Couldn't find the story on the NYPost.com website but I bought the paper today at my local deli. The title of article is called A Kiss of Death for Daughter-Slain by "shamed" Kurd kin by Steve Bird,if you can find it and post it here for me.
Basically I'll give a short version of the story. A Kurd girl who lives with her family in London was photographed by another Kurd kissing her boyfriend in public. Just a peck/smooch, that's all. Her Uncle and father had a family meeting and they decided to have her and her boyfriend murdered.
They got a gang of Kurd thugs to help them with the murders. They kidnapped her, took her clothes off and strangled her with a boot lace. Then stuffed her body in a suitcase and buried in a shallow grave. As for the boyfriend they attempted to kidnap him but he manage to escape and is in witness protection hiding. The uncle and father were convicted of murder. It doesn't say what the sentence was but I hope it wasn't 6 months like it was in the previous thread we chatted about. The kurd girl in Iraq.
Another senseless "honor" killing that will not stop till the Middle Eastern community (both kurds and muslims) put their foot down and say enough is enough. Were in the 21st century and those old traditions are just that, Old. We are in a civilized society (well as civilized as can be given the current state of affairs around the world) and were not savages no more. The girl was a human being and not some animal that you can sacrifice. If she shamed her family so much they should of just disowned her and threw her out of the family home.
Jail for these murderers is too good and simple. They will just get in with the kurd or islamic community in prison and do their time and it will not stop them from doing it again in the future if someone else in their family is perceived to have "shamed" them. They really should have their d*cks cut off and get raped repeatedly by men for shaming the human race in general. Like I said these are savages and not humans. And I could care less about their culture and sensitivity to it. We are in the 21st century and not the 5th century.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Now now, unless you are from their culture, you have no right to tell them what is right and wrong. Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Now now, unless you are from their culture, you have no right to tell them what is right and wrong.
F*ck em... my culture is a eye for a eye and to have their d*cks cut off while they get raped by the whole prison population... that will show them what real "shame" is... Posted by jordanreed on :
what about aboriginal tribes in austraila or africa or where-ever?..should we go around the world and teach them our version of right and wrong..or maybe give them lessons in christianity? if we can find them?..those dam africans that dont wear clothes!! that really bugs me..we should teach them how to dress!! those dam hippies with their long hair!..they look like women! why cant everyone be just like me?
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Wasn't the term "savages" used to justify the extermination of the Native Americans, just to name a few? Posted by jordanreed on :
makes it easier to massacre em
Posted by stocktrader2006 on :
Just drop a Love Bomb on 'em!
Posted by jordanreed on :
2 dollars /male scalp...$1/female...50 cents for childs scalp..dirty , savage, heathens...backward culture, should be loving,good, christians, like us!
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Besides Machiavelli, everyone knows that the NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the great perpetuator of RNC lies, most often through his favorite media lovechild, FOX news... Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: Besides Machiavelli, everyone knows that the NY Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch, the great perpetuator of RNC lies, most often through his favorite media lovechild, FOX news...
The story was reported in London independently and why would Murdoch lie that this was a "honor" killing? it came out in trial and is in the public record...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: what about aboriginal tribes in austraila or africa or where-ever?..should we go around the world and teach them our version of right and wrong..or maybe give them lessons in christianity? if we can find them?..those dam africans that dont wear clothes!! that really bugs me..we should teach them how to dress!! those dam hippies with their long hair!..they look like women! why cant everyone be just like me?
Murder is a whole lot different then long hair, nudity etc. Those are not crimes. So I guess you advocate killing your family member because she kissed a boy in public in the name of culture and 5th century thinking. We'll at least I know where you stand.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Sorry Mach, I guess I'm just going to have to start including "sarcasm" tags when I post comments like the one above...
There was no mention of a source in the original post other than the NY post. In all honesty, I am surprised that Bdgee didn't beat me to the comment, though unlike me, he would have been completely serious about it.
