The Terrorism Files - 2015, 2016

[DemonTim]

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.

Well no, it still has no bearing. This post said a whole lot of nothing.

If a person has is more likely to kill, then them not willing to kill a particular subset of society does not change their likelihood.

CM is definitely right about you

 

[Lethality]

If a person has is more likely to kill, then them not willing to kill a particular subset of society does not change their likelihood.

Again, we're not talking about any particular individual . . . the use of individuals was as an analogy or hypothetical to the discussion about attitudes towards violence for over a billion people.

 

[DemonTim]

Again, we're not talking about any particular individual . . .

Yes I'm aware. You realise I'm countering your argument of "if less likely to kill a white person"
So it's fine for you to reference individuals but when your argument is countered it's "stop talking about individuals"

 

[Lethality]

Yes I'm aware. You realise I'm countering your argument of "if less likely to kill a white person"
So it's fine for you to reference individuals but when your argument is countered it's "stop talking about individuals"

The racial analogy was CM's, so it was him that made the reference to individuals . . .

 

[DemonTim]

The racial analogy was CM's, so it was him that made the reference to individuals . . .

And you furthered it...which leaves you open to critique.

 

[Lethality]

And you furthered it...which leaves you open to critique.

Maybe for playing with a bad analogy. Still, it served the purpose, CM understood how it related to the actual discussion.

 

[DemonTim]

Maybe for playing with a bad analogy. Still, it served the purpose, CM understood how it related to the actual discussion.

He agreed with my critique. That it doesn't "cancel out".

Are you actually reading responses?

 

[CM86]

Maybe for playing with a bad analogy. Still, it served the purpose, CM understood how it related to the actual discussion.

You are trying to run through a rabbit hole to lose everyone.

You're saying that purely being a Muslim means you're more likely to kill a homosexual.
But because you know that's a ridiculous thing that you can't take back... you're trying to also say that it doesn't mean Muslims are more likely to kill someone.

 

[Lethality]

He agreed with my critique. That it doesn't "cancel out".

Are you actually reading responses?

You mean he threw you a 'like' ? He would agree with anyone who disagreed with me, no matter how misguided the critique proved to be.

 

[Lethality]

You are trying to run through a rabbit hole to lose everyone.

You're saying that purely being a Muslim means you're more likely to kill a homosexual.
But because you know that's a ridiculous thing that you can't take back... you're trying to also say that it doesn't mean Muslims are more likely to kill someone.

No, those are my opinions, and I have explained why I have them. Your reasons for why I have those opinions are pretty phony.

 

[DemonTim]

He would agree with anyone who disagreed with me, no matter how misguided the critique proved to be.

Wait. So first he understood how it related and it served its purpose, but now he agrees that it's wrong?

Respond to the critique then. All you've responded with is "blah blah blah not individual"

There's a reason you're not responding to the points made by three seperate posters now, and it's not that everyone else is misguided

 

[DemonTim]

No, those are my opinions, and I have explained why I have them. Your reasons for why I have those opinions are pretty phony.

The opinions are mutually exclusive. You can't hold both

 

[CM86]

No, those are my opinions, and I have explained why I have them. Your reasons for why I have those opinions are pretty phony.

Link to explanation?

 

[Lethality]

Wait. So first he understood how it related and it served its purpose, but now he agrees that it's wrong?

No, he used the analogy to try and make a point, and once you critiqued my response to it, he naturally sided against me as he continues to do. This is not that hard to understand.

 

[CM86]

No, he used the analogy to try and make a point, and once you critiqued my response to it, he naturally sided against me as he continues to do. This is not that hard to understand.

No... Demon Tim is saying the same thing that I was saying...

You're trying to throw more and more convoluted bs into the convo, to make it as muddy as possible.
The reason for this, is because you know how deep you dug yourself in.

Stop trying to play the innocent victim.

 

[Lethality]

Link to explanation?

Our discussion was about how beliefs translate to actions with extremism, therefore the explanation is belief.

 

[DemonTim]

No, he used the analogy to try and make a point, and once you critiqued my response to it, he naturally sided against me as he continues to do. This is not that hard to understand.

except it directly goes against what you just said

Digupstupid.jpeg

 

[Lethality]

No... Demon Tim is saying the same thing that I was saying...

Well then what you were saying misses the point as well; the only difference is he has an excuse. The discussion is about large populations, not individuals.

 

[DemonTim]

Well then what you were saying misses the point as well; the only difference is he has an excuse. The discussion is about large populations, not individuals.

So why did you use a response in relation to an individual? You only seem to have an issue after your logic is refuted.

 

[Lethality]

So why did you use a response in relation to an individual? You only seem to have an issue after your logic is refuted.

I already explained that I was using his analogy for expediency. This discussion isn't actually about black people or any particular white racist. That's just an analogy to try and simplify the discussion.

 

[CM86]

Well then what you were saying misses the point as well; the only difference is he has an excuse. The discussion is about large populations, not individuals.

There is no excuse for killing...
Being racist doesn't excuse killing someone with dark skin...


I'm done, you're a revisionist.

The futher away we get from the original conversation, the easier it is for you to change what was said and what it was about.

Everyone can read it.

I'm not continuing copping dirt in the face as you vigorously dig side to side.

 

[DemonTim]

I already explained that I was using his analogy for expediency. This discussion isn't actually about black people or any particular white racist. That's just an analogy to try and simplify the discussion.

But now you have an issue with the analogy? Why is your response to me "don't discuss the individual, it's about the population", when you did that exact thing?

I even related it back to the original subject matter of homosexuality vs Muslim. Which again you seem to ignore.

You've realised your point is non existent so instead you attempt to deflect

 

[Lethality]

There is no excuse for killing...
Being racist doesn't excuse killing someone with dark skin...

Nobody said there was . . .

I'm done, you're a revisionist.

My views have remained consistent, and any fair-minded person who reads through this discussion will be able to see that. In the meantime you have flung wild accusations like that you have proven things you've only in reality asserted, that I'm a revisionist, that I am trying to muddy the waters, that I am playing the victim. I've tried to take you seriously despite all these desperate tactics.

 

[Lethality]

But now you have an issue with the analogy? Why is your response to me "don't discuss the individual, it's about the population", when you did that exact thing?

I've already explained that I was willing to use the same analogy that CM brought up for expediency.

I even related it back to the original subject matter of homosexuality vs Muslim. Which again you seem to ignore.

I've discussed that point openly throughout my discussion with CM, again there's no avoidance.

You've realised your point is non existent so instead you attempt to deflect

I'm not deflecting anything, maybe it's just that your points are so easily batted aside that makes it seem that way. Come up with better arguments, or any arguments. I'm all ears.

 

[DemonTim]

I've already explained that I was willing to use the same analogy that CM brought up for expediency.



I've discussed that point openly throughout my discussion with CM, again there's no avoidance.



I'm not deflecting anything, maybe it's just that your points are so easily batted aside that makes it seem that way. Come up with better arguments, or any arguments. I'm all ears.

Again. You told me you wouldn't respond since I was discussing the individual. It was in response to you doing so.

And the Muslims vs homosexuality in my comment was responded to with "you're taking it too literally"

The last sentence is just a waffle. If the arguments are terrible then they are easily refuted (as can be shown with every one of you posts). You've refused to do this, you have no argument and you're attempting to cover your shallow thought process