Brit Beheads A Yank

[Seth]

Bollocks. It's an American journalist beheaded by a brit. That's always going to smash the news. What planet do you live on??

Not a brit. A bruslim...

Americans are still safe in the UK except for the parts living under Sharia law.

No they aren't. They are in greater danger in the UK than they are in Iraq, where at least they can carry weapons.

God, your trolling has dropped off lately. That was the weakest, lamest attempt that I can remember from you. Are you ok?

Just fine. I'm in Uniontown, PA tonight and I'm going to go tour Frank Lloyd Wright's Fallingwater tomorrow. It's a bucket list thing and I discovered today that I have to drive practically past it to get home, so I'm taking the day off tomorrow to see it. Sadly, they have a very restrictive photo policy. You can take photos only for "personal use," and you can exhibit them but not sell prints, nor can you use them commercially. I understand why of course, it's a privately-owned structure managed by a conservation organization that makes beaucoup bux selling images, but I've always wanted to photograph it. I guess I'll just do the tour.

[Tyrannical]

You are fucking clueless. You keep commenting on these subjects without any idea of the facts. 90% of asylum seekers to Australia are granted refugee status. That's not granted because they are just here for a holiday. Dolt.

So you've said before. Making the fundamentally stupid assumption that everybody who gets granted refugee status would have been oppressed or killed in their own country.
Are you from the planet simple ?

Round up all these Muslim "refugees" and immigrants, train them and send them back to fight for their rights.

[rainbow]

You are fucking clueless. You keep commenting on these subjects without any idea of the facts. 90% of asylum seekers to Australia are granted refugee status. That's not granted because they are just here for a holiday. Dolt.

So you've said before. Making the fundamentally stupid assumption that everybody who gets granted refugee status would have been oppressed or killed in their own country.
Are you from the planet simple ?

Round up all these Muslim "refugees" and immigrants, train them and send them back to fight for their rights.

Yes, that worked brilliantly in the CIA's Mujahideen training camps in the 80s.

Worth another try, you think?

[Seth]

You are fucking clueless. You keep commenting on these subjects without any idea of the facts. 90% of asylum seekers to Australia are granted refugee status. That's not granted because they are just here for a holiday. Dolt.

So you've said before. Making the fundamentally stupid assumption that everybody who gets granted refugee status would have been oppressed or killed in their own country.
Are you from the planet simple ?

Round up all these Muslim "refugees" and immigrants, train them and send them back to fight for their rights.

Yup. Freedom ain't free, nor can it be gifted, it must be earned with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

[Seth]

You are fucking clueless. You keep commenting on these subjects without any idea of the facts. 90% of asylum seekers to Australia are granted refugee status. That's not granted because they are just here for a holiday. Dolt.

So you've said before. Making the fundamentally stupid assumption that everybody who gets granted refugee status would have been oppressed or killed in their own country.
Are you from the planet simple ?

Round up all these Muslim "refugees" and immigrants, train them and send them back to fight for their rights.

Yes, that worked brilliantly in the CIA's Mujahideen training camps in the 80s.

Worth another try, you think?

Absolutely. Worked fine getting the Russians out of Afghanistan, we just need to stay the hell out of it and the Middle East ourselves. It was American troops on Saudi soil that made Osama our enemy. If we'd kept our noses out of their business he would have remained our ally.

[Pappa]

Bollocks. It's an American journalist beheaded by a brit. That's always going to smash the news. What planet do you live on??

Not a brit. A bruslim...

Americans are still safe in the UK except for the parts living under Sharia law.

No they aren't. They are in greater danger in the UK than they are in Iraq, where at least they can carry weapons.

Not that I can be bothered to find them, but I'm sure the statistics would prove you wrong.

[Seth]

Bollocks. It's an American journalist beheaded by a brit. That's always going to smash the news. What planet do you live on??

Not a brit. A bruslim...

Americans are still safe in the UK except for the parts living under Sharia law.

No they aren't. They are in greater danger in the UK than they are in Iraq, where at least they can carry weapons.

Not that I can be bothered to find them, but I'm sure the statistics would prove you wrong.

