Re: orlando shooting
i'm running late for work so i can only reply to a few things.
this is a very, very naive view of the middle east. i would bet money that there wouldn't be an isis without the war in iraq, which was waged because of false information given to the united states due to torture being a terrible method of gathering information.
but the point is that saying "it's the religion" is very, very simplistic. the acts of terror in general have less to do with religion and more to do with politics and history. the acts of terror against LGBT people have only to do with religion, which is why i was focusing on them and comparing them to hate crimes across the world.
again, the majority of the deaths that you were using to claim that islam is responsible for the bulk of terror were muslims killing muslims in iraq, afghanistan and syria. it's much more an issue of tribalism than religion. just like the IRA in Ireland. The IRA was catholic and the loyalists were protestant, but it wasnt radical catholicism that drove the IRA.
not really? if you are in south america, islam is not really a threat. christianity is a huge threat if you are LGBT. there were something like 160 countries completely unaffected by terrorism last year. i'm sure most of them had hate crimes driven by religion, whether it was christianity or islam. because that shit affects everyone.
strange how this doesnt apply to terrorism. i guess i can safely say in response "just because islam may be a bigger problem for people in certain countries (middle east) it doesnt mean that it's a bigger problem for people elsewhere."
it's not, i'm good at statistics. which is why it's hilarious that you're willing to bias the data so much when it comes to terrorism RE: the middle east.
i'm running late for work so i can only reply to a few things.
This is incorrect. If you meant just more harmful to LGBT people, then you're still incorrect. The data you've provided is heavily flawed and doesn't clearly demonstrate that Christianity is the driving factor. If you meant more harmful overall, then you would be absolutely ludicrous. I could safely say that Jihadists will kill 8000-10,000+ people this year based on the terrorist statistics and this is clearly religiously motivated.
but the point is that saying "it's the religion" is very, very simplistic. the acts of terror in general have less to do with religion and more to do with politics and history. the acts of terror against LGBT people have only to do with religion, which is why i was focusing on them and comparing them to hate crimes across the world.
again, the majority of the deaths that you were using to claim that islam is responsible for the bulk of terror were muslims killing muslims in iraq, afghanistan and syria. it's much more an issue of tribalism than religion. just like the IRA in Ireland. The IRA was catholic and the loyalists were protestant, but it wasnt radical catholicism that drove the IRA.
It is far more of a threat than anything else as far as religion is concerned. The person was obviously making a generalization. Islam is generally more of a threat, and it's generally more dangerous.
Just because Christianity may be a bigger problem for people in certain countries doesn't discount this statement.
For example, Men are taller than women? You can agree with that statement right? Or will you respond by saying, "well, my sister is taller than me. She's 6'1!" We're talking about means and distribution curves. The danger presented by Islam if could be measured on a distribution curve has a different mean and distribution curve than Christianity even if the curves may intersect to some extent. Men and women have different means and distribution curves when we're talking about height even if some women are very tall, such as WNBA players. Why is this so hard to grasp?









Comment