"World Peace" hitchhiker murdered.
 

She wanted to prove that the world wasnt such a dangerous place.

I suppose it is a bit disrespectful to say, but her killing is somewhat ironic.

Sad. Humanity sure does include some dark sides.

It isn't disrespectful, because it's true. Unfortunately, the world isn't uniformly peaceful. Not everyone is steeped in kindness. Though her effort is commendable. It's a sad story.

Turkey should be ashamed.

Why? They've detained the man. Do you mean they should have provided her with special security? I'm not sure what you mean.

you're willing to pin a whole country on the actions of 1 individual?

Because they need to take responsibility for the behavior of their citizens not by responding after they commit crimes but by working to prevent crimes. It's not catching a criminal that creates a low crime rate, it's preventing people from becoming criminals.
Willing and able. Collective responsibility for the individual is what "society" means.

So should America be ashamed too? And Canada?

By your judgement, the world should be ashamed. What you say here doesn't mean much to me, will. Sorry.

Yes, we all absolutely should be ashamed, though you a lot less than me. Canada is a lot safer than the US. I view our crime rate as something to be ashamed of and as such I work to try and fix it.

Maybe if more people gave two shits, things might actually change.

Okay, this I can agree with.

sorry that smells like a bunch of horseshit.

by that statement bak is correct, there is NO place in the world that should not be ashamed.

It's not about the shame, but being motivated to actually do something to fix the problem. Her murder could have been avoided, just like almost every other murder in every other country, had people stepped forward with potential solutions and the tenacity to see them through.

your words were shame, not Turkey should have done more.

All murders can be avoided in some fashion, but removing them 100% would be removing free will from everyone.

The shame is motivation, but they should have done more before they should be ashamed. See? It's both.

You're the first one in this thread to have said 100% of murders. I've never said that.

As long as humans are human there will be motivation to murder as it is in our natures. The only way to remove this nature would be eugenics, where the traits are isolated and either treated at the cellular level or removed from the gene pool all together.

Psychologists will never get rid of murder any more than they will get rid of anger, envy, or jealousy, biologists might. Not sure if in the long run thats for the best.

I also dont get the Turkey should be ashamed comment.

The blood is upon the hands of the killer, not the whole nation.

In 2006 a girl I went to school with was murdered by a serial killer in Ipswich (Stephen Wright - who was sent down for killing 5 women) - a lot of things went wrong in her life, and around her, that lead her to the situation she was in when she was killed - but I know for sure who is guilty, and it is Stephen Wright, not England.

Ah, "human nature". There's really no such thing. There are certain behavioral patterns that are motivated by biology and environment, but no "nature" to speak of.

Some places on the planet have extremely low crime rates. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...mes-per-capita

The discrepancy cannot be explained by "human nature".

Will's right. We should avoid using terminology that should have been left behind in the 19th century. But I understand what you're getting at, Ustwo. I'm not sure "deprogramming" our genetic dispositions toward certain behaviours is a viable solution. The solutions should be found in a balance between biology, psychology, and societal formulations.

that's the implication of crime prevention of stopping murder right? shouldn't we just get the precogs into the mix and arrest people before they commit the crime.

This is a terribly depressing story.
Mainly because someone entrusted their fate so completely to an imperfect humanity.

There are some places in our world where women should not travel in small groups or without a man.

In our travels, Tt and I have met several women who were backpacking across Eastern and Western Europe. Some had the goal of seeing the world on their own. While this is an understandable stretch of independence, I was always concerned for their safety.

i know that this is not the part of the story that i should be stuck on.
i know that i should be reacting to what happened to her.
but this is kinda interesting.

here's a longer story from a turkish news service:

http://www.hurriyet.com.tr/english/t...d=231&sz=83045

so first off, will's response is also that of the representatives of "the turkish people" who were interviewed for the article.

but here's what i don't really get: a piece or action like this would be about the documentation. she had a cool outfit (there's a photo in the source-piece) and the idea was nice--but it'd be about the photos, about the narrative of the experience--because the experience itself would disappear as it happened.

so i'm surprised that she was doing this piece by herself.

