# Guilty: Jury finds Shafia family members guilty of first-degree murder



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

> KINGSTON, ONT.—This is Canada. They won’t be “hoisted onto the gallows.” But they’re going to prison for life.
> Mohammad Shafia: Guilty on four counts of first-degree murder.
> Tooba Mohammad Yahya: Guilty on four counts of first-degree murder.
> Hamed Shafia: Guilty on four counts of first degree murder.
> On Sunday afternoon, after 15 hours of deliberation, the jury of five men and seven women returned with their verdict.


Guilty: Jury finds Shafia family members guilty of first-degree murder - thestar.com


Scum of the earth. Shame we got rid of the death penalty. There's no defense for such barbaric acts.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

This news has spread quickly, the BBC has this story already and the Beeeb, pays little attention to Canadian matters. They really hardly care at all about Canadian events.


----------



## JAMG (Apr 1, 2003)

I am glad we do not have a death penalty. I want these animals to rot for a long time...
Money well spent.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

JAMG said:


> I am glad we do not have a death penalty. I want these animals to rot for a long time...
> *Money well spent*.


Not really...


----------



## RicktheChemist (Jul 18, 2001)

.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

RicktheChemist said:


> The appeals will last at least for ten years.. no? This case is far from over...


LOL...they're not on death row...however, their deportation hearings would take a lot longer.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

> I am glad we do not have a death penalty. I want these animals to rot for a long time...


 Agree, but in this case hard labour with only bread and water till end of life would be great.


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

lukasf said:


> Agree, but in this case hard labour with only bread and water till end of life would be great.


The punishment should fit the crime. A public stoning seems appropriate.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

> The punishment should fit the crime. A public stoning seems appropriate.


That is their typical behaviour - we should show them superiority of our civilization ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Can't tell you how relieved I am that these sentences were passed down on the three of them. What they did to their own family members was disgusting - there was no honour in it and there never could be.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

Agreed and welcome back Max!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Thanks, Sinc. Just glad this trial is over and the killers were made to pay for their crimes.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Hey Max 

It is a good result. This sort of thing isn't acceptable, and I'm glad this has been made clear.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yo, Groove. Glad to be back.

As much as I'm delighted the three accused are going to spend a good long time in jail (hopefully with the crusty old patriarch himself dying behind bars one day soon), I am struck by the loss of four innocent women, three of whom who were really just beginning their lives. The utter senseless of these deaths saddens me.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Max said:


> Yo, Groove. Glad to be back.
> 
> As much as I'm delighted the three accused are going to spend a good long time in jail (hopefully with the crusty old patriarch himself dying behind bars one day soon), I am struck by the loss of four innocent women, three of whom who were really just beginning their lives. The utter senseless of these deaths saddens me.


Agreed.

Somehow I believe the phrase "Honour killing" is a bad translation. Clearly there was no honour to be found amongst these three.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

Max said:


> Thanks, Sinc. Just glad this trial is over and the killers were made to pay for their crimes.


I am unconvinced that all those people killed all those other people.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

Religion at its finest.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

imnothng said:


> Religion at its finest.


"Those who can be convinced of absurdities can be convinced to commit atrocities" - Voltaire


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

imnothng said:


> Religion at its finest.





bryanc said:


> "Those who can be convinced of absurdities can be convinced to commit atrocities" - Voltaire


It is not about religion it is a about certain cultures, Islam does not promote "honour" killing, and other cultures do it as well.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> It is not about religion it is a about certain cultures


Last time I studied sociology, religion was considered an integral aspect of culture. While honour killings are not unique to Muslim society, in this specific case, religion was clearly an important factor.

If you want to discuss a different topic, I suggest starting a different thread.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Dr T said:


> I am unconvinced that all those people killed all those other people.


You do not think that this man, his wife and his son did murdered the four women? Or are you not convinced that it had been sufficiently proven, or...?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Last time I studied sociology, religion was considered an integral aspect of culture. While honour killings are not unique to Muslim society, in this specific case, religion was clearly an important factor.
> 
> If you want to discuss a different topic, I suggest starting a different thread.


It is not a part of the religious doctrine of Islam... get it now? Listen and read the the reports on the subject and you will know that is is not part of the teaching of Islam.

It was not about religion it was about their specific culture... Religion was brought up here as part of the subject so it is appropriate and relevant to the thread.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The murders were motivated by the religious beliefs of the perpetrators. You or I or anyone else may have a different interpretation of what Islam teaches, but that's not relevant to what the perpetrators of this crime believed.

It is also perfectly fair to say that Islam does not teach that flying planes in to skyscrapers or blowing yourself up in a crowed market is a good thing to do, but that does not change the fact that the people who do these things are religiously motivated.

The point is, when people are raised to believe crazy things, they'll often do crazy stuff.

Thus I contend that getting some of the crazy out of our culture would be a good thing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> The murders were motivated by the religious beliefs of the perpetrators. You or I or anyone else may have a different interpretation of what Islam teaches, but that's not relevant to what the perpetrators of this crime believed.
> 
> It is also perfectly fair to say that Islam does not teach that flying planes in to skyscrapers or blowing yourself up in a crowed market is a good thing to do, but that does not change the fact that the people who do these things are religiously motivated.
> 
> ...


It is this kind of thinking that leads to racial profiling... there are lunatic fringes in every aspect of society... that SOME people are Muslim who carry out these acts does not mean it was religiously motivated as if they actually followed the tenets of their religion they would not do such things, they are simply deluded people who happen to belong to a certain religion and in their delusion blame or attribute their acts to the religion. They exist (or come from) in a culture of hate and violence, not in a religion that promotes these things.

To attribute religion as the cause is to misappropriate the source cause and leads to prejudice and worse.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> To attribute religion as the cause is to misappropriate the source cause and leads to prejudice and worse.


It may be true that these people would've done something similarly heinous if they'd been raised in a different culture (indeed, I'd certainly be willing to consider the idea that crazy people are attracted to crazy religions, and that the religion is the effect, rather than the cause of the fundamental mental disorder). It is clearly true that not all Muslims believe the same things, or that even those who are in agreement about what their religion teaches agree on how those beliefs ought to be acted upon. But in this case, it seems very clear from the testimony and recordings that the actions were motivated by specific religious beliefs.

I agree that one must not tar all adherents of a given religion with the same brush on the basis of actions committed by fringe members of that faith. But that does not mean that the actions of that fringe are not religiously motivated.

Rather than giving religions a pass, we should be extremely critical and consider their effects on all their adherents, not just the majority.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

bryanc said:


> thus i contend that getting some of the crazy out of our culture would be a good thing.


+1


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I dunno. Nature abhors a vacuum. Get some crazy out of culture thanks to religious zealotry and some other crazy behaviour will rise to the occasion. Overwrought nationalism or racism, for example.

I think crazy is a constant.


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

screature said:


> It is not a part of the religious doctrine of Islam... get it now? Listen and read the the reports on the subject and you will know that is is not part of the teaching of Islam.
> 
> It was not about religion it was about their specific culture... Religion was brought up here as part of the subject so it is appropriate and relevant to the thread.





> Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient, guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives] from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand.


 4:34

Surat An-Nisa' [4:34] - The Holy Qur'an - ?????? ??????

Indeed scriptures require interpretation. The meaning of the word strike may have had a different meaning in Arabic and at the time of the writing/translation.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> I think crazy is a constant.


Interesting idea. We should probably name it after you, eh  ? I wonder how we could measure KMax?


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

This is a product of patriarchial culture, not this particular religion. It is a problem in India with intercast relationships. There were instances in Italy either during or just after WWII with local girls fraternizing with troops. In general where males are deemed to reign supreme, there will be instances of them taking absolute and fatal power.

There is also a cultural element of mass conformity. they had a call in on CBC at lunch. They talked of an incident where the local community did not like how a father was handling his daughters and were putting pressure on him to " take care of it ".

I think an important message has been well sent. first it was a jury and not a judge. Second it was fairly even - 7 women, 5 men. Third, it did not take them long to send the message.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Adrian. said:


> 4:34
> 
> Surat An-Nisa' [4:34] - The Holy Qur'an - ?????? ??????
> 
> Indeed scriptures require interpretation. The meaning of the word strike may have had a different meaning in Arabic and at the time of the writing/translation.


Indeed it is a patriarchal religion, no one would deny that but it does not advocate "honour" killing.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Lichen Software said:


> *This is a product of patriarchial culture, not this particular religion. * It is a problem in India with intercast relationships. There were instances in Italy either during or just after WWII with local girls fraternizing with troops. In general where males are deemed to reign supreme, there will be instances of them taking absolute and fatal power.
> 
> There is also a cultural element of mass conformity. they had a call in on CBC at lunch. They talked of an incident where the local community did not like how a father was handling his daughters and were putting pressure on him to " take care of it ".
> 
> I think an important message has been well sent. first it was a jury and not a judge. Second it was fairly even - 7 women, 5 men. Third, it did not take them long to send the message.


Exactly...


----------



## keebler27 (Jan 5, 2007)

let's hope this shows that our society won't put up with this bs.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Lichen Software said:


> This is a product of patriarchial culture, not *just* this particular religion.


{added bold}

I agree that the religion is only a part of the culture, and this particular pathology manifests elsewhere, but that does not eliminate the religious justification/motivation used by these particular individuals to commit this particular crime.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> Interesting idea. We should probably name it after you, eh  ? I wonder how we could measure KMax?


Hey, I'm down with that. As long as people don't necessarily believe that the guy who invented KMax was himself nutso.

Seriously, though. Does anyone really believe that the wholesale abolition of religious belief would eradicate murder, genocide, cruelty, etc? The weeds sprout up through the paving stones regardless of what the stones are made of.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Hey, I'm down with that. As long as people don't necessarily believe that the guy who invented KMax was himself nutso.
> 
> Seriously, though. Does anyone really believe that the wholesale abolition of religious belief would eradicate murder, genocide, cruelty, etc? The weeds spout up through the paving stones regardless of what the stones are made of.


All that would do would be to remove a well used tool to convince people to commit these atrocities. But then, that'll leave the racial, national, and class wars to fill it's void.

Disturbing world we live in.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Max said:


> Seriously, though. Does anyone really believe that the wholesale abolition of religious belief would eradicate murder, genocide, cruelty, etc?


No. Firstly, trying to abolish a religion is like pouring gasoline on a fire; there's nothing that convinces the faithful that they're right like persecution. Secondly, while atheists and agnostics are significantly under-represented in prisons and the bloody annals of human history, it's certainly not difficult to find examples of people doing horrible things without any religious motivation.

However, I do think that an enlightened society of well-educated, rational, empathetic people would exhibit a lot less religiosity, violence and cruelty (indeed, I see aspects of this in the culture of academia, which is one of the main reasons I chose this career). I also think such a society would be highly productive and wealthy, resulting in much less of some of the other major motivators of anti-social behaviour (depravation, jealousy, greed, etc.).


