re: How Muslims Think

quote:

---

No I hate all Muslims Christians atheists Hindus Buddhists Jews and every form of polytheist

---

Hate's a strong word. Christian prayers sent.

quote:

---

Why do people (not talking to you Scrooster, you are just the OP) enjoy blindly arguing the same subjects for years on end hoping to win the message board battle. It is almost like you believe having the same "discussion" with the same people will solve some sort of problem.

What is the motivation?

---

This is an oversimplification of course, but I would say that people can be divided into two distinct categories. (Simplification and categorization being essential to man's understanding of complex concepts): Those who accept that the world is, at is has ever been, and will for ages continue to be, an "Us and Them" situation. And those who insist that we are the world and the world are we and any deviation from this is a manageable obstacle: a matter of ignorance and/or misunderstanding that could be revocated via tolerance and education soon enough.

There are more similarities among these two groups than many of either may realize. Almost all of the "us and them" type will readily admit that the world shouldn't be the way it is; almost all of these would readily support a peaceful resolution if they believed there could be one. Many of these were of the "we" type at one time and feel they had to switch sides due to continued thought and education. The "we" type almost universally (and instantaneously) would become the "us and them" type if a substantial "them" became a clear and present danger to a forcibly defined "us". The way a lot of prior pacifists felt on the afternoon of September 11, 2001. As with the "us and them's" many "we's" were formerly of the other type and believe they changed due to continued thought and education.

The "us and them's" are understandably afraid that there are too many "we's" among their "us" and that while the "them's" are "us and them-ing" themselves against "us", becoming stronger themselves, moving toward becoming a clear and present danger to "us", that the "we's" among "us" are keeping "us" distracted and making "us" weaker with their continued insistence that there is no "them".

The "we's" are understandably afraid that there are too many "us and them's" in the world and that unless they all become "we's" soon then some self-appointed "us" or another is going to start unnecessary trouble against its appointed "them", and then we'll all be unneccesarily fricked.

The "us and them's" often say, "Hey, we'd be cool with them if they could be cool with us, but they don't see it this way, and they never will."
The "we's" say, "Hey, if we'll just tolerate and educate a while longer then "they" will be cool; "you" need to make the move first. For someone has to."

The truth is that if there is a "them" and they attack "us" then all of "us" and "we" will enlist our sons, recycle metal, eat on ration cards, the whole nine yards. And if there is no "them" then we'll all realize that there never was one, soon enough.

The motivation for arguing is not proving who's right. It's saving the future. This applies to either side.

I happen to be of the "us and them" variety. Because I think that we are right.