This and That The Selective Service is part of the Congressional purview; we'll see how that discussion goes. There's a possibility that it could go through the courts as a Fifth Amendment consideration, but the courts probably won't touch it until Congress officially drops the ball: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced last week that women would be allowed to serve in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of jobs to female soldiers. Explainer readers are wondering: Now that women can officially take to the battlefield alongside men, do they have to register for the Selective Service? Not just yet. When President Jimmy Carter renewed the Selective Service in 1980 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Congress decided not to require women to register, in part because women could not serve in combat. Legislators also feared public outrage over ordering women to sign up for a potential draft, a move that would have been unprecedented in U.S. history. (One of the most effective arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment of the 1970s was the possibility that it would force women into the draft and military combat.) A group of men sued the government over the decision, arguing that the move violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Although the challengers won in a lower court, the Supreme Court ultimately sided with the government in a 6-3 vote. Neither Congress nor the administration has announced plans to open the Selective Service to women since last week’s historic announcement, but there’s a good chance that could change in the near future. The Supreme Court’s decision in 1981 was based largely on the exclusion of women from combat. If Congress doesn’t open the draft database to women in the near future, the Supreme Court might force its hand, deciding that there’s no legal basis for distinguishing between men and women anymore. (Palmer) Rostker v. Goldberg was a 6-3 decision, with Chief Justice Rehnquist delivering the opinion of the Court; he was joined by Justices Blackmun, Burger, Powell, Stewart, and Stevens. Justices White and Marshall dissented, separately, with Justice Brennan joining both. The underlying rationale of the Court's opinion was directly related to combat exclusion. • • • That's an easy, bigoted outlook based on ignorance of history. Economic disparity existed before Islam, which arose in no small part as a response to the injustice Muhammad saw around him. One might as well argue that Catholicism creates homosexuality. No matter how many times I point to Yvonne Haddad's 1982 article, "The Islamic Alternative" (PDF download), those determined to twist human history in order to justify their own bigotry continually seem incapable of understanding the basic issues. To the careful observer of Muslim countries it is quite evident that a phenomenon hardly visible in the 1960s and the early half of the 70s appears to be gaining momentum and mass approval. A growing consensus among an increasing number of intellectuals as well as the common people suggests that "the time has come to try Islam." There also is evidence that an increasing number of national governments feel it necessary to appeal to Islamic principles to maintain legitimacy. They do this either through the adoption of Islamic apologetics to justify their policies or through the implementation of various Islamic laws. There are numerous examples of such efforts in press reports in the 1970s and 80s. In Pakistan, Zia Ul-Haqq, upon assuming office, aligned himself with the Jamaati Islam and attempted to implement Islamic laws. Other nations, including Turkey, Egypt, Kuwait, Libya, Bangladesh, the Sudan and Indonesia, introduced various Islamic laws. Syria found it necessary to explain that Baath ideology is grounded in Islam, while Ja'far al-Numeiry of the Sudan has written a book justifying Islamic government, entitled The Islamic System: Why? The Islamic revolution in Iran more than any other event in recent history has helped focus Western public opinion, through television and the press, on the troubled conditions prevailing in various Islamic countries. The revolution has generated numerous texts, articles and programs dealing with "Islamic revolutionaries," the activities of the "militants" and the ascendancy of the "fundamentalists" in various nations. The perspectives of the scholars and newsmen reporting these phenomena have varied. Despite the millions of words describing the ideological developments in the area and the socio-political conditions that inspired them, many readers as well as writers continue to perceive those who seek an Islamic identity, an Islamic state or an Islamic order as the radical backward looking fringe who have rejected the enlightenment of modernization and Westernization. Some view their religion, Islam, as intrinsically evil or, at best obscurantist. The difference between modern tyranny in the Islamic context and Christian tyranny in history is that we are living in a time when that Islamic context is acutely expressed. The greatest of Christian tyranny are now dusty testimonials in historical libraries. Politically speaking, one of the reasons the Catholic Church resisted scientific enlightenment is because its Aristotelean outlook reinforced the argument of a place for everything and everything in its place. Authoritarianism in any context is problematic to assertions of liberty and justice. That authoritarianism can exist in an Islamic context is not at all surprising; nor is it indicative that Islam is the root cause of authoritarianism or the injustice it brings. The Prophet would likely be appalled by what has become of the "revelations" he received. Just as Marx (d. 1883) would have been appalled by the Soviet, Maoist, and Korean excursions into communism°. Just as Christ would be appalled by megachurches. Just as Goldman would be appalled by half-wit, window-smashing, laboratory-burning Anarchists of the modern era. In other words, ignorance and bigotry don't help answer the question; rather, they perpetuate it. If the question of who goes to war is problematic, the best alternative is to avoid wars. ____________________ Notes: ° Marx ... would have been appalled by the Soviet, Maoist, and Korean excursions into communism — By the time the East Germans got around to arguing that Beethoven's symphonies validated the Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach, Marx probably would have just said, "Fuck it," and reiterated the point he made in the 1880s, that he was no Marxist. Works Cited: Palmer, Brian. "Uncle Sam Might Want You". Slate. January 28, 2013. Slate.com. January 28, 2013. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_to_register_with_the_selective_service.html Supreme Court of the United States. Rostker v. Goldberg. June 25, 1981. Law.Cornell.edu. January 28, 2013. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0453_0057_ZO.html Haddad, Yvonne Y. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v.15, n.4. September/October, 1982. AMEU.org. January 28, 2013. http://www.ameu.org/getattachment/95724959-9612-4f5f-a769-ee876b1972aa/The-Islamic-Alternative.aspx
So what is the consensus here, do we want ladies to die in the frontlines or not? (I never understood why a woman wants to kill people professionally, but that is another issue.)
Definitely not! I don't want _anyone_ in our armed forces to die on the front lines. But if a woman wants to serve the USA in our military, she should not be banned from doing so, just because she has half an extra chromosome.
War is stupid, and people are stupid In my opinion, war is a stupid waste of the human endeavor that generally fails to accomplish anything positive. But as long as people are stupid enough to fight wars and demand that their neighbors go out to kill and die, there's no reason women shouldn't take part if they want in on it.
Stating the obvious Yes, bigotry is a disgustingly predictable result of ignorance. It's one of the reasons why ignorance is problematic. And it's also one of the reasons why ignorant opinions have no value.
We agree on that. But saying Islam has had a negative, corrosive impact on the region isn't bigotry, it's a fact. It also isn't to say there aren't other factors involved. But rather than have the conversation, you'd rather accuse the other of bigotry. It's easier that way, I guess. It's also ignorant and paranoid, and why we agree that your opinion has no value.
How complicated do we need to make the obvious point? Well, I apologize for having too many sentences in the post for you to follow. So, here, let's try cutting out a few so as to not confuse you: Economic disparity existed before Islam, which arose in no small part as a response to the injustice Muhammad saw around him. One might as well argue that Catholicism creates homosexuality. The difference between modern tyranny in the Islamic context and Christian tyranny in history is that we are living in a time when that Islamic context is acutely expressed. The greatest of Christian tyranny are now dusty testimonials in historical libraries. Politically speaking, one of the reasons the Catholic Church resisted scientific enlightenment is because its Aristotelean outlook reinforced the argument of a place for everything and everything in its place. Authoritarianism in any context is problematic to assertions of liberty and justice. That authoritarianism can exist in an Islamic context is not at all surprising; nor is it indicative that Islam is the root cause of authoritarianism or the injustice it brings. The Prophet would likely be appalled by what has become of the "revelations" he received. Just as Marx would have been appalled by the Soviet, Maoist, and Korean excursions into communism. Just as Christ would be appalled by megachurches. Just as Goldman would be appalled by half-wit, window-smashing, laboratory-burning Anarchists of the modern era. Is that easier for you? Of course, considerations of bigotry do perpetuate the underlying question of this thread: If the question of who goes to war is problematic, the best alternative is to avoid wars. And, frankly, ignorant rants such as Spidergoat posted, and you seem to admire, are the sort of ideas that perpetuate the need for wars. See, that's where trying to turn this discussion into another round of whining about Islam braids into the rest of the subject. The problem with the whining is its ignorance. Blaming Islam itself effectively dehumanizes Muslims by disqualifying human considerations from the equation. Seriously. One can easily see the mypoic logic of propping up a tyrant in the name of profit and influence. But the first people tyrants go after are the intellectuals, and the loss of the intellectuals not only lowers the average intelligence within the society, it also crushes moderating influences. Violent, fundamentalist supremacism is a predictable result. Starting with the rise of violent Islamic supremacism, as if it emerged ex nihilo, is historically ignorant, intellectually dishonest, and utterly dysfunctional. Such arguments are ego defenses. The Islamism our neighbor condemns is symptomatic. Putting the burden on the symptom alone is a lazy way of playing Pilate. Now, perhaps you find the notion that such an outlook is bigoted somehow offensive, but if so, I can't help you there. Dehumanizing others for the sake of simplistic psychological comfort is a fundamental pattern of bigotry. And, in the question of who fights on the front line, such attitudes are also an easy way of making sure there's always a war to fight. This isn't doctorate level philosophy. In fact, it's actually quite simple for being nakedly apparent.