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

bryanc said:


> No. Firstly, trying to abolish a religion is like pouring gasoline on a fire; there's nothing that convinces the faithful that they're right like persecution. Secondly, while atheists and agnostics are significantly under-represented in prisons and the bloody annals of human history, it's certainly not difficult to find examples of people doing horrible things without any religious motivation.
> 
> *However, I do think that an enlightened society of well-educated, rational, empathetic people would exhibit a lot less religiosity, violence and cruelty (indeed, I see aspects of this in the culture of academia, which is one of the main reasons I chose this career). I also think such a society would be highly productive and wealthy, resulting in much less of some of the other major motivators of anti-social behaviour (depravation, jealousy, greed, etc.).*


I never laughed so hard in my life.:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

You must be joking?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

a pretty fantastic concept no?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Joker Eh said:


> I never laughed so hard in my life.:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
> 
> You must be joking?


+1. Many wouldn't know what to do if they had to enter working life. Wealth creators!!!!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bryanc said:


> However, I do think that an enlightened society of well-educated, rational, empathetic people would exhibit a lot less religiosity, violence and cruelty (indeed, I see aspects of this in the culture of academia, which is one of the main reasons I chose this career). I also think such a society would be highly productive and wealthy, resulting in much less of some of the other major motivators of anti-social behaviour (depravation, jealousy, greed, etc.).


This is one of the more self-serving and delusional statements I've come across in some time. People are people - whether academics steeped in ivory tower intellectualism or blue collar blokes chilling in a sports bar at the end of another working stiff day. Jealousy and greed cling to people from all walks of life. Academics are hardly immune to murderous rages or perverted predations; it's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.

I am grateful we are not all so "enlightened" as the society to which you feel you so deservedly belong; the prospect strikes me as being drab and hopelessly cliquish.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> However, I do think that an enlightened society of well-educated, rational, empathetic people would exhibit a lot less religiosity, violence and cruelty (indeed, I see aspects of this in the culture of academia, which is one of the main reasons I chose this career). I also think such a society would be highly productive and wealthy, resulting in much less of some of the other major motivators of anti-social behaviour (depravation, jealousy, greed, etc.).


Wow.... if academics ruled the world, I'd bet we'd be arguing over whose name goes first in the proclamations of law and order. :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^
Wow is right. What a load of egotistical bull.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

SINC said:


> ^
> Wow is right. What a load of egotistical bull.


I was almost going to start on my threads on this one SINC.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Joker Eh said:


> I was almost going to start on my threads on this one SINC.


Self-important Academic Blowhards: You're Such a Joke Now!


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Self-important Academic Blowhards: You're Such a Joke Now!


:lmao:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> This is one of the more self-serving and delusional statements I've come across in some time. People are people - whether academics steeped in ivory tower intellectualism or blue collar blokes chilling in a sports bar at the end of another working stiff day. Jealousy and greed cling to people from all walks of life. Academics are hardly immune to murderous rages or perverted predations; it's ludicrous to pretend otherwise.
> 
> I am grateful we are not all so "enlightened" as the society to which you feel you so deservedly belong; the prospect strikes me as being drab and hopelessly cliquish.





Sonal said:


> Wow.... if academics ruled the world, I'd bet we'd be arguing over whose name goes first in the proclamations of law and order. :lmao:





SINC said:


> ^
> Wow is right. What a load of egotistical bull.





Joker Eh said:


> I never laughed so hard in my life.:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
> 
> You must be joking?


bryanc has been on a tear of self important posts and threads these days, well more so than usual, makes me wonder if things aren't going so well in other aspects of his life.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> No. Firstly, trying to abolish a religion is like pouring gasoline on a fire; there's nothing that convinces the faithful that they're right like persecution. Secondly, while atheists and agnostics are significantly under-represented in prisons and the bloody annals of human history, it's certainly not difficult to find examples of people doing horrible things without any religious motivation.
> 
> However, I do think that an *enlightened society of well-educated, rational, empathetic people* would exhibit a lot less religiosity, violence and cruelty (indeed, I see aspects of this in the culture of academia, which is one of the main reasons I chose this career). I also think such a society would be highly productive and wealthy, resulting in much less of some of the other major motivators of anti-social behaviour (depravation, jealousy, greed, etc.).


I think people missed this tidbit. To my way of thinking, people who who are rational, and empathetic are LESS likely to exhibit the vicious behaviour seen by the nuts who use religion (amongst other) reasons to act that way.

Perhaps a little frothing at the mouth is occurring?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Actually your bold portion of that quote was indeed contained in every quote by members and duly taken into consideration before replying.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I think people missed this tidbit. *To my way of thinking, people who who are rational, and empathetic are more* likely to exhibit the vicious behaviour seen by the nuts who use religion (amongst other) reasons to act that way.
> 
> Perhaps a little frothing at the mouth is occurring?


Uhmm did you really mean to say this.. if you did well then I don't know what to say but it is far from that particular aspect that people are seeing as being contentious... 

Additionally the only part of the post that you bolded that would preclude such behaviour would be empathy, rational people are actually some of the scariest when comes to acts of violence.

The only froth I see here is in your avatar.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Uhmm did you really mean to say this.. if you did well then I don't know what to say but it is far from that particular aspect that people are seeing as being contentious...
> 
> Additionally the only part of the post that you bolded that would preclude such behaviour would be empathy, rational people are actually some of the scariest when comes to acts of violence.
> 
> The only froth I see here is in your avatar.


oops you're right. That's what you get for jumping in between writing code. edit coming..


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Actually your bold portion of that quote was indeed contained in every quote by members and duly taken into consideration before replying.


I realize that. Just wondering how it came to this. Was it the part about him seeing aspects of this in academia? That could be pushing I'd agree, but it wasn't as if he said, that's the way all academia_ is_.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I doubt all of academia_ is_ this way. I rather suspect instead that it is a personal idealogical preponderance.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Well-educated, rational and empathetic does not necessarily mean without religion.

But I don't think academia has a surfeit of such people. Well-educated, sure. Rational and empathetic, not necessarily. 

It's interesting to me that bryanc sees academia as so lofty, when my fiance's biggest complaints are about the politics and how irrational all of that is.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Well-educated, rational and empathetic does not necessarily mean without religion.
> 
> But I don't think academia has a surfeit of such people. Well-educated, sure. Rational and empathetic, not necessarily.
> 
> It's interesting to me that bryanc sees academia as so lofty, when my fiance's biggest complaints are about the politics and how irrational all of that is.


personal experience maybe? 

I forgot that political science was in there too  good point.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

groovetube said:


> personal experience maybe?
> 
> I forgot that political science was in there too  good point.


I have another scientist friend who complains about the lack of empathy... she works in a highly respected lab. The expectations are brutal... people vie for the parking spaces where you will get trapped in by other cars (they are 3 deep) in order to show that they have no need to leave before others because they will work harder and longer than anyone else. 

I have a third academic friend whose pretty happy with things, but she's a criminologist--not in the hard sciences.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

SINC said:


> I doubt all of academia_ is_ this way. I rather suspect instead that it is a personal idealogical preponderance.


Thank you, Sinc. I do tire when I hear/read of all academics being painted with the same brush. We are as different/caring/understanding/obtuse/pedantic/emphahetic/foolish/loving/understanding/hateful as any other group of people. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

ok I stand corrected. I didn't lose an arm.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> I have another scientist friend who complains about the lack of empathy... she works in a highly respected lab. The expectations are brutal... *people vie for the parking spaces where you will get trapped in by other cars (they are 3 deep) in order to show that they have no need to leave before others because they will work harder and longer than anyone else. *
> 
> I have a third academic friend whose pretty happy with things, but she's a criminologist--not in the hard sciences.


Wow...incredible. 

I recall an old friend who chose to pursue academia, complain about petty jealousies and internal politics not to mention fights over funding, grants and budgets.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

Sonal said:


> Well-educated, rational and empathetic does not necessarily mean without religion.


if you believe in imaginary beings then you are not rational.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

imnothng said:


> if you believe in imaginary beings then you are not rational.


+1


----------



## John Clay (Jun 25, 2006)

imnothng said:


> if you believe in imaginary beings then you are not rational.


+1 :clap:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

rgray said:


> +1





John Clay said:


> +1 :clap:


The presupposition here is that the the beings are imaginary and not real... this is your presupposition and one that you cannot prove or disprove... so... next...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Oh the predictability.... 

Rationality is a manner of deriving conclusions. It's a description of a thought process. When we describe a person as rational, we typically mean that they show an ability and/or a preference for this type of thought process. 

Having a preference for this type of thought process does not necessarily preclude religious belief.


----------



## hbp (Apr 18, 2007)

Well this got off-track..


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

hbp said:


> Well this got off-track..
> 
> Anyone feel a touch sorry for the 21-year old who was brainwashed in this culture and subsequently "forced" to follow or face ostracization/victimization?
> 
> Not at all condoning the act, just trying to perhaps see it from his perspective.


I don't feel sorry for a 21 year old who was "brainwashed"...

I was "brainwashed" to be a Catholic... that lasted until I was about 13 when I started to read more, learn more and think for myself... 

I have been agnostic ever since, so no I don't have sympathy for a 21 year old who wasn't intellectually or emotionally strong enough to do that...

It seems some of the females in the family had enough "balls" to reject the brainwashing, too bad the males didn't as well.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

> i don't feel sorry for a 21 year old who was "brainwashed"...
> 
> I was "brainwashed" to be a catholic... That lasted until i was about 13 when i started to read more, learn more and think for myself...
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

hbp said:


> Well this got off-track..
> 
> Anyone feel a touch sorry for the 21-year old who was brainwashed in this culture and subsequently "forced" to follow or face ostracization/victimization?
> 
> Not at all condoning the act, just trying to perhaps see it from his perspective.


Oh, please...

In Canada 21 years of age means he is an adult and responsible for his actions, namely participation in multiple murder.


----------



## hbp (Apr 18, 2007)

screature said:


> I don't feel sorry for a 21 year old who was "brainwashed"...
> 
> I was "brainwashed" to be a Catholic... that lasted until I was about 13 when I started to read more, learn more and think for myself...
> 
> ...


I like this point. Such a sad, sad state of affairs.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> I was "brainwashed" to be a Catholic... that lasted until I was about 13 when I started to read more, learn more and think for myself...


In other words, you were rational and became educated. In my experience, a rational mind and good education (especially in philosophy and the natural sciences) are, if not completely incompatible, then at least significantly negatively correlated with religiosity, and you are an example of this correlation. Furthermore, these characteristics also negatively correlate with anti-social behaviour. I can envision several mechanisms that may drive this correlation, but I don't have the time or expertise to test these sociological hypotheses, so I must be content with making the observation.

While it seems most people here find the idea ridiculous, and it's clear that there are many exceptions to the rule, I think the relationship between rationality & good education and reduced religiosity and antisocial behaviour is quite strong.

Also, while it is true that wherever groups of people compete for limited resources there will be conflict and wherever groups of people interact in any significant way for any length of time there will be politics, I don't think the politics in Academia are worse than in any other field. On the contrary, most academics I know are far too busy with their research and teaching to engage in much politicking... the politics I've encountered at universities around Canada have been largely the domain of technical support, administrative and other non-academic staff who've got too much time on their hands.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> On the contrary, most academics I know are far too busy with their research and teaching to engage in much politicking... the politics I've encountered at universities around Canada have been largely the domain of technical support, administrative and other non-academic staff who've got too much time on their hands.


Digging yourself deeper, huh? I've seen the wild competition to be published. Academics scooping each other, etc. This self-serving "observation" is simply a non-starter. 