No, they wouldn't because "statistics" only apply to groups, whereas "danger" applies to individuals. The soldier whose head was hacked off in the UK by Islamic terrorists was less safe than a similar soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan because he was deliberately, maliciously and immorally disarmed by his own government and was therefore helpless, as was every other fuckwit standing around shooting cellphone photos, to stop the attack. In Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere near me, someone would have shot those fucks before they had the opportunity to casually hack his head off.

The very same thing could happen to YOU, tomorrow, and you'd be just as helpless and therefore in greater danger than ANY armed person on the planet.

QED.

[MrJonno]

No, they wouldn't because "statistics" only apply to groups, whereas "danger" applies to individuals.

Must be specialised branch of mathematics Seth statistics, normal ones apply to everyone

soldier whose head was hacked off in the UK by Islamic terrorists was less safe than a similar soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan because he was deliberately, maliciously and immorally disarmed by his own government and was therefore helpless, as was every other fuckwit standing around shooting cellphone photos, to stop the attack. In Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere near me, someone would have shot those fucks before they had the opportunity to casually hack his head off.

If it had been Afghanistan the terrorists would have been carrying rather large suicide bombs and there would be a very large hole where everyone used to be

My 'law abiding' neighbour scares me a lot more than any religious loonhy

[klr]

Seth ... Seth ... <sigh>

If main street Blighty was more dangerous for a British squaddie than Helmand province, then the casualty rates don't seem to bear it out somehow. Nor have I heard of that many IEDs exploding on the streets of Bradford.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...They are in greater danger in the UK than they are in Iraq, where at least they can carry weapons....

Seth wrote:
No, they wouldn't because "statistics" only apply to groups, whereas "danger" applies to individuals. The soldier whose head was hacked off in the UK by Islamic terrorists was less safe than a similar soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan because he was deliberately, maliciously and immorally disarmed by his own government and was therefore helpless, as was every other fuckwit standing around shooting cellphone photos, to stop the attack. In Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere near me, someone would have shot those fucks before they had the opportunity to casually hack his head off.

The very same thing could happen to YOU, tomorrow, and you'd be just as helpless and therefore in greater danger than ANY armed person on the planet.

Your use of "they" in the first quote implies that the risk is being assessed over the population of US citizens based in the UK, vs those based in Iraq.

Automatically, that implies that the risk is a statistical one, easily answered by bringing up appropriate figures. I doubt very much whether the proportion of yanks in the UK who have met their death by violence over, say, the last 10 years is higher than the proportion in Iraq. You clearly have absolutely no idea of statistics, or rational argument, for that matter.

All that matters is that Americans like you have an addiction to guns, and the withdrawal symptoms seem extreme...

[Seth]

No, they wouldn't because "statistics" only apply to groups, whereas "danger" applies to individuals.

Must be specialised branch of mathematics Seth statistics, normal ones apply to everyone

Yes, that's the point. Statistics reflect group-related analysis. Danger, on the other hand, is a very individual and personal thing not amenable to statistical analysis, much less statistical assignment of risk.

If, for example, there were ten million people in Britain and only one of them was decapitated by Islamic terrorists one might say that one's statistical chances of being decapitated by an Islamic terrorist are ten million to one. But just as there are lies, and damned lies, there are also bogus statistical arguments pandered by morons and idiots who don't understand the fundamental principles involved.

You see, while it may or may not be true that one's statistical chances of being decapitated by an Islamic terrorist are ten million to one, the statistical likelyhood that the particular individual who had his head cut off by Islamic terrorists would have his head cut off by Islamic terrorists is 1 to 1, or 100%.

So, while you may incorrectly think that your personal chances of being beheaded by an Islamic terrorist are small enough for you to discount that risk and go about unarmed and unprepared (and entirely unable according to you) to defend against such an act, to the person whose neck is being hacked at, your fears about his being armed to prevent that are meaningless, vacuous, worthless and beneath contempt, because his right to remain alive by possessing and using the appropriate and effective tools of self-defense far, far outweighs your paranoid fears that he might use those weapons improperly to harm you, which is far LESS likely than having your head chopped off by Islamic terrorists.