this is not in any way to justify what happened to her--i am just a bit perplexed by the fact that she made this decision, not only because it put her in danger (which she had to have suspected, despite the naive "i want to be able to count of the kindness of locals.." which often--but not always--you can---ESPECIALLY hitchiking, which is a dicey way to get around--i used to do it alot when i was a mere sprat until i had a couple really hair-raising experiences, and i was a bearded boy not dressed as a bride hitching around the u.s....) but also because in a sense it's at cross purposes with the piece as a conceptual action.

very odd.
a very odd tragic situation.

addendum:

a little more research and...

here's a statement about the project from the alkatraz gallery, which seemed to have something to do with it--it's more complex and interesting a project that it sounds from the mini-blurb:

http://www.kudmreza.org/alkatraz/arh...g_bridges.html

the webpage of the "artist-brides" is down...

The implication of crime prevention does not really apply to this area.

Drug crime can be prevented by treating addicts rather than criminalising them.

Property crime can be addressed to a degree by giving the youth different options.

This kind of sex killing really cannot be prevented by any social measure: in any society, in any collection of humans, there will be a certain number who are prone to this kind of atrocity.

I have read arguments that sex murder only began in 1888... but I dont believe in them.

here's some more about the documentation element of the piece:

http://flickr.com/groups/turkey/disc...7604435574784/

very sad.
very strange.

i usually never disagree on wills comments.. but..he did make a recovery.. however lemme throw a spanner in there..

so lemme get this straight.. if turkey should be ashamed for this, shouldnt all turks also be ashamed for trying to assassinate the Pope John Paul II?

based on this reasoning..i think its only fair

While that website is pretty much devoid of meaningful data, assuming it was valid would do nothing to diminish the human nature argument. Its not like our natures would be uniform under all circumstances or across populations.

To ignore our instincts and genetic heritage is the mistake of physiologists over the last 50 years, though I thought they were finally starting to understand we are not a tabala rasa to be programed by our environment. Perhaps I am wrong, and maybe they will go back to trying to treat things like homosexuality with therapy again.

Biology (genetics) and environment shape us. There's no "human nature". We've had this conversation before. "Human nature" is not a scientific term and has roots in religion and philosophy.

The genetic predisposition to murder could be found if people were looking for it, and behavioral patterns can be picked up at a young age. As for environment, everything from poverty to war cause people to think that murder is an acceptable practice. I don't see anything there that we can't attempt to solve.

Yeah Will, I'm not following you on this one... murder can happen anytime, anywhere, to and by anyone. This is just another unfortunate case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time...

I don't think you can't solve it. Again, in solving it, you've removed the ability for 100% free will.

I choose to not kill people on a daily basis. I have the choice to do so almost every second of every day. There are some people who cannot make that choice, it's made for them those are "flawed" in some chemical way they cannot help that.

But there are those who chose to do so. They choose to murder, they choose to commit crimes.

I'm not talking about removal, I'm talking about reduction. Extreme reduction, but reduction none the less.

The problem is that we're not working hard enough. Austria has .9 murders per million people. That should be our goal. The US has 56 murders per million people, for comparison. Turkey has about 38 murders per million people.

a question: recentish news here was that a group of lithuanian men took a girl and group raped her in my very neighborhood. who should be ashamed? iceland for not preventing the crime? lithuania for producing the individuals who collaborated in committing the crime? the individuals who committed it or the girl for providing them with a target and an opportunity? murder will always happen or should we look forward to the days of the thought police? sounds like bucket loads of fun to me.

and how does one stop someone from committing impulse murder?

Rape isn't an "impulse murder".

I can't speak to the specifics of the crime or the perps as I'm not familiar with them, but rape can be prevented a number of ways.

Women learning self defense and carrying pepper spray or a taser are active ways to prevent rape, along with having a large police force and having citizens that call the police immediately upon witnessing the crime. Not only that, but the good samaritans of the world should do all they can to try and help.

Passive ways would include empathy and emotion management taught in schools and by parents. Impulse control would be another important lesson. The most important? Anger management. All of these things have been proven time and again to reduce dangerous and unhealthy behavior in teens and adults when introduced at an early age.

People who commit sexual murders are not of the kind of people who can be reached by "empathy program's" or "anger management"

Spoken as someone who clearly doesn't understand sexual crimes.

