"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

We Don't Want to Hear It

After 9/11, everyone was up in arms about the vicious attack on America that killed 3,000 people. At the time, America's abortion clinics killed 3,000 children every 48 hours. Democrats, then and now, routinely ignore the violence of abortion. The MSM refused to point out that abortionists were as violent every day as Muslim terrorists. No one wanted to hear that second fact. It didn't fit the popular meme.

When a white cop shot a black perpetrator in Ferguson, the cities rioted. Despite the outrage, we know that, in this country, most blacks are actually killed by other blacks. In fact, 6% of the population (black men between the ages of 16 and 30) commit 50% of the murders in the United States. The victims of these violent young black men are almost always other young black men between the ages of 16 and 30. Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the black community. No one wants to hear that second fact. It doesn't fit the popular meme.

95% of black voters are Democrats, which means half of America's murders are committed by Democrats. No one wants to hear that. It doesn't fit the popular meme.

Islam is, according to Democrats, a religion of peace. 95% of the world's conflicts involve Muslim combatants on one or both sides. In 2015 alone, 450 of the year's 452 suicide terrorist attacks were carried out by Muslims. Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the Muslim community. No one wants to hear those facts. It doesn't fit the popular meme.

Homosexuals have higher rates of addiction in every category of addiction you can name, including interpersonal violence. The homosexual community is very violent: they beat each other up. A lot. In fact, much of Islam's violence can arguably be traced back to Islam's essentially homosexual orientation. As with the blacks and Muslims, Democrats routinely ignore the violence within the homosexual community. No one wants to hear this. The facts don't fit the popular memes.

Homosexuals make up 1-2% of the American population. 69% of America's mass murderers have been homosexual. Everyone routinely ignores this. No one wants to hear this. The facts don't fit the popular memes

Omar Mateen was a registered Democrat, and a Muslim. He was also a regular at the homosexual bar, Pulse. Omar had an active profile on a homosexual dating app. In fact, reliable reports indicate he was homosexualHis ex-wife agrees that he was. The mass murder he committed, ending in suicide-by-cop, matches everything we know about how Democrats, Muslims and homosexuals act.

Today, people are blaming Christians and guns for the mass murder committed by a homosexual Muslim. Many will focus on the fact that he was a Muslim. They will claim he was inspired by ISIS. No one will mention that he was just one more in a long line of homosexual mass murderers.

No one wants to hear this.

The facts don't fit the popular memes.


14 comments:

Tom Van Dyke said...

"Hate facts."

http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2013/07/how_hate_facts_kill_scientific/

Reality-based community my ass.

Jonathan Rowe said...

The problem is we aren't getting "the facts" here. 3.4% of the population identifies as LGBT. It's true slightly less than 2% identify as "gay" without the other qualifications.

But that's not the group of people who necessarily commits these crimes. And it certainly isn't the terrorist in question who was married to two women.

The terrorist in question identified as heterosexual. (That's the box he would end up in in these surveys). (BTW, Jerry Sandusky, Dennis Hastert, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig all identify in the "straight, heterosexually married male" box.)

If practice is the benchmark that defines homosexuality, recent surveys show that upwards of 8%-9% admit to having some kind of homosexual practice (these are the same surveys that show that 3.4% identify as LGBT with slightly less than 2% who identify as gay with no qualifier). (Check out the Williams' Institute data.)

Likewise if we using "feelings" as a benchmark (as in have you ever experienced any kind of same sex attraction) the numbers break the double digits.

It's also a mistake to lump in serial killing with terrorism; though admittedly both are outliers when it comes to how murder is committed.

It's also a mistake to associate violence committed in domestic relationships with violence committed against strangers. If the rates of violence are higher it might be because the vast majority of fist fights occur between people of the same gender.

Show me any kind of data demonstrating higher rates of violent crime or lawlessness in the gay community. You don't see it. Rather, you see higher rates of education and income which are inversely correlated with rates of lawlessness. Gayborhoods tend to be gentrified and not look like Detroit.

