The rest of your post just repeated your earlier logically flawed arguments, with even more condescending put-downs as your frustration rises. No need to keep rehashing it, and my prior points stand.
But it’s worth noting the clever way you sneak this misleading example in. You’ve chosen an example where 1) the response does not focus on the actual number of ripe strawberries sampled, as you did here, and 2) there is obvious reason to believe that the strawberries on top would be riper than the ones hidden on bottom, an argument you’ve declined to make here.
This kind of tactic typifies the weaseling approach you’ve taken throughout this thread.
[FTR, I wouldn’t claim you can extrapolate from the several countries mentioned that the same percentage must hold true of Muslims throughout the world. But you can extrapolate that it’s likely quite a lot higher than 13%, which is - as FYL has noted - a pretty bad number as it is. So the broader point that FYL is making, about what this says about the true number worldwide is a valid one, and your resolute refusal to forthrightly confront this does not speak well of you or your position in this thread.]
:dubious: This from the poster who calls a debate opponent a “whore” and pretends it’s just a criticism of their argument. Yeah, I don’t think you’re in much of a position to cast aspersions about “condescending put-downs”.
Okay, I get it, you don’t understand the math. I will cease embarrassing you further by trying to keep explaining it to you.
I don’t have a problem with the condescending put-downs per se, but the fact that you keep using them to cover the fact that your arguments have little merit and rely on rhetorical sleights of hand.
It’s like the fact that you can repeat again and again “you don’t understand the math” and “you’re losing the argument” and the like makes it so.
My guess is that you’re looking to capitalize on people who aren’t following the argument closely. So it’s worth pointing it out for what it is.
Whew. I guess it’s a good thing that I chose my words carefully:
It’s almost as if I anticipated that someone would come in and say that I was making claims about every single Muslim in every single country everywhere always, and made sure to be specific about what the claim being made was and that it was supported by the evidence.
The Fotheringay-Phipps MO, to the extent I understand it, is to deny all reasonable inferences made by his opponents and claim all reasonable inferences in his favor. This tactic seems to apply to inferences about intended meanings of posts–as in the exchange over what Kimstu is really arguing regarding the 13% figure–as well as empirical matters. I’ve seen it played out with many different posts in these kinds of threads.
It’s a frustrating tactic, because there’s really not much to say about it. All you can say is what you in fact mean to argue. Whether a given reading is reasonable or not is too subjective to be readily debateable. Similarly, whether some particular logical induction is reasonable just isn’t really good debate material. He tends not to engage on disputed facts or on what we should value or on how to apply facts to values–all of the things that make for debate fodder between people engaging in good faith–and sticks to this kind of extension and denial of inferences in support of his (often unstated) positions.
I don’t know. As far as I am aware, none of the other national football matches this week have been disrupted in a similar manner. I am also led to believe that less than 3% of the Turkish population speaks Arabic as a mother tongue.
Since you asked what I think, I must agree with your general assessment of these fans as being horrible idiots. I’m also aware that Turks, or other Muslims, by no means have the market conrnered on obnoxious behavior.
However, the specific matter brought up (poorly) by the OP is the use of the phrase itself in a manner intended to be threatening and intimidating. It should not be surprising to you that many non-Muslims have (legitimate) concerns or suspicions about the public usage of this phrase.
So, according to this chart, the UK has a rate of fire arm deaths of .26 per 100,000 citizens. France has a rate of 3.01 (presumably, not including this weekend.) Germany is 1.24. These are all Christian-majority nations inhabited primarily by Europeans or people of European decent. The US is also a Christian-majority nation inhabited primarily by Europeans or people of European descent. Therefore, it’s entirely reasonable to assume that the US has a rate of gun deaths somewhere between .26 and 3.01, right?
Although the phrase does not have any naturally threatening sense of course there are the assholes who know it can scare westerners and will use it that way deliberately.
Beni Adam beni Adam - people are people and that includes being idiots and jerks.
I do not see it very different from the idiots who decide to put some pork in front of mosques or other types of stupid actions.
Major Nidal Hasan screamed “Allahu akbar” while gunning down his infidel comrades at Fort Hood.
The next day, the New York Times editorial page stated (seriously) “We may never know what motivated this attack.”
At the time, Mark Steyn quipped that “Allahu akbar” meant “Nothing to see here.” I’m just taking his joke a little further.
Muslim terrorists are never shy about telling us exactly why they do what they do. But well-meaning Western liberals keep pretending the terrorists don’t mean what they say.
Monty Python would have a field day with this!
Terrorist (Cleese): Die, infidel pigs! Die in the name of Allah the merciful!
Wounded liberal (Chapman): “Er, I think you meant ''Die because the unemployment rate in the banlieus is too high…”
Allah Akbar!
(here it is astonishment as such a stupid posting)
taking the assumption, a strong one, that you are not distorting them, it is easy enough to understand that the Takbir exclamation does not tell you what the motivation of the attack is.
this is plain logic since at the same time and over the years, the three plus thousands of muslim soldiers in the american forces of the time had and have not done any thing like this. So the explanation “muslim” as motivation is obviously a stupid one.
or I have to conclude that because the president Bush claimed being born again and used the word Crusade about his war of aggression against the Iraq, that he must have been motivated by his religion.
but we can know that you are a very stupid person, that enough is clear.
There is this sort of weird condescension, bordering on cultural superiority, to believe that a group of people can’t possibly articulate or even comprehend their own actions, and only we superior westerners can properly interpret why these people do the things that they do.
Should I use this example to accuse all catholics of disrespecting the fallen in WW1? Actually it’s worse than that. Remembrance sunday is also meant to respect those who fell in WW2. Clearly Catholics supported Hitler.
Or, you know, drunken football fans can be pricks. Perhaps we should demand all football fans apologise on their behalf?