[boracay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Back in my NYC days I knew a fair number of Pakistanis who had small construction companies that did repair work for mine. To a person they were polite, hard-working types and didn't display any kind of weirdness. It was a big surprise to me that their country turned out to be chock-full of nut-cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

Their country is no more full of nut-cases than ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

And you are basing this statement on what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Logic. Taking a bird's perspective over a situation usually helps.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how it's related to logic; it strikes me more as being based on assumption. And that's why I asked.

edit: Pakistan's Northern provinces contain a high percentage of bin-Laden and al-Qaeda supporters. Is the percentage of nuts higher in such groups? Pakistan contains tens of thousands of (madrassas) Islamic schools; maybe a fourth of those are radical. Might there be a higher percentage of nuts involved in those radical schools? Is it unreasonable to ask such questions?

edit 2: are the only reasonable assumptions the following: 1) groups everywhere contain equal percentages of lunatics, and 2) groups of people everywhere are equally rational? Are those assumptions or are they facts? And if they are facts, based on what are they evidenced?

[/ QUOTE ]

It happens often that people just ignore their own steps and heavily condemn the same steps of the others. Either because of simple ignorance (or lack of information as an excuse) or a belief of their superiority over the others. I believe any thinkable man should be able to find some reasons for consequences unless he thinks as above of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it appears to me that you're basing on your view of what is appropriate in how to view and treat others. That's fine insofar as a base model, but it ought not to blind you to the possibility that there may exist some major genuine statistical differences between some groups. In other words, good ethics does not equal good science.

Given that there ARE huge numbers of al-Qaeda supporters in Northern Pakistan, I don't think it is unreasonable to ask what that may imply. I also don't think it is reasonable or scientific to merely assume that the percentage of lunatics in one group or area is necessarily anything close to equal with another group or area. That was the point that brought out my first question: logically, one cannot make such assumptions while also presuming that they must be valid.

Of course, much depends on what defines a lunatic, or what defines rationality. I was hoping to get to that question, but it seems I first have to discuss why one cannot have full confidence in such assumptions as the one postulated by AlexM. Unless, of course, he was basing it on something more than an assumption.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’m talking about double standards and a wish (or demand) that other groups accept the rule of the master. You like to compare religions for example and Islam stands a few steps below of Christianity always, talking about how violent it is, what’s wrong with the religion and their beliefs, etc. You very often take a superiority stance of your religion over Islam. I’d say best thing we can do is to accept differences, not asking or demanding a change of their rituals, beliefs, etc. Wouldn’t that be better?

Next thing is an ability of trying to connect some events together. Causes have consequences. One would find the reason for the most of bad things which are happening in the Middle East in US aggression against Iraq, the other would try to find the reasons in other groups, their wrong beliefs and again finding things how different, hostile, lunatic they are, etc. That includes over half a million death in Iraq, Iran’s tensions for their defense until it’s too late, situation in Pakistan, rising extremism in the wider area and strengthening of AQ. Who’s responsible for that? Fanatics that noone can understand?

What I meant is this: no problem if you think those mad fanatics are responsible until you would say the same vice versa. Example – China someday attacks the USA without any good reason, installs a puppet regime, dictate rules and plunder the country. See? You have a moral superiority stance here unless you would say those Americans fighting against aggressor and for their freedom are mad fanatics.

Same with Iran. Why not take them equally? Why taking a position of their master? Why extremism is rising in Pakistan? Why AQ is stronger than ever before, spread where it wasn’t before, why it have no problems with recruiting now?

What I want to say is fight against causes, not against consequences should be a goal (and much easier to accomplish). Just try to imagine what would happen in case of war with Iran in the whole region.

Double standards. Ignorance. Belief of superiority over the others. That’s why it would be good to take a bird’s view sometimes. Vice versa. Putting yourself in other’s position. I think World would be much safer, people happier and nut-cases couldn’t win that often. Respect. Treating others equally. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that was your master preaching about and not the above. Peace.