My 'law abiding' neighbour scares me a lot more than any religious loonhy

Your paranoid fears are not a rational basis upon which society can or should base it's laws and regulations. Instead, what needs to happen is that you need to be thoroughly medicated and put away in a safe place where no one can harm you, and where you cannot harm anyone else by bloviating your excruciatingly stupid victimhood rhetoric.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

...They are in greater danger in the UK than they are in Iraq, where at least they can carry weapons....

Seth wrote:
No, they wouldn't because "statistics" only apply to groups, whereas "danger" applies to individuals. The soldier whose head was hacked off in the UK by Islamic terrorists was less safe than a similar soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan because he was deliberately, maliciously and immorally disarmed by his own government and was therefore helpless, as was every other fuckwit standing around shooting cellphone photos, to stop the attack. In Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere near me, someone would have shot those fucks before they had the opportunity to casually hack his head off.

The very same thing could happen to YOU, tomorrow, and you'd be just as helpless and therefore in greater danger than ANY armed person on the planet.

Your use of "they" in the first quote implies that the risk is being assessed over the population of US citizens based in the UK, vs those based in Iraq.

Automatically, that implies that the risk is a statistical one, easily answered by bringing up appropriate figures. I doubt very much whether the proportion of yanks in the UK who have met their death by violence over, say, the last 10 years is higher than the proportion in Iraq. You clearly have absolutely no idea of statistics, or rational argument, for that matter.

All that matters is that Americans like you have an addiction to guns, and the withdrawal symptoms seem extreme...

Wrong. "They" implies a number of individual, each of whom has an absolute, unassailable, complete, unified, indivisible right to one hundred percent personal security at all times. Therefore, while it is a number of people discussed, they are not a group about which statistical arguments may be made because to do so is to discount the absolute, unassailable, complete, unified and indivisible right of each and every single one of those individuals to choose (or not choose) to plan, prepare, arm and defend against any threat to their individual personal safety.

Your attempt to statistically allocate the right of self defense and safety to some individuals but not others, or alternatively to all individuals but incompletely, based on your (or anyone's) analysis of the risks of being victimized is pernicious and disrespects the right of the individual to his complete and total security. In effect, you and all the other pundits who hold a similar position are willing for a certain number of people in any group to be victimized or killed as "acceptable losses" based on your fallacious analysis of the risks of allowing them to be armed versus the risks they face from criminals.

You don't get to assign people a statistical percentage of their rights. That's not how it works. "You get 75% of your free speech rights" is not a valid argument.

[Seth]

Seth ... Seth ... <sigh>

If main street Blighty was more dangerous for a British squaddie than Helmand province, then the casualty rates don't seem to bear it out somehow. Nor have I heard of that many IEDs exploding on the streets of Bradford.

And yet Islamic terrorists whacked the head off a British soldier in broad daylight on an urban street in the view of dozens of people, all of which did nothing whatever to stop them, and then they stood around and bragged about it to the selfsame fuckwitted cowards who stood there and filmed them talking when they should have been collectively beating them to death and chopping of their heads.

So, that one "squaddie" lost absolutely everything, and the most important thing any person has, his life, precisely because his government didn't trust him to go about armed for self-defense, despite having trained him for that express purpose.

Stupidity piled on idiocy piled on ignorance.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

...They are in greater danger in the UK than they are in Iraq, where at least they can carry weapons....

Seth wrote:
No, they wouldn't because "statistics" only apply to groups, whereas "danger" applies to individuals. The soldier whose head was hacked off in the UK by Islamic terrorists was less safe than a similar soldier in Iraq or Afghanistan because he was deliberately, maliciously and immorally disarmed by his own government and was therefore helpless, as was every other fuckwit standing around shooting cellphone photos, to stop the attack. In Iraq or Afghanistan, or anywhere near me, someone would have shot those fucks before they had the opportunity to casually hack his head off.

The very same thing could happen to YOU, tomorrow, and you'd be just as helpless and therefore in greater danger than ANY armed person on the planet.

Your use of "they" in the first quote implies that the risk is being assessed over the population of US citizens based in the UK, vs those based in Iraq.