Edit: if you add in school psychologists who can spot sexual abuse of the children, it would reduce sexual assaults and murders even more.

They are looking for it.

They have found that most males who commit violent crimes have abnormally high levels of testosterone. Link for source., but it is not clear if violent criminal activity drives an increase in testosterone or if the criminal activity is caused by an androgen (male hormones including testosterone) imbalance.

People in rural Turkey most likely wouldn't be able to afford or access appropriate treatments, unless you see castration as appropriate.

sorry had a 2nd thought, posted a 2nd time and it automerged.

this is not prevention, this is stopping the act. prevention would involve somehow stopping the guys from coming together with the intent to commit the act. also your other suggestions only deal with the aftermath not the actual act so can´t be considered "prevention" by any means.

i do agree with this in theory but i´d love to see the evidence "proving" these things. i believe it´s 78% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Sex murders are NOT sex crimes.

It is fashionable to call rape a hate crime and not a sex crime, and I think it can be either... but, to take an example, "Jack the Ripper" did not commit sex crimes, but he was a sexual killer.

I'm afraid you speak as one who doesnt understand the difference.

Thinking that Peter Sutcliffe or Ted Bundy or Richard Ramirez wouldnt have become what they did if they had better "empathy" classes at school is quite sweet... but very silly, and obviously wrong.

They were what they were because they were monsters.

If the crime is not committed, then it is prevented.
I didn't post any statistics.
I'm not using the legal terminology, I'm using the descriptive terminology. Besides "sex crimes" isn't even a legal term.

If you're going to try and take the intellectual high ground you should probably avoid using the term "monster" to describe someone suffering from mental illnesses.

I think I can be a little more disrespectful than willravel when I say that that girl was stupid, and pretty much had it coming. I'll give her some props for hitchhiking, that wasn't so bad, but DRESSED AS A BRIDE? She had it coming in that case. She might as well have had a sign reading "Free Rape" dangling from her neck. At least bring a fucking knife, just in case, like a back-up plan if her hypothesis turns to shit.

Also, I partially agree with Will, while I do think that it's an individual thing and that you cannot hold an entire country responsible for one person, you still have to consider that crime rates are low in many countries and high in others for reasons. Now, I don't know about the crime rate of Turkey, but I have a feeling that everyone isn't eating rainbows and shitting butterflies.

so calling the police while witnessing the crime prevents the crime?
the statistic was pointing to the "it is proven" line. who proved it?

this isn´t my quote. no words into my mouth please :)

ok, i think will is onto something. arm every woman and teach her self defence while preventing any male from also learning the same self defence (male female thing a little sexist but is merely illustrative for simplification purposes) have totally morally correct police in EVERY location, preferrably within eye view of each other, citizens that will call the police upon witnessing people who *may* look like they have the intention to commit a crime and every person should, regardless of their own personal safety jump in and defend the meek. BANG! a crime free utopia. not quite my vision of utopia but i guess it would be crime free. bring on the thought police :thumbsup:

well, it's pretty obvious that the reason for the expressions of collective shame in the hurriyet piece i bit above is that the information about this is travelling around the world on the internet--as is the nature of the piece--and so it makes folk look bad. this is not rocket science---of COURSE folk in that position would be ashamed.
the idea behind the piece makes it EVEN MORE embarrassing than it otherwise would be.

what it amounts to--not just as an individual rape and murder, but given the narrative that accompanied the project--->some guy in turkey demonstrates to everyone who reads about this that people are assholes.

who wouldn't be ashamed?
i expect that had the same thing happened in, say, ustwo's community, he'd be all sackcloth and ashes for the way in which it embarrassed the community as a whole, even as he might also be running his "people are assholes because they're genetic programmed to be assholes" line.

but i don't buy any of the genetics arguments.
these effectively justify the murder of this person by arguing that it is simply the performance of some in-built characteristic--and this by extension to exculpate everyone involved not only in this but in almost any action anywhere by any one ("whaddya mean? it's in my nature"...this is that odd little story about the scorpion)
which seems a genetics-based argument against civilization when you think about it.

but in this particular case, it's implication is that the "proper" attitude to have to this story is
"o well, shit happens. people are fucked up. next."

which i think is a kind of crass little response. little in every sense.

