• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Planned Parenthood Attack

Only that's probably not even close to true. In just two instances of the plague (14th century, plague of Justinian), around 100 million people died.

I'll still take religion

A large majority of the murder committed for a millennia was based on who's God was right.
 
Apparently THIS video is not to be believed. Dems have a very complicated relationship with Youtube videos.
Were Democratic politicians featured in the video? I didn't spot any familiar faces. I did, however, watch Carly et al. push extremely divisive and patently false message against PP across different media for weeks
 
Do you plan on attempting to quantify deaths by religion or are we sticking to the realm of probably?

Ha, no. Don't really have time for that. Is this your new posting m.o., every time someone makes an argument, just ask for a detailed, rigorous, academic analysis, complete with panel data and time-series analysis and all the accompanying #advancedstats? And then when they don't produce you take that as proof of the negative? Not only is that obnoxious, but it is also logically flawed.

So, yeah, I'm sticking to the realm of probably. Prima facie, Brasky's statement seems absurd. Do I have incontrovertible evidence that the plague has killed more people than religion? No, but it seems pretty likely to me. It certainly is not as clear cut as Brasky would claim. If you want to compile all the data and prove me wrong, I would love to give it a look. But I'm certainly not going to go through all the effort to do that, given that this is an argument on an internet message board.
 
If you're scoring at home, this thread went from:
1. This one is on Republicans.
2. Link please?
3. *shit*
4. That link doesn't mean what human eyes and ears tell us it means.
5. Well, no Democrat politician was quoted (an interesting distinction not drawn in point #1 I see).

Just. Take. The. L.
 
No, but saying that there is a causal relationship where there is none, without any data to support your claim, is a shittier MO, IMO.

I listened to firebrand pubs push an agenda against PP with a doctored video and, then, a post-hoc fabricated video, in a manner that served to foment partisan anger against PP for months before this incident. Maybe drawing a link between inciting speech and action is tenuous at best (eg, the problem of proving intention), but the facts and increased incidents of violence/threats against PP present a compelling case to the contrary.

Regardless, the march video is a piss poor comparison at best.
 
And Brasky's point is that a fuckton of people and populations have died because of religion. I'm not sure how BUT WHAT ABOUT DISEASE??! challenges his basic point.
 
Okay, so it was armchair statistical analysis. Just wanted to clarify.

Nope, wrong again. There is no statistics involved at all. This is more of a common sense thing. Let me explain:

Situation A:

A group of people, in protest of the occupation of the West Bank, calls for the death of IDF troops.

One week later, a man walks up to the Rafah checkpoint and guns down four Israeli soldiers.

Situation B:

An activist group makes claims that a company has, through negligence, caused hundreds of deaths in a small town. The story gets widespread media coverage, but later it comes out that some of the claims were exaggerated/fabricated.

A month later, a man walks into the offices of the company and guns down four employees.

Simply looking at both situations (not performing any statistical analysis, because as I'm sure you know, it is impossible in these situations for reasons of both ethics and mathematical rigor) which group would you say did more to incite the actions of the murderers? I would claim, as I did in my previous post, that neither connection is particularly strong. But certainly it is stronger in the first instance, as the group in question actually called for the end result which occurred, which, in the second situation did not occur. Nothing about this argument involves quantitative analysis. It is more a question of applied ethics. I hope that helps to clarify!
 
If you're scoring at home, this thread went from:
1. This one is on Republicans.
2. Link please?
3. *shit*
4. That link doesn't mean what human eyes and ears tell us it means.
5. Well, no Democrat politician was quoted (an interesting distinction not drawn in point #1 I see).

Just. Take. The. L.
Your micro-old comprehension of board memes endearing. I missed you, jhmd. <3
 
And Brasky's point is that a fuckton of people and populations have died because of religion. I'm not sure how BUT WHAT ABOUT DISEASE??! challenges his basic point.

It doesn't. I wasn't challenging his basic point, I was just challenging what he was saying, which seemed pretty ridiculous.
 
No, but saying that there is a causal relationship where there is none, without any data to support your claim, is a shittier MO, IMO.