Associating Islam with homosexuality and both of them with mass murder is beyond absurd.

Steve Kellmeyer said...

Mr. Rowe,

The exact percentages for the homosexual population are, understandably, disputed. I take my figures from the thirty-one homosexual groups that filed a “friend of the court” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the Lawrence v. Texas case (2003) that legalized sodomy, “[t]he most widely accepted study of sexual practices in the United States is the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS).” The NHSLS survey shows that 0.9% of men and 0.4% of women in the US have been engaged in exclusively same sex partnerships since they turned 18. You may quibble and point out that this particular homosexual did not participate in exclusively homosexual relationships, and thus belongs in the 4.3% grouping instead of the 1% grouping. I won't argue. But saying he is not homosexual at all is simply absurd.

Pointing to his marriage to prove your point heightens the absurdity. Are you arguing that marrying a member of the opposite sex is sufficient to demonstrate that someone is not homosexual? In short, do homosexual men simply lack access to a really hot woman? Seriously? That's your position?

The terrorist in question cruised a homosexual bar, had an active profile on a homosexual app, was identified as homosexual by a friend AND was identified as homosexual by his own wife, who I have reason to believe knows more about him than either of us.

To say I am lumping serial killing with terrorism is to assume the conclusion. We have a man who killed a lot of people. He's certainly a mass murderer. As a Muslim, he believed the act of killing in the name of jihad would wipe away whatever homosexual sins he may have committed and give him immediate access to Paradise without first having to pass through hell. You might see it as terrorism, he undoubtedly saw it as an act of redemption.

The top six (excuse me, now the top seven) mass/serial murder sprees in the US have been committed by homosexuals. Disputing over whether to categorize the body bags by whether or not the murderer knew them seems pointless to me.

Just as any honest look at the homosexual lifestyle clearly demonstrates high rates of addiction in every category you care to name, so any honest look at the homosexual lifestyle clearly demonstrates high rates of violence perpetrated by homosexuals against others. Period.

As for lawlessness, I have it on my own blog, but am happy to post my research on the subject here, with links. Feel free to peruse it under the topic heading "Homosexuality: An Addictive Disorder"

Jonathan Rowe said...

I didn't say he wasn't a homosexual at all. I'm glad we agree he belongs in a "grouping" that is closer to 4% than 1%. Given he didn't identify as either gay or bisexual the box could be larger. I am glad we agree that it's disputed on how the line might properly draw.

Re serial killings, let's ignore for the moment this particular guy and look at the "non-terrorist" serial killers. There are conservative Christians who are conflicted by their homosexual orientation and they have not done this. This incident while perhaps not sui generis to radical Islam and terrorism is sui generis regarding your thesis of the connection among Islam, homosexuality and mass murder.

Serial killers are outliers, especially of the kind driven by sexual obsession (as opposed to organized thuggery. And while I don't doubt there have been homosexuals among the Crips, Bloods and ethnic mafias, I do doubt their presence is in any way over-represented there). They are the rarest of "man bites dog" scenarios. Trying to dry some kind of conclusion about Jeffrey Dahmer's homosexuality and his serial killing and homosexuality in general, would be like looking at Ted Bundy's or Son of Sam's serial killing and heterosexuality and trying to draw some kind of conclusion about heterosexuality.

"Just as any honest look at the homosexual lifestyle clearly demonstrates high rates of addiction in every category you care to name, so any honest look at the homosexual lifestyle clearly demonstrates high rates of violence perpetrated by homosexuals against others. Period."

Utterly wrong. You have no evidence that homosexuals perpetrate higher violence against others. Show me data of arrest records and convictions. Even if we add in all of the murders committed by the unicorn homosexual serial killers, that such is so rare probably wouldn't make a homosexual any likelier to commit murder. If that's wrong, prove it.

Jonathan Rowe said...

SK: "The top six (excuse me, now the top seven) mass/serial murder sprees in the US have been committed by homosexuals. Disputing over whether to categorize the body bags by whether or not the murderer knew them seems pointless to me."

