Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

intensely delusional apologia

I love this diagnosis

the number of sources that convey his connection to both islam and islamic culture up to the day of the shooting are immense. I don't know where you're getting this from, but this is a hugely dishonest thing to say, especially given what is already known about british muslims and homophobia and the beliefs mateen's father imparted on him, including mateen's comments post-shooting

Hopefully you are able to understand that there is a difference between "a religion teaches homophobia" and "a person who follows this religion is necessarily homophobic" and "a person who follows this religion is going to murder people"

I'm willing to accept a correlation between the first two. But bringing in -murder- is a different issue altogether.

And before you bring up ISIS, that there is a difference between terrorists and people practicing a religion

Where I am getting this from is actual data about American mass shootings



Sorry this image is from the same source --- they compiled the data into a picture

This is just from 2015, but you can find statistics from even further back.

Currently Muslims make up 1% of the US population.

this is an enormous simplification when many "mass shootings" of this same type in 3rd world countries have nothing in common except religious ideology

I thought we were talking about American shootings

and yeah P.S. there's a difference between the Middle East and America not just in religious denomination, but the intensity of the teachings, the fact that the governments often enforce those teachings, and a whole slew of things.

surprise, I actually despise religious idealogy like that. I find homophobia detestable, and the fact that Eastern gvts. enforce the death sentence is one of the biggest procedural travesties committed in modern society.


The issue I have with this is that there is a difference between hating a religion and hating people who celebrate that religion and assuming they are out to get you.

Literally in the first minute he makes the "argument" "hey yeah Muslims want to kill all of the other minorities."

No, not really. In the East, sure. But this is not the East, and to assume that "they think homophobia is punishable by death over there, so they coming over here are going to take matters into their own hands" is a different case altogether.

I won't disagree with you on the "idealistic dysmorphia" part, but again, this man was able to legally buy a gun

> Do I believe in concealed carry?

it wouldn't matter if you "believed" in it

then what was the point of posting this speech if you didn't care about convincing people about concealed carry.

instead of "fuck milo", fuck you for acting like it is not a thing unique to religious doctrine that I could be put to death in 10 or so countries which all happen to be heavily influenced by islamic doctrine

I say "fuck Milo" because this isn't the first time he's said something I disagree with, I generally find him an arrogant, hateful shitlord

think long and hard about whether you're going to reply again after admitting you haven't even watched the whole fucking thing, given that the latter half of the video gives pertinent statistical information

the likelihood of you saying anything valuable after this without even knowing the subject matter you're addressing is nonexistent

if you aren't even going to use baseline levels of competence to make a reply, just don't. no one needs to hear what you have to say. they're probably even better off for not hearing it.

oops

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

1. doesn't matter what you believe, you can "believe" astrology is a sound field of study but that will change nothing

It's completely hypocritical to say that what people believe doesn't matter because

hey

the world is lawless and "what we believe" is what forms our government and social change

[Arch0wl]

no one thinks "a person who follows this religion is going to murder people"; clearly when I say "50% of british muslims think homosexuality should be illegal" this is also saying that 50% do not think this. however the intensity of homophobia in a given religion is a probabilistic statement about the likelihood of one person acting on these religious doctrines. no causal claim is necessarily true unless you're just describing a physical mechanism and even then, why you'd even think someone believed in necessary causation I have no idea.

anyway, when I say it "does not matter" i am very obviously saying that your belief does not change the truth of a statement.

lots of people implicitly believe that their belief somehow adds to the truth of a position.

and I am saying that no matter what you say you believe, this will make none of our positions more true or less true.

most of what you've wrote is redundant, and not worth addressing since I've already replied to it and you only thought it was worthwhile due to an incomplete understanding of what I wrote in reply. were I to reply to all of your most recent post I'd just be repeating myself.

Originally Posted by yo man im awesome

Have you ever had people, to your face, claim that you're living a lie and that your very existence is a sin?

some crucial family still do not know I am bisexual

so, yeah

this is a gross ignorance of the intensity of homophobia vs. nominal inclusion in the category "homophobia"

pastor billy or whatever might loudly proclaim how I'm going to hell but he isn't going to say I should be put in jail

50% of british muslims, however, do think this

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

so where did you get the impression this was ever about "mass shooters" as a category, because

"There's certainly some aspects of these people that appear to be universal" -- not talking about mass shooters.

mass shooters in the United States, absent religious motive, are their own category of personality. this has a lot more in common with acts of religious terrorism than it does with sandy hook or anything else.

This is about mass shooters because

1) this is a response to a mass shooting, and
2) the proposed change is a response to a mass shooting

[DaBackpack]

I'll agree that several of the core teachings of Islam are despicable but it's a stretch to say that "we should be afraid of Muslims" and especially that "they are the biggest threat to our safety as Americans"

[yo man im awesome]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

this is a gross ignorance of the intensity of homophobia vs. nominal inclusion in the category "homophobia"

What

I specifically used the phrase "to your face" because this has happened, to my face. Where is the ignorance when it literally happened to me? Unless I'm misreading something and this is not what you are referring to.

