Thursday, July 27, 2017
Qualitative vs. Quantitative
It's not really "versus". It's a distinction between these two dimensions pertaining to data.
I was expecting to expatiate on this via a podcast, but I'm still weighing whether I want to pay money just to do podcasts. In the meantime, I'll compose an essay (this one) on this.
Nutshell punch line: The quantitative list of horrors perpetrated by Muslims is not merely a quantitative enumeration of incidents; it also has a qualitative dimension. We could have a dry list of "Islamic terror attacks" and if we only list the sheer number of those killed, it would have less impact than if we deepened our information with further details
What is that qualitative dimension?
Well, I'm glad you asked, Pepe.
First off, on the most basic level, the qualitative dimension is aroused by the sheer volume of the quantity. If our list of Muslim atrocities only had, say, 17 items for the past 100 years, it wouldn't pack much punch, comprende? Luckily (black humor here), we have thousands (for it is only reasonable to count also all the foiled attempts by Muslims to perpetrate terror). And not only do we have a shitload, but the quantity is increasing, perhaps exponentially (since these are not inanimate events of climate or geology, nor are they the kind of anthropological stats that over a long arc of time balance out to an overall steady state of stability, despite temporary spikes and dips; such as, for example, the incidence of bank robberies or carjackings).
Secondly, the qualitative dimension of the quantitative list of Muslim atrocities includes the factor of ghoulishness -- beheadings, burning alive, horrendous tortures, multiple stabbings, genital mutilations, etc., ad Islamonauseam.
For example, that in the attacks on Paris in 2015, the Muslim attackers not only wantonly slaughtered the men and women in the audience of the Bataclan theater, they also took time out to torture them, including sexual mutilation. That's not just a mass murder, it's a ghoulish mass murder.
One supposes torture ipso facto is ghoulish; but not necessarily. Some tortures are less ghoulish than others. For example, when the U.S. government waterboarded terrorists, that was less ghoulish than when Muslims in various Islamic countries drill into the prisoner's eardrum, or insert red-hot iron needles into eyeballs or up anuses; and so forth.
A third qualitative factor would be the ferocious fanaticism of Mohammedans. For example, just to pluck two examples from a fez of thousands one could cite in this regard, in the two terror attacks in Kenya in 2016, when not only did the Muslims go around shooting people dead and torturing them, they also put guns to their heads asking them Islamic questions (if they answered incorrectly, they would get a bullet in their head), In addition, the mass-murderers took prayer breaks to pray one of their five Islamic prayers in the middle of their terror attack, before resuming their torturing and killing.
I could cite hundreds of such examples from the Islamic jihad that has been steadily unfolding in the past 50 years (let alone just the past 15).
Another feature or facet of the qualitative is the systemic nature of the problem -- the mainstream Islamic motivation, the religious-cultural matrix that nourishes and guides it, the industrious global networking, and the grand goal, commanded by their God, of conquering the entire earth. This cluster of facets requires immersion in the data to appreciate (i.e., a long time of study), a capacity for dot-connection, and an open-minded freedom from PC MC.
With all the qualitiative factors together -- the sheer volume of atrocities, the ghoulishness, the ferocious fanaticism, and the systemic nature binding and galvanizing the whole vortex -- amplifying our quantitative lists of Mohammedan atrocities, Islam becomes recognizable as a uniquely appalling and dangerous ideology, with no other religion or ideology even coming close in our time.