JR: "Re serial killings, let's ignore for the moment this particular guy and look at the 'non-terrorist' serial killers."

If you wish to continue, let's consider the consequences lumping in terrorism with "serial killing."

We have no evidence that any of the 19 Islamic hijackers on 9/11 was homosexual. They belonged to a species of the religion that tried to eradicate it. To the extent that any was involved in sexual interests, heterosexuality (strip clubs and virgins in Heaven) that was the driver. Still for statistical purposes let's give 1 unknown homosexual to this group.

3000 deaths divided by 19 hijackers = 158 deaths per person. 18/19 of the top serial killers were heterosexual (and we are conceding the 1 for statistical reasons not because we have evidence that any was homosexual).

So no it's not true that "The top six (excuse me, now the top seven) mass/serial murder sprees in the US have been committed by homosexuals." The top six or seven serial murderers were comprised by the 19 hijackers. All Muslim males of a peculiar ideology, assumedly heterosexual.

But perhaps, given your views on abortion, this doesn't accurately capture serial killing in America. Abortion doctors are actually responsible for most of the serial killings. So we'd have to look at LGBT rates there (and Muslim rates).

And thus, contrary to what we thought about murderers and violent criminals we would find that most of them are quite well educated, medical doctors. You'd probably find Jewish people as opposed to Muslims in America are likelier to be mass killers according to this method.

Tom Van Dyke said...

The mass murder angle is rather a blind alley for multiple reasons, mostly for the small sample size and the questionable method of arguing exceptions against the rule: 99.99+% of homosexiuals are not murderers.

Indeed, Mr. Kellmeyer uses the same formal objection to minimize the Ferguson, MO affair, and rightly so--cops unjustly shooting black people is the rare exception among the 1000s of black Americans murdered every year.

Mrs. Webfoot said...

TVD:
The mass murder angle is rather a blind alley for multiple reasons, mostly for the small sample size and the questionable method of arguing exceptions against the rule: 99.99+% of homosexiuals are not murderers.>>>>

Exactly! There are things to be afraid of. My gay neighbors aren’t among them.

I do fear terrorists of all stripes, but even then there is little chance of my being caught in a terrorist attack where we live. I’m more likely to be mauled by a bear, bitten by a rabid raccoon, or gored by a deer, but not even.

Not all terrorists are the same, either. The kind the world faces at this point in time are the jihadis. They have a more or less specific way of operating.

In Latin America throughout the 80s there were other kinds of terrorists - the Sendero Luminoso in Peru and the Frente Patriótico Manuel Rodríguez (FPMR)in Chile, though their modo de operar was very different one from the other. The Sendero was Maoist and the Frente more Marxist-Leninist. The Sendero targeted all kinds of people, murdering many including churches full of worshippers. The Frente targeted power substations, the Carabineros - police - as well as supermarkets and buses owned by members of Pinochet’s family.

The story of how Guzman, - the head of the Sendero - was found is pretty interesting. A friend of ours believed that his capture was a direct answer to her prayer. Anyway, that’s another story.

Good times.

I have never heard of gay terrorist cells. That’s just weird.

Tom Van Dyke said...

I have never heard of gay terrorist cells.

heh

Steve Kellmeyer said...


"I have never heard of gay terrorist cells"

Yes, but you have heard of homosexual serial murderers, mass murderers and arsonists. Because homosexuals have unusually high representation in each of those groups. The MSM may not have told you, but one-third of the names you hear in each of those groups are homosexual, bisexual or similar sexual deviant.

Tom Van Dyke said...

Again, what is the significance of an outlier that represents .0001% of the population? For every John Wayne Gacy there are ten thousand Richard Simmonses.

And the terrorist cell argument is of statistical relevance: Ballparking it, I'd say 9/11 took more lives than all the gay serial killers of the past 10 or 20 years.

That said, it would certainly be appropriate to bring up this factoid next time anyone tries to "celebrate" gay accomplishments, especially if attributed to their homosexuality.

Jonathan Rowe said...

