fact somehow null and void because he was also male (intrinsic factor).

Let's take some other intrinsic factors. What race/ethnicity was this man? After all, that's something that can't be changed. And can we do this with other groups as well? Is the fact that almost half the violent crime in America is committed by black males make any point about their environmental factors moot? Because then you'd have to argue that black males are more prone to violence than non-black males.

See how stupid that argument is? Hell, I could even take it into another direction. Statistically speaking, the vast majority of violent crime is done by men, so working within your own framework (i.e. the apples to orange comparison, the male to religion comparison), the vast majority of terrorist attacks are also done by men (you will notice I never mentioned murder/homicide, that was you, you were trying to move the goalposts). In fact, it's not even close.

So let's look at the data when it comes to religion:

Now let's be consistent. The stats show that men commit the vast majority of violent attacks (including terrorism and murder, so no need to shift the goalposts here). The stats also show that the vast majority of terrorist attacks are done by Muslims.

Even using your own logic to try to deflect this into a gender issue, all it does is backfire because if you continue to be logically consistent, you also have to admit that Islam is responsible for an even greater percentage of religiously-motivated terrorist attacks resulting in death than attacks other faiths and that difference is even greater than the gender differences of murder (which is insane, given the fact that your gendered comparison only has two variables while the religious comparison has well over a dozen variables). Even within your own framework, Islam is associated with terrorism more than males are murder. So in your attempt to divert the issue away from Islam and onto a red herring of "maleness," you just keep proving how ridiculous it is to try to divert the topic from Islam in the first place.

Males commit 90.3% of murders.
Muslims commit 82.5 of religiously motivated terrorist attacks, but the actual percentage of victims is much, much higher for Islamic extremism than all other religiously-motivated extremist attacks combined. Plus, that chart above shows politically-motivated acts of extremism and even then, Islamic extremism dwarfs all the others combined.

Your point is moot even when comparing apples to oranges.


Oh, sociology. A well-respected field of empirical hard science.

I bow to the field's infinite wisdom.

AND IT'S AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALL OVER

You actually took the time to demonstrate how asinine that argument is. I would have just skipped retarded shit like that. But thank you none the less.

 

[lifelessheap]

Seems like there are knife attacks daily/weekly in Israel.

Vile scum. As a father that makes me rage.

 

[lifelessheap]

if we dont import them theyll either become radicalized over there or forced to do extremists' bidding, which makes it worse for the west and the rest of the world in the long term. even if by some miracle terrorism is dramatically reduced in the middle east, prohibiting the importation of muslims will just increase the resentment and violence towards us. banning them is ignoring the problem, not fixing it

even if we could personally guarantee that no muslims could ever come in, just consider how many terrorist attacks are inspired by isis with no real connection. these are gonna go way up if you fuel the anger

So just concede? How did that work out with Hitler?

 

[Staph infection]

Trying to make some form of argument of it being more dangerous in England than the US is pretty hard given the fact that the US has over 4 times as high intentional homicide rate as the UK. As horrible as the terrorist attacks are they don't change that murder is murder.

True there are higher intentional murder rates in the US but the amount of terror attacks are far less. These terror attack in the UK and the other parts of Europe are becoming the norm. Of course these are all lone wolf types.

 

[Squarechoke]

True there are higher intentional murder rates in the US but the amount of terror attacks are far less. These terror attack in the UK and the other parts of Europe are becoming the norm. Of course these are all lone wolf types.

And as I said, you're dead no matter what the homicide is labeled, and terrorism is counted among those.

There's not that much higher number of terrorist attacks in Europe compared to the US, and especially not comparing the US and the UK, which was your original point. There's been a few larger Islamic attacks in Europe with lots of deaths so that stands out though. It's of course also something that might be increasing, but since your point was to talk about people dying it makes no sense to just refer to terrorism. For example, in the US you've had 120 times more American deaths by gun violence than of terrorism this side of the millennium (stats up til 2014), despite 9/11. Terrorism is not the only thing to fear, if you fear the risk of being killed.

There are bad things going on in many places, but it makes no sense to zone in on one issue and try to make that bigger than other issues when the facts contradict it.

 

[punky brewster]

It looks like the victim who died was an American citizen.

The other injured victims were 1 British man, an Australian man and woman, 1 American man and 1 Israeli woman.......

 

[in the]

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'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.



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.



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.

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.

Your post is like your points - never solid and always shifting directions.

Yes, I engaged you because you said something retarded. Being a man was not the driver in this attack, or else we would see men across the entire board engaging in this behavior, regardless of religion or lack thereof. I don't know how many times I have to write that for you to get it. You keep dancing around it and throwing out shallow references to sociological factors that you've yet to define. If you'd like to define them, please do, I could use a laugh. The point still remains. Even if you want to blame "culture" on the reasons why Muslims do this at extreme disproportional levels than any other religious group, I want to see the logic you use to nullify the religious component. That should also be fun.

I hate to break it to you, but a chart, regardless of who makes it, is made up of statistics. You are arguing about the use of a chart and not the actual content of it, then have the gall to call the chart juvenile. Your sociological ideas, which you've yet to even define, are based more on observation and opinion, not stats. One of those is completely subjective and one is objective. Don't expect me to choose the subjective one here.