Understanding your claim that Islam does not cause economic disparity because it is not the only cause of economic disparity is easy. It's buffoon logic on par with another member's claim that disabusing ourselves of religious superstition isn't a worthwhile endeavor because it isn't the only cause of violence. Yeah, that's the kind of company you keep when you employ such ignorant arguments. You find yourself rubbing elbows with the moron elite. A sort of idiotsia. I'm sure it's comforting to hold these views, though. It must be, otherwise you would have outgrown them at about the same time you cut your hair and stuffed the bong away in your closet. Ideas like "We need to protect our assets, allies, and interests?" Or are you talking about spidergoat's correct assessment of fundamentalist Islam? The only whining is being done by you, whining about how we should just stop going to war. You used the logical fallacy that because the country wasn't at war for a number of years during your youth, today's wars aren't necessary. You even appealed to sympathy by mentioning how your poor daughter had never known a day without war (even though she is quite likely oblivious to it), as if that's relevant to war's necessity. It's that kind of childish whining and pandering that earns you and yours the brand of "bleeding-heart." It's made worse by the clumsy defense of fundamentalist Islam, which essentially amounts to "Islam isn't the only cause," (even though no one has said anything to the contrary) and "You're a bigot." Stripping away the ad hominem from your posts makes them quite a bit shorter, I notice. At any rate, to dislike war is understandable. Ideally, it would only ever be waged in a WWII scenario, where the free world is at risk. But the reality is that sometimes you have to go to war because you need to protect your economic interests. And sometimes, you have to go to war because you get dragged into it. To pretend as if these realities are the result of bigotry or some such other nonsense is intellectually immature. To obfuscate the conversation by throwing around baseless accusations of bigotry while ignoring the thrust of the argument--which is that we did not start this war, but rather it was brought to us--is, well, typical Tiassa. I don't think anyone did that. Saying that Islam is the cause of some of these ills is just fact. It's like saying you died from an infection. Obviously, the infection didn't just get there on its own; chances are, a wound of some sort wasn't treated properly, or at all, and it festered until it became infected. Islam may simply be the infection in this equation, but pretending it doesn't do harm on its own is ridiculous. It's also a sign of cowardice. You dehumanize us by calling us bigots so you don't have to face the reality that is the weakness of your argument. It's much easier to dismiss us as bigots than to hear us out. That's silly. The only role Islam has in these wars is that it was the impetus for the attacks against the west. Oh don't worry, no one could ever mistake your posts as philosophy of any kind. At best, you're parroting your favorite talking heads and blogmonsters. Your arguments have the strategic depth of a puddle, that much is obvious to anyone reading along. It's "Logical fallacy" followed by "Ad hominem," and that's about it.