"Yes, but you have heard of homosexual serial murderers, mass murderers and arsonists. Because homosexuals have unusually high representation in each of those groups. The MSM may not have told you, but one-third of the names you hear in each of those groups are homosexual, bisexual or similar sexual deviant."

This isn't even true unless "similar sexual deviant" includes men who like to go to strip clubs of the heterosexual kind.

Tom knows I am not "PC" in that I accept different social groups have, for a variety of complex, interesting, and mysterious reasons, different outcomes sometimes radically so. But we should still try to get our facts straight if we are going to look at different groups and point fingers.

If there are three different groups 1. serial killers. 2. mass murderers, and 3. arsonist, and if there is a difference between 1. & 2., it's most certainly not the case that 1/3 of group 2 are homosexual or bisexual.

I would concede the apparent homosexual over-representation in group 1. (And whites, and males, and people of higher IQs are over-represented there too while noting as Tom did the outlier factor.)

But if group 2 comprises the one and done, terrorist and non-terrorist, blow ups and mass shootings, no we don't see 1/3 homosexual or bisexual. Out of all of them in recent memory -- including 9-11, Oklahoma City, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Ft. Hood, Sandy Hook, Charleston, San Bernidino -- we have only one: Orlando. And the shooter's sexual orientation is still questionable.

Mrs. Webfoot said...

Steve Kellmeyer said...

"I have never heard of gay terrorist cells"

Yes, but you have heard of homosexual serial murderers, mass murderers and arsonists. Because homosexuals have unusually high representation in each of those groups. The MSM may not have told you, but one-third of the names you hear in each of those groups are homosexual, bisexual or similar sexual deviant.>>>>

So, there are no gay terrorist cells. Not sure why Americans are so quick to downplay or even rule out the terrorist angle of this attack. It was an atentado.


At this point in time, radical Muslims are over represented in the “those most likely to commit acts of terror” category.

It seems to me you are making a category error, but I am not all that schooled in logic and its fallacies. Do we put Mateen in the “gay guys that mass murder” category - which may or may not be a real category - or in the “radical Muslims who commit acts of terror” category - which is a real category?

IMO, the allegation that Mateen was homosexual is irrelevant - or of little relevance - in this case. It was a terrorist attack. Even Obama and the NYT have said that. Now, if they will just define what kind of terrorism it was, I think we can all start to come to terms with reality.

Besides, was Mateen actually homosexual, or was he role playing in order to infiltrate the gay community? Terrorists do that sort of thing, you know.

On a side note. My parents were heterosexual alcoholics. So were my 2 grandfathers and one grandmother. So, your point about the possibility of their being a genetic component to alcoholism has kept me away from all alcohol.

Unfortunately I have not kept away from junk food. I am heterosexual, married to the same man for 36 years next month.

Alas! Even my patron saint was fat, but I don’t think he wants me to stay fat. Anyway, St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us...

Tom Van Dyke said...

Besides, was Mateen actually homosexual, or was he role playing in order to infiltrate the gay community? Terrorists do that sort of thing, you know.

Yes, and the answer could be both, that he had gay tendencies--as reported by a childhood friend--but sublimated them, and hanging out in the gay bar was casing the joint.

What we do know is that his father was an enthusiastic Taliban supporter, and that surely had something to do with all this.


Alas! Even my patron saint was fat, but I don’t think he wants me to stay fat. Anyway, St. Thomas Aquinas, pray for us...

Heh heh.

Mrs. Webfoot said...

TVD:
What we do know is that his father was an enthusiastic Taliban supporter, and that surely had something to do with all this.>>>>

He could have been a guy trying to make his daddy proud. ISIS gave him the opportunity.

He could have been a husband wanting to please his wife. ISIS gave him the opportunity.

What we know is that this was an act of terrorism. Mateen said he was doing it for ISIS. Why not just focus on that?

Now, someone explain why our government is trying to keep people from focusing on ISIS. Do you know? They seem to be pretty much everyone’s enemy, so what’s the big deal?