The relationship between non-religious thinking and placid behaviour? Josef Stalin believed in no god at all.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> It seems some of the females in the family had enough "balls" to reject the brainwashing, too bad the males didn't as well.


Well, given that the family culture allowed for a lot of freedom and power for the males, and very little freedom and power for the females, it's not really surprising that they would reject it--particularly in Canada where the surrounding culture allows for a lot more freedom for women.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Digging yourself deeper, huh? I've seen the wild competition to be published. Academics scooping each other, etc. This self-serving "observation" is simply a non-starter.


How is it self serving? It's my observation, and it has informed my decisions about career choices. Having worked in academia for 3 decades, I have seen only a few instances of unseemly competitiveness. I've been scooped a couple of times, but not because someone was gunning for me, but rather because other labs working in the field didn't know I was working on that specific problem. Far more often, I have seen people sharing reagents and unpublished data, agreeing to let colleagues work on a specific topic until they've published, and generally helping each other out to the greatest extent possible.

Furthermore, academics are routinely called upon to do what amounts to volunteer work (anonymous peer reviews of papers and grant applications, serving on supervisory and examination committees, etc. etc.) and my experience is that these very time-consuming and demanding tasks are accepted without complaint, executed with admirable rigour and competence, and almost never used as a lever for any kind of quid pro quo.

{edit to add: the one place I did see consistent competitiveness and more political maneuvering than I was comfortable with was in medical research. Unlike basic science researcher, medical researchers (usually MDs, rather than Ph.Ds) do seem hyper-competitive and un-cooperative... maybe that's what you're thinking of?}



> The relationship between non-religious thinking and placid behaviour? Josef Stalin believed in no god at all.


As I said, there are plenty of exceptions, but the correlation is still evident. And I didn't say placid, I said rational well-educated people are less likely to be anti-social. I have difficulty believing you want to take issue with this observation except out of reflexive disagreement with anything I say.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This reminds me of the librarian magazine in which they all congratulate themselves for being librarians--the salt of the earth.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

bryanc said:


> *In other words, you were rational and became educated. In my experience, a rational mind and good education (especially in philosophy and the natural sciences) are, if not completely incompatible, then at least significantly negatively correlated with religiosity, and you are an example of this correlation.* Furthermore, these characteristics also negatively correlate with anti-social behaviour. I can envision several mechanisms that may drive this correlation, but I don't have the time or expertise to test these sociological hypotheses, so I must be content with making the observation.
> 
> While it seems most people here find the idea ridiculous, and it's clear that there are many exceptions to the rule, *I think the relationship between rationality & good education and reduced religiosity and antisocial behaviour is quite strong.*
> 
> Also, while it is true that wherever groups of people compete for limited resources there will be conflict and wherever groups of people interact in any significant way for any length of time there will be politics, I don't think the politics in Academia are worse than in any other field. On the contrary, most academics I know are far too busy with their research and teaching to engage in much politicking... the politics I've encountered at universities around Canada have been largely the domain of technical support, administrative and other non-academic staff who've got too much time on their hands.


I take exception to your words bryanc and be very careful what you say. To say one cannot be educated and believe in some higher power be it religion and whatever else tickles your fancy, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You dig yourself deeper and deeper with every post of yours.

You think you are better than anyone around you, your posts prove such. screature is allowed as an individual and a human being to believe or not believe whatever he likes, he is free to do so because we live in country that allows it.

But you, you associate intelligence with religion, you sir, well.... I'll keep my good standing here on this site.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

bryanc said:


> As I said, there are plenty of exceptions, but the correlation is still evident. And I didn't say placid, *I said rational well-educated people are less likely to be anti-social.* I have difficulty believing you want to take issue with this observation except out of reflexive disagreement with anything I say.


You take your views and believe them to be the majority. Absolute non-sense. :lmao: The exact opposite is true.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*typo*



Joker Eh said:


> I take exception to your words bryanc and be very careful what you say. To say one cannot be educated and believe in some higher power be it religion and whatever else tickles your fancy, is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.


You seem to be confused about the meaning of 'correlation.' It is trivially obvious that there are educated people who are religious. It is also obvious that there is a negative correlation between religiosity and education in philosophy and the natural sciences. These are not mutually exclusive observations.



> You think you are better than anyone around you, your posts prove such.


I believe no such thing. I do however believe that you could do with some practise at reading and critical thinking if you have drawn such obviously erroneous conclusions from my postings.



> screature is allowed as an individual and a human being to believe or not believe whatever he likes


Yes, obviously. What is your point and what has it to do with anything I or anyone else have posted?



> But you, you associate intelligence with religion


No, again, read what I've said. I observe that there is a negative correlation between rationality & education (particularly in philosophy and the natural sciences) and religiosity. These are empirical observations of reality. Sorry if you don't like them.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

Joker Eh said:


> But you, you associate intelligence with religion, you sir, well.... I'll keep my good standing here on this site.


Actually he associates education with reduced religiosity - a position with which I would tend to agree with on general terms. He makes no association to intelligence _per se_ at all.

Intelligence and education are not of necessity equivalent.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

rgray said:


> Actually he associates education with reduced religiosity


Yes, and specifically education in philosophy and the natural sciences. A correlation that has been well-documented for decades, and which is becoming increasingly strong with time. (In the past, education was largely controlled by the church, so this correlation was not as strong... but it was apparent even during the enlightenment).


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

screature said:


> i don't feel sorry for a 21 year old who was "brainwashed"...
> 
> I was "brainwashed" to be a catholic... That lasted until i was about 13 when i started to read more, learn more and think for myself...
> 
> ...


+1


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Well, given that the family culture allowed for a lot of freedom and power for the males, and very little freedom and power for the females, it's not really surprising that they would reject it--particularly in Canada where the surrounding culture allows for a lot more freedom for women.


Agreed to a point but the male in the family could also certainly see what was/is the "norm" here and should have been able to *logically* support the notion of freedom regardless of sex, religion, race etc. given the alternative influences he would be encountering. 

Being privileged by his family's culture should not necessarily lead to rejection of these freedoms for women, not if he is a compassionate, caring and thinking person... clearly he was none of those things and further reason not to feel sorry for him.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> Agreed to a point but the male in the family could also certainly see what was/is the "norm" here and should have been able to *logically* support the notion of freedom regardless of sex, religion, race etc. given the alternative influences he would be encountering.
> 
> Being privileged by his family's culture should not necessarily lead to rejection of these freedoms for women, not if he is a compassionate, caring and thinking person... clearly he was none of those things and further reason not to feel sorry for him.


:clap:

This very nicely illustrates why I think education and rational/critical thinking are the best cures for these sorts of societal ills.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> :clap:
> 
> This very nicely illustrates why I think education and rational/critical thinking are the best cures for these sorts of societal ills.


I think they are principles that can help to alleviate some of the tendencies in some people but there will never be a cure. 

Also rational/critical thinking can also be used to perpetrate evil as much as it can be used in the service of good. It all depends on the premise that one starts with as being "true" or "essential" or "necessary" when beginning the "rational/critical thinking" process.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Agreed to a point but the male in the family could also certainly see what was/is the "norm" here and should have been able to *logically* support the notion of freedom regardless of sex, religion, race etc. given the alternative influences he would be encountering.
> 
> Being privileged by his family's culture should not necessarily lead to rejection of these freedoms for women, not if he is a compassionate, caring and thinking person... clearly he was none of those things and further reason not to feel sorry for him.


'Should' is not a word I use a lot in talking about human behaviour.  Frankly, all the shoulds in the world seem to cause a lot of grief--but that's a whole other topic.

He had a lot more to lose... it's unsurprising that he chose not to give it up. You could argue that the choices he made to follow the family's culture were also logical, in that they would maintain his privilege.

But I also think that there is a reason to feel compassion for everyone, as a refusal to do so leads to more divisiveness. 

He made his choices and I don't agree with his choices. But I see nothing wrong with finding reasons to empathize. Was he too young or immature to know better, or to have the courage to stand up against his father? Was he torn between parental expectations and his feelings towards his sisters? I don't know, but I can imagine, I can seek to understand, and from such understanding hopefully have a better knowledge of how these cultural beliefs are perpetuated even while surrounded by a different culture.

He was found guilty of the crime and is being punished for it. That's fair and just. But i see no logical reason not to empathize.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> I think they are principles that can help to alleviate some of the tendencies in some people but there will never be a cure.


You're right. Cure is the wrong word, but it's the best approach we've got.



> Also rational/critical thinking can also be used to perpetrate evil as much as it can be used in the service of good.


Perhaps. However, rationality, education, intelligence, and a civil society all mitigate against most of the primary drivers of anti-social behaviour (fear, depravation, injustice, etc.). Furthermore, individuals who enjoy these benefits are far more often able to develop further along the spectrum of moral development.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> I think they are principles that can help to alleviate some of the tendencies in some people but there will never be a cure.
> 
> Also rational/critical thinking can also be used to perpetrate evil as much as it can be used in the service of good. It all depends on the premise that one starts with as being "true" or "essential" or "necessary" when beginning the "rational/critical thinking" process.


Agreed. It's perfectly rational to remove the body parts of one person to save the lives of 20 people. It's perfectly rational to choose the donor based on their value to society.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> 'Should' is not a word I use a lot in talking about human behaviour.  Frankly, all the shoulds in the world seem to cause a lot of grief--but that's a whole other topic.
> 
> He had a lot more to lose... it's unsurprising that he chose not to give it up. You could argue that the choices he made to follow the family's culture were also logical, in that they would maintain his privilege.
> 
> ...


Well we will have to agree to disagree, I choose not to empathize with those who maliciously plot to murder their own family members for self-serving purposes. I guess that's just me...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Well we will have to agree to disagree, I choose not to empathize with those who maliciously plot to murder their own family members for self-serving purposes. I guess that's just me...


Fair enough.

For myself, I think that I think that if we refuse to understand what motivates these acts, on a deep level, we have no hope of ever preventing them in the future.

You could turn it around and argue that it's what Shafia's complete lack of empathy for his daughters and his first wife that lead to this. Why perpetuate further lack of empathy?

But I understand how doing so would be unpalatable to some.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Agreed. It's perfectly rational to remove the body parts of one person to save the lives of 20 people. It's perfectly rational to choose the donor based on their value to society.


It has long been recognized that, in order for society to function, individual members of that society must have good reason to expect that their personal security is less threatened by being members than by defecting (see Hobbes). A society that grabs individuals and dissects them, even if for the benefit of many others, is not going to be stable.

However, your argument _does_ hold with respect to the voluntary donation of organs. Just not the involuntary donation.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> It has long been recognized that, in order for society to function, individual members of that society must have good reason to expect that their personal security is less threatened by being members than by defecting (see Hobbes). A society that grabs individuals and dissects them, even if for the benefit of many others, is not going to be stable.
> 
> However, your argument _does_ hold with respect to the voluntary donation of organs. Just not the involuntary donation.


Why would it be rational for 20 people to die instead of one? And why should I care if society is stable, as long as I can--rationally--protect my own segment of it?


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> And why should I care if society is stable, as long as I can--rationally--protect my own segment of it?


Read the Leviathan by Hobbes. This is 2nd year philosophy, but explaining it will take longer than I have at present.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Read the Leviathan by Hobbes. This is 2nd year philosophy, but explaining it will take longer than I have at present.