Nice altruist thoughts, Will, but out of reality.
We are primates. Primates kill. There are reports of 'rogue' chimpanzees who will 'murder'.
It is, to a point, 'human nature'. The difference is, as Cyn pointed out, we have free will and the ability to reason; we don't know for sure other mammals do, although evidence is trying to be built for dolphins(who also murder and rape) and elephants.
Note that there might be countries with "low" murder rates, but they're there and who is to say that the reasons the rate is "low" is because of oppressive factors within those governments. I'll bet Cambodia had a low murder rate...because one person and his thugs did all the killing and thus "crime" was viewed differently.

I'll just say that I agree that primarily this is just a sad and unfortunate story.

And I understand why the public face of Turkey might feel ashamed, but not why Turkey should feel ashamed.

Humanity is full of inconsistencies and sometimes things just don't make sense. People are bound to be incomprehensibly ugly to one another just as they are bound to be inconceivably kind to one another. If both are human nature, then human nature really doesn't function as much of an explanation for this woman's murder. If to rape and murder is human nature, then why do so few of us (relatively speaking) aspire to it?

I think rather, these kinds of things occur when one or many of us forget our human nature due to powerful environmental influences and other corroborating factors.

I will use the collective 'we' term..even though
I understand that for some of 'us' ....that triggers a backlash quiver,
of 'forced teaming'.....

'we' see hate..we taste hate...we hate it...we hurt...we want better
we cry...we think we understand...we should know better...we shout..
we bleed...we continue....we hold on....we teach...we destroy...
we die...we heal...we write songs...
we.....

I'd want those responsible punished and I'd still think she was a dumbass. I don't feel responsible for everyones behavior in my community.

I'm shocked.

Nope. Murder is in our genetics, as is being social and protection of that community from murder. Those who can not control their traits get removed from being able to harm others. Its still all quite nicely "natural".

Civilization is but the ultimate end of our social nature + intelligence, war is our desire to solve problems violently + intelligence. Both have served our species well over the years.

Shit does happen and I'm not going to shed extra tears over a self proclaimed artist who did a very silly thing which turned out to be fatal over anyone else who was murdered. She put herself in harms way to prove a point, and instead showed just the opposite, ironic indeed. The murder of an innocent is always tragic, this one more no more tragic than the next.

Actually, this is just as tragic as it is ironic, it you view it in the classical sense. More tragic than the average murder, which is why it is so newsworthy. The irony helps the tragedy along.

Sympathy is genetic. The woman is dead. Don't hide your genes.

Actually it is, and no one in this thread is losing any sleep over her death.

No, this is true. I just didn't want to let you get away with downplaying the tragedy of this story. This is not your average murder. There are uncommon ramifications of this incident. As an example, note the thread we've created about this. I will take a guess that this post won't be the last one either.

I sleep.....but oh the nightmares...

this woman went out on a crusade not understanding the nature of humanity. Yes will, there IS a human nature. We are living beings, not unlike gorillas, lions, bears, hippos, or any other living breathing mammal on the planet. Your desire to seperate humans from the animal kingdom by virtue of a brain not withstanding, we are still animals. As humans, we have a self preservation gene. We have predatory genes. We have DNA that directs our selves towards the desire of things that the will to do what we want to obtain those. Evil acts CAN be part of this makeup of the human gene.

There is evil in the world and until more people wake up to that reality and combat it, we'll see stupid people like this unfortunate woman become a victim to it.

i'll close this off with my new favorite quote,

The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don't do anything about it. 'Albert Einstein'.

No seriously, "human nature" is like "Murphy's Law". It's a general figure of speech referring not to any specific science or philosophy to speak of, but rather simply to a lazy reasoning out of something.

The scary part of your post is that you try to explain a non-scientific term with bad science and a bit of religion (like intelligent design). "Evil" is a vague religious term. Genetics is biology. Behavioral traits are psychology. A murder/rape can be explained usually by psychology, and on occasion biochemistry of the brain, but if you're going to use religion you can't use science without creating a terrible mess.

I have no wish to enter into a long discussion on if she had it coming or not, and on what is or isn't human nature, so I am sorry if my contribution doesn't contribute to what you all seem to be focusing on most.

I just needed to say that I'm very sorry for that poor woman. Truly sorry.

