The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[Lethality]

You've just said yes, to it being purely of Islamic faith...

But then you say it's in certain conditions on top of being a Muslim?
Which is it?

You mentioned the conditions in the same part of the post I quoted, so I was referring to them as well.

 

[CM86]

You mentioned the conditions in the same part of the post I quoted, so I was referring to them as well.

Just as long as we are clear. That you are saying that purely because of being a Muslim, someone is more likely to kill?

It can be more likely to kill for leaving the religion, or for adultery, homosexuality, criticizing Islam, that sort of thing et al... but over all... that means they are more likely to kill, purely because they are of Islamic faith, correct?

 

[Number37]

Who said it's the wrong end of the debate? Anyway your example here is a false equivalence, those are policy decisions, whereas the aforementioned criticism extends to drawings, opinions and atheism, not to mention that I said death threats or worse, and we haven't killed those politicians. It's also safe to speak about supporting refugees or carbon pricing, so the subject itself is not a problem in our society, unlike Islam.

The only false equivalence is stating that a Muslim giving death threats is different to anyone else giving death threats.

You fail to accept even the most basic of premises. i.e. That there are people willing to kill someone because of a difference of opinion/belief.

 

[Number37]

Just as long as we are clear. That you are saying that purely because of being a Muslim, someone is more likely to kill?

That is exactly what he is saying, but he is trying to wriggle away from it with semantics.

 

[Lethality]

Just as long as we are clear. That you are saying that purely because of being a Muslim, someone is more likely to kill?

It can be more likely to kill for leaving the religion, or for adultery, homosexuality, criticizing Islam, that sort of thing et al... but over all... that means they are more likely to kill, purely because they are of Islamic faith, correct?

Not necessarily, my statement was about the reasons for killing. I'm repeating myself.

 

[Lethality]

The only false equivalence is stating that a Muslim giving death threats is different to anyone else giving death threats.

That's the opposite of a false equivalence.

 

[CM86]

Not necessarily, my statement was about the reasons for killing. I'm repeating myself.

How is it now "not necessarily"?
What changed from "yes"?

I think you realised a few posts ago, how ridiculous your point was.

 

[Lethality]

How is it now "not necessarily"?
What changed from "yes"?

I didn't say yes to that question at any stage, in fact I didn't give any answer to it. The answers I did give remain specific to the conditions I mentioned.

I think you realised a few posts ago, how ridiculous your point was.

I'm happy to continue discussing it, you just need to understand what my position is, and stop insisting that it's something else entirely.

 

[CM86]

I didn't say yes to that question at any stage, in fact I didn't give any answer to it. The answers I did give remain specific to the conditions I mentioned.



I'm happy to continue discussing it, you just need to understand what my position is, and stop insisting that it's something else entirely.

I've explained how it's the same thing in this post;

Just as long as we are clear. That you are saying that purely because of being a Muslim, someone is more likely to kill?

It can be more likely to kill for leaving the religion, or for adultery, homosexuality, criticizing Islam, that sort of thing et al... but over all... that means they are more likely to kill, purely because they are of Islamic faith, correct?

So, how can you say that a Muslim is more likely to kill, purely because they are Muslim... but also not necessarily?

 

[Number37]

So, purely because they are of Islamic faith, you believe it increases the likelihood that they could kill for leaving the religion, or for adultery, homosexuality, criticizing Islam, that sort of thing?

Yes.

I didn't say yes to that question at any stage, in fact I didn't give any answer to it. The answers I did give remain specific to the conditions I mentioned.

I'm happy to continue discussing it, you just need to understand what my position is, and stop insisting that it's something else entirely.

 

[Lethality]

What are you not getting? The answer refers to killing for those reasons, not what you said at all.

I've explained how it's the same thing in this post;

You haven't explained anything, you've asserted something and I've disagreed.

 

[Lethality]

The answer there is referring to killing for the aforementioned reasons, not what CM is talking about.

 

[CM86]

What are you not getting? The answer refers to killing for those reasons, not what you said at all.



You haven't explained anything, you've asserted something and I've disagreed.

If I was more likely to kill a black person, because I am racist... that means, overall, I am more likely to kill someone...


You're saying that purely because of being a Muslim, a person is more likely to kill someone for adultery, homosexuality, criticizing Islam, that sort of thing.
That means, overall that the Muslim person is more likely to kill someone.

That is what your point is.

 

[Number37]

You quoted CM and gave the answer YES. More of the same nonsense from you... "I didn't say that I said something else"

CM86 said: ↑
So, purely because they are of Islamic faith, you believe it increases the likelihood that they could kill for leaving the religion, or for adultery, homosexuality, criticizing Islam, that sort of thing?

Yes.

 

[Lethality]

If I was more likely to kill a black person, because I am racist... that means, overall, I am more likely to kill someone...

Not necessarily, you might therefore be less likely to kill white people as a result, for instance.

That means, overall that the Muslim person is more likely to kill someone.

Nope, see my response to your black analogy.

 

[Lethality]

You quoted CM and gave the answer YES.

I didn't deny my answer, you just weren't paying attention to the question, which was about killing for certain reasons. It's all there in black and white so you should be able to self-correct.

 

[CM86]

Not necessarily, you might therefore be less likely to kill white people as a result, for instance.



Nope, see my response to your black analogy.

No... you are making an assumption to intentions, without reason. "Might be less likely to kill overall... because they might be less likely to kill white people".
Ridiculous.
Like it balances out.
Like everyone has a certain amount of intention to kill... and it increases and decreases equally.


