by Raistlin » Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:49 pm
Oncelikle siddetin sadece bir anlami yoktur. Ben burada TDK sozlugunden yapilan alintinin burada tartistigimiz eylemlere uymadigi icin sig buldugumu soylemek istemistim. Bir cok farkli anlami olan bir kelimenin (misal siddetle tavsiye etmek denilmis baska bir anlamini gostermek icin) ilk gordugumuz tanimini degil konuya en uygun olan anlaminin uzerinde anlastiktan sonra ancak tartismaya baslayabiliriz.
Baksaniza daha bir tanim uzerinde bile karar veremedik
Elimde turkce kaynak olmadigi icin alinti yapamiyorum ne yazikki. Siddetin yalnizca ve yalnizca insanlarin alternatif yolu olarak tanimlamak yalnizca toplumda tanimlamaktir.
http://socialistregister.com/socialistr ... laster.pdf
The minimal ordinary conception of violence is well-known, although, as
we shall see, not as straightforward as it sounds: a violent action is one
which involves doing harm, injury or damage to a human being, or to a
non-human being, or perhaps, but more dubiously, to things, notably (in
common speech) to things which are owned, i.e. property; and the harm
or injury conceived of is characteristically physical, or at least, quasiphysical
(I have in mind here forms of torture, or 'ill-treatment', which
may leHve no bodily mark), causing suffering and affecting health.
Olayi biraz daha ileri goturen bu yazida siddet uygulamak icin fiziksel guce gerek olmadigi (ucakla bir yeri bombalamak gibi) hatta fiziksel bir zarar vermeden de siddet uygulanabilecegi soylenmis (bakiniz yukarida bahsedilen psikolojik iskence gibi)
It may at once be suggested that the vital difference lies in the areas of
intention. Whereas the Nazis had the deliberate policy of killing the Jews
of Europe, the man who pays starvation wages or obstructs a water supply
does not usually intend harm. He is concerned to make money or protect
his interests; the harm is not intended, and perhaps not even foreseen. This
seems plausible. Someone who greets you with a slap on the back that
knocks you over wouldn't normally be said to have committed an act of
violence. Yet someone whose mode of getting along the pavement
regularly had the unintended effect of forcing other people into the gutter,
might well be described as rough, if not violent, in character even if he
intended no harm. If we take intentions as decisive, we shall be forced into
some odd situations. The Americans, bombing North Vietnam, claimed on
occasion that they aimed only at military targets: they intended to destroy
only installations of strategic importance, not to flatten hospitals or kill
civilians. Similarly, in Northern Ireland, the Provisional IRA frequently
disclaimed any intention of killing civilians with bombs intended to destroy
property or military targets. Surely any action involving the risk, amounting
to a near-certainty, that people will be killed and injured, whatever the
aims of its perpetrators, must be regarded as an act of violence. But then
we are brought back to the cases of wages and water supplies. Where is the
line to be drawn between violence and other forms of power or coercion
through which injury and death can be caused? It should already be clear
that this is not an easy question, and we shall have to return to it in due
course.
Burada ise acaba siddeti amaca gore mi tanimlasak diye sorulmus. Eger birine zarar verme amaci gutmuyorsak ve yanlislikla zarar verirsek o zaman siddet eylemi gerceklestirmis olur muyuz? Ornek olarak Vietnami bombalayan ve yalnizca stratejik binalara zarar vermeyi amaclayan Amerikan ordusu verilmis. Amac insan oldurmek olmasa da elbette insanlar zarar gormus, bir cogu da hayatini kaybetmistir. Sonunda siddeti tanimlamanin kolay olmadigina kanaat getirmis.
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/bsspapers05/Kat.html
Buradan dogada siddet bolumune bakarsaniz bir cok bilim adaminin dogada bir cok hayvanda gozlemledigi "natural violence" hakkinda okuyabileceginiz yazilar var (ingilizce). Ozellikle maymunlardan ve hiyerarsi kavgasinda birbirine ozellikle zarar veren hayvanlardan bahsedilmis.
After Goodall's research hit the world of science, and it did so with much uproar (Goodall 1999), similar intra-specific killings were witnessed in other social animals and in other groups of chimpanzees and apes. Wolves for instance are now well known for being vicious to their own kind. Fellow wolves cause almost half of wolf mortality not caused by humans. Cheetahs, lions, and hyenas also show traits of extreme violence and killing of their own species. It seems that ants are the worst by far. Ants are renowned for their conquest and genocide of neighboring ant colonies (Barash 2005). D.P. Barash made a particularly thought provoking statement in his article about animal violence, "If ants had nuclear weapons they would probably end the world in a week" (qt. in Barash 2005, B19).
Nukleer silahlari olan karincalar dunyayi yok edermis! Gercekten korkutucu bir dusunce!
Erkek ayilarin yavrularini ilk bulduklari firsatta oldurmeye calismalari da dogadaki siddete benim verebilecegim baska bir ornek. Buyuyunce kendi gucune tehdit olusturabilecegini dusunen erkek ayilar, kendi cocuklarini bile katledebiliyor. Onlari engelleyen tek sey yavrularin anneleri.
Aslanlarda gorulen eski krali alasagi eden yeni kralin butun yavrulari katletmesi de doganin o "siddetten uzak" kurallariyla ciddi anlamda celisir ve siddetten baska bir sekilde aciklanamaz bence.