That was a unique book, bryanc. Read it in my 4th year at university. However, Hobbes supported public support for those who were unable to support themselves with their own work, and advocated the use of taxes to fund public works projects to help employ those unable to find work to support themselves and their families. So, you have better be careful with any support for Hobbes in that you might be labeled a socialist ................ or worse, someone who supports FDR types of programs like the WPA!!! 

Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Read the Leviathan by Hobbes. This is 2nd year philosophy, but explaining it will take longer than I have at present.


You're confusing rationality with the vision of society your prefer. This predates 2nd year philosophy. The fact that you have a child and a dog while speaking out against the stresses on the world environment speaks to this sort of logical schizophrenia.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Why has this thread turned into some sort of intellectual discussion of philosophical esoterica? Four women were murdered, there is nothing to philosophies about.

This stone age wealthy murdering Taliban immigrant massacred half his own family in our country while Canadian troops were dying in his trying to rid that country of neanderthals like him and his son. 

I applaud and congratulate the jury for seeing through the nonsense and concentrating on the crime. It should make no difference if this is religious, cultural or anything else for that matter. I hope they sent a strong message to the rest of those who share similar values.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> For myself, I think that I think that if we refuse to understand what motivates these acts, on a deep level, we have no hope of ever preventing them in the future.
> 
> ...


I don't think one needs to empathise with evil to understand it or what motivates it. It is completely possible to develop psychological profiles without empathy for an individuals mindset. 

I also don't believe it is possible to prevent evil either, not with certain individuals, at a more macroscopic societal level a certain amount of prevention is possible through law's and education but those that are influenced by such measures are generally not those who would be perpetrating such acts in the first place.

I don't believe a lack of empathy was the cause of such acts, it was definitely part of the psychological profile of the criminals but it was not the cause, the cause was that of power, domination and villainous/pathological self interest.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> Why has this thread turned into some sort of intellectual discussion of philosophical esoterica? Four women were murdered, there is nothing to philosophies about.
> 
> This stone age wealthy murdering Taliban immigrant massacred half his own family in our country while Canadian troops were dying in his trying to rid that country of neanderthals like him and his son.
> 
> I applaud and congratulate the jury for seeing through the nonsense and concentrating on the crime. It should make no difference if this is religious, cultural or anything else for that matter. I hope they sent a strong message to the rest of those who share similar values.


I think most of us are pretty much in agreement (though some seem more willing to consider the cultural context as somewhat mitigating the guilt). So the conversation has wandered to the philosophical/sociological questions surrounding the role religion and culture played in this crime. Were they causative or merely correlative? I'm inclined to the latter, but only because I believe the same sorts of defects in critical thinking and rationality are at the base of religiosity and misogyny.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> II also don't believe it is possible to prevent evil either, not with certain individuals, at a more macroscopic societal level a certain amount of prevention is possible through law's and education but those that are influenced by such measures are generally not those who would be perpetrating such acts in the first place.


This is an interesting perspective, and I'm at least partially in agreement. I do think education (especially if you consider the early socialization a child experiences during the first 6-8 years part of its education) and a healthy socio-economic context result in significant decreases in violent crime, but there is only so much 'society' can do.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> I don't think one needs to empathise with evil to understand it or what motivates it. It is completely possible to develop psychological profiles without empathy for an individuals mindset.
> 
> I also don't believe it is possible to prevent evil either, not with certain individuals, at a more macroscopic societal level a certain amount of prevention is possible through law's and education but those that are influenced by such measures are generally not those who would be perpetrating such acts in the first place.
> 
> I don't believe a lack of empathy was the cause of such acts, it was definitely part of the psychological profile of the criminals but it was not the cause, the cause was that of power, domination and villainous/pathological self interest.


Psychological profiles without empathy only take you so far. 

But more than that, to empathize creates inclusiveness. When you exclude, when you create an 'us vs them' mentality, you distance yourself from another person's humanity. This creates more conflict. The more we as individuals attempt to understand others as individuals, the less divisive our conflicts.

For this reason, I'm not big on labelling things as evil. Few people who are doing things that are 'evil' believe themselves to be evil. Understanding why they think so makes prevention more likely. 

I don't believe that all such acts are preventable either. But how can you know which ones are and which ones aren't without understanding? None of us know what was going through each of the three people's minds when they made and carried out these decisions. None of us know for sure that there was no moment where something could have changed the path. And none of us know where an understanding of what happened here may help others in the future.

It gets very easy to label these people as evil, backwards, religious fanatics, etc. Beyond some sort of emotional satisfaction of distancing yourself people who have done something reprehensible, I'm not sure that it helps anything in the long run.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well said, Sonal.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Psychological profiles without empathy only take you so far.
> 
> But more than that, to empathize creates inclusiveness. When you exclude, when you create an 'us vs them' mentality, *you distance yourself from another person's humanity*. This creates more conflict. The more we as individuals attempt to understand others as individuals, the less divisive our conflicts.
> 
> ...


Exactly what "humanity" are you referring to in this specific case? These people acted as animals, I see no humanity at all.

I do want to distance myself from the notions that these people hold.

For example... We do not need to understand pedophiles we need to distance ourselves from them and what they feel/believe.

You may not be "big" on it but certain things and people *are* essentially evil your belief does not change this and only serves to tolerate such things/people... not all things should be tolerated/empathized with. Do you empathize with Hitler or Nazism?

As I said before we can understand why people do certain things without empathizing with them.

So exactly what is your point if effectively we can never know when or how to prevent such behaviour... all we can do is to respond appropriately when such heinous acts are committed.

And I don't believe empathizing with them does anything other than to lead to some level of tolerance of such acts in the long run, not prevention... some things simply require non-tolerance for the benefit of society...

On a much more "soft" premise look at the smoking laws in Ontario and where they are going when it comes to the public good... do you agree or disagree with them? Consider that and empathy towards the "offender" and tell me that society as a whole does not in some way benefit from some level of intolerance to certain practices...

Personally I think the laws are strong enough as they are but I hope you can get my drift.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Psychological profiles without empathy only take you so far.
> 
> But more than that, to empathize creates inclusiveness. When you exclude, when you create an 'us vs them' mentality, you distance yourself from another person's humanity. This creates more conflict. The more we as individuals attempt to understand others as individuals, the less divisive our conflicts.
> 
> ...


Do we need to understand every nuance of what went through the heads of the 9/11 hijackers? Do we need to understand and know every nuance that went through the heads of these criminals? 

No...and nor do I care. Their acts speak for themselves. 

As far as the Quran goes, nowhere does it say to kill disobedient women...they end at beatings. Surat An-Nisa' [4:34]


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Max said:


> Well said, Sonal.


So you say... by my subsequent post you can see I strongly disagree....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

That's fine. Terribly boring and uninspiring when we all agree.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Sonal said:


> Psychological profiles without empathy only take you so far.
> 
> But more than that, to empathize creates inclusiveness. When you exclude, when you create an 'us vs them' mentality, you distance yourself from another person's humanity. This creates more conflict. The more we as individuals attempt to understand others as individuals, the less divisive our conflicts.
> 
> ...





Max said:


> Well said, Sonal.


I strongly agree. Very well put, Sonal. Paix, mon amie.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

> As far as the Quran goes, nowhere does it say to kill disobedient women...they end at beatings. Surat An-Nisa' [4:34]


Even this should be enough to ban followers of this cult from civilized society if they want to follow those rules...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

lukasf said:


> Even this should be enough to ban followers of this cult from civilized society if they want to follow those rules...


I'm going to regret writing this, I know, but ... have you take a good look at the Bible and some of its "rules" lately?

(note: not defending either book. Both have some good ideas and wisdom and both have some seemingly-nutty-by-today's-standards ideas. I'm just reacting to the notion that believers of Book A should be barred from civilised society when Book B, accepted by that same society, has at least equally insane/strange/dangerous/stupid/now obsolete ideas.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

chas_m said:


> I'm going to regret writing this, I know, but ... have you take a good look at the Bible and some of its "rules" lately?
> 
> (note: not defending either book. Both have some good ideas and wisdom and both have some seemingly-nutty-by-today's-standards ideas. I'm just reacting to the notion that believers of Book A should be barred from civilised society when Book B, accepted by that same society, has at least equally insane/strange/dangerous/stupid/now obsolete ideas.)


While that is true chas_m, the belief in and practice of some things in the Bible have been steadily decreasing for many years now and will likely die out entirely in the long term future. I doubt the same can be said of middle eastern 'books'.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

> I'm going to regret writing this, I know, but ... have you take a good look at the Bible and some of its "rules" lately?


Last time I checked in civilized society (even in Israel) nobody is following - eye for eye and other "rules" ... But during my work in KSA I saw a couple beheadings and stonings in TV for adultery (and locals watch it as we watch NHL ...).

And important thing was - following those rules in our society ... (When in Rome ....)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

chas_m said:


> I'm going to regret writing this, I know, but ... have you take a good look at the Bible and some of its "rules" lately?
> 
> (note: not defending either book. Both have some good ideas and wisdom and both have some seemingly-nutty-by-today's-standards ideas. I'm just reacting to the notion that believers of Book A should be barred from civilised society when Book B, accepted by that same society, has at least equally insane/strange/dangerous/stupid/now obsolete ideas.)


Good point Chas. But SINCs point is also valid; just because someone's religion is based on the rantings of bronze-age mystics doesn't mean they have to follow the rules of those mystics to the letter. We cannot and should not legislate for or against beliefs, but we absolutely can and should legislate and enforce laws against anti-social behaviour, even if said behaviour is explicitly condoned or even demanded by someone's holy book.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

> We cannot and should not legislate for or against beliefs, but we absolutely can and should legislate and enforce laws against anti-social behaviour, even if said behaviour is explicitly condoned or even demanded by someone's holy book.


Exactly.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

bryanc said:


> we absolutely can and should legislate and enforce laws against anti-social behaviour, even if said behaviour is explicitly condoned or even demanded by someone's holy book.


What exactly would constitute "anti-social behaviour" that our current laws don't already admonish? 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> Good point Chas. But SINCs point is also valid; just because someone's religion is based on the rantings of bronze-age mystics doesn't mean they have to follow the rules of those mystics to the letter. We cannot and should not legislate for or against beliefs, but w*e absolutely can and should legislate and enforce laws against anti-social behaviour*, even if said behaviour is explicitly condoned or even demanded by someone's holy book.


There are plenty of anti-social behaviours that in no way should be illegal, I think the term you are looking for is sociopathic.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Dr.G., Max, thank you both.



kps said:


> Do we need to understand every nuance of what went through the heads of the 9/11 hijackers? Do we need to understand and know every nuance that went through the heads of these criminals?
> 
> No...and nor do I care. Their acts speak for themselves.
> 
> As far as the Quran goes, nowhere does it say to kill disobedient women...they end at beatings. Surat An-Nisa' [4:34]


'Need' is a funny way of putting it. There's really not a lot that we really 'need' to do here. But from a purely practical standpoint, no one has the time and energy to understand and empathize with the perpetrators of every single terrible act. Nor should anyone be expected to... that's just way too much to take in.

But I do think that the more people who choose to understand these things, the better off we all are for it. 