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: what about aboriginal tribes in austraila or africa or where-ever?..should we go around the world and teach them our version of right and wrong..or maybe give them lessons in christianity? if we can find them?..those dam africans that dont wear clothes!! that really bugs me..we should teach them how to dress!! those dam hippies with their long hair!..they look like women! why cant everyone be just like me?
Murder is a whole lot different then long hair, nudity etc. Those are not crimes. So I guess you advocate killing your family member because she kissed a boy in public in the name of culture and 5th century thinking. We'll at least I know where you stand.
why would i advocate that?.. its not my belief.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Father found guilty of ordering daughter’s murder in ’honour killing’
By PAISLEY DODDS Monday, June 11, 2007
LONDON (AP) - A father who ordered his daughter brutally slain for falling in love with the wrong man in a so-called "honour killing" was found guilty of murder on Monday.
Banaz Mahmod, 20, was strangled with a boot lace, stuffed into a suitcase and buried in a back garden.
Her death is the latest in an increasing trend of such killings in Britain, home to some 1.8 million Muslims. More than 100 homicides are under investigation as potential "honour killings."
Mahmod Mahmod, 52, and his brother Ari Mahmod, 51, planned the killing during a family meeting, prosecutors told the court. Two others have pleaded guilty in the case. Two more suspects have fled the country. Sentencing is expected later this month.
The men accused the young woman of shaming her family by ending an abusive arranged marriage, becoming too Westernized and falling in love with a man who didn’t come from their Iraqi village. The Kurdish family came to Britain in 1998 when Banaz Mahmod was 11.
"She was my present, my future, my hope," said Rahmat Suleimani, 29, Banaz Mahmod’s boyfriend.
During the three-month trial, prosecutors said Mahmod’s father beat his daughter for using hairspray and adopting other Western ways. Her uncle once told her she would have been "turned to ashes" if she were his daughter and had shamed the family by becoming involved with the Iranian Kurd, her sister 22-year-old Bekhal Mahmod testified.
Banaz Mahmod ran away from home when she was a teenager but returned when her father sent her an audio tape in which he warned he would kill her sisters, her mother and himself if she did not come home, her sister said.
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: what about aboriginal tribes in austraila or africa or where-ever?..should we go around the world and teach them our version of right and wrong..or maybe give them lessons in christianity? if we can find them?..those dam africans that dont wear clothes!! that really bugs me..we should teach them how to dress!! those dam hippies with their long hair!..they look like women! why cant everyone be just like me?
Murder is a whole lot different then long hair, nudity etc. Those are not crimes. So I guess you advocate killing your family member because she kissed a boy in public in the name of culture and 5th century thinking. We'll at least I know where you stand.
why would i advocate that?.. its not my belief.
Well you seem to be advocating it with your sarcasm about why don't we change all cultures...something like murder in the name of "honor" and/or culture is nothing but savagery in the sense of having no morals/scruples when it comes to human life over backwards thinking...
Posted by jordanreed on :
really?... I thought you were deeper than that..
and ,I wasnt being sarcastic. changing all cultures to fit your belief seems to be what you're advocating
Posted by glassman on :
Well you seem to be advocating it with your sarcasm about why don't we change all cultures...something like murder in the name of "honor" and/or culture is nothing but savagery in the sense of having no morals/scruples when it comes to human life over backwards thinking...
the Aztec regularly sacrificed humans... the Japanese practiced Sepuku...
Americans have elevated "staying alive at any cost" much higher than many cultures..
i suspect it's cuz, deep down? most Americans don't really believe in a kind and forgiving God.
Posted by turbokid on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
i suspect it's cuz, deep down? most Americans don't really believe in a kind and forgiving God.
i wonder if its cause we are more intelligent or more foolish... .. ..
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by turbokid:
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
i suspect it's cuz, deep down? most Americans don't really believe in a kind and forgiving God.
i wonder if its cause we are more intelligent or more foolish... .. ..
good question. Is a societies God a reflection of that societies most profound aspirations? Or is it, as Marx said (of religion in general)? An opiate for the masses?
