07-16-2020, 08:52 AM
(07-16-2020, 01:36 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hardly an unbiased source.
I find the biggest flaw in your position is citing murder as the determinant factor in a ideology's level of violence. While murder is certainly the most extreme form of violence does the fact that a certain ideology produce more murders (a minuscule amount of the total murders per year) automatically make then more violent? For instance, if far right group A commits 5 murders per year (yes, completely unacceptable) but this is the extent of their violent activity, are they more violent than far left group B, that committed zero murders that year but committed 500 assaults with a deadly weapon? My point obviously being that using murder as the sole determinant of a ideology's propensity towards violence is an utterly flawed metric.
When I attack someons use of statistics I try to post statistics of my own to refute their claims.
In other words, until I see some other stats I am going to say that murder is a great way to define the level of violence of a group. It is the most extreme act of violence. I don't thiunk it is a stretch to assume that a group that murders a lot more also assaults a lot more.
I have seen video of the SkinHammers and R.A.M. training to fight. They are very much into hand-to-hand combat. They are not just snipers who never assault anyone but just kill a small number of people. They show up to these protests with their hands taped like boxers and carrying clubs.