Balerion at the Bat Swing and a miss. That's a mighty wind, Mighty Casey. Why would I cut my hair? And in case you hadn't picked up on the point, I live in a state that just legalized pot. And of course that isn't a useful response, but it's certainly less useless than asking you to please follow the discussion. Tiassa: You are correct that a cultural conflict does not require the specific kindling of military intervention. Economic exploitation over the course of generations is sufficient. Spidergoat: Islam creates economic disparity and poverty, such that anyone, corporation, or country, who seeks to create economic activity in that area is demonized, because with prosperity comes the kind of change that they detest. In the first place, the thesis is inaccurate; there are many prosperous Muslims in the Islamic world. Secondly, there is a larger process at work leading to the problems we see in the Islamic world. If pointing that out is buffoon logic, perhaps perhaps you might consider that such simplicity is what the proposition demands. I'm talking about when he went after all of Islam. You know, the statement that "Islam creates economic disparity and poverty"? The rant that you claimed "said it better than [you] ever could"? Come on, dude. Pay attention. Says the guy who cries because someone pointed out the obvious? When did I say that? I mean, you can't possibly be referring to the point that as we scream and whine about the country's finances, we can blame anything but the wars; or that while conservatives are dismayed by the idea of homosexuals in the armed services, we also had to lower our enlistment standards to include people whose criminal records and other individual shortcomings would otherwise have disqualified them from service. Even conservatives are figuring out the problem with the idea that the defense budget is somehow sacrosanct. And while I may not agree with some of their proposed solutions, at least some of them are starting to countenance the point. Perhaps you're so confused about my context because you're devoting too much of your effort to writing my argument for me. Obviously, I'm going to have to get over this bad habit of dividing strings of words into sentences and paragraphs, since they're so hard for people to follow. Look, if you want to respond to what I wrote, that's fine. If you want to pitch a fit about some straw man you threw together, well, I guess that's fine, too, but the question does occur to me why you're bothering. You're so right. After all, Spidergoat never wrote: "Islam creates economic disparity and poverty, such that anyone, corporation, or country, who seeks to create economic activity in that area is demonized, because with prosperity comes the kind of change that they detest. It brings education and technology, both of which cannot help but change a culture. Women start to feel that maybe being a slave living by bronze age rules isn't so nice. Do you really think that you can marginalize half the population and still be a success? Your claim that we should just stop "screwing with cultures" isn't how humanity fucking works. The future is coming to all the world whether they like it or not, and America is just the figurehead for that change which Islamists, and to some extent all religionists, fear. Religion is basically conservative. Reality is basically not. Islam is a totalitarian ideology with a death wish. When such people consider you an enemy, you don't have to wring your hands and wonder what you did wrong. I bet you did at least one thing worthy of death in Islam before you even went to work this morning. I know I did." I know, it's so horrible, isn't it? People should certainly have the right to express their bigoted attitudes without someone else having the right to call it bigotry. Well, accommodating another's free speech by forfeiting my own has some effect. So does cutting out the 53.65% of the post that comes in the form of supporting citation that you're not paying any attention to, anyway. Pretending the brutality of 9/11 arose ex nihilo ("sometimes, you have to go to war because you get dragged into it") is stupid, irresponsible, and, in the larger context, dangerous. Yes, yes, your right to say bigoted things without anyone calling it bigotry. To wit: Okay, let's try this another way: • Can you tell the difference between Catholics in general and the Catholic Church hierarchy that aided and abetted mind-bogglingly widespread child sexual abuse? • Can you tell the difference between Christianity in general and Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Rod Parsley, and the like? If the answer is yes, why is the whole of Islam subject to condemnation of anthropologically explicable extremism within the ideological spectrum? You get so angry about the idea that what you say is bigotry, and then turn around and offer up more bigotry. Christianity is not the moronic evangelical wing of American politics. Islam is not the moronic violent wing of war-torn societies. You're right it's a sign of cowardice. But I call you bigots because you're spouting bigotry. Deal with it, and in a way that doesn't have you whining about the accusation while proving the point. Really? Are you really suggesting that if they weren't Muslims, they would be thankful for the economic exploitation that has been occurring for over ninety years? That rode in on the coattails of centuries of warfare? It's not ad hominem if it's both true and relevant. As for logical fallacies? Well, true, you're not committing those because you're not working in the realm of logic. Emotion and passion are an integral part of our humanity, but they can also contribute greatly to our human frailty. And all of this for what, your pride? No, really. You set out on this bender for an emotionally laden misinterpretation that makes you want to inflict neck and brain injuries. And now you're just digging a deeper hole. Do you want to be taken seriously? I suppose that question needs to be asked eventually. Really. Do you want to be taken seriously? Or is this whole digression simply an ego trip for you? ____________________ Notes: York, Byron. "Defense spending can and should be cut -- in the right way". The Washington Examiner. January 10, 2013. WashingtonExaminer.com. January 29, 2013. http://washingtonexaminer.com/byron...hould-be-cut-in-the-right-way/article/2518202
can anyone explain to me what the Muslim ideology has to do with US women now being allowed to fight hand to hand on the front lines of a war?