Posted by jordanreed on :
i like marxs' quote.. kinda my belief
Posted by glassman on :
Marx had a good point. and i have no doubt that religion has been used that way. on the other hand? i liked Einstein's attitude better:
A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. (Albert Einstein)
I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein) Posted by glassman on :
A human being is part of the whole called by us universe, a part limited in time and space. We experience ourselves, our thoughts and feelings as something separate from the rest. A kind of optical delusion of consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from the prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. The true value of a human being is determined by the measure and the sense in which they have obtained liberation from the self. We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if humanity is to survive. (Albert Einstein, 1954)
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. (Albert Einstein) Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955 Posted by jordanreed on :
sounds like marx is speaking of the organised religious form and einstein a more in depth personalised experience with the world around us...einstein hits the nail on the head...but then, so does marx..
hard to find fault with either..how could i possibly attempt to?..i'm not even in the same universe as those two..
Posted by jordanreed on :
Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms. (Albert Einstein) Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955
i love that
Posted by turbokid on :
A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. -- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930
i kinda like this one too..
The minority, the ruling class at present, has the schools and press, usually the Church as well, under its thumb. This enables it to organize and sway the emotions of the masses, and make its tool of them. -- Albert Einstein, letter to Sigmund Freud (30 July 1932
Posted by bdgee on :
What Einstein believed is that, inevitability, what is now is what statistical rigor requires of what was.
Realizing that, it is difficult to divorce his abhorrence of quantum mechanics from the need of his ego to have the last word on fundamental principles.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Point is any killing done in the name of religion or culture is wrong and should be eradicated. I'm not advocating changing anyone's culture completely. Only such things that are criminal and fundamentally wrong. Eradicating something that is wrong is neither christian nor anything else. All I'm saying is that the people in the Middle East who practice "Honor" killing and "honor" rape (i read a case or two about this) need to stop living in the past with such a tradition and be human and realize that it is just wrong. If they feel shamed (which I think is BS and that it's just their BS ego's of a man not being able to control a woman) then they should disown that individual from the family and not resort to killing them. The real shame is the loss of human life no matter what the reason but especially for this/their reasons.
Btw Marx is right that religion is the Opiate of the Masses. Everyone needs a drug in life and that happens to be the drug of choice for religious people or religious fanatics.
Posted by bdgee on :
Nah...
Some choose to be Baptist or Jews or Methodist and some drug (maybe a precription, even) claims them.
It ain't like they get much of a choice.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
We'll actually they have many choices but the statement by Marx is not about any particular religion but about religion in general/overall. "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses". Religion to some if not most who are fanatical or just a passing religious person is a "make you feel good" drug. Hence the "opiate" word in Marx's statement.
Posted by Persia on :
Yeep, the Kurd family, they were savages allright...
Native american killings, black slavery, hiroshima and nagasaki, vietnam, iraq, KKK, racist fundamentalist evangelists, daily shootings, daily rapes, daily gangrapes... Yeah, you Americans , you are all a bunch of holy saints, right?
Posted by turbokid on :
excellent point persia! of course we are holy saints, just ask us.
"this country was founded by a bunch of slave owners who wanted to be free" -george carlin
Posted by bdgee on :
We are arrogant "know it all" azzholes in many many cases.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Persia: Yeep, the Kurd family, they were savages allright...
Native american killings, black slavery, hiroshima and nagasaki, vietnam, iraq, KKK, racist fundamentalist evangelists, daily shootings, daily rapes, daily gangrapes... Yeah, you Americans , you are all a bunch of holy saints, right?
