Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims?

[chrisengland]

Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims? It's amazing how many people hate all Muslims in Britain even though it is only a minority who are terrorists. It's not a new thing humans have always been like that I just can't understand how intelligent people can't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists?

 

[Blahface]

I think most intelligent people can. We evolved to be tribal, xenophobic, and stupid. It is like evolving to assume that rustle in the grass is a predator instead of just the wind.

 

[arkirk]

Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims? It's amazing how many people hate all Muslims in Britain even though it is only a minority who are terrorists. It's not a new thing humans have always been like that I just can't understand how intelligent people can't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists?

Maybe because they all operate out of the same cookbook and you can never tell when they will get around to reading passages of the Koran than advocate violence. Christianity and Islam and Judaism and Vedanta all are open ended on violence in their alleged "holy scriptures." Also, for Muslims and Hindus, the garb women and sometimes men are often forced by their religion to wear have the quality of setting them apart in appearance from others and simultaneously providing they type of cover that could hide weapons. Actually, most of the evil of these religions are mainly borne by their adherents and not infidels. By their very nature, according to Gore Vidal, monotheistic religions are automatically at odds with all other religions and contain many absolute doctrines that must be altered and compromised to keep peace between practitioners of different religions.

In short, it is widely different looks and a kind of stumblingly personal compromise moderates must practice to avoid violence.

 

[NobleSavage]

So your are calling me stupid?

 

[dismal]

Why can't people of debatable intelligence discuss things without resorting to strawmen?

 

[laughing dog]

Why can't people of debatable intelligence discuss things without resorting to strawmen?

This wins the award for meta-irony.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why can't people of debatable intelligence discuss things without resorting to strawmen?

This wins the award for meta-irony.

I think dis is fishing. The fact is that intelligent people do make this distinction. There just aren't enough intelligent people for it to register on the radar.

 

[arkirk]

This wins the award for meta-irony.

I think dis is fishing. The fact is that intelligent people do make this distinction. There just aren't enough intelligent people for it to register on the radar.

It isn't intelligence that is in question in this matter. In all cases of religious fundamentalism, it is psychological conditioning and actual brainwashing. They didn't lock up Galileo for any reason other than to suppress information that clearly indicated the "faithful" were being led astray by their church. They didn't burn Giordano Bruno at the stake for any reason than to suppress information. And it isn't just religion that does this. Chelsea Manning is locked away to by our government for the sake of quasi-religious belief that our government is "good." We close our eyes when bidden to by the powerful in our society because we don't want to share these mens' fates. Fear is alternative to intellectual surrender....or at least that is what the power grubbers attempt to drill into our brains.

I don't see much of the spirit Jefferson pretended to believe in....fierce enemies of tyranny. When the demand for intellectual submission is so pervasive in our society, much that is true escapes public knowledge and we have the kind of potentates we have today. People like the Clintons, Bushes, Putins, etc. surf along on a thick layer of public ignorance...and we all get to pay to a lesser or greater degree for it.

 

[Metaphor]

Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims? It's amazing how many people hate all Muslims in Britain even though it is only a minority who are terrorists. It's not a new thing humans have always been like that I just can't understand how intelligent people can't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists?

Why do you think that if someone hates all Muslims, that means they can't distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why can't people of debatable intelligence discuss things without resorting to strawmen?

This wins the award for meta-irony.

Good one

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims? It's amazing how many people hate all Muslims in Britain even though it is only a minority who are terrorists. It's not a new thing humans have always been like that I just can't understand how intelligent people can't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists?

Maybe because they all operate out of the same cookbook and you can never tell when they will get around to reading passages of the Koran than advocate violence.

Second this. We can't tell them apart very well and we are wired to false positive about threats rather than false negative. It's better to avoid 1000 suspicious patches of grass than not avoid one tiger in the grass.

 

[DBT]

The problem is, it is Qur'an itself as the 'word of the Prophet' that orders the followers of Islam to commit acts of violence against non believers. It is the moderates who ignore 'the word of the Prophet.'

 

[EricK]

Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims? It's amazing how many people hate all Muslims in Britain even though it is only a minority who are terrorists. It's not a new thing humans have always been like that I just can't understand how intelligent people can't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists?

I don't think that many people in Britain hate all Muslims. I think a larger number are suspicious of Muslims. Or, at least, suspicious of those who actually profess a faith rather than just being born into the religion.

Part of the reason, I think, is that Britain is getting more and more secular. And many non-religious people will tend to lump all people who appear to be serious about their religion together. Because in the UK the most extreme Christians ones generally comes across are harmless but slightly wacky, that is the general view held of moderate Christians too. But similarly moderate Muslims are viewed as potentially as dangerous as the most extreme ones.

 

[DBT]

Why can't intelligent people distinguish between extremists and everyday Muslims? It's amazing how many people hate all Muslims in Britain even though it is only a minority who are terrorists. It's not a new thing humans have always been like that I just can't understand how intelligent people can't understand that not all Muslims are terrorists?

I don't think that many people in Britain hate all Muslims. I think a larger number are suspicious of Muslims. Or, at least, suspicious of those who actually profess a faith rather than just being born into the religion.