I think she was trying to confirm for herself, and perhaps for others, that human nature is diverse, and that though you shouldn't trust some people, there are always many others you can trust. This may still be true, but...

This was a most unfortunate murder and I can't help but feel that it is pointless to dissect the situation, except to say that this only seems to confirm the worst in ourselves. Though the event may have been fortuitous, it seems quite perverse and saddens me.

Okay, this is a bit off the mark. I don't think Will meant to separate humans from the animal kingdom. He's well educated; I'm sure he knows we're animals. But to say we are unlike the zoo you listed and to simply lump us together as animals and call it "nature" is an oversimplification. We have genetic traits passed onto us that might explain much of our behaviour, but that isn't the end of the story. Society and our unique developmental histories play huge roles in our behavioural patterns. Evolutionary biologists have been studying this for years.

The problem with discussing "human nature" is that it gets far too glossed. As we've seen, we immediately jump on DNA, genes, etc., while overlooking much of the long history of behavioural study (the latter of which, consequently, makes up a much greater body of work than the former). To call the sum of our actions an exclusive result of our genetic makeup isn't going to get us anywhere if we are to understand the deplorable acts people commit. It's much more complex than that. The behavioural sciences have been grossly overlooked so far in the thread. Our greatest efforts to prevent and deal with the crimes we most fear are rooted in these. Genetics is a factor, but I think it acts only as a baseline to certain research and applied studies related to human behaviour (that is, if it's going to be of any actual use).

While I can commend her for the desire to prove this point, is was really a shame she was naive enough to actually believe it. Throughout history mankind has continued to prove just the opposite is true. From the crusades to modern day, a small percentage of humans have continue to prey on the weak. And this will continue, regardless of punishment, until the end of the world.

so you're more intelligent than albert einstein? or are you saying that einstein wasn't as educationally advanced as you?
will, I admit that you are highly intelligent, but I've heard many scholars, world leaders, academics, and philosophers talk about evil existing in the world. I hear about it today in several books that I skim through. Do you know something more about the world today than all of those people do/did?

:rolleyes: He chose to attempt eloquence instead of accuracy in his statement. Religious terms are often thought to be more eloquent. Here is a more accurate statement:
Doesn't really roll of the tongue, does it?

Edit: I'm probably a better pianist than Einstein, but does that take away from anything he did or make me special? Of course not. Some people are bound to be better than Einstein at some things (though very few at maths) because while Einstein was one of the most brilliant men of all time, he wasn't the most brilliant in everything he did. If he were here, I'm sure he'd agree.

And so should Italy for making someone so stupid they would hitch hike alone through such an unstable area.

the irony of this is almost as good as when CNN report "Woman killed by nonlethal ordinance".

You're equating optimism with murder?

No, in this case, with suicide.

"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime; the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity."
Robert Heinlein

Her actions were stupidity. I feel no sense of great lose here.

She had the same stupidity as people like Gandhi, the Dali Lama, and Martin Luther King Jr. (on a different scale, of course); the stupidity of real optimism.

Is that absurdist or does it mean something?

The Dali Lama isn't stupid enough to hitch hike through China.
Gandhi fought(in his own way) to free his country.
Martin Luther King fought to free his race.

She, well, she had a wedding dress. Yes, I see now how she should be listed with the greats with a plan like that......

A little of both.

Ummm no, not even close.

Even if she made it through and everyone treated her like a magical fairy from gumdrop island, nothing would have changed in the world.

A hero may throw himself on a live grenade to save the men around him. It is self sacrifice that is both rare and held in high esteem.

An idiot would throw themself on a grenade to show that grenades are not really all that dangerous.

This woman was an idiot, she landed on a live grenade.

So you think the Dali Lama is 100% safe in India?
HE DID?! I thought he was the guy that called football plays and made crappy Sega video games. Oh wait, that's John Madden.
Are you sure he wasn't the one that invented peanut butter? WAIT, that was George Washington.... Carver.
She was trying desperately to take a stand against violence. She was fucking brave and marginalizing her disrespects a hero.

No, I think the rape and the murder took care of the disrespect part.
The rest is just good comedy.

:shakehead: not in my world.

in my world you do dumb things, you survive, you got lucky; you do dumb things and you get hurt or killed, you're an idiot.

pretty simple.