I gave you a scenario, where a person is more likely to kill someone. It doesn't matter how it is justified... it is still killing.



Or are you saying that are more likely to kill for adultery, homosexuality, criticizing Islam, that sort of thing, and less likely to kill for other reasons?

Bachar Houli is more likely to kill someone for adultery, homosexuality, criticizing Islam, that sort of thing.
But Luke Hodge is more likely to kill someone for being anti-homosexual?
So it's all balanced out... everyone is as likely to kill someone as everyone else.


Such a bizarre line to try and take. And you know it full well.

This is what you always do when you realise you've dug yourself a hole.

 

[DemonTim]

Not necessarily, you might therefore be less likely to kill white people as a result, for instance.



Nope, see my response to your black analogy.

The stupidity is hurting my head

The first point is of no bearing. You are still more likely to kill A person. Just because you are only likely to kill a person based on x criteria, you are still more likely to kill someone who wouldn't kill a person, no matter the criteria. The above point is just a strange attempt at deflection that doesn't work in the situation

 

[Lethality]

No... you are making an assumption to intentions, without reason. "Might be less likely to kill overall... because they might be less likely to kill white people".
Ridiculous.
Like it balances out.
Like everyone has a certain amount of intention to kill... and it increases and decreases equally.

It's just a hypothetical; the point is that there are plenty of causative as well as prohibitive factors which you are not taking into account. Therefore the response is 'not necessarily' because all the factors have not been considered. We do know that Muslims are more likely to kill for many reasons however, and I have pointed those out.

The stupidity is hurting my head

The first point is of no bearing. You are still more likely to kill A person. Just because you are only likely to kill a person based on x criteria, you are still more likely to kill someone who wouldn't kill a person, no matter the criteria.

Sure, but that isn't the comparison; it's between a person and his otherwise equivalent. The point is also whether being willing to kill for a specific reason automatically means that killing overall is increased, and I gave an example for why that isn't necessarily the case. There are plenty of push and pull factors, and CM is only willing to consider push factors because he's trying to make me say something I haven't said.

 

[CM86]

It's just a hypothetical; the point is that there are plenty of causative as well as prohibitive factors which you are not taking into account. Therefore the response is 'not necessarily' because all the factors have not been considered. We do know that Muslims are more likely to kill for many reasons however, and I have pointed those out.

That's why I included the word "purely", to which you answered "yes"...

Because to claim that someone is more likely to kill someone, purely because they are of Islamic faith, is ridiculous.
And you realise that now, which is why you're digging and ducking.


Everyone knows it.
I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
I hope it gives you pause and makes you think a bit more about how level headed your opinions really are.

 

[Lethality]

That's why I included the word "purely", to which you answered "yes"...
Because to claim that someone is more likely to kill someone, purely because they are of Islamic faith, is ridiculous.
And you realise that now, which is why you're digging and ducking.

The word 'purely' doesn't change the argument at all; remember it's the inclusion of the conditions which you are ignoring.

Everyone knows it.
I'm not going to waste any more time on it.
I hope it gives you pause and makes you think a bit more about how level headed your opinions really are.

It hasn't given a moment's pause; all you've done is misrepresent my actual opinion and substitute it for your own based on what you would like me to have said to fit your opinion that this is bigotry. This is evident from your claim to have proven things that you've only presupposed.

 

[CM86]

The word 'purely' doesn't change the argument at all; remember it's the inclusion of the conditions which you are ignoring.



It hasn't given a moment's pause; all you've done is misrepresent my actual opinion and substitute it for your own based on what you would like me to have said to fit your opinion that this is bigotry. This is evident from your claim to have proven things that you've only presupposed.

No problem.

Just say that a Muslim is not more likely to kill someone than a non Muslim.
Clear it all up.

 

[Lethality]

No problem.

Just say that a Muslim is not more likely to kill someone than a non Muslim.
Clear it all up.

I said not necessarily, remember?

 

[DemonTim]

It's just a hypothetical; the point is that there are plenty of causative as well as prohibitive factors which you are not taking into account. Therefore the response is 'not necessarily' because all the factors have not been considered. We do know that Muslims are more likely to kill for many reasons however, and I have pointed those out.



Sure, but that isn't the comparison; it's between a person and his otherwise equivalent. The point is also whether being willing to kill for a specific reason automatically means that killing overall is increased, and I gave an example for why that isn't necessarily the case. There are plenty of push and pull factors, and CM is only willing to consider push factors because he's trying to make me say something I haven't said.

Your example didn't show it wasn't necessarily the case. It showed a person that overall is more likely to kill, in no way does that signify they will kill anyone, which is why them "not killing a white person" has no bearing on their willingness to kill. The willingness to kill is based only on who they will kill, and what would cause them to kill. Who they won't kill has no bearing on it. If they are willing to kill based on say homosexuality, for example, not wanting to kill based on say, adhering to Muslim beliefs, does not downgrade their willingness to kill

 

[Lethality]

Your example didn't show it wasn't necessarily the case. It showed a person that overall is more likely to kill, in no way does that signify they will kill anyone, which is why them "not killing a white person" has no bearing on their willingness to kill. The willingness to kill is based only on who they will kill, and what would cause them to kill. Who they won't kill has no bearing on it.

It has a bearing since it's a population or greater number of people we're actually discussing. The individual example is just a hypothetical, the discussion is about a population. You're taking the hypothetical way too literally.