Part of the reason, I think, is that Britain is getting more and more secular. And many non-religious people will tend to lump all people who appear to be serious about their religion together. Because in the UK the most extreme Christians ones generally comes across are harmless but slightly wacky, that is the general view held of moderate Christians too. But similarly moderate Muslims are viewed as potentially as dangerous as the most extreme ones.

I think that's basically right. Moderate Muslims may not be trusted because they are seen, whether rightly or wrongly, as perhaps knowing who the extremists are within their community but don't report it to the authorities, therefore guilt by association. They may also seen as not sufficiently condemning the actions of extremists.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that's basically right. Moderate Muslims may not be trusted because they seen, whether rightly or wrongly, as perhaps knowing who the extremists are within their community but don't report it to the authorities, therefore guilt by association. They may also seen as not sufficiently condemning the actions of extremists.

I agree with this. Why is it not being expressed publically?

 

[barbos]

I think that's basically right. Moderate Muslims may not be trusted because they seen, whether rightly or wrongly, as perhaps knowing who the extremists are within their community but don't report it to the authorities, therefore guilt by association. They may also seen as not sufficiently condemning the actions of extremists.

I agree with this. Why is it not being expressed publically?

Because damn nazi made it politically suicidal to blame a group as a whole.

 

[fast]

Maybe because they all operate out of the same cookbook and you can never tell when they will get around to reading passages of the Koran than advocate violence.

Second this. We can't tell them apart very well and we are wired to false positive about threats rather than false negative. It's better to avoid 1000 suspicious patches of grass than not avoid one tiger in the grass.

You atheists are all alike. Don't think for one moment I don't see the conspiracy unfolding. This is all about the fact you guys don't like cats. It always starts the same way. Someone starts a thread under the guise the topic is the focal point. Someone slips in something feline related. Another expounds upon it. Next thing you know, it's about supper in the form of barbecuing kittens. I'm sick of the endless heartless ploy.

As to the purported topic, the question assumes a falsehood. It assumes that intelligent people cannot make the distinction, but the facts are such that they can. Incidentally, even if intelligent people fail to communicate that understanding, not even that guarantees an incapacity to make the distinction. Also, there's a qualifier misinterpretation. If I say Muslims are terrorists, what am I truly saying, that there are Muslims that are terrorists or that all Muslims are terrorists? When I say that cats bite, (and they do btw, for you 'people' with an appetite), I'm not saying they all do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't think that many people in Britain hate all Muslims. I think a larger number are suspicious of Muslims. Or, at least, suspicious of those who actually profess a faith rather than just being born into the religion.

Exactly. The hate is only for the ones actually doing the violence and those supporting them.

Part of the reason, I think, is that Britain is getting more and more secular. And many non-religious people will tend to lump all people who appear to be serious about their religion together. Because in the UK the most extreme Christians ones generally comes across are harmless but slightly wacky, that is the general view held of moderate Christians too. But similarly moderate Muslims are viewed as potentially as dangerous as the most extreme ones.

Another bullseye. The extreme Christians are wackos but rarely a threat.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Second this. We can't tell them apart very well and we are wired to false positive about threats rather than false negative. It's better to avoid 1000 suspicious patches of grass than not avoid one tiger in the grass.

You atheists are all alike. Don't think for one moment I don't see the conspiracy unfolding. This is all about the fact you guys don't like cats. It always starts the same way. Someone starts a thread under the guise the topic is the focal point. Someone slips in something feline related. Another expounds upon it. Next thing you know, it's about supper in the form of barbecuing kittens. I'm sick of the endless heartless ploy.

I'm anti-cat?? Then what's this purrball I grew up with? (Sorry for the image quality, this is a scan of a photo that's nearly 40 years old.)

As to the purported topic, the question assumes a falsehood. It assumes that intelligent people cannot make the distinction, but the facts are such that they can. Incidentally, even if intelligent people fail to communicate that understanding, not even that guarantees an incapacity to make the distinction. Also, there's a qualifier misinterpretation. If I say Muslims are terrorists, what am I truly saying, that there are Muslims that are terrorists or that all Muslims are terrorists? When I say that cats bite, (and they do btw, for you 'people' with an appetite), I'm not saying they all do.

So there's some way to tell the difference between an extremist and a moderate?

 

[Bomb#20]

You atheists are all alike. Don't think for one moment I don't see the conspiracy unfolding. This is all about the fact you guys don't like cats. It always starts the same way. Someone starts a thread under the guise the topic is the focal point. Someone slips in something feline related. Another expounds upon it. Next thing you know, it's about supper in the form of barbecuing kittens. I'm sick of the endless heartless ploy.

NOT ALL ATHEISTS! It is just so unfair to blame us as a group! The 40% of atheists who commit atrocities against cats give the rest of us a bad name! And no matter how many of us denounce crimes against felines, it's never enough for you atheophobes! Why should we even have to? It's bigotry to say an atheist is under any more obligation to condemn kitten-barbecuing than a theist is -- the fact that 90% of attacks on kittens are committed by atheists is beside the point! Most of us like cats fine; you theists are all just butthurt about it because you hate dogs and we love them!