Will, have you ever gone hitchhiking in a developing country?

this and little tippler´s posts are the only originals for the last 2 pages at least. everyone has made their point at least thrice now and mostly this seems to be an attack on will´s idealism.

I don't think the comparisons to Gandhi, The Dalai Lama and MLK are that far off the mark. Of course, they put themselves into dangerous situations for their cause and two of them are DEAD for it, in case you have forgotten. The Dalai Lama is only alive today because he walked out of Tibet.

Regardless of your opinions on the efficacy of her actions, she deserves respect for having faith in something and for walking out her front door and making a stand for it. Disrespecting her death in order to mock will is pretty despicable. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.

the difference between the actions of gandhi, mlk et al and that of pippa branca is basically one of publicness--safety lay in the publicness of the actions--civil disobedience presupposes that someone (or lots of people) are looking, because the looking changes an action into theater. it is as bad theater than a non-violent protest is not mowed down by police or army--not because of any particular ethics.

this lay behind my questions earlier about why she was doing this solo--not only because an art action like this is ultimately more about the documentation of the experience than the experience--and because in the idea (or fact) of witness (say) lay the safety of the actor.

This is true. But I suppose she had enough faith that the 'safety factor' would have diluted the meaning of her actions.

she didn't do anything desperately, nor did she take a stand against violence. She started her little walk to show the world the goodness of people. she was proven wrong. she is not a hero, she is a victim of her own gullibility.

we should not confuse bravery with naivete.

It is unfortunate not to mention horrifying for her to die that way, and I don't know what precautions if any she took, but she should have been aware of the dangers of what she was embarking on. To just go touring through known world hotspots and not have the security to protect herself is terribly irresponsible.

And although I will probably get slammed for 'blaming the victim,' we really don't know what led up to her subsequent demise. If she was so irresponsible in planning her tour, how do we know that same irresponsibilty didn't somehow contribute to her death.

If though she was blindsided and didn't see it coming, that really is aweful for her.

And shame, I don't believe in labelling guilt onto a people just because something horrible happened in their country. Besides there aren't enough grief councillors in the world to be sent in to deal with all that guilt.

i guess my point would be that without visibility, without documentation, her action has no meaning.

the irony is that the design of her piece made of her death an aspect of the project. in fact, the project is in a sense perfected by her death.

it skeeves me out a bit, thinking this way, simply because it kinda aestheticizes a rape and murder.
but at the same time, it makes her death an exemplary action, which runs in the opposite direction.

this runs in the same general direction as stockhausen's statement about the trade center attack as a "diabolical piece of conceptual art"--which it was, like it or not.

Yes, it is kind of skeevy. :p

But I totally get your point.

Does Mexico count? :confused:
I think you're brilliant!

EDIT - Nevermind, you've been thrashed enough by everyone else. Cheers...

"Human nature" is no less or more scientific than "society", "socialization", "the way you are raised", "the environment", "culture", "genetics", etc.. All of these terms are at too general a level to offer any predictive or explanatory power.

It is, actually.
OH, you meant to post this:
I suppose from a perspective that could be true. Still, human nature is antiquated and no longer relevant, whereas the other terms aren't.

It's not an attack on Will's idealism. To be honest, I rather like it. He states he case well and with thought, and still holds some sort of hope. The world needs more people like that. I however, am not like that. The world is never so bleak as when viewed with a tinge of hope.

His comparison and views in this case are, however, off mark in my opinion. King, Gandhi, and the Dali Lama all knew their stances could very well end up in death or worse. this moron, by the very nature of her actions and words, never even considered this as an outcome. That is stupidity. And that is why this whole thing is nothing more then a cleaning of the gene pool.

I will hold a person who willing goes to their death in the name of a higher ideal in the highest regards. Someone who blindly walks into an open man hole and dies is however just someone to be laughed at.

I posted what I intended. "Human nature" is an old term, but what it represents is still alive and well in the fields of biology and psychology. As I said, "Socialization" is not any more scientific than "human nature". You need only read journals ranging from the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, to Psychological Science, to Cognition, to American Psychologist, to Nature, or even Science to realize this. The fields of psychology and biology reflect this.