As for those who choose not to, that's fine, but the tricky thing with divisive labels like 'evil', 'fanatics', etc. (or even labels that are truthful but in context are used in a divisive manner such as 'muslim' or 'criminal') is that they tend to come laden down with a whole lot of assumptions over what these people were thinking. 

So if someone doesn't want to understand, fair enough, but I think in that case it would be better not to assume. 



screature said:


> Exactly what "humanity" are you referring to in this specific case? These people acted as animals, I see no humanity at all.
> 
> I do want to distance myself from the notions that these people hold.
> 
> ...


I could invoke Godwin's law and declare myself the winner here. 

You see no humanity here. There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

In any case, we are only being presented with a small slice of these people's lives. The reality is probably a lot more complicated than this. Personally, I would hate to have my entire sense of humanity judged based on one act, though I'm sure my tenants do that to me all the time. (Granted, this is a particularly dramatic act.) 

There's a big difference between compassion and tolerance, or empathy and rule of law. You can seek to understand why someone did something, without agreeing with their choice. 

If I take your soft example of smoking, yes, I can understand that smokers are starting to feel like second-class citizens. I can understand that just quitting is not easy. I can understand the emotional pull that cigarettes have, and even how nice it can be to be able to take a break in the middle of a stressful day, go outside, have a smoke, shoot the breeze with someone, and then get back to it.... shoot, I'm a little envious of smokers for having that. I can understand how much it sucks to lose that privilege, particularly when not so long ago it was a pretty established practice. That doesn't mean I smoke, or that I think we should bring back the lawful ability to smoke anywhere--I also understand how irritating and health-damaging it is for non-smokers. 

But in my dealings with smokers, a little bit of understanding goes a long way. I can flip out at the supers and the contractors for smoking, or I can work with them to find a way to let them continue in a way that works for as many people as possible. (And instead of smoke breaks, maybe we need to bring back the notion of socially acceptable short quick breaks for all of us in the workplace--even just to get a quick breath of fresh air and stretch, say hello to a few people we don't normally get to see, catch up on the company gossip, etc.)

We can, should and do have laws. We can, should and do actually enforce these laws. But that does not prevent individuals from taking the time to understand one another and maybe learning something.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Dr.G., Max, thank you both.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well first off, I think your citing of Godwin's law is miss placed here as I did not criticize any point you made by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis I *asked * (in a manner that I thought it was rather obvious that it was a rhetorical question) if you empathized with them... in what way exactly would it make you a winner (didn't know it was a competition BTW).

And I don't disagree with what you are now saying about understanding, in fact it is what I have said all along, understanding is one thing empathy is another, empathy is not necessary for understanding. 

It seems at this point our disagreement is perhaps based in semantics and thus the definition of empathy may prove useful:

*em·pa·thy*

noun 

the intellectual *identification * (my emphasis) with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another. 

As I said and continue to attest one does not need to empathize with someone to understand their motivations. Understanding and empathy are not the same thing.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> 'Need' is a funny way of putting it. There's really not a lot that we really 'need' to do here. But from a purely practical standpoint, no one has the time and energy to understand and empathize with the perpetrators of every single terrible act. Nor should anyone be expected to... that's just way too much to take in.
> 
> But I do think that the more people who choose to understand these things, the better off we all are for it.
> 
> ...


Okay, but I make no apology for calling them criminals after the courts convicted them of 1st degree murder. UhUh...

I understand more than enough about the country, its religion and its predominant culture not to make blatant assumptions...I may stretch the odd thing like calling him a "wealthy Taliban", but I just may be right in that respect. In any case I stand by both of my posts in this thread. Five years in Canada should have given him and his two accomplices plenty of time to adjust and deal with his rebellious daughters.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Well first off, I think your citing of Godwin's law is miss placed here as I did not criticize any point you made by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis I *asked * (in a manner that I thought it was rather obvious that it was a rhetorical question) if you empathized with them... in what way exactly would it make you a winner (didn't know it was a competition BTW).
> 
> And I don't disagree with what you are now saying about understanding, in fact it is what I have said all along, understanding is one thing empathy is another, empathy is not necessary for understanding.
> 
> ...


Um... the  was used for a reason.

I agree that there is a difference between empathy and understanding, but before we get tied up in further in semantics, how would you define the difference between the two?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Okay, but I make no apology for calling them criminals after the courts convicted them of 1st degree murder. UhUh...
> 
> I understand more than enough about the country, its religion and its predominant culture not to make blatant assumptions...I may stretch the odd thing like calling him a "wealthy Taliban", but I just may be right in that respect. In any case I stand by both of my posts in this thread. Five years in Canada should have given him and his two accomplices plenty of time to adjust and deal with his rebellious daughters.


Not asking for an apology, and I apologize if I appeared to imply that you were using the word criminal in a divisive way.

That 'should' word always seems to lead to trouble. Perhaps 5 years 'should' have given them enough time. Clearly it did not. The interesting question is why. 

That in turn can lead to an interesting discussion about what we expect from immigrants in terms of how they adapt to Canadian culture. When I was very young, multiculturalism wasn't a thing--it was all about assimilation. Around the time I turned 12 or so, that all changed. There's good and bad to both.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Let me be more specific with respect to "should".

He should understand that he is not in Afghanistan and that Canadian society and culture does not condone the murder of women because of perceived attacks on parental honour.

There is no shari'a law here and better never be. I think that in some respects these cultural differences must be emphasized to immigrants from cultures that practice such barbarism on their arrival. Be they from Muslim countries or India.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

2 kps - I wouldn't narrow it only to some "muslims" - for example barbarian FGM is a common practice inside some Chritian refugees/immigrants from Africa (some muslims are doing this too) ...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Let me be more specific with respect to "should".
> 
> He should understand that he is not in Afghanistan and that Canadian society and culture does not condone the murder of women because of perceived attacks on parental honour.
> 
> There is no shari'a law here and better never be. I think that in some respects these cultural differences must be emphasized to immigrants from cultures that practice such barbarism on their arrival. Be they from Muslim countries or India.


Which in turn raises more interesting questions, such as what motivates a man who is obviously comfortable in the culture of another country to move to Canada? And is this something that can be screened for in any reasonable way? (I sincerely doubt asking "what do you think of honour killings?" has much value as a pre-screening question.)

Also, and partially related, what aided the Crown's case was that members of the Afghan community testified against the Shafias. Some of these people are being shunned by their own community. How do we create a better sense of inclusiveness that allows more people to come forward earlier to prevent such situations? 
Shafia relatives threatened, shunned for testifying against family | News | National Post


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Which in turn raises more interesting questions, such as what motivates a man who is obviously comfortable in the culture of another country to move to Canada? And is this something that can be screened for in any reasonable way? (I sincerely doubt asking "what do you think of honour killings?" has much value as a pre-screening question.)
> 
> Also, and partially related, what aided the Crown's case was that members of the Afghan community testified against the Shafias. Some of these people are being shunned by their own community. How do we create a better sense of inclusiveness that allows more people to come forward earlier to prevent such situations?
> Shafia relatives threatened, shunned for testifying against family | News | National Post


No, you can't screen for that and we don't have to, but when they apply to immigrate you give then conditions to read, understand and sign as part of their acceptance. Be it with respect to honour killings or FGM brought up by lukasf or whatever else we feel needs to be added. If they want to live here, I don't think it's too much to ask...is it?

Earlier, weren't some of you talking about education and understanding? Well let's start at our doors, first.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> No, you can't screen for that and we don't have to, but when they apply to immigrate you give then conditions to read, understand and sign as part of their acceptance. Be it with respect to honour killings or FGM brought up by lukasf or whatever else we feel needs to be added. If they want to live here, I don't think it's too much to ask...is it?
> 
> Earlier, weren't some of you talking about education and understanding? Well let's start at our doors, first.


I agree. But I also think that it is a two-way street, in that our ability to effectively educate or impress upon others is greatly aided by our ability to understand and empathize with where they are coming from.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

If you don't make any attempt to understand where others are coming from but simply expect them to learn and then adhere to your own notions of propriety, then you're running something of an indoctrination program. You can therefore reasonably expect to encounter candidates who got through your system but who never took to your program.

Part of the problem is that many immigrants pass through the above system in a rather superficial sense, only to join communities of their own kind. This strategy helps keep their old culture alive while simultaneously making it difficult for the new 'host' culture to ever rise to dominance - one is insulated from the ways and means of the host culture.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> If you don't make any attempt to understand where others are coming from but simply expect them to learn and then adhere to your own notions of propriety, then you're running something of an indoctrination program. You can therefore reasonably expect to encounter candidates who got through your system but who never took to your program.
> 
> Part of the problem is that many immigrants pass through the above system in a rather superficial sense, only to join communities of their own kind. This strategy helps keep their old culture alive while simultaneously making it difficult for the new 'host' culture to ever rise to dominance - one is insulated from the ways and means of the host culture.


Nicely put, Max.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

2 max - I do partly agree but main point is they are comming to our countries which means they should adopt to our rules ...
.
For me I came from Austria where is normal and legal to drink beer on street - in Canada is not so OK I'm not doing it ... simple ... but some are trying to change rules in their "new" country - i.e. wearing turbans with RCMP uniforms ... and this is just a first step ... one of reasons I left Europe were those slow steps ... and it usually ends with something like "honour" killings, pushing sharia law over country law (as in Britain) etc.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Naturally there must be some level of understanding, perhaps even some degree of empathy...but empathy to me would indicate a much more personal level of interaction. That may not be possible in all cases, but I would agree that learning and understanding the cultures we interact with on a daily basis is not only important, but can be very interesting and fun.

I work for a large multinational which prides itself of its diversity. It is very interesting and satisfying to see a Sikh and a Pakistani become best of friends in Canada...something you'd likely not see in their respective homelands.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Max said:


> If you don't make any attempt to understand where others are coming from but simply expect them to learn and then adhere to your own notions of propriety, then you're running something of an indoctrination program. You can therefore reasonably expect to encounter candidates who got through your system but who never took to your program.
> 
> Part of the problem is that many immigrants pass through the above system in a rather superficial sense, only to join communities of their own kind. This strategy helps keep their old culture alive while simultaneously making it difficult for the new 'host' culture to ever rise to dominance - one is insulated from the ways and means of the host culture.


It shouldn't be about indoctrination and if they do not "take to the program" that's fine. The point is they were told...if you want to live here you do not kill your daughters or circumcise their genitals. Welcome and enjoy your life in Canada.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I agree, Kps - they were told - their decision to ignore Canadian standards of propriety are their own responsibility. I understand the law and order side of the argument very well and while I'm very glad the Shafias got what they deserved for their crimes, like Sonal I see inherent problems in the system as it stands. No, i don't have any magic bullet solutions to propose here. I will note that the severity of their sentences (a relative thing, for some of us, I know) sends a message to other Canadians contemplating similar crimes, and helps keep the issues on a higher level of public consciousness. The plight of young women being abused by elder brothers, fathers and mothers for the 'crime' of being too Western may be more visible to the masses, and perhaps more potential tragedies can be averted.

No, it shouldn't be about indoctrination - but it's difficult to control, is it not? Who decides what form these programs take? Haven't successive waves of immigration encountered equally successive waves of differing bureaucratic programs, each ostensibly meant to introduce new immigrants to Canada and to familiarize them with their rights and responsibilities as citizens? From decade to decade, in myriad ways, the 'welcome' has changed; shifting political and cultural trends practically dictate it.