1. Was in the past not present: Native american killings, black slavery, hiroshima/nagasaki
2. Was done to defend a country: South Vietnam from North Vietnam like the Korean war
3. Is in all countries: general crime (rapes,murders, robberies.), racism
4. Something we cannot stop because we have no control over politicians: Iraq
Point is things in the past we did & we learn from and realize they are wrong. We evolve and do not live in the past & try to repeat it. The Middle East never evolves and always lives in the past. We do not kill or have our relatives killed because they kissed their bf in public in the name of so called "honor". It's all about the male ego and the control of women in middle eastern society and to enforce such things they resort to murder and call it a matter of "honor"(apparently a male can't dishonor or shame the family for going out with a girl the family disapproves or for public things like kissing.You don't hear of males getting killed in the name of "honor" by their families).If we disapprove of a female relative with someone we do not like we disown them from the family or we accept it even if we disapprove because we love our relatives and value our family's human life. We do not live in 5th century Middle East. We are no saints but we are not savages with regards to our families that much I can say.
Posted by Lockman on :
quote:Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:Originally posted by Persia: Yeep, the Kurd family, they were savages allright...
Native american killings, black slavery, hiroshima and nagasaki, vietnam, iraq, KKK, racist fundamentalist evangelists, daily shootings, daily rapes, daily gangrapes... Yeah, you Americans , you are all a bunch of holy saints, right?
1. Was in the past not present: Native american killings, black slavery, hiroshima/nagasaki
2. Was done to defend a country: South Vietnam from North Vietnam like the Korean war
3. Is in all countries: general crime (rapes,murders, robberies.), racism
4. Something we cannot stop because we have no control over politicians: Iraq
Point is things in the past we did & we learn from and realize they are wrong. We evolve and do not live in the past & try to repeat it. The Middle East never evolves and always lives in the past. We do not kill or have our relatives killed because they kissed their bf in public in the name of so called "honor". It's all about the male ego and the control of women in middle eastern society and to enforce such things they resort to murder and call it a matter of "honor"(apparently a male can't dishonor or shame the family for going out with a girl the family disapproves or for public things like kissing.You don't hear of males getting killed in the name of "honor" by their families).If we disapprove of a female relative with someone we do not like we disown them from the family or we accept it even if we disapprove because we love our relatives and value our family's human life. We do not live in 5th century Middle East. We are no saints but we are not savages with regards to our families that much I can say.
Good Post Mach
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Great point Mach...
Persia,
We may have made mistakes in this country, but at least here in the US, our society/culture allows us to:
#1) Realize they were mistakes #2) Openly admit they were mistakes #3) Try to stop making those mistakes again #4) Speak freely about those mistakes in order to prevent others from having to learn on their own
How many of the above do you see in other cultures where "Honor" killings are common? What do you think would happen to someone who tried to stop an "honor" killing in those cultures? What do you think would happen to someone who spoke out against "honor" killings in those cultures?
IMO, this is what sets us apart and ABOVE others. Sure, to some, this makes us appear as "high and mighty" hypocrites, and unfortunately, those same people often use that as an excuse to ignore the heart of the message, which, regardless of the messenger, is inherently correct and truthful.
In all honesty, it is irrelevant what America has done in the past... The fact is HONOR KILLINGS ARE WRONG. Period.
Posted by madmoney on :
quote:Originally posted by bdgee: We are arrogant "know it all" azzholes in many many cases.
speak for yourself!! oh wait, you just did! LOL!! just kidding! Posted by bdgee on :
Mostly for you and your's, though, madmoney.
Yep, "lol"......too damned much being serious around here.
Posted by glassman on :
In all honesty, it is irrelevant what America has done in the past... The fact is HONOR KILLINGS ARE WRONG. Period.
it's not that far in the past tho...
when did US women get the vote? 87years ago this August...
there are still women alive that were born without the right to vote... countries that granted women voting right BEFORE US? Denmark, Australia, most of Canada, Germany, Austria, Finland,Russia,Netherlands,Belgium, Poland, Estonia, Iceland and Latvia....
1918: The United Kingdom gives a full vote to women of age 30 and older and men age 21 and older. 1929: Women found to be "persons" in Canada and therefore able to become members of the Senate. Posted by NaturalResources on :
I agree Glass, we are not perfect, but we are are "evolving" away from being "savages".... Also, in some ways, we still are.
