[N_Fiddledog]

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Tell that to the dead and wounded in Orlando, small problem indeed.

Very poor choice of words.

Political correctness?

[Thanos]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Thanos Thanos:

Hundreds of millions of them also openly support exactly what this bastard did and would like to see it happen more often.

That's a big number, too big a number to be believable. Maybe if we add in the likes of Bart, non-muslim bigots and religious nutbags who support exactly what this bastard did, we'd be be closer to your wickedly exaggerated figure.

The Pew surveys repeatedly say that this is the case and there's not much credible denial of their accuracy from any quarter. Even if the number out of 1.7 billion Muslims is "only" 20% active jihadists and dedicated financial/moral supporters that still upwards of 350 million adherents that see no problem with this kind of activity. Maybe it's less among the Shias than the Sunnis, who seem to be the worst assholes of the lot, and maybe more among Arabs than Pakistanis or Indonesians. That's still a massive amount of people that have dedicated themselves to an endless way against every other way of life on this planet. That we've been so damn foolish and reckless to let them into our countries when we've known for decades (if not centuries) that too many of them think and act this way reveals nothing less than a suicidal level of sheer stupidity on our part.

[N_Fiddledog]

[Lemmy]

And what if the number is only 1% or only 1/100 1%? Are we just picking numbers at random? And why would the numbers be different for one group of muslims, say the Arabs, than another? Wouldn't that indicate that "Islam" isn't the pertinent variable?

[BeaverFever]

You can't use words like "pertinent" or "variable" with these people, you need to dumb it down a little. I'm not even confident that they know what a % is.

[shockedcanadian]

In response to that posting of Sally Kohns. I listen to Sally on CNN as she is a regular contributor, her comment doesn't surprise me. People like her will find moral equivalence with hardened, ardent Christians who disagree with the gay lifestyle with a man shooting 100 people. She won't confront murder, but will take this opportunity to go after Christians. Brave. Maybe next time she can attack another religion when the terrorist attack such as that which happened in Charleston occurs in the future.

I worked with a guy who said he went to church and was against homosexuality. He had some strong opinions, but so did I in countering his argument, telling him I believed in God and had been to church. More importantly, I have read both the Old and New Testament with some vigor. My comment always went the same when speaking to him "but why do you care what someone else does?". My thinking is that, if you don't agree with their lifestyle, than don't engage in it yourself. They aren't harming you, so live and let live." Who is anyone to judge someone based on a choice they don't agree with when it is causing no one any harm?

Some want to build their careers off of political correctness and going after certain segments. Ironically, where are they where REAL abuses of sexual orientation and women issues exist? Is Sally going to parachute into Saudi Arabia and give a lecture there? Of course not, because she wouldn't get out alive. She knows it. Just as climate change proponents want to sink our industries but don't have much to say to China.

Some of these people who are apparently "progressive", whatever the hell that means; just seem to me to be opportunists. Some of them even run government agencies and use it as an excuse to borrow tonnes of money and fill the pockets of their pals...

[Khar]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

$1:

Hundreds of millions of them also openly support exactly what this bastard did and would like to see it happen more often.

Hundreds of millions openly support individuals going on mass shooting sprees? I don't believe it.

Well you'd have to get into the semantics of what we mean by "openly" and how much it matters, but let's look at the stats.

Wikipedia has them. There is a lot of them and different ways to look at them but let's just isolate the one they seem most proud of.

"A 2013 Pew Research Center poll asked Muslims around the world whether attacks on civilians were justified. Globally 72% of Muslims said violence against civilians is never justified"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_at ... _terrorism

So 28% are is some way open to the idea of violence against civilians. There are 1.5 billion muslims. My math could be bad, but isn't that 420 million muslims?

Thanos Thanos:

Lemmy Lemmy:

Thanos Thanos:

Hundreds of millions of them also openly support exactly what this bastard did and would like to see it happen more often.

That's a big number, too big a number to be believable. Maybe if we add in the likes of Bart, non-muslim bigots and religious nutbags who support exactly what this bastard did, we'd be be closer to your wickedly exaggerated figure.

The Pew surveys repeatedly say that this is the case and there's not much credible denial of their accuracy from any quarter. Even if the number out of 1.7 billion Muslims is "only" 20% active jihadists and dedicated financial/moral supporters that still upwards of 350 million adherents that see no problem with this kind of activity. Maybe it's less among the Shias than the Sunnis, who seem to be the worst assholes of the lot, and maybe more among Arabs than Pakistanis or Indonesians. That's still a massive amount of people that have dedicated themselves to an endless way against every other way of life on this planet. That we've been so damn foolish and reckless to let them into our countries when we've known for decades (if not centuries) that too many of them think and act this way reveals nothing less than a suicidal level of sheer stupidity on our part.

Both of you are reading the poll wrong, and there is a credible analysis (and also a credible denial that they are all jihadis) as to why this view develops that actually isn't tied to Islam. Indeed, this poll has been conducted pretty much annually since the formation of the Geneva Convention right after the second world war, and people have had a lot of time to analyze it. Here it is, straight from Gallup:

Predominantly Muslim Societies Reject Violence at Least as Much as Other Societies

Since 9/11, voices arguing that Islam encourages violence more than other religions have grown louder - most recently in the manifesto penned by Anders Breivik before he gunned down more than 70 people in Norway. In his manifesto, Breivik argues that Islam is intrinsically violent and peaceful Muslims are simply ignoring their faith's injunctions to kill. He cites dozens of European and American pundits to support this assertion. If this popular claim were true, it would logically follow that Islam's adherents would be more likely than others to condone violence, even if most find it easier not to follow through on their beliefs, as Breivik contends.