But perhaps we need to be more clear about what we expect of future citizens - what our nation will encourage, what it will tolerate and what it will in no way tolerate. It would seem that much of our troubles here stem from cultures failing to mesh together in the proverbial melting pot. That has to be addressed.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Max said:


> But perhaps we need to be more clear about what we expect of future citizens - what our nation will encourage, what it will tolerate and what it will in no way tolerate. It would seem that much of our troubles here stem from cultures failing to mesh together in the proverbial melting pot. That has to be addressed.


And the other side of this, is that our expectations, what we tolerate, what we won't tolerate change over time. In a strict law & order sense, that's relatively easy to teach, but in a cultural sense that's much more fluid. So it has to be an ongoing conversation. 

As I said, when I was very young, this notion of multi-cuturalism was never an expectation. That has changed. But this in turn requires all of us to achieve a higher level of cultural competency than before. Empathy, if we see it as a deeper and more intimate level of understanding, is a very useful tool in this.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sonal said:


> ...this notion of multi-cuturalism was never an expectation. That has changed. But this in turn requires all of us to achieve a higher level of cultural competency than before. Empathy, if we see it as a deeper and more intimate level of understanding, is a very useful tool in this.


I like that idea: "cultural competency." Perhaps we ought to consider that, as citizens of the country, we also have obligations to new immigrants - to explain the country to them in ways they're likely to understand, rather than expect the government to tackle that job and somehow muddle through. Part of our inherited rights and obligations, if you will.

And yes, the situation is definitely fluid. It's prone to reversals and alterations depending on who is in power at the federal level, for one thing. But there are other cultural elements which change over time. When you get down to it, very little is iron-clad.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

It seems that multi-culturalism is a failed experiment. The Europeans are beginning to see that and I think Canadians are starting to follow through on the idea as well. If nothing else, the policy needs a serious review. 

Some of the strongest opponents I've encountered are actually immigrants and recent ones at that. Sounds strange, but I think a lot of them are here because they want to live in a country that does not remind them of their homeland. Understandably that does not include food and other expats to socialize with, but otherwise they want a clean slate....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I'm not surprised, kps. Canada is widely seen as being relatively clean, lawful, lacking in corruption, peaceful, a land of opportunities. It's an attractive destination on many fronts.

Multiculturalism does carry a lot of baggage... to my way of thinking it was never fully explained just what it actually means. The American notion of the melting pot is different from what we grew up with but I am beginning to see how it sets expectations that new citizens become Americans first, and hyphenated Americans second. Maybe we ought to be thinking more along those lines.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Gotta agree there kps. Failure is right. The more we try and incorporate turbans and ceremonial daggers and all other ridiculous so-called religious or cultural oddities into our laws and rights, the more the system breaks down. If it continues unabated, we'll be in full meltdown very soon.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

No need to get alarmist about turbans and ceremonial daggers, Sinc. It sounds panicky. The very notion of cultural oddities is itself problematic, given that every culture, when viewed from within another, looks mighty odd. Our own culture is not one single, monolithic thing; it evolves and flexes and has its own neurotic undercurrents and striking peculiarities, just like any national culture does.

If the system breaks down, it's hardy due to turbans or ceremonial daggers. It breaks down thanks to intolerance and fear.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

2 kps and Max - agree. Main problem with "multikulturalism" is there should be at least two parties cooperating and recognizing each other. But as I saw in Europe - there was only one - a naive Europeans ... 

Now in Europe are things changing to worse - a rise of neo-nazis and nationalists (aka Le Pen in France, populists in Nedherland, neonazis in Germany, Austria, Scandinavia ...). I'm really afraid where it could end ... (something reminds me post Great War times in Germany and rest of Europe ...).


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Max said:


> If the system breaks down, it's hardy due to turbans or ceremonial daggers. It breaks down thanks to intolerance and fear.


I only used those two as examples of where it began to erode Max. There are many more examples, right up to honour killings. Many of them are more subtle, but eroding just the same. It is far too easy for identifiable minorities to holler discrimination and be supported by laws that did not exist short years before, leaving some people who have lived here longer and contributed more fully to our society left bewildered by suddenly finding themselves facing situations they never, ever expected as to their own dwindling rights. The workplace is full of such examples where some are left shaking their heads.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sometimes I believe that the conditions which created war in Europe and Eurasia could easily visit modern times. Something which happened only a handful of decades ago is merely an historical eye-blink. Watch for attempts at widespread demonization of particular national and/or religious groups; usually that's a precursor to darker things.

Were it not for things like Twitter, Facebook, the net itself, I wonder how easily new world wars could start. Much depends on how much freedom individual nations permit their own citizenry - the ability to access the net is crucial, but it's equally important that the net not be controlled by monopolistic special interest groups bent on commercializing and controlling the data and the pipes through which it runs.


----------



## lukasf (Oct 31, 2010)

> I only used those two as examples of where it began to erode Max.


Those are exact first steps to hell. Next will follow - sharia law system (a paralel) for family and civil courts (as in Britain) ....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

SINC said:


> I only used those two as examples of where it began to erode Max. There are many more examples, right up to honour killings. Many of them are more subtle, but eroding just the same. It is far too easy for identifiable minorities to holler discrimination and be supported by laws that did not exist short years before, leaving some people who have lived here longer and contributed more fully to our society left bewildered by suddenly finding themselves facing situations they never, ever expected as to their own dwindling rights. The workplace is full of such examples where some are left shaking their heads.


Dwindling rights? Really?

One thing I've often noticed is individuals whose own families were once immigrants speaking intolerantly of newer waves of immigrants. It almost resembles some kind of genetic thing - a kind of codified hypocrisy which enables us to forget who we are, where our ancestors come from, and how much DNA we all share beneath our varying exteriors.

I guess it's all too predictably human.

Well, regarding society's ills and how best to address them, I guess we aren't going to agree on a whole lot here. That too is entirely human.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

lukasf said:


> 2 kps and Max - agree. Main problem with "multikulturalism" is there should be at least two parties cooperating and recognizing each other. But as I saw in Europe - there was only one - a naive Europeans ...
> 
> Now in Europe are things changing to worse - a rise of neo-nazis and nationalists (aka Le Pen in France, populists in Nedherland, neonazis in Germany, Austria, Scandinavia ...). I'm really afraid where it could end ... (something reminds me post Great War times in Germany and rest of Europe ...).


Yup, and Europe has bigger problems than "multikulturalism" and political correctness at the core. We'll see if the EU survives.

Canada is a nation of immigrants so it's a bit different than Europeans who gravitate to extreme nationalism when they feel threatened by foreign influences, but what Canada needs is to finally say good bye to political correctness and continue to forge freedom and liberty as intended in it's core values. Values which, for good or bad, are based on a British, Judaeo-Christian paradigm in origin, but which has been amended for all through our constitution.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> It seems that multi-culturalism is a failed experiment. The Europeans are beginning to see that and I think Canadians are starting to follow through on the idea as well. If nothing else, the policy needs a serious review.
> 
> Some of the strongest opponents I've encountered are actually immigrants and recent ones at that. Sounds strange, but I think a lot of them are here because they want to live in a country that does not remind them of their homeland. Understandably that does not include food and other expats to socialize with, but otherwise they want a clean slate....


Actually, no, it doesn't sound strange to me at all. Recent immigrants carry the most baggage and the least nostalgia.

I don't see multi-culturalism as a failed experiment. I see it as an inevitability, for all countries. So we'd better figure out how to get good at it.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Actually, no, it doesn't sound strange to me at all. Recent immigrants carry the most baggage and the least nostalgia.
> 
> I don't see multi-culturalism as a failed experiment. I see it as an inevitability, for all countries. So we'd better figure out how to get good at it.


Or get rid of it...I know tough to do in a mess of political correctness and a global economy.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Or get rid of it...I know tough to do in a mess of political correctness and a global economy.


It's more the global economy part of it that drives its inevitability in my mind.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Sonal said:


> I don't see multi-culturalism as a failed experiment. I see it as an inevitability, for all countries. So we'd better figure out how to get good at it.


Interesting you should say that, Sonal. Made me revisit something I wrote a friend a few weeks ago:

_I also think we're on the cusp of two things: one, the Western world as we know it becoming less and less relevant in terms of a dominating global economic power; two, the general lessening of the grip of nationalistic sentiment around the world. The internet is shrinking our world and its becoming apparent (to today's youth, if not to their elders quite yet) that we're all on a single mothership... dumb-assed old school notions about the clash of civilizations will be swept aside by the urgent need to cooperate in stewarding Earth's resources and securing our fragile place in its sheltering ecosystem. That's the optimist in me, at any rate. I can think of several doomsday scenarios but humanity won't get very much farther if that's what we all start to obsess over._

Granted, some of the above is pie in the sky and perhaps naively optimistic. But the net is indeed shrinking our concept of the world and our place in it, making it more clearly resemble a single delicate vehicle which protects us from the predations of the great, vacuous, frigid space seething at the edges of this planet. We'd best get our @sses in gear and work to better our future on the mothership, lest the mothership do its own thing and move on without us. Because it's entirely capable of doing just that.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> It's more the global economy part of it that drives its inevitability in my mind.


Provided it's reciprocated...a lot of countries are pretty guarded and protectionist. In Asia, you have Japan, Korea and radical nations such as Myanmar. Do you think they support multi-culturalism?


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> Provided it's reciprocated...a lot of countries are pretty guarded and protectionist. In Asia, you have Japan, Korea and radical nations such as Myanmar. Do you think they support multi-culturalism?


Interesting that you use Myanmar as an example... back when they were actually a wealthy and prosperous country, they had a very harmonious multicultural environment. My father grew up as part of an Indian community within Rangoon, and it was very common to see different groups participating within another group's culture and religion.

To a large degree, they technically have still a multicultural environment, as the population is made up of numerous tribes and local ethnic groups (the Bamar people, from whom the old name 'Burma' was taken, is simply one group of many) but there has been a move to go back to so-called Burmese names and traditions... as a consequence, much of the human rights atrocities in Myanmar are directed at minority ethnic groups. So their move to eliminate multiculturalism has been really bad for the country.

I know far less about Japan and Korea, though from what I understand they have had less need/desire to take in immigrants, and consequently a greater ability to slow down their need for cultural competence. But still elements of Western culture have found their way in. They may be able to hold out for longer, but I do think it's inevitable that they too will have to find a way to deal with a multicultural environment. 

In Canada, we are a country of immigrants, with a long history of very open immigration policies. We need may need to figure it out first.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> Interesting you should say that, Sonal. Made me revisit something I wrote a friend a few weeks ago:
> 
> _I also think we're on the cusp of two things: one, the Western world as we know it becoming less and less relevant in terms of a dominating global economic power; two, the general lessening of the grip of nationalistic sentiment around the world. The internet is shrinking our world and its becoming apparent (to today's youth, if not to their elders quite yet) that we're all on a single mothership... dumb-assed old school notions about the clash of civilizations will be swept aside by the urgent need to cooperate in stewarding Earth's resources and securing our fragile place in its sheltering ecosystem. That's the optimist in me, at any rate. I can think of several doomsday scenarios but humanity won't get very much farther if that's what we all start to obsess over._
> 
> Ouch! I don't see this at all. Differences are being accented and heightened as well as diminished.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Interesting that you use Myanmar as an example... back when they were actually a wealthy and prosperous country, they had a very harmonious multicultural environment. My father grew up as part of an Indian community within Rangoon, and it was very common to see different groups participating within another group's culture and religion.
> 
> To a large degree, they technically have still a multicultural environment, as the population is made up of numerous tribes and local ethnic groups (the Bamar people, from whom the old name 'Burma' was taken, is simply one group of many) but there has been a move to go back to so-called Burmese names and traditions... as a consequence, much of the human rights atrocities in Myanmar are directed at minority ethnic groups. So their move to eliminate multiculturalism has been really bad for the country.
> 
> ...