I wasn't trying to suggest that the good ole US is perfect. I was only saying that when it comes to human rights, most tend to "shoot the messenger" when the US speaks out simply because we are not, and have not been perfect, which really, when you think about it, is only an excuse for the side in the wrong to just keep doing the wrong thing that they are doing.
If I rob a bank and kill a man in the process, am I wrong when I tell you not to steal or murder when I see that you might be headed down the same path? Sure, to some that would make me a hypocrite... But I'm STILL RIGHT. Sure, me speaking out might not discourage you, and you may have to learn on your own by doing, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't speak out against something I know is wrong or try as hard as I can to keep you from making the same mistake.
Posted by glassman on :
and? where am i headed with this?
we are moving forward as best we can.
i agree that many cultures not our own have some "growing" to do...
head-hunting and cannibalism has just ended in the South Pacific this century too.
saying " They are savages.. plain and simple.. is easy...
demonising them is easy..
how did women get the vote? not with guns and bombs... South African apartheid was not ended by a civil war.... (at least not like, or as bad as the U. S. had)...
check out this article: Summary
The phenomenon of female infanticide is as old as many cultures, and has likely accounted for millions of gender-selective deaths throughout history. It remains a critical concern in a number of "Third World" countries today, notably the two most populous countries on earth, China and India. In all cases, specifically female infanticide reflects the low status accorded to women in most parts of the world; it is arguably the most brutal and destructive manifestation of the anti-female bias that pervades "patriarchal" societies. It is closely linked to the phenomena of sex-selective abortion, which targets female fetuses almost exclusively, and neglect of girl children.
by the standards set forth so far in this topic? the only non-savages are pretty much white and latino-hispanic cultures in Northern Europe and the Americas...
and i can assure you that our culture is similarly critisized as "savage" for different reasons by the ones we call "savage" Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: In all honesty, it is irrelevant what America has done in the past... The fact is HONOR KILLINGS ARE WRONG. Period.
it's not that far in the past tho...
when did US women get the vote? 87years ago this August...
there are still women alive that were born without the right to vote... countries that granted women voting right BEFORE US? Denmark, Australia, most of Canada, Germany, Austria, Finland,Russia,Netherlands,Belgium, Poland, Estonia, Iceland and Latvia....
1918: The United Kingdom gives a full vote to women of age 30 and older and men age 21 and older. 1929: Women found to be "persons" in Canada and therefore able to become members of the Senate.
with regards to human rights and in the example you give of women voting rights.. considering we have been a country more or less since 1776 (231 years old), I would say we progress and evolve alot faster then the countries you have mentioned who have been in existence a whole lot longer then us with regards to our past mistakes and such... so 87 years in a existence of 231 years so far is not that bad... compared to the Middle East of I would say 3,000 + years and no evolvement in human rights per say.... we may be arrogant but we are right when it comes to human rights and especially women's rights...
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
and i can assure you that our culture is similarly critisized as "savage" for different reasons by the ones we call "savage"
yes... i can see how basic "freedoms" can be construed as savagery by people who still think they are in the days of nomads & cavemen... Posted by glassman on :
i agree for the most part Mach, my caution is to be careful with that righteousness, To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.Friedrich Nietzsche
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i agree for the most part Mach, my caution is to be careful with that righteousness, To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.Friedrich Nietzsche
I'm not trying to predict their behavior I'm trying to change it for the better good of a human being called Woman. She is a living being and not something you can stomp out because she doesn't bow down to you. After 3000 or more years of existence in the Middle East i would say it's about time they evolve and treat all human life precious and not kill them because they are dating the wrong person or give a smooch in public... like i said.. if a woman dating a wrong person or smooch in public bothers you... Murder no matter how you try to justify it in the name of culture and religion is not right.. not right as human beings.. forget western, christian, or any other culture.. it's not a culture thing... it's a human thing... wars and such over borders and such which results in killings happens... we get on each others nerves and even though I don't advocate War... it happens and it is human nature.. it's a fact of life... but "honor" killing should not be a fact of life no matter how you try to justify it....
