Sinistril

Now, I want to be very clear before I start this topic. I do not believe that most Muslims are radicals; however, there is a myth spreading that only 0.5-1% of Muslims are radicals. This is false. Perhaps only 0.5-1% have committed or helped others commit acts of terror. I don't really know where the number comes from. It's not really important. What is important is that the number is wrong. Why? First, I think we need to answer a couple of questions. Do we believe that neo-nazis who have committed acts of violence in the name of their ideology are radicals? And do we believe that neo-nazis who have NOT committed acts of violence in the name of their ideology are radicals? If you're one of the 99.99% of the population who believes, like me, that neo-nazis are radicals because their belief system is radical, then you have to ask the same questions regarding all radicals. I'm not going to compare Islam to neo-naziism. That's not fair because there are a majority of Muslims that do not condone the kind of violence that neo-naziism does. BUT, I will compare terrorism to neo-naziism as I think that is a more than fair comparison. For brevity, I'm going to define terrorism as anyone who commits an act of violence against an innocent person to achieve an ideological end. With that definition in mind, do we believe that terrorists are radicals? Do we believe that people that SUPPORT terrorists are radicals? Well, according to 2005 pew global polls (the numbers are probably slightly different for this year but these are the latest numbers I have), of 6 Muslim majority countries that are considered pretty moderate, between 18-88% of the population in those countries believe that violence against civilians is justified. This is the same as saying they support terrorism. I mashed the numbers together, so some support it "rarely". Quite frankly, if you support violence against civilians ever then you support it in my opinion. You can see the numbers by country here: http://www.pewglobal.org/2006/05/23/where-terrorism-finds-support-in-the-muslim-world/ Now, if you don't accept the fact that people who support terrorists are radicals you either have to say that neo-nazis who don't commit violence are not radicals, and have fun defending that point, or you have to question how much you are affected by cognitive dissonance. Thoughts? Are there flaws in my logic I am not seeing? I'd love to hear your thoughts as, even though it logically makes sense to me, it does go against what society has raised me to believe. Note: I think that Muslims that want to immigrate to a western country are less likely to support violence against civilians (though, I question whether refugees are less likely to support it as they are usually a better representation of a local population). I also think 2nd+ generation immigrants are even less likely to support violence in a western country but numbers are harder to find because western countries. Even further on that point, I think experiments like the Stanford Prison Experiment prove that if you put someone in a fascist situation they will probably become fascist. Some countries in the middle east are certainly fascist even though PC culture prevents most people from admitting it). I think with this in mind, the 1% figure quoted earlier may be closer to reality in places like Canada and the US, but this is certainly not the case in middle-eastern countries. Of course, that number being closer to true is just speculation without numbers and may be more or less.

I would argue that empathy has very little to do with IQ if anything. Rather, a high IQ person is just less likely to act against their own self-interest. Since you used the examples of violence, I will use an example with violence. A low IQ person will be involved in a riot to make a point and get their way, often times these riots will destroy their own neighborhoods and reinforce their opponents points. This takes money out of their directly out of their community and themselves that they could use to better themselves. A high IQ is more likely to find a useful way to get their point across. Whether it is writing about the issue, advocating peacefully for the issue (usually not in groups as a high IQ person can recognize the dangers of being associated with large groups), and they will try to work towards achieving their goals. If their goals are less homelessness in their community, for example, they may donate towards or help build a home for someone. It is not necessarily empathy, they just recognize the benefits to themselves. They recognize that if they were to use violence, then they would hurt their point and possibly land in jail: not good.

I would agree. The reason that people think they are opposites is because the left are also hypocrites. They are for all those things you mentioned, but say they are against them in casual conversation. They continue to say they are against those things until they find someone or something they disagree with, or to put it more bluntly, until they don't get their way.