So is the US, but they chose to be a melting pot, yet multi-culturalism thrives there without the government shoving it down everybody's throat by making it official policy.

A lot of that multi-culturalism you speak of in Asia is compliments of the European colonialists who seemed to move a lot of people around. Knew a guy from Malaysia who was of Indian origin married to a a woman who was of Chinese origin. Pretty sure both result of forced migration at some point in the colonial past.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's interesting that people think that there is such a difference now, to when we had the many different European communities, and the rivalries, not to mention the incredibly brutal violence that occurred. And somehow, now, now that the European communities have formed largely what we consider almost the host nation, the newer ones are somehow different, or worse. I don't really think it's a whole lot different. There has always been an inherent distrust of any new nationality or religion coming in here, in particular if they bring with them violence and their baggage. 

I don't think it's too much different than when some Europeans came over here with their violent 'clubs' and the rackets they ran that terrorized many here. But that, somehow was better. It's my opinion that some people need to get a history lesson or 2.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Macfury said:


> Ouch! I don't see this at all. Differences are being accented and heightened as well as diminished.


I think the youth of the world see things differently. I pin my hopes on them, since they'll be taking the torch forward. Will they make mistakes? Absolutely. Some of the those mistakes will inevitably mirror those made by past generations. Will they change their viewpoints as they grow older? Yes - that too is inevitable. But then they too will be confronted by the desires of the youth of that era. So it goes.

Bottom lIne: I think the people of the earth either get over their differences (focusing instead on what links us, which is that we all have the same home, breath the same air, use the same resources), or we will see yet more world wars and massive bloodshed - this time with wars over things like arable land, fresh water, plus those reliable old standbys oil, gas, precious minerals. One view optimistic, one view pessimistic.

Anyway, though all this theorizing would seem to be going off-topic, I'm pursuing it because the notion of honour killings is but part of a larger framework of questions and tensions regarding civilization, tolerance, respect for diversity, etc - questions which will only become more insistent as the decades pass and there's more and more of us on the planet.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> So is the US, but they chose to be a melting pot, yet multi-culturalism thrives there without the government shoving it down everybody's throat by making it official policy.
> 
> A lot of that multi-culturalism you speak of in Asia is compliments of the European colonialists who seemed to move a lot of people around. Knew a guy from Malaysia who was of Indian origin married to a a woman who was of Chinese origin. Pretty sure both result of forced migration at some point in the colonial past.


Thrives? Sure, along with the racism. My brother had a fun time being repeatedly mistaken for being Arab post-9/11. The whole birther movement was a real shining moment for the USA to be proud of... there's a few people on a US-based board I post on who can't mention Barack Obama without calling him a 'halfrican Muslim'. The USA is hardly a shining example of cultural competency that works.

Actually, a lot of the examples that I brought up were not due to forced migration, but due to Europeans drawing political boundaries around areas. As another example, had the British not come in, India likely would have continued in the same way that Europe did with the creation nation-states, as it was formerly dozens and dozens of tiny feudal kingdoms and princely states. In some sense, this has been difficult for them to adapt to being one multicultural nation (and, they still have further challenges to meet and overcome) but an India of over a billion people is much greater economic force than many tiny countries of a few million each. 

groove makes a good point about history. A hundred years or so ago, the multi-culteralism in Canada was about figuring out how to integrate people from countries such as Ireland and Italy. Government policy or not, we seemed to have worked that one out okay. This isn't a new issue that can be wished away.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

While the thread seems to have continued off topic, I must say it's a very interesting discussion and I'm quite impressed with the thinking behind what some of you have been posting. Especially things like this



Max said:


> I also think we're on the cusp of two things: one, the Western world as we know it becoming less and less relevant in terms of a dominating global economic power; two, the general lessening of the grip of nationalistic sentiment around the world. The internet is shrinking our world and its becoming apparent (to today's youth, if not to their elders quite yet) that we're all on a single mothership... dumb-assed old school notions about the clash of civilizations will be swept aside by the urgent need to cooperate in stewarding Earth's resources and securing our fragile place in its sheltering ecosystem. That's the optimist in me, at any rate. I can think of several doomsday scenarios but humanity won't get very much farther if that's what we all start to obsess over.


With respect to the conflict between multiculturalism and the protection of the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens, I agree this is a delicate balance. But I think some simple fundamental principles can be applied. When cultural dictates of immigrants clash with our laws and customs, we should examine our laws and customs to determine if these laws/customs are serving important social purposes (i.e. the protection of the personal freedoms and security of citizens) or are just something that we've always done (like the RCMP uniform). In the case of the former, our laws and customs cannot be eroded by the customs of immigrants (or anyone else). However, in the case of the latter, we should at least consider being flexible; a culture that does not change is dead, so there's nothing inherently wrong with change, but it should be carefully considered change. It's a difficult balance, but we have to resist the knee-jerk opposition to anything different.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Thrives? Sure, along with the racism. My brother had a fun time being repeatedly mistaken for being Arab post-9/11. The whole birther movement was a real shining moment for the USA to be proud of... there's a few people on a US-based board I post on who can't mention Barack Obama without calling him a 'halfrican Muslim'. The USA is hardly a shining example of cultural competency that works.
> 
> Actually, a lot of the examples that I brought up were not due to forced migration, but due to Europeans drawing political boundaries around areas. As another example, had the British not come in, India likely would have continued in the same way that Europe did with the creation nation-states, as it was formerly dozens and dozens of tiny feudal kingdoms and princely states. In some sense, this has been difficult for them to adapt to being one multicultural nation (and, they still have further challenges to meet and overcome) but an India of over a billion people is much greater economic force than many tiny countries of a few million each.
> 
> groove makes a good point about history. A hundred years or so ago, the multi-culteralism in Canada was about figuring out how to integrate people from countries such as Ireland and Italy. Government policy or not, we seemed to have worked that one out okay. This isn't a new issue that can be wished away.


Well, Canada isn't immune from racism and I don't remember the last time we had a PM of non French or Brit descent. It wasn't so long ago that there were signs on Toronto's beaches declaring "No Dogs and Jews Allowed". If TO had bigger African or Asian populations back then I'm sure they'd get that special treatment as well.

My concern is that political correctness will be the destruction here. To start with I want a clear "separation of church and state" period...and by _church_ I mean all religion, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or whatever. Then we can continue to many cultural practices which have no business in modern-secular-western-democracies. Standard answer should be: "no" and "Don't even ask".


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> To start with I want a clear "separation of church and state"


Yes, I'd like to have that clearly enshrined in our constitution.



> Then we can continue to many cultural practices which have no business in modern-secular-western-democracies. Standard answer should be: "no" and "Don't even ask".


Not quite sure what you mean here. My position is that people can believe whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes/churches/mosques/whatever, but if your beliefs/behaviours/cultural traditions start to interfere with the lives of people who aren't members, or if they interfere with the rights of minors who are children of members (e.g. parents who refuse to allow their children to receive necessary medical treatments because of their religious beliefs), or if they encroach on the legal rights of anyone (e.g. the topic of this thread), Canadian law takes precedence.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Yes, I'd like to have that clearly enshrined in our constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> Not quite sure what you mean here. My position is that people can believe whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes/churches/mosques/whatever, but if your beliefs/behaviours/cultural traditions start to interfere with the lives of people who aren't members, or if they interfere with the rights of minors who are children of members (e.g. parents who refuse to allow their children to receive necessary medical treatments because of their religious beliefs), or if they encroach on the legal rights of anyone (e.g. the topic of this thread), Canadian law takes precedence.


I mean there are certain cultural practices that may conflict with Canadian law or interfere with the rights of others or with "normalcy". Examples would be genital mutilation, polygamy (and that would include the Mormons), veiled women refusing to remove the veil for ID or photo purposes, etc. But things like where their culture insists that a woman walk 10 paces behind the husband or sit in the back seat of the car, then thats their business, let them sort it out.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> I mean there are certain cultural practices that may conflict with Canadian law or interfere with the rights of others or with "normalcy". Examples would be genital mutilation, polygamy (and that would include the Mormons), veiled women refusing to remove the veil for ID or photo purposes, etc. But things like where their culture insists that a woman walk 10 paces behind the husband or sit in the back seat of the car, then thats their business, let them sort it out.


Appart from polygamy, which (presuming all parties are consenting adults) doesn't harm or interfere with any one else's life, I completely agree with you.

Indeed, I think the only even remotely controversial issue here is the one of parents' control over their children. If parents have the right to have their male children circumcised, why should they not have the right to mutilate the genitals of their female children? (I strongly believe they should not have this right, for either sex, but I think it's a controversial question).


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> *Um... the  was used for a reason.*
> 
> I agree that there is a difference between empathy and understanding, but before we get tied up in further in semantics, how would you define the difference between the two?


Ok then... 

Understanding does not require an intellectual *vicarious identification (sharing)* with the thoughts and feelings of the "other" empathy does.

Understanding is more emotionally neutral with an emphasis on an empirical/objective as opposed to subjective/emotional/inferred/suspected comprehension relative to the person who is empathizing . IMO.

Understanding is important in identifying the guilt or innocence of a person accused of a crime, empathy much less so and in fact can cloud the judgment which should be based on the cold hard facts of a case and not the more nebulous far less easily proven emotional state/state of mind of the accused.

Empathy can be useful for a judge when determining the sentence of an individual but is not appropriate when determining guilt or innocence.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Appart from polygamy, which (presuming all parties are consenting adults) doesn't harm or interfere with any one else's life, I completely agree with you.
> 
> Indeed, I think the only even remotely controversial issue here is the one of parents' control over their children. If parents have the right to have their male children circumcised, why should they not have the right to mutilate the genitals of their female children? (I strongly believe they should not have this right, for either sex, but I think it's a controversial question).


I mentioned polygamy as it's currently against the law, but even if legal, I could see a ton of legal issues if things go awry--especially if children are involved. Another issue would be that I don't want to see the tax payer on the hook for this kind of behaviour when it comes to government benefits, etc.

When it comes to circumcision, it is my understanding that there is a huge difference between the male and female version.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kps said:


> When it comes to circumcision, it is my understanding that there is a huge difference between the male and female version.


Certainly. But what gives a parent the right to having their children's genitals arbitrarily surgically altered in the first place? The fact that this alteration is less devastating to the male is only a difference of degree.

We don't see male circumcision as a problem because it's common in our society. But from an outsider's POV, is a pretty weird and barbaric custom. And we (rightly, IMO), do see female circumcision as a problem, and to legislate against it we need to be consistent, so we should similarly outlaw all medically unnecessary surgery on infants.