Posted by jordanreed on :
war is not a fact in my life..nor is it human in my nature..
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: war is not a fact in my life..nor is it human in my nature..
Not a fact of life directly but indirectly it is... you easily could of had relatives or friends in the Twin Towers, the Pentagon or the airliner on 9/11 that went down in the field... you can right now have friends or relatives serving in Iraq and Afghanistan... and if this country was ever invaded by another country I would have no doubt your "human nature" would be warfare... I am not saying these things are everyday in our lives but they exist since the beginning of time and will exist till End of Days... Humans who have to have borders or disputes of some kind will always be at war at some point of time... Humans as a whole cannot live in total peace... whether you like to admit it or not and want to be in denial about it like you are in denial about "honor" killings... it's like you want to ignore these things exist and if you do then perhaps it will go away... well hate to burst your bubble but none of these things will go away until we humans address it and try to find solutions to it... but if you want to be in denial then so be it but someday War or a Honor Killing may affect you directly instead of indirectly....
Posted by bdgee on :
I may not correctly remember it being a quote from E. Kant:
"Civilization has progressed from the ape to man......or so says man."
Posted by jordanreed on :
The Myth that War is Intrinsic to Human Nature Discourages Action for Peace by Young People
These results support the need for a worldwide educational campaign to dispel the myth that war is instinctive, intrinsic to human nature, or unavoidable because of an alleged biological basis. As shown by the results obtained here, such a myth is widespread and constitutes an important obstacle that interferes with the development of activity for peace
The myth that war is intrinsic to human nature is apparently widespread and pervasive. This is indicated by not only our own results, but by the similarity of our results to those originally reported from students in Finland (Wahlstrom, 1985). Future research should be conducted to determine the causal factors that lead to the acceptance of this myth by young people. Such a myth is not supported by most qualified scholars and scientists, who instead agree that there is nothing in our understanding of biology that would support the idea of a "war instinct" or any "biological inevitability" of warfare.
Our data suggest that educational institutions may be partly responsible for the development of the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature. This is suggested by the negative correlation obtained between school norms about peace activity and a student's beliefs about human nature. Apparent1y the students are receiving a contradictory message from the prestigious liberal arts colleges. On the one hand these colleges tend to support peace activity more than community colleges. On the other hand, the students in these colleges are more likely to believe in the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature than students in community colleges. This may reflect the fact that psychology courses and textbooks in the universities tend to emphasize biological factors in personality, intelligence, race and sex differences, and sociology and even history courses and textbooks give increasing attention in recent years to so-called psychobiological" explanations of human social phenomena.
Other possible contributions to the development of the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature need to be examined: for example, the emphasis upon biological determinism in the mass media, and the emphasis upon funding for biological rather than social science research (Adams, 1981).
Our results suggest in not one, but several different ways, that a student's beliefs about human nature and war are significant determining factors in the complex set of causal relationships of activity for peace. 1) This is indicated by the significant correlation between belief and peace activity, whether measured in terms of past activity or future activity. 2) The correlation of belief and activity cannot be explained completely by other intervening variables, since it remains significant after being partialed by other factors such as the subject's attitudes about peace activity, level of anger, and the attitudes of family, friends and school. 3) There is the direct testimony of those who are active, 29% of whom indicate that before they engaged in activity, they had been discouraged by a "pessimistic belief that humans are intrinsically violent and therefore wars are inevitable." As indicated in the results section, the validity of this testimony is supported by internal correlations with other data.
4) In addition to the direct relation of belief to activity. there is an indirect relation through the chain of correlations from belief to attitude to future activity. As suggested earlier, this may reflect a causal chain such that the belief that wars are not caused by intrinsic biological instincts allows for the development of an attitude that something can be done to prevent wars, which, in turn, facilitates the decision to take part in activity for peace. 5) The data obtained in the present study are consistent with similar results obtained in Finland and in a pilot study conducted a year previously in the United States. In all three studies, it was found that a student is more likely to believe that he or she can do something about nuclear war if he or she believes that war is not intrinsic to human nature.