I listened to firebrand pubs push an agenda against PP with a doctored video and, then, a post-hoc fabricated video, in a manner that served to foment partisan anger against PP for months before this incident. Maybe drawing a link between inciting speech and action is tenuous at best (eg, the problem of proving intention), but the facts and increased incidents of violence/threats against PP present a compelling case to the contrary.

Regardless, the march video is a piss poor comparison at best.

Once again, you are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I don't really think there is much of a causal connection in either case, but if there was, it is certainly stronger in the case of the cops. No one was marching in the streets calling for Planned Parenthood employees to be murdered. People were, on the other hand, calling for cops to be murdered. If you think the debate over Planned Parenthood is responsible for increased violence against Planned Parenthood, but the recent spate of protests against law enforcement doesn't have any relationship to increased violence against law enforcement, then I really don't know what to tell you. You can believe both, or neither, but not really one and not the other. And no, the video is not a piss poor comparison. As I said, it is actually a stronger example. The people in the video were actually calling for what the cop-killer did. Carly Fiorina never called for Planned Parenthood employees to be murdered.
 
Only that's probably not even close to true. In just two instances of the plague (14th century, plague of Justinian), around 100 million people died.

Thanks Obama.
 
I'll still take religion

A large majority of the murder committed for a millennia was based on who's God was right.

Yeah, and a lot of murder throughout history has been based on who is banging who. People do dumb shit for dumb reasons. Doesn't make religion inherently immoral.
 
Yeah, and a lot of murder throughout history has been based on who is banging who. People do dumb shit for dumb reasons. Doesn't make religion inherently immoral.
Agree with this sentiment.
 
As long as their deaths allow one to blame the opposition political party, then none of these officers have died in vain.

#bluelivesmatter
 
Nope, wrong again. There is no statistics involved at all. This is more of a common sense thing. Let me explain:

Situation A:

A group of people, in protest of the occupation of the West Bank, calls for the death of IDF troops.

One week later, a man walks up to the Rafah checkpoint and guns down four Israeli soldiers.

Situation B:

An activist group makes claims that a company has, through negligence, caused hundreds of deaths in a small town. The story gets widespread media coverage, but later it comes out that some of the claims were exaggerated/fabricated.

A month later, a man walks into the offices of the company and guns down four employees.

Simply looking at both situations (not performing any statistical analysis, because as I'm sure you know, it is impossible in these situations for reasons of both ethics and mathematical rigor) which group would you say did more to incite the actions of the murderers? I would claim, as I did in my previous post, that neither connection is particularly strong. But certainly it is stronger in the first instance, as the group in question actually called for the end result which occurred, which, in the second situation did not occur. Nothing about this argument involves quantitative analysis. It is more a question of applied ethics. I hope that helps to clarify!

This doesn't follow logically. It would depend on the probability of a particular result before the allegedly inciting statements.

For example:

The likelihood of IDF troops being targeted in the West Bank is relatively high regardless of what protestors are saying.

On the other hand, the likelihood of someone targeting a company in a small town without fabricated media coverage accusing the company of wrongdoing is relatively low.
 
I found the video of Democrats marching in the street demanding that cops be killed to, ahem, speak for itself. Six days later they got what they wanted. Apparently being murdered by a Democrat in cold blood to make a political point is...a part of their job (according to you)? Please just stop and take the L, champ.

How do you know those were Democrats marching? Because they are black?

You can talk all you want about so-called "democrats" but you don't see major Democratic figures distorting information about police. Unlike major Republican figures and Planned Parenthood.

Carly Fiorina on a national debate stage has way more of an impact than some protestors, who may or may not be Democrats, in the streets. And even if they are Democrats, some self-identified Democrats in the street don't speak for the Democratic Party - so you can't put what they want on the party. Republican presidential candidates do speak for the party

But keep on dodging the issues
 
Last edited:
What Democratic politician said that they wanted dead cops? Or even came close to that level of hateful rhetoric?


What are you even talking about?

Apparently THIS video is not to be believed. Dems have a very complicated relationship with Youtube videos.

In what world is that a response to my questions?


Are you high? Because you aren't making any god damn sense.
 
Back
Top