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Certainly. But what gives a parent the right to having their children's genitals arbitrarily surgically altered in the first place? The fact that this alteration is less devastating to the male is only a difference of degree.
> 
> We don't see male circumcision as a problem because it's common in our society. But from an outsider's POV, is a pretty weird and barbaric custom. And we (rightly, IMO), do see female circumcision as a problem, and to legislate against it we need to be consistent, so we should similarly outlaw all medically unnecessary surgery on infants.


I don't know, I'm no expert on this and I haven't had it done to me, but there is a growing movement against male circumcision as well. The practice amongst non-jews is fairly recent and justified as more hygienic. Medical complications can develop in uncircumcised male children causing the procedure to be performed later. Uncircumcised males need...shall we say..regular maintenance and unfortunately with today's pedophile paranoia, it may cause some parents not to check where checking is needed.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

kps said:


> I don't know, I'm no expert on this and I haven't had it done to me, but there is a growing movement against male circumcision as well. The practice amongst non-jews is fairly recent and justified as more hygienic. Medical complications can develop in uncircumcised male children causing the procedure to be performed later. Uncircumcised males need...shall we say..regular maintenance and unfortunately with today's pedophile paranoia, it may cause some parents not to check where checking is needed.


Actually, the non-religious practice of this is disappearing as male circumcision is seen as being medically unnecessary. OHIP no longer pays for this. (Apparently it costs about $1,000 is you want it done--I have a lot of friends who are pregnant or have infants.)

The hygiene issue isn't considered as big of a problem as it once was--medical organizations no longer recommend that this should be done routinely. 



screature said:


> Ok then...
> 
> Understanding does not require an intellectual *vicarious identification (sharing)* with the thoughts and feelings of the "other" empathy does.
> 
> ...


So in some sense, empathy can be seen as a deeper and more intimate level of understanding?

In any case, my point is that the more we are able to understand and empathize, the deeper and more intimate our connection with other people, the better we all are as a society that has to cope with issues of diversity. 

As for a jury, well, I wasn't discussing the jury. I'm not on the Shafia jury. Neither was (I assume) anyone else on this thread so far. It's not our role to determine the guilt or innocence here. But it is our role, as members of Canadian society, to figure out ways for all of us to peacefully co-exist here in Canada, whether that's defined as rule of law or simply our social customs and attitudes towards each other. In that, empathy is very helpful. Sure, understanding is also helpful, but empathy moreso.

But while we are on the topic of the jury, I don't think empathy and a dispassionate analysis of the cold hard facts are necessarily incompatible, though it's does make things harder. (Trust me, it's a lot less fun to evict someone when you feel for them.) 

However, if one were to apply empathy while on a jury, I believe that the fairest way to do that would be to empathize with the accused as much as with the victims. Alternatively, another fair jury would be as dispassionate about the plight of the victim as they are dispassionate about the accused. I doubt that it works this way in practice, but I do believe that is the goal.



kps said:


> Well, Canada isn't immune from racism and I don't remember the last time we had a PM of non French or Brit descent. It wasn't so long ago that there were signs on Toronto's beaches declaring "No Dogs and Jews Allowed". If TO had bigger African or Asian populations back then I'm sure they'd get that special treatment as well.
> 
> My concern is that political correctness will be the destruction here. To start with I want a clear "separation of church and state" period...and by _church_ I mean all religion, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or whatever. Then we can continue to many cultural practices which have no business in modern-secular-western-democracies. Standard answer should be: "no" and "Don't even ask".


No, Canada isn't immune at all. But I do think (and this may be some Canadian hubris) that we're doing a better job at it than the USA. (I really hope so anyway.)

I think a clear separation of church and state is a good goal, and helps us work through issues of diversity and cultural competence. Some of the difficulties arise when multiculturalism forces us to challenge some of the underlying ways in which church and state are NOT separate--and the really obvious example of this are stat holidays that correspond with Christian holidays. I don't think there's an easy answer for how we handle this, because they come with a lot of baggage around tradition and culture and social norms and such. I mean hey, I love Christmas in its role for me as a day off, but otherwise it doesn't mean a lot to me--if they moved it to March 25th in order to spread out our stat holidays through the year, that would be OK by me, but other people would likely object to that.  Right now, there doesn't seem to be much impetus to change that specifically, but it is something that over time we may have to rethink and rework. And I hope that any rethinking is done with care and empathy towards all groups affected by this.

bryanc put it well in saying (paraphrasing) that when it's an issue of basic human rights, it makes sense to have Canadian law take precedence, whereas when it's an issue of "well, we've always done it this way" it makes sense to consider doing something differently as the issue arises again and again. But I think there's a fair bit of grey area in that still, and as these issues get challenged and re-challenged, we will have to rethink and evolve the fine details of what we consider basic human rights vs cultural traditions, and decide how these things get adopted into society and where needed codified in law.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

kps said:


> My concern is that political correctness will be the destruction here. To start with I want a clear "separation of church and state" period...and by _church_ I mean all religion, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Wiccan or whatever. Then we can continue to many cultural practices which have no business in modern-secular-western-democracies. Standard answer should be: "no" and "Don't even ask".


Totally down with that. I don't see it happening anytime soon however, as the Judeo-Christian power base is well entrenched and evidently feels it's a worthy entitlement. Until we stop catering to that element of religion at the irrational exclusion of others, then an awkward and infuriating double-standard will continue complacently along.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> ..*So in some sense, empathy can be seen as a deeper and more intimate level of understanding?*
> 
> *In any case, my point is that the more we are able to understand and empathize, the deeper and more intimate our connection with other people, the better we all are as a society that has to cope with issues of diversity.... *


Completely disagree with the notion of deeper, it is of a different order not deeper, emotion can cloud judgement as much as it can inform.

In general I don't disagree... with people who warrant or deserve empathy however, not everyone warrants empathy in like regard to how not everyone deserves respect as it is earned via reciprocity.

Seems you are speaking in a more generalized philosophical "for the good of the human race" terms... i.e. idealistic, where as I am speaking to a specific case relative to specific circumstances in reality.

At any rate it is pretty obvious that what I said a number of posts ago is true, we are going to have to agree to disagree as neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.

Peace Out.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Completely disagree with the notion of deeper, it is of a different order not deeper, emotion can cloud judgement as much as it can inform.
> 
> In general I don't disagree... with people who warrant or deserve empathy however, not everyone warrants empathy in like regard to how not everyone deserves respect as it is earned via reciprocity.
> 
> ...


Okay fine, it's a different order. The point still stands. The emotions inform. Such information is useful and helpful in society to create cohesion.

However, while emotion can cloud judgement, that is something up to an individual's choice. Granted, it can be difficult. But it is not an impossible thing to ask of people. 

I think where we differ is that I think everyone is deserving of a basic respect for their humanity. This includes empathy. 

In any case, I'm not trying to change your mind, merely to understand and perhaps be understood.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Okay fine, it's a different order. The point still stands. The emotions inform. *Such information is useful and helpful in society to create cohesion*.
> 
> However, while emotion can cloud judgement, that is something up to an individual's choice. Granted, it can be difficult. But it is not an impossible thing to ask of people.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily, for example if we are empathetic towards a blood vendetta that spans generations how is that helpful in creating social adhesion... to the contrary in can be helpful in maintaining that divide.

If they exhibit such humanity themselves, as I said respect is based in reciprocity, once they cease to exhibit that reciprocity then it is completely reasonable that they be denied a certain amount of respect in return, that is why we have laws and punitive means for dealing with those who cease or at least partially cease to respect the basic humanity of others. Denying ones freedom to partake in open society for a given period of time is clearly showing them that they are no longer worthy of the same degree of respect as the rest of society.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Not necessarily, for example if we are empathetic towards a blood vendetta that spans generations how is that helpful in creating social adhesion... to the contrary in can be helpful in maintaining that divide.
> 
> If they exhibit such humanity themselves, as I said respect is based in reciprocity, once they cease to exhibit that reciprocity then it is completely reasonable that they be denied a certain amount of respect in return, that is why we have laws and punitive means for dealing with those who cease or at least partially cease to respect the basic humanity of others. Denying ones freedom to partake in open society for a given period of time is clearly showing them that they are no longer worthy of the same degree of respect as the rest of society.


I used the phrase 'basic respect' vs just plain ol' 'respect' for a reason. But we do allow for basic respect within our system--people who commit crimes are denied their freedoms but not all of their rights as individuals. 

Even in these cases, I don't think respect is earned so much as some level of respect is a given, and some level of respect can be taken away. 

I suspect that you associate empathy with approval. I don't think they are necessarily related. People can strongly and emotionally identify with a person, and still disagree with their choices. 

To empathize with participants in a blood vendetta doesn't take away my ability to have an opinion that it is wrong and that it would be better for society as a whole for it to stop. 

But it does help me gain an insider's view as to why is happens and why it continues, and such information (emotional, intellectual and otherwise) puts me in a better position find truly workable ways of reducing or diffusing these conflicts... particularly when I apply such empathy to both sides.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Empathy is most definitely not equal to approval. Empathy is more about being able to picture yourself in the shoes of another and gaining a sense of that person's motivation or emotional state, even if imagining that very thing makes you squirm.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> I used the phrase 'basic respect' vs just plain ol' 'respect' for a reason. But we do allow for basic respect within our system--people who commit crimes are denied their freedoms but not all of their rights as individuals.
> 
> *Even in these cases, I don't think respect is earned so much as some level of respect is a given, and some level of respect can be taken away.*
> 
> ...


I can agree with the notion that respect should be a given when dealing with a person that is a complete stranger, but that situation lasts for a fleeting period of time, there after respect is earned or perhaps better stated maintained so long as there is reciprocity.

Indeed to some extent, as it is inherent in the definition... intellectual vicarious identification.

Perhaps some people can "strongly emotionally identify with a person, and still disagree with their choices". Personally I could not strongly emotionally identify myself with a person with whom I fundamentally didn't respect their morality or ethics or acts. I may understand them but I wouldn't be empathetic with them or identify with them and personally I see no greater societal good being served in doing so, that is where I think we also differ.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Indeed to some extent, as it is inherent in the definition... intellectual vicarious identification.
> 
> Perhaps some people can "strongly emotionally identify with a person, and still disagree with their choices". Personally I could not strongly emotionally identify myself with a person with whom I fundamentally didn't respect their morality or ethics or acts. I may understand them but I wouldn't be empathetic with them or identify with them and personally I see no greater societal good being served in doing so, that is where I think we also differ.


Identification isn't necessarily approval, although it is definitely a lot easier to identify with someone we do approve of.... takes much less of a leap. But this does not make doing so impossible.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> Identification isn't necessarily approval, although it is definitely a lot easier to identify with someone we do approve of.... takes much less of a leap. *But this does not make doing so impossible*.


Just for me...


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Just for me...


I can empathize with that.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Sonal said:


> I can empathize with that.


:lmao: Fair enough... time to move on me thinks...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

*Canadian fatwa condemns 'honour killings'*

Don had this in todays SAP. Surprised he has not also posted it here.



> A Canadian imam issued a fatwa Saturday officially condemning honour killings and family violence.
> 
> 
> The edict is an official reminder to Muslims, coming from the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and signed by 34 imams across Canada and the United States.
> ...


Entire article here:
Canadian fatwa condemns 'honour killings' - Toronto - CBC News


----------