The importance of anger in the motivation of peace activism, as shown in the results of this study, should also be emphasized in a peace education campaign. These findings contradict yet another aspect of the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature, in which it is said that individual human aggressiveness is the biological factor responsible for war. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is no evidence that such individual aggression is necessary to the motivation of a warrior {Adams, 1983 and 1984; Lagerspetz, 1985). Now, we may say to the contrary, that individual aggression, in the form of anger against those responsible for war, is a positive motivational force in the world struggle to abolish war.
eeeeek i hate when people only quote others fully in a post... just speak your mind dude... are humans peaceful? no... humans are violent by nature throughout history as a whole... especially when ideals and borders are involved... see i didn't quote anyone and spoke my mind...
Posted by turbokid on :
meh, heres my opinion. if you believe in evolution then it seems reasonable to believe that humans are the current result of years and years of alpha survivalists, the winners, the cream of the crop, the fittest, etc. its no wonder that we have battle instincts, you dont get to the top of the food chain being a pu*sy. we might have become a little more civil living in societies and such but its engrained in the DNA. Just like those "tame" white tigers that tore off Siegfried's buddy Roy's face.
Posted by retiredat49 on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: The Myth that War is Intrinsic to Human Nature Discourages Action for Peace by Young People
These results support the need for a worldwide educational campaign to dispel the myth that war is instinctive, intrinsic to human nature, or unavoidable because of an alleged biological basis. As shown by the results obtained here, such a myth is widespread and constitutes an important obstacle that interferes with the development of activity for peace
The myth that war is intrinsic to human nature is apparently widespread and pervasive. This is indicated by not only our own results, but by the similarity of our results to those originally reported from students in Finland (Wahlstrom, 1985). Future research should be conducted to determine the causal factors that lead to the acceptance of this myth by young people. Such a myth is not supported by most qualified scholars and scientists, who instead agree that there is nothing in our understanding of biology that would support the idea of a "war instinct" or any "biological inevitability" of warfare.
Our data suggest that educational institutions may be partly responsible for the development of the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature. This is suggested by the negative correlation obtained between school norms about peace activity and a student's beliefs about human nature. Apparent1y the students are receiving a contradictory message from the prestigious liberal arts colleges. On the one hand these colleges tend to support peace activity more than community colleges. On the other hand, the students in these colleges are more likely to believe in the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature than students in community colleges. This may reflect the fact that psychology courses and textbooks in the universities tend to emphasize biological factors in personality, intelligence, race and sex differences, and sociology and even history courses and textbooks give increasing attention in recent years to so-called psychobiological" explanations of human social phenomena.
Other possible contributions to the development of the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature need to be examined: for example, the emphasis upon biological determinism in the mass media, and the emphasis upon funding for biological rather than social science research (Adams, 1981).
Our results suggest in not one, but several different ways, that a student's beliefs about human nature and war are significant determining factors in the complex set of causal relationships of activity for peace. 1) This is indicated by the significant correlation between belief and peace activity, whether measured in terms of past activity or future activity. 2) The correlation of belief and activity cannot be explained completely by other intervening variables, since it remains significant after being partialed by other factors such as the subject's attitudes about peace activity, level of anger, and the attitudes of family, friends and school. 3) There is the direct testimony of those who are active, 29% of whom indicate that before they engaged in activity, they had been discouraged by a "pessimistic belief that humans are intrinsically violent and therefore wars are inevitable." As indicated in the results section, the validity of this testimony is supported by internal correlations with other data.
