Leaderboard

Is this really true? If it is, then what is the real underlying factor? What is it that they are rationalizing away by the use of this facade? The two typical suspects for core motivations are: environment-independent psychological issues (but, how would we then explain the geographical and cultural clustering?); and, socio-economic status (but, again, there are millions of others in a similar socio-economic state who have no motivation to blow up the West) Is there some other core-motivation you're thinking of? Also, suppose someone challenges you saying that you only adopted Rand's ideology because it suited you psychologically, or socio-economically, or from some other such motive, how would you answer them?

Can't edit my other post, but I wanted to add something: The only 'evidence' I've seen about gender roles is from participant studies. From these, generalizations are made with respect to people's personal anecdotes, feelings, experiences, etc. I don't know if this form of evidence is valid- wiki says "it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence (regardless of the veracity of individual claims)" and "the process of verification is necessary to determine whether a generalization holds true for any given situation." So IF these studies are the only 'evidence' available right now, there's not much we can do except to say "that generalization is false in these specific situations" and leave it at that. What Delaney and other romance bloggers/radio-hosts do (see tom leykis) is try to help people along in their relationships and/or make a living. Where do they get their info? Cherry-picked anecdotes, their own experiences, and maybe a few studies or articles on google. Obviously their advice is not going to work for everyone or even be appealing to everyone, because their info is based (at best!) on generalizations.

This is really the only counter in this thread that makes sense. When I said that a terrorists motivations are personal, I meant that they are not shared by the majority of others in his religion. True, militant Islam is a real branch of Islam (and probably has a number of sub-branches), and it is dangerous and should be fought. But shouldn't the primary fault lie with the men who accept this philosophy? My posts on this page were meant to convey that. There's a reason why terrorists or others who do evil believe in these sorts of philosophies. All the philosophy does is give them the facade of a sanction to do whatever evils they want (ie: bomb innocent people, kill dissenters, etc).