Oncelikle siddetin sadece bir anlami yoktur. Ben burada TDK sozlugunden yapilan alintinin burada tartistigimiz eylemlere uymadigi icin sig buldugumu soylemek istemistim. Bir cok farkli anlami olan bir kelimenin (misal siddetle tavsiye etmek denilmis baska bir anlamini gostermek icin) ilk gordugumuz tanimini degil konuya en uygun olan anlaminin uzerinde anlastiktan sonra ancak tartismaya baslayabiliriz.
Baksaniza daha bir tanim uzerinde bile karar veremedik :)
Elimde turkce kaynak olmadigi icin alinti yapamiyorum ne yazikki. Siddetin yalnizca ve yalnizca insanlarin alternatif yolu olarak tanimlamak yalnizca toplumda tanimlamaktir.
http://socialistregister.com/socialistregister.com/files/SR_1975_Arblaster.pdf
[b]The minimal ordinary conception of violence is well-known, although, as
we shall see, not as straightforward as it sounds: a violent action is one
which involves doing harm, injury or damage to a human being, or to a
non-human being, or perhaps, but more dubiously, to things, notably (in
common speech) to things which are owned, i.e. property; and the harm
or injury conceived of is characteristically physical, or at least, quasiphysical
(I have in mind here forms of torture, or 'ill-treatment', which
may leHve no bodily mark), causing suffering and affecting health.[/b]
Olayi biraz daha ileri goturen bu yazida siddet uygulamak icin fiziksel guce gerek olmadigi (ucakla bir yeri bombalamak gibi) hatta fiziksel bir zarar vermeden de siddet uygulanabilecegi soylenmis (bakiniz yukarida bahsedilen psikolojik iskence gibi)
[b]It may at once be suggested that the vital difference lies in the areas of
intention. Whereas the Nazis had the deliberate policy of killing the Jews
of Europe, the man who pays starvation wages or obstructs a water supply
does not usually intend harm. He is concerned to make money or protect
his interests; the harm is not intended, and perhaps not even foreseen. This
seems plausible. Someone who greets you with a slap on the back that
knocks you over wouldn't normally be said to have committed an act of
violence. Yet someone whose mode of getting along the pavement
regularly had the unintended effect of forcing other people into the gutter,
might well be described as rough, if not violent, in character even if he
intended no harm. If we take intentions as decisive, we shall be forced into
some odd situations. The Americans, bombing North Vietnam, claimed on
occasion that they aimed only at military targets: they intended to destroy
only installations of strategic importance, not to flatten hospitals or kill
civilians. Similarly, in Northern Ireland, the Provisional IRA frequently
disclaimed any intention of killing civilians with bombs intended to destroy
property or military targets. Surely any action involving the risk, amounting
to a near-certainty, that people will be killed and injured, whatever the
aims of its perpetrators, must be regarded as an act of violence. But then
we are brought back to the cases of wages and water supplies. Where is the
line to be drawn between violence and other forms of power or coercion
through which injury and death can be caused? It should already be clear
that this is not an easy question, and we shall have to return to it in due
course.[/b]
Burada ise acaba siddeti amaca gore mi tanimlasak diye sorulmus. Eger birine zarar verme amaci gutmuyorsak ve yanlislikla zarar verirsek o zaman siddet eylemi gerceklestirmis olur muyuz? Ornek olarak Vietnami bombalayan ve yalnizca stratejik binalara zarar vermeyi amaclayan Amerikan ordusu verilmis. Amac insan oldurmek olmasa da elbette insanlar zarar gormus, bir cogu da hayatini kaybetmistir. Sonunda siddeti tanimlamanin kolay olmadigina kanaat getirmis.
http://www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/bsspapers05/Kat.html
Buradan dogada siddet bolumune bakarsaniz bir cok bilim adaminin dogada bir cok hayvanda gozlemledigi "natural violence" hakkinda okuyabileceginiz yazilar var (ingilizce). Ozellikle maymunlardan ve hiyerarsi kavgasinda birbirine ozellikle zarar veren hayvanlardan bahsedilmis.
[b]After Goodall's research hit the world of science, and it did so with much uproar (Goodall 1999), similar intra-specific killings were witnessed in other social animals and in other groups of chimpanzees and apes. Wolves for instance are now well known for being vicious to their own kind. Fellow wolves cause almost half of wolf mortality not caused by humans. Cheetahs, lions, and hyenas also show traits of extreme violence and killing of their own species. It seems that ants are the worst by far. Ants are renowned for their conquest and genocide of neighboring ant colonies (Barash 2005). D.P. Barash made a particularly thought provoking statement in his article about animal violence, "If ants had nuclear weapons they would probably end the world in a week" (qt. in Barash 2005, B19).[/b]
Nukleer silahlari olan karincalar dunyayi yok edermis! Gercekten korkutucu bir dusunce! :D
Erkek ayilarin yavrularini ilk bulduklari firsatta oldurmeye calismalari da dogadaki siddete benim verebilecegim baska bir ornek. Buyuyunce kendi gucune tehdit olusturabilecegini dusunen erkek ayilar, kendi cocuklarini bile katledebiliyor. Onlari engelleyen tek sey yavrularin anneleri.
Aslanlarda gorulen eski krali alasagi eden yeni kralin butun yavrulari katletmesi de doganin o "siddetten uzak" kurallariyla ciddi anlamda celisir ve siddetten baska bir sekilde aciklanamaz bence.