@
Talon,
i am not replying for whole post but only part of it as some points in this post has been discussed subsequently by samantk and zaibi.
@
anonymus
What is with you lot...1 set thinks we evolved from apes and now reptilian brain...Am yet to see a crocodile say
HEY WHATS UP!
Sorry But I seriously came from humans....not sure where you came from...Since I am not in neurology ...all those terms mean nothing to me...cant be much bothered esp when the beginning of the sentence equates a human brain to reptilian ones!
1. Humans did not evolved for apes. They just had a common ancestor. From there they had gone their way in evolution we have gone our's.
2. Chimpanzees are not the starting point of evolution. The first organism to evolve was single celled and it evolved during Eo Archean period. The fossils of subsequent evolution relics are preserved in Australian stromatolites.
3. Reptilian brain is the term used for primitive brain, primitive in the sense of evolution. This is the part of brain which controls basic bodily functions and urges. Meddula oblongata and cerebellum belongs to this part along with some part of occipital lobe and central suculus. These part control bodily functions and urges and drives and is found in reptiles also. The later part is buily upon this foundation.
4. Frontal cortex is the part of brain in-charge of thinking process. It is the one which enables you to do planning, being creative and do algebra and the rest three are part of brsin responsible for linguistic capabilities
Then do not cry or ask the state to make STRICTER LAWS ...like I said earlier on...It is a social issue and society makes a state...
I also say, those who want to live the life with THEIR OWN RULES should then not cry if the state's name is tarnished or some laws are not implemented...1st you say it is not the state's matter than YOU DEMAND the state to take actions?!
You bipolar?
No, i am not bipolar. State needs to take action and society needs to make stricter laws but the type of laws is what i differ on.
Prohibitory laws never make sense as
1. They are derogatory to humans. They treat subjects like infants and state like a nanny state.
2. When i ask state to make strict laws i meant that they should make strict punitive law. An example of that would be that you could drink but engage in hooliganism and you would serve an year in jail. Pretty much i am in partial consonance with Saudi philosophy of extreme punishments as it has been proven that punishments work only if they are extreme.
3. Under prohibitory laws, people do get access to the prohibited substance by illegal means and usually the worst one gets primary access. An example would be on-going gun control debate in USA. A simple proposition which i think participants there ignore is that, irrespective of restrictions you place on guns,criminals are going to have access to guns.
4.We may be able to prevent some crimes using prohibition law, but any legal measure has to judged by the social benefit of the law. A law is not an Islanded entity. It is a harbinger of political philosophy a state follows. A law which places restriction of an individual is a sign of state which regulates thought process of individual. this leads to muffling of creative thought process and is in toto bad for society. An example of this would be anti-terror laws .They are highly effective but they do not justify the erosion of rights to public.
As far as ADVANCEMENT goes, West has only SUCCESSFULLY built up on OLD theories, laws, understanding...Nothing new has been generated in a land which has been more stable than many of the countries in the East! Even they know it!
Now this is an supremacist argument that i encounter a lot on this forum. Look around yourself and see as to how many things you are using have been invented in east.
Coming to basic science.
1.Did someone in East propounded laws of electro mechanism before maxwell
2. Motion before galileo
3. Relativity before laplace and einstien
4. Planetary motion before Keplar
5.Quantum mechanics
.
.
.
.
.
The only worthwhile contribution of east that has been build upon by west is in field of mathematics.
Some islanded contributions would never count as it was never part of eastern cultures to provide theoretical frameworks hence their inventions could not be developed upon.
Well, you throwing psychology left and right, have you learnt child psychology how BOTH parents are NECESSARY to raise a PROPER child? Well, then when HALF of Western kids do not know who their daddy is or why their mommy left what sort of miracle are you expecting from an average kid with such a situation?
It is also proved that parents carrying a dead relationship is much worse than single parent as far as psyche of child is concerned.
[MENTION=133385]
So you agree to state telling you how to raise a child but disagree with the state banning alcohol? At WILL you say the state should this and then say they shouldn't that...Who chooses what the state should agree to and not? A person whose family had been a rape victim would AGREE to alot of things than one whose has not...Everything has both sides....Sooo....who is to decide what is right or wrong? Saw the Indian's reaction to what alpha1 said....for him that is significant for a woman to cover, for others it is not....So, who decides? When provided a solution, you object...
Noe that is putting words in someone's mouth.The fact that i think it to be a socialist conspiracy would have made it clear that i am not in favor of state regulating private affairs.
You would be surprised as to how many idiots do...
But only fundamentalists have this as a default option. Have you heard of evangelical christians theory that if a women become pregnent during rape, she had enjoyed it and it is a just rape.In their view a women suffering rape could shut down her reproductive system.
First of all, sir, bravo for posting this and raising an issue and another bravo for using social sciecne to illuminate it. I would like to point out a few things though, firstly, sir, I would propose that we not see this from a purely Psychoanalytic view. There is a reason for this, though personally I believe Psychoanalysis is extremely useful but for the average person and policy makers it's too condensed to understand. I propose using social constructionism instead.
Secondly, sir, we don't really need to focus on child-rearing, see, taking rape as an holistic phenomena prevalent in every society we must cater the feminist argument that rape is acutally falsely constructed in schema in masculinity (Nilan, 2008). As the influence of the peer-group (Kandel, 1996) exceeds that of the family it is entirely possible and indeed seen that well-raised children and perfectly sane people commit rape.
Rape is actually not seen as a crime, it is either misfortune or calamity. The society needs to see it from a woman's perspective rather than a male's perspective and we need to reinforce not just the anti-rape message into the male population but address the hypermasculine conquest-driven sexual schema of expressing sexuality.
Good effort, we need more such posts.
Regards.
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resourc...nd Development_Masculinities and Violence.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&UID=1996-05103-001
A very good post sir. I left out social constructionism because my grasp on it is weak.