Automatically, that implies that the risk is a statistical one, easily answered by bringing up appropriate figures. I doubt very much whether the proportion of yanks in the UK who have met their death by violence over, say, the last 10 years is higher than the proportion in Iraq. You clearly have absolutely no idea of statistics, or rational argument, for that matter.

All that matters is that Americans like you have an addiction to guns, and the withdrawal symptoms seem extreme...

Wrong. "They" implies a number of individual, each of whom has an absolute, unassailable, complete, unified, indivisible right to one hundred percent personal security at all times. Therefore, while it is a number of people discussed, they are not a group about which statistical arguments may be made because to do so is to discount the absolute, unassailable, complete, unified and indivisible right of each and every single one of those individuals to choose (or not choose) to plan, prepare, arm and defend against any threat to their individual personal safety.

Your attempt to statistically allocate the right of self defense and safety to some individuals but not others, or alternatively to all individuals but incompletely, based on your (or anyone's) analysis of the risks of being victimized is pernicious and disrespects the right of the individual to his complete and total security. In effect, you and all the other pundits who hold a similar position are willing for a certain number of people in any group to be victimized or killed as "acceptable losses" based on your fallacious analysis of the risks of allowing them to be armed versus the risks they face from criminals.

You don't get to assign people a statistical percentage of their rights. That's not how it works. "You get 75% of your free speech rights" is not a valid argument.

My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with the ethics of being armed or not, simply your idiotic assessment of relative risk, which is clearly incorrect. Nothing to do with "rights" at all, just objective measures of risk. You can then go on an argue for the right of people to be armed, irrespective of whatever the true level of risk is in a given situation or country.

And I'll ignore it...

[Seth]

My argument had nothing whatsoever to do with the ethics of being armed or not, simply your idiotic assessment of relative risk, which is clearly incorrect. Nothing to do with "rights" at all, just objective measures of risk. You can then go on an argue for the right of people to be armed, irrespective of whatever the true level of risk is in a given situation or country.

And I'll ignore it...

Except what you are suggesting is not an objective measure of risk to the individual, which is the point I'm trying to make. The statistical argument against allowing people to be armed in self defense is a subjective, not objective conclusion because there is no actual credible evidence supporting the disarmament theory that contravenes the ample evidence from the US of the benefits of an armed citizenry. In the US, in places where people are disarmed by law, violent crime is higher than in places where people may be lawfully armed, and the same is true when comparing the UK and the US. And then there's the matter of the delta of the violent crime rate in the US, which continues to go down and down despite a larger and larger number of people being armed, whereas in the UK the violent crime rate is higher.

This disproves absolutely the thesis that more guns = more crime.

There are plenty of confounding factors in the analysis but the essential conclusion is inescapable based on the actual data available.

More guns, less crime.

The reason that a statistical risk analysis is worthless is because all any such analysis can even possibly do is to suggest society-wide or overall abstract and non-individualized risks of victimization. Such an argument is invalid because it fails to take into account the fact that the right of an individual to be safe is complete and absolute in each individual, and the statistics on how likely or unlikely it is that a particular individual will be victimized are utterly irrelevant and indeed a distraction when it comes to individuals who are victimized and the social policies that either protect or fail to protect them (or more correctly allow them to protect themselves) against victimization, because, as I said previously, the statistical risk that the victim of criminal violence will be violently criminally victimized is 100 percent every single time.

And the ethical question is most certainly important and comes into play where decisions on public policy are based on statistical analysis of the likelihood of criminal victimization in the abstract, because criminal victimization is anything but abstract, it's concrete and real to those who are victimized because they have been deliberately disarmed by their government on the theory that their risk of being victimized is judged to be low enough to be an acceptable risk to society as a whole. The upshot of this fallacious reasoning disrespects the absolute right of the individual not to be classified as an "acceptable loss" in the interests of statistical myopia.

How would you feel if your government were honest and told your family that yes, your daughter was raped and murdered, but from the public policy perspective better than than allow you to carry the defensive tool you could have protected her with?

"Sorry, mate, she's a casualty of society, get over it."