Protecting Islam, alligators, and sharks

    At the writing of this article, a Muslim man had recently killed about 50 people in an Orlando nightlub. Shortly after, an alligator killed a two-year-old boy.

    The (usually liberal) numbnuts have very predictable-and similar- reactions to both of these facts. As for alligators, they refer to such things as this Washington Post article about how alligators and sharks do not kill as many people as cows or dogs. As for the Muslim terror attack, they say things like the following:

We agree. And so do most Americans. Indeed – as we’ve previously documented – you’re more likely to die from brain-eating parasites, alcoholism, obesity, medical errors, risky sexual behavior or just about anything other than terrorism.

     They like to release pie charts about the percentage of terrorism committed by different groups, such as the following from a Princeton study:

 

They were upset right-wing extremists were not named in the graph, and

that the Latinos were bunched together. Certainly there are more right-

wing terrorists, they reason! 

   

         Of course, the obvious answer is that people have far more contact with dogs, cows, leftists, and Latinos than they do with Islamicists and alligators. But if there were as many Muslims or alligators as there are bees or whites in America, we would be looking at a different problem. We would be looking at a hostile jungle, or a country whose social situation resembles the social situation of your average Middle Eastern country. Furthermore, when one is dealing with alligators, one should be a little more careful than with dogs.

    I think that these liberals are smart enough to understand this. I think that what they are saying is that they cannot imagine such a world in which there we are overwhelmed with sharks or Muslims, so it is irrational to worry about Muslims.

    In the case of sharks, it is true that we will not be overwhelmed with them in our daily lives. But in the case of Muslims, it is entirely conceivable that certain people in certain towns or countries could get overwhelmed by Muslims. Liberals who cannot understand this need to be kindly escorted out of the helicopter. Liberals who understand this, but still insists that Muslims are no threat because of dogs and cows and Latino terrorists being worse need to be tortured and then chucked out of the helicopter.

========================================================================

    Another important question is "why do these liberals avoid admitting that one animal is more dangerous than another, and that one race is more dangerous than another?" I think there is this massive emotional, psychological block they have erected to keep out all stereotypes from entering their brain. They intentionally reinforce this mental wall.
   
    Why? I think that liberals have this fear and hate of conservative people. They probably have a father or grandparent  who is a curmudgeon and who they hate. They imagine that generalization will lead to a miserable, intolerant society of assholes. So they must force a society in which all humans insist that we are all brothers. Furthermore, they hate their grumpy grandpa so much, that they want to blame everything on him. They imagine that all the world's problems are caused by grumpy, intolerant racists and bigots. Muslim terrorists are motivated by white bigots who burn their migrant shelters and be generally mean to them. So are black murderers motivated by a racist white supremacist system. Inequality is caused by classist (white) bigots such as Donald Trump, and white lower-class suicide in America is a result of this, too. Can you name a few more?
   
    The trick to beating these leftists is to shamelessly attack their emotional motivations after you make your point about an inconsistency in their beliefs, such as their support of women's rights and their pro-Muslim advocacy. Make your logos, then attack using pathos. Attack them personally, insist they are motivated by irrational hatred of conservatives, and that this clouds their judgment. Do not keep arguing the issue; the issues never mattered in the first place.
    
    If you do this, you might win. Liberals know that they are assholes. They know that they are emotionally motivated. I actually am motivated by emotion, too. So attack their motivation. Attack their roots. If you do not, and you argue the issues, they will square the circle of their inconsistent opinions, or just change a single opinion on a single issue; but they will not lose their crappy worldview. If you attack the root, you might kill the entire worldview.