The evidence refutes this argument. Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.

Don't worry, they say the same about that link and all religions:

No Link Between Views of Violence and Importance of Religion

In addition to those who single Islam out, some pundits, most notably the "New Atheists," have accused religion in general of encouraging violence. Though the motivations of actual terrorists are beyond the scope of this brief, the evidence regarding public support for targeting civilians challenges this notion.

An analysis of public opinion from more than 130 countries, conducted as part of the Gallup World Poll, finds that public acceptance of violence against non-combatants is not linked to religious devotion. In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, those who reject attacks on civilians are as likely as those who see them as sometimes justified to hold religion in high esteem. Though there appears to be a difference linking religiosity and sympathy for attacks on civilians among the residents of the U.S. and Canada, this difference is not statistically significant. In Europe and the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), those who reject military and individual attacks on civilians are more likely to say religion is an important part of their daily lives.

I, for example, am one of those people who said he was okay with attacks on civilians in situations such as Gaza, where they are being used as shields, and insofar as attacks against civilians are proportional (the destruction of the military assets is worth the unfortunate loss of civilian life). Here I am stating as such several years ago. How would I count in that statistic? It really does depend on the year and whether they are counting it as purely civilian casualties, etc. The awkward reality to your own source, N_Fiddledog, is that it finds that a great deal of people who are non-religious or of other religious groups are as likely, or even more likely, to agree that citizens are viable targets for attack. Like most of those people, I doubt the majority of Islam's adherents are sending money, material, and support to terrorist organizations that do do that, since it assumes that those people who could understand citizens being killed agree with any particular view.

Like Lemmy said, the presumption that all of these Muslims are okay with death in the name of fundamentalism is a big step, since it presumes they (those who are okay with attacks on civilians) are all fundamentalists, and that those who are want the violent expansion of their religion. If you count all the adherents in terrorist organizations, rebel groups, or fighting for ISIS, you are still coming in at well below 1 percent of adherents of Islam worldwide.

If you read the Pew meta-analysis, or indeed the Pew poll all that is based off of, you will notice that the exact same thing is said in their own polls. Indeed, N_Fiddledog, it even states that in the Wikipedia article you yourself posted, right above where you pulled your quote. "A gallup poll published in 2011, "suggests that one's religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one's views about targeting civilians."[25] The results of the survey suggested that "human development and governance - not piety or culture" were the strongest factors in explaining the public's view of violence toward civilians.[25]" This is from your own source, and once again, you are selectively reading Wikipedia and ignoring the actual sources Wikipedia uses.

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Just looked at this. Yes, it is a cartoon, but please note that the person speaking and the one he is speaking to are not the perpetrators of the horrible act being committed .

[Thanos]

Lemmy Lemmy:

And what if the number is only 1% or only 1/100 1%? Are we just picking numbers at random? And why would the numbers be different for one group of muslims, say the Arabs, than another? Wouldn't that indicate that "Islam" isn't the pertinent variable?

Take it up with Pew. They're the ones whose surveys have repeatedly said the same thing when they statistically analyze this phenomenon and their numbers are far from random. So what if it's "only" 1%? That's still close to two million dedicated Muslim zealots who are more than willing to die in order to take out as many of their enemies with them as they possibly can, and the ones they regard as their enemies are practically everyone on the planet. Trying to find the exact dividing line is pointless anyway. Like Milo said in that clip I posted the Muslims that wouldn't do this are irrelevant because the Muslims that would do this are significant enough in number that, even if they're a statistical minority, there's still enough of them out there to represent an existential threat to the secular personal liberties-based way of life in Western civilization.

[Lemmy]

Fascinating.

[N_Fiddledog]

In any case here's the money-shot comment from Gallup.

$1:

Gallup analysts, however, cannot determine the direction of causality from the correlation.

So later we learn Gallup has an opinion though. Good for them.

Beave wanted a number. He was given a specific statistical fact. Now he wants to whine about it, because it's not the number he wanted.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

Like Milo said in that clip I posted the Muslims that wouldn't do this are irrelevant because the Muslims that would do this are significant enough in number that, even if they're a statistical minority, there's still enough of them out there to represent an existential threat to the secular personal liberties-based way of life in Western civilization.

It's relevant because you want to apply an extreme solution to ALL Muslims. Punish the 99% for the sins of the 1% (at its more like 0.1% or even less).

[2Cdo]

And the usual suspects, aka the useful idiots, still try to deflect away from the real source of this shooting. Somehow, some way it HAS to be NRA and white Christian republicans at fault.

Fuck me, we the west deserve to be over-run by these savages with our population filled with idiots like you types.

[Thanos]

Stop that youse guys. I can play with the same tactic if you want. The next time someone does a World War Two thread I'll spice it up by saying how wrong we were to fight Germany the way we did with bombing cities because technically only 10% of Germans were members of the Nazi party and the other 90% were only guilty by association. With that kind of thinking we should have only shot at one out of ten German soldiers because the other nine apparently had nothing to do with it.