4) In addition to the direct relation of belief to activity. there is an indirect relation through the chain of correlations from belief to attitude to future activity. As suggested earlier, this may reflect a causal chain such that the belief that wars are not caused by intrinsic biological instincts allows for the development of an attitude that something can be done to prevent wars, which, in turn, facilitates the decision to take part in activity for peace. 5) The data obtained in the present study are consistent with similar results obtained in Finland and in a pilot study conducted a year previously in the United States. In all three studies, it was found that a student is more likely to believe that he or she can do something about nuclear war if he or she believes that war is not intrinsic to human nature.
The importance of anger in the motivation of peace activism, as shown in the results of this study, should also be emphasized in a peace education campaign. These findings contradict yet another aspect of the myth that war is intrinsic to human nature, in which it is said that individual human aggressiveness is the biological factor responsible for war. As has been pointed out elsewhere, there is no evidence that such individual aggression is necessary to the motivation of a warrior {Adams, 1983 and 1984; Lagerspetz, 1985). Now, we may say to the contrary, that individual aggression, in the form of anger against those responsible for war, is a positive motivational force in the world struggle to abolish war.
These writings are completely RIDICULOUS...History has proven otherwise...
Posted by T e x on :
lol, can't say what else has been proven otherwise...can't tell what they're saying ...
JR? can't make head nor tails of that article/study/whatever it is...
Posted by bond006 on :
Most all of what you folks have listed as terrible crimes against humanity are true.
But let us not put the horse before the cart.
IMHO these things were done in the quest for profit and things like racism were devolped as a by product of justifacation for the crime of exploitation.
Such as to justify slavery you have to demonize the victims of that interprise and inhuman system
Not letting women vote you have to justify it by saying half of humanity is not smart enough to vote for genetic reasons.
Just a few examples of my reasoning and we all have to live today with the aftermath of that wich is turned into false truth's to justify evil methods of profit centers that at one time or another were main sectores of our economy.
When you think of it I would say that most humans are not as violent as we get credit for ,or else why would we need a draft. We are an ends justifies the means bunch.
Posted by jordanreed on :
all i'm saying is...I'd rather play golf,,,,or music...or fish...or love my boy....or smoke a ceegar..or read..or work on my house..or play in my garden..or just kick back and soak up the sun...or entertain..or bbq..so I guess that is what I'll do...I'll leave the violent war talk to the rest of you...
I've gotta take my coffee and pain pills now..
Posted by bdgee on :
"Not letting women vote you have to justify it by saying half of humanity is not smart enough to vote for genetic reasons."
Let me think, now; we've got women voting and 18 year olds and no convicts and there is no pole tax and you not only can vote if you don't speak English, you can vote if you don't speak at all and we get the ultimate in arrogant elitist fascist "The Decider" dubya, that turns the whole world against us, while allowing the cadre of huge corporations to filter the nation's wealth to offshore non-taxible depositories and investments.
Sure looks like we have the wrong folks voting.
There may, indeed, be good reason to exclude 1/2 the population, but just exactly how to determine who does and who does not get put into that category is a hard thing to realize.
Whatever, we sure ain't solved that equation yet.
Posted by Pagan on :
"There may, indeed, be good reason to exclude 1/2 the population, but just exactly how to determine who does and who does not get put into that category is a hard thing to realize.
Whatever, we sure ain't solved that equation yet."
For someone who so often waxes patriotic and continually defends the constitution...the above quoted statement has got to be the most assinine and idiotic statement I have seen you utter thus far. JIMO of course.
Posted by T e x on :
PAGAN!
long time, bro...
good to see ya
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: "There may, indeed, be good reason to exclude 1/2 the population, but just exactly how to determine who does and who does not get put into that category is a hard thing to realize.
Whatever, we sure ain't solved that equation yet."
For someone who so often waxes patriotic and continually defends the constitution...the above quoted statement has got to be the most assinine and idiotic statement I have seen you utter thus far. JIMO of course.
Oh, sorry, pagan, didn't mean to talk over your head. Didn't know you were around. Good to see ya.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
You either evolve or you get eliminated... enough said:
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)