Oop! Looks like I hit a nerve. That explains a lot. I love it. When someone says something uncomfortably true about Islam, they're bigots; when they point out the flaw in your thinking, they're not following along. Convenient defense mechanism you have there. Makes me wonder just what they hell you're doing here if you aren't interested in an actual exchange of ideas. Oh, right, you're a wanna-be blogger. I keep forgetting that, even though you make it almost impossible to forget it. In what way does that invalidate the claim that Islam creates (or perhaps perpetuates) economic disparity? There existence of free blacks prior to the Civil War doesn't mean that slavery didn't exist. It's not pointing out that there are multiple factors involved that equates to buffoon logic, it's pretending that the rise of fundamental Islam isn't one of them because there are other causes. He didn't go after all of Islam. Saying Islam creates economic disparity doesn't necessarily mean that all of Islam creates such disparity. You're competent enough to understand that, aren't you? So your insistence on the contrary must be an integrity thing. ...did you mean to say obtuse? I can't imagine what's obvious about the claim that no war is a workable alternative to the current and past situations in the region, let alone how it's a viable alternative to not wanting to have types of people serve in the military. "If you don't want women in the military, don't go to war" is a non-sequitur. Really? Is your bullshit so rote now that you don't even remember saying it? *Cue sad music* Nope. I was referring to the logical fallacy about how wars aren't necessary because there weren't any real American conflicts during a significant portion of your youth. As to why they believe the defense budget is sacrosanct, it's clearly because they believe such spending is absolutely necessary. Saying "If you want to fix it, stop going to war" is about as useful a solution as "If you want to save money, stop breathing." There's nothing hard to follow. You aren't clever, and nothing you say is even all that well thought out. You're just regurgitating liberal talking points in the same way madanthonywayne regurgitates conservative talking points. You're just channeling Rachel Maddow, nothing more. If anything, your arguments are too predictable. If it bothers you that I'm debunking them so quickly, start presenting some original ideas. That doesn't contradict what I said. Have you even read what he wrote? Or were your eyes too misty because someone said something bad about Islam? If it were actually a bigoted belief, then I would be among those calling it bigoted. But it isn't. Supporting citation? Are you being serious right now? Never said it did. Obviously we did things to piss off your Jihadist friends. But since those things included protecting our allies and interests, as well as attempting to correct one of our most atrocious mistakes in East Timor, I'm not on your "we brought it on ourselves." In short, I'm not a Jihadist sympathizer. Again, you don't make any effort to refute my argument, you simply throw the Bigot Hammer at it. This is what I was talking about with you being predictable. When your argument is defeated, you just shut down. Saying something bad about a religion isn't automatically bigoted. So it wasn't the Catholic Church that aided and abetted the sexual abusers? It isn't Christianity that Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Rod Parsely and the like are preaching? That's news to me--and to everyone else in the world. No, all I did was say something about Islam you disagreed with. And, since you obviously can't articulate an intelligent counter-argument, you just piss your pants and call everyone involved a bigot. Of course it is. You can't break them up into imaginary disparate parts just because it suits you. Christianity and Islam are also charitable and peaceful. Just like a human being can be more than one things, and very often those things are contradictory, these religions can be the same. I mean, what is "Catholicism in general?" The cover-up of the sexual abuse went as high up as the Vatican. I am dealing with it, by pointing out in front of everyone how much of a fraud you are. I'm discrediting you by exposing your arguments as idiotic. No, not even close. I'm saying if they weren't Muslims, they wouldn't have flown airplanes into our buildings and blown up nightclubs and subway trains and all of the rest of the insane shit they do because of their sick ideology. It's still ad hom if it's true, and whatever you think of me as a person is not relevant to the argument. Really? Are you really that confused? If you don't like being challenged, don't post. Really, it's that simple. You'll paint me as the bad guy because you can't defeat my arguments, and that's fine, because I've made quick work of your inane posts. But for the love of Allah, try to save some of your dignity for the next time you're decrying the evils of America with Richard Reed.
Do we want men to die in the frontlines or not? I never understood why a man wants to kill people professionally.