You started arguing from the viewpoint that terrorism only makes up a small fraction of people killed... just like I said you'd have to do to cover your own ass when discussing this issue.

Or is this another red herring, trying to blindly look at all murders and looping terrorism in with that? It's really hard to understand what you're even arguing.

I think it's completely retarded to loop all acts of killing together. We specify certain acts accordingly. If that's your argument, to loop all killings together just to coddle and protect Islam from its clear link to terrorism (statistically it's an even greater factor to terrorism than being a male is to murder itself), just give up, dude. That's a pathetic argument.

But hey, Lord's Resistance Army, a perfect comparison because the LRA is killing people across the globe, right? Not only that, there is most definitely a religious component to LRA. Imagine the sheer stupidity of trying to talk about the LRA and Kony and having apologists come out of nowhere and constantly divert the topic into retardedness like "maleness" playing a factor, or bringing up Al-Shabaab as nothing more than a distraction to keep from talking about the trash that is the LRA.

And other red herrings. Let's not blame Islam at all, even if it is the primary motivating factor. We gotta keep up our virtue signalling regardless the truth.

tl;dr - You attempted to divert the discussion away from a variable that has a stronger correlation (Islam to terrorism) than the variable you used to explain a different cause of action (male to murder). Everything else is window dressing.

 

[Victor Maitland]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-Somali-Russell-Square-carnage.html#comments

The exact same reporting strategy from the Munich and Normandy attacks

- only use dated childhood pictures of the killer
- claim mental illness with zero proof of it
- paint the guy as a shy guy who was bullied , like the Munich gunman
- distort all the facts

Its clear as call has gone out for ISIS sympathisers to do lonewolf attacks.

 

[mcgoatp4p#1]

So just concede? How did that work out with Hitler?

So just concede? How did that work out with Hitler?

banning muslims would be conceding given thats exactly what isis would love. it would increase the divide between the east and the west and they could use it to build up more propoganda, inciting even more hatred from muslims. you might stop a couple potential terrorists from crossing the border but you'd end up creating a lot more domestically. a global military strategy utilizing all our allies and resources is the best and smartest way to contain the situation, even though it obviously won't fix it, at least not any time soon. your way is not a solution.

id also love to see islam eradicated over time along with every other religion, but banning muslims isnt gonna make that work

 

[Fedorable]

Wow. That's gotta be awkward.

I can't see how that is real.

 

[voxom]

They are willing to blow themselves up and kill their own children.

They will culturally enrich us.

yep, they are willing to kill their own family members. imagine what they would be willing to do with random westerns who already think are going to hell.

 

[voxom]

I bet its a man. Its always a man. Someday we need to draw a line in the sand between Feminists and men. Why arent the moderate men condemning these actions? Why are our politicians too PC to prevent men from immigrating to our country?

are you implying that muslims are born into that faith and can't change it?

being a man=by birth
being muslim=choice

just like agreeing with the nazis=a choice

 

[Blackened]

are you implying that muslims are born into that faith and can't change it?

being a man=by birth
being muslim=choice

just like agreeing with the nazis=a choice

Don't tell that to the liberals. They'll ignore facts and tell you that being a man is a choice as you can chop your dick off and wear a wig.

 

[nostradumbass]

Seems like there are knife attacks daily/weekly in Israel.

Now ask yourself how that would have turned out if the roles were reversed and an Israeli threw his kids at a pack of Palestinians. The kid would be raped and turned into Swiss Cheese in about 2 seconds.

 

[Thurisaz]

Governments of all of the West should do the honorable thing and step down. They aren't obviously doing even the most basic things that come with the job, such as protecting their citizens from this.

 

[dissolved]

Seems like there are knife attacks daily/weekly in Israel.

And to think there are Muslims and Palestinian supporters who literally won't see what any normal human is seeing in that clip. Scary and mind-boggling beyond comprehension.

Also, the soldiers do have to be careful because that litte baby could be strapped with a bomb. His shirt is bunched up a bit at the back too.

And finally, the poor child probably got a beating afterward for shaking the soldier's hand and then for not being able to throw a rock at them.

 

[nostradumbass]

Having lethal crime more focused on some areas isn't unique to the US so it doesn't affect the ratio in any way that changes the argument. The fact remains that the poster that tried to make it out like England is more unsafe in this regard was completely wrong, which was the entire point.

It is relevant because it's a matter of where it is easier to avoid. The violent crime rate in "white America" is significantly lower than the UK, same with home invasions, stabbings.

Also, worthy of note, the violent crime rate is declining in the US, where as violent crime rose by over 10% in England and Wales last year. I wouldn't say either place is particularly dangerous if you avoid certain places, but crime rates rising should be a little concerning.

 

[Oiler]

Just imagine if 3 or 4 attacks happened in one city all at once. There would be utter chaos and people would end up changing their lives even though our leaders always say, 'we won't let them alter our lives, if we do, that means they win.'

.

Tragically, we wont have to "imagine" this very soon....