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

This is about mass shooters because

1) this is a response to a mass shooting, and
2) the proposed change is a response to a mass shooting

If you want to make this about homophobia, then I think most rational ppl would agree with you that religious homophobia is problematic

[Rojaf]

yeah conceal carry is not a bad idea. but neither is closing gun show loopholes and expanding background check denials to terrorist watch lists.

i have no problem with guns in the hands of responsible adults, i do have a problem with guns in the hands of suspected terrorists.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Rojaf

yeah conceal carry is not a bad idea. but neither is closing gun show loopholes and expanding background check denials to terrorist watch lists.

terrorist watch list idea is only good if it involves the FBI discretion category I mentioned earlier

otherwise, way too broad since even US senators have been included on the list

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by yo man im awesome

What

I specifically used the phrase "to your face" because this has happened, to my face. Where is the ignorance when it literally happened to me? Unless I'm misreading something and this is not what you are referring to.

was referring to broader context of the quote it originated from, and why you were bringing it up in the first place

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

no one thinks "a person who follows this religion is going to murder people"; clearly when I say "50% of british muslims think homosexuality should be illegal" this is also saying that 50% do not think this. however the intensity of homophobia in a given religion is a probabilistic statement about the likelihood of one person acting on these religious doctrines. no causal claim is necessarily true unless you're just describing a physical mechanism and even then, why you'd even think someone believed in necessary causation I have no idea.

anyway, when I say it "does not matter" i am very obviously saying that your belief does not change the truth of a statement.

I'm literally addressing Milo's rhetoric in the video

"your belief does not change the truth of a statement"

Yeah when we're talking about fucking physics or statistics

if you are asserting that "concealed carry is the solution" is A FACT, then yeah beliefs matter because you are positing an opinion

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

I'll agree that several of the core teachings of Islam are despicable but it's a stretch to say that "we should be afraid of Muslims" and especially that "they are the biggest threat to our safety as Americans"

it is a stretch, that's why I didn't say anything that stupid

car crashes, heart disease, and cancer are the biggest threat to our safety as americans. I'd say maybe feminism too but I already listed 'cancer'

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

it is a stretch, that's why I didn't say anything that stupid

car crashes, heart disease, and cancer are the biggest threat to our safety as americans. I'd say maybe feminism too but I already listed 'cancer'

Milo literally said that

and oohhhh boy he brought up feminism

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

Milo literally said that

and oohhhh boy he brought up feminism

*with respect to violence

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

"your belief does not change the truth of a statement"

Yeah when we're talking about fucking physics or statistics

if you are asserting that "concealed carry is the solution" is A FACT, then yeah beliefs matter because you are positing an opinion

unspeakably stupid

statistics will be the methodology to determine what solutions are best for social problems

to say "this applies with statistics but not when you look at the available solutions to a social issue, which will be analyzed using behavioral data / statistics" is ignorant of the very words you're using

'opinion' and 'fact' are false dichotomies, all inductive judgments are 'opinions' ranging from "adderall is effective for treating ADHD" to "concealed carry is an effective solution for shooters". the only 'facts' that exist are analytic statements in CS, math, logic and so on.

all behavioral claims are probabilistic, and I am saying your position does not have evidential ground to stand on.

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by Frank Munoz

"if you aren't even going to use baseline levels of competence to make a reply, just don't. no one needs to hear what you have to say. they're probably even better off for not hearing it."

I would suggest submitting this type of thread into the "critical thinking" category if this is something you did not want.

distinction between critical thinking and chit chat is a total farce made by 17 year old mods who needed the category to mitigate conflict between 15 year olds in pre-AP classes

as educated adults, there isn't any real difference

further, I am not asking people to think 'critically'. I am asking people to think period. critically would imply the replies so far evidence some baseline amount of thought and I'm still looking for that.

[yo man im awesome]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

distinction between critical thinking and chit chat is a total farce made by 17 year old mods who needed the category to mitigate conflict between 15 year olds in pre-AP classes

as educated adults, there isn't any real difference

further, I am not asking people to think 'critically'. I am asking people to think period. critically would imply the replies so far evidence some baseline amount of thought and I'm still looking for that.

Hey I'm a fan of putting myself on a pedestal and using strawman arguments too

[yo man im awesome]

Maybe everyone isn't quite as proficient as arguing as you, but that doesn't invalidate their opinions, jesus christ

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

unspeakably stupid

statistics will be the methodology to determine what solutions are best for social problems

to say "this applies with statistics but not when you look at the available solutions to a social issue, which will be analyzed using behavioral data / statistics" is ignorant of the very words you're using

'opinion' and 'fact' are false dichotomies, all inductive judgments are 'opinions' ranging from "adderall is effective for treating ADHD" to "concealed carry is an effective solution for shooters". the only 'facts' that exist are analytic statements in CS, math, logic and so on.

all behavioral claims are probabilistic, and I am saying your position does not have evidential ground to stand on.

Obviously, but I am halfway challenging the notion that the statistics you supply are
a) relevant
b) correct

EDIT: with respect to the gun control debate.

Statistics are just numbers that you get from input, you can spin them however the fuck you want, and even if you account for "reasonable factors", there is always a chance you are leaving variables out, or ignoring ANOTHER prescription with other data

When I say "statistics are fact" I mean that they are computations, [b]not that they prescribe a solution to a problem"

I mean ffs just look at macroeconomics. Literally a bunch of statistical methods that people posit are true because of "relevant computations" but in reality don't have strong predictive power.

To say that statistics in the social sciences produces an answer, which, if I have reservations with, "my opinion doesn't matter" is so goddamn wrong

Providing statistical analysis by its very nature requires selection of variables and omission of others. The complete analysis of this fact is required in order to make strong assertions about predictive power.

Statistical analysis means to provide a model of the world which we cannot capture completely. You aren't spitting numbers into a machine which says "concealed carry is correct". Conclusions from information are performed by human beings, which can be challenged.

As I said, I'm not totally opposed to accepting concealed carry, but it's completely bullshit to say that "it is wrong" to disagree with EDIT: a conclusion derived from statistics

[Dynam0]

Finally an Arch Ego-boosting thread that appears to be working! Congrats