This and That In general, because we don't want the political blowback from the international Muslim community if our men are bodily searching the women in Iraq and Afghanistan. In terms of this specific thread, the reason is even more stupid. • • • There comes a point when there isn't anything to respond to in your net rage. The fact that the slave owners considered themselves Christians doesn't mean Christianity caused American slavery. All it means is that slave owners used their faith as an ego defense. Christianity was just the symptom. Just like the violent, manipulative assertions of Islam are symptomatic. We cannot rightly pretend that without Islam, people wouldn't fight back against injustice. What, was John Brown a Muslim? Right, but the point I was referring to condemned "Islam", not "fundamental Islam": Well, unlike you, I deal with the arguments put in front of me, not ones rewritten according to ego defense. In the first place, short of genocide, we can't kill enough Muslims to get ourselves out of this. And, to the other, you really ought to pay better attention to the posts you decide to throw bawling, pseudo-threatening tantrums about. I think the logical fallacy there is your straw man, which is so ill-conceived I hesitate to use the word "logical". You should have tried something that costs money. Saying that Islam creates economic disparity and poverty, as I noted, is akin to saying Catholicism creates homosexuality. Arguing that Islam is a totalitarian ideology with a death wish is less accurate than saying Christianity looks forward to the end of the world. There is a larger question of apostasy, but it cuts both ways and is therefore more subtle than the discussion you want to have. Trying to brand an entire cultural paradigm exclusively according to its most negative aspects is generally something people only accept—when they accept it at all—when it's aimed at other people. It's like saying Americans want to starve children in order to augment our excess. Sure, there are some Americans who think that way, but it's not the whole of our culture. Do you have any idea what you're referring to? True, you're an imperial sympathizer. There is a certain amount of irony about that paragraph, though I doubt you would appreciate it. True, but making blanket condemnations dependent on historical ignorance is one of those things that falls into the category of bigotry. There are 78,000,000 catholics in the United States. To call them all child sexual abusers would be wildly irresponsible. All three preach ideas and principles directly contradicting Jesus. It's only news if you aren't paying attention. Well, close enough, I suppose. Notice that #94 addresses Spidergoat, as does #102; meanwhile I also responded to Syzygys and Orleander. Apparently, I wasn't paying enough attention to you ... again. I see that it was a mistake to pass over your cheerleading of Spidergoat's bigoted argument. But, hey ... you wanted my attention, and now you've got it. And if the whole of your point of all this is to whine about the idea that cultural condemnations based on historical ignorance shouldn't be called bigotry, you probably don't want that attention. Again, there are 78,000,000 Catholics in the United States. The worldwide estimates run about 1.2 billion. Considering the Bible, Catholic doctrine, and over a billion Catholics in the world, it's hard to define Catholicism according to a bunch of old men more interested in preserving worldly institutions than actually being Catholic. There is plenty to criticize about Catholic culture, just like there is plenty to criticize about Islamic culture. But there is such a thing as ignorant, irresponsible criticism. Says the guy who is apparently so gullible that he thinks Pat Robertson telling someone that a spouse with Alzheimer's is reason to file for divorce is an expression of Christian morals? Do you even know what's in the Bible? Here, let's try this one: In the name of Christ, a good Christian should strive to commit genocide against his enemies. That's Rod Parsley's outlook, and I can quite confidently promise you that the proposition that this is antithetical to what Jesus Christ said in the Bible is not news to everyone else. Maybe it is to you, but if that's the case, maybe you should study what's actually in the Bible. In the context of Muslims, Islam is a broad ideological spectrum, and while it is true that the range includes many problematic expressions, you seem very disinterested in the question of why those difficult issues have become so prominent. Instead, blanket condemnations of Islam rooted in historical ignorance explain your outlook better than you ever could. My advice, then, is to not take the fact of bigotry in your outlook so personally. That is, if you want to espouse bigoted opinions, be proud of your bigotry. If you really believe ignorant opinions that only further complicate difficult issues are so noble, then stand up and defend ignorance.
Catholicism doesn't create homosexuality, it just perverts it into child rapists. Also, I'm not a bigot. Bigotry is irrational fear or hatred of a particular group of people. I don't hate Arabs or Persians or people that accidentally turned out to be Muslims.
Well, since I am both a doctor of Muslimology and Psychology, if I may: 1. When a Muslim fights an infidel, he thinks that if he dies, he will go straight to heaven with 72 virgins and such. Thus it gives him extra strength and might not be affraid to die. 2. When a Muslim (who looks at women as second class humans) soldier's position gets overrun by female soldiers and he has a choice to either die or surrender, dying looks like a better choice (and he might inflict more casualties while fighting to death) then surrendering to a woman. I think both concepts are fairly clear....
Men are generally idiots, they deserve to die. See the answer I provided above. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Also, we are both animals and predators, so killing is an instinct....
