DescentBB

.....not the suspects one usually hears about. That whole equivalency thing, again:
http://deadstate.org/christian-group-va ... l-worship/

callmeslick wrote:.....not the suspects one usually hears about. That whole equivalency thing, again:
http://deadstate.org/christian-group-va ... l-worship/

I guess they wanted to beat the muslims to it.

At least the Christians had a excuse.

The devil made me do it?

callmeslick wrote:.....not the suspects one usually hears about. That whole equivalency thing, again:
http://deadstate.org/christian-group-va ... l-worship/

I wonder how many people this "Christian group" killed.

others have, NS. That's how moral equivalency works. Taliban destroys statues, ISIS kills, on and on, from some warped idea of religion. No difference between so-called Christians killing doctors, bombing clinics, killing gays or others in the name of 'God', nor destroying public property. Maybe, how folks react to religion is the real issue.

Slick, sounds like you are talking about leftists.

how completely irrelevant, Woody. Thanks for the contribution.

callmeslick wrote:others have, NS. That's how moral equivalency works. Taliban destroys statues, ISIS kills, on and on, from some warped idea of religion. No difference between so-called Christians killing doctors, bombing clinics, killing gays or others in the name of 'God', nor destroying public property. Maybe, how folks react to religion is the real issue.

I'd like to see the numbers of people killed by muslims vs "Christian" terrorists.

well, more people have STILL been shot by toddlers in the US than by Muslim extremists. That much I know.

callmeslick wrote:well, more people have STILL been shot by toddlers in the US than by Muslim extremists. That much I know.

yes, that counts slick...because toddlers intentionally kill people for their religion.

Nightshade wrote:yes, that counts slick...because toddlers intentionally kill people for their religion.

Sure it does. By comparing the total deaths by Christians and Muslims you are basically judging threat level based on the numbers. In this case, both are smaller than gun death by toddler in the US so those are clearly more dangerous.

vision wrote:

Nightshade wrote:yes, that counts slick...because toddlers intentionally kill people for their religion.

Sure it does. By comparing the total deaths by Christians and Muslims you are basically judging threat level based on the numbers. In this case, both are smaller than gun death by toddler in the US so those are clearly more dangerous.

...right.

This was my original thought: I'd like to see the numbers of people killed by muslims vs "Christian" terrorists.

No answers for me, eh?

vision wrote:In this case, both are smaller than gun death by toddler in the US so those are clearly more dangerous.

But if you make this argument, then you have to go into even more stupid stuff like heroin overdoses which lately has been killing more people than all forms of trauma (violence+accidents+toddlers+etc) combined.

Nightshade wrote:No answers for me, eh?

So look them up? Are you intellectually lazy? You would rather someone else do the work for you so you can sit in your safe space? Do you want numbers from the last 10 years, the last 100 years, the last 1000 years, or since the birth of Christianity? What difference does it make since nothing would change your mind?

You can start with anti-abortion murders then work your way into the motivations of Jim David Adkisson, Timothy McVeigh, and a good percentage of the KKK. Also keep in mind that 90% of terrorism in the USA since 1980 is from non-Muslims.

Krom wrote:

vision wrote:In this case, both are smaller than gun death by toddler in the US so those are clearly more dangerous.

But if you make this argument, then you have to go into even more stupid stuff like heroin overdoses which lately has been killing more people than all forms of trauma (violence+accidents+toddlers+etc) combined.

That's true and it's why I don't worry about terrorists or toddlers and spend my time trying to avoid heart disease, diabetes, pneumonia, and careless accidents.

That’s probably good for you and me, and diabetes is certainly something you should avoid…if possible, but is this a prudent policy at the national level as well? (terrorism...not toddlers)