This is veering off topic. I'll end my threadjack here.

wtf? should it really matter what she was dressed in? This is like saying "don't go outside - you liable to be raped!". What kind of weird weddings have you been to where the Bride was raped??

See now schoolchildren wouldn't be so abused if they just took this simple training course.

Ashamed? Maybe. Stupid? Perhaps.
Should the driver of a car that just hit a child playing on the highway be ashamed? A little, but what the hell was the kid doing there in the first place? World peace be damned, a woman traveling alone in a dangerous part of the world for females should really consider her trusting mentality when exposed to the dangers in that environment. Will's right - we should be striving as a whole to make the world a better place, but don't go playing in the proverbial traffic while waiting for the change.

Well - sorta... just imagine, the entire enemy army marching single file through a verdant green forest while wearing pretty little red coats. Wearing a bullseye and then bitching about getting hit should make - some - difference.

Sorry Will, but just because it is an outdated term doesn't mean Ustwo is wrong. Human nature is a fairly good blanket description that encompasses that we are affected by our genes and our environment. The human race is like a jungle as it is- we might as well call it nature.

Ngdawg said it best, we are still primates. No amount of wishful thinking is going to help. Maybe if we start it off young then there might be a change. This would only be psychological conditioning towards negative thoughts, and nothing towards a likely genetic factor.

On a sadder note: I doubt the foundations for the utopia that the future will hold wont even be laid within my life time.

"Note: Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence."
Crime isn't the victim's fault, but there are many cases in which victims have knowingly placed themselves in dangerous situations and disregarded the likely consequences. This is one of those situations.
You may not like the term, but if you look at statistics and probability, there are certain behavioral patterns whose frequency of occurrence have a narrow standard deviation, and certain traits in which statistical outliers will tend to act predictably. You can also look at the statistics of crimes committed and draw conclusions based on them.

A hitchhiker is more likely to be killed by a driver than someone hiring a taxi, limo, or other form of transportation because someone intent on harming another is more likely to do so when they are less likely to be caught, such as when picking up a hitchhiker. A woman hitchhiking is more likely to be raped or murdered than a man when hitchhiking because she is perceived as less able to defend herself and likely is. Foreigners are more likely than natives per capita to be taken advantage of because they lack the knowledge of the local area that would keep them out of bad situations.

Yes, but there are real explanations for said patterns. Many crimes can be explained reasonably and precisely. "Human nature" is neither reasonable nor precise. It does the situation a disservice by not making a real attempt to figure out what went wrong. "Human nature" is a cop out.

When shit goes wrong despite all preparations, it still doesn't stop anyone from saying, "Murphy's Law." It still went wrong. "Human nature" is no different in my opinion. Despite all preparations there will be people that wont be reached.

I agree. As I said earlier

Saying that something is due to "our primate minds", "our genes", or "the way we were raised" doesn't provide much of an explanation of anything. What particular aspects of "our primate minds" or "the way we were raised" have influenced the behavior under question?

I think that utility of statistics in understanding the underlying causes of violence (as described by MSD) is a separate issue.

I have a hunch that the standard deviation in occurrences of certain behaviors worldwide would be too narrow to be explained by anything other than genetics. For example, I think that it is natural to arrange people and things into hierarchies and attempt to climb to the top of those ladders.

Typically wins separated at birth share some behavioral tendencies, but hardly all of them. Environment does play a role.

This thread has reached an inordinate level of abstraction... :orly: but I guess all threads do that, eventually.

Will, would you go hitchhiking in Mexico (as you said that you have) wearing a big placard that says, "Soy maricón" as a march for gay rights? I mean, really... would you? And if you did, would you really expect to not be attacked in some way, shape, or form?

@ 4:14 Lt. McClane in Harlem with a sign. Maybe she needed to have Samuel L. Jackson there, you know he's got that badmofo wallet...

World peace is a rosy pipe dream at this point of human development and in any foreseeable future. This woman was hitchhiking in a developing country trying to prove a point that people are kind? Well, she proved it. Not all of us are. I guess that about sums it up for me.

Not being gay, that isn't my place. If I were gay, I might try to walk across Alabama or something, though. Still, I'd want it documented by a news outlet. Without said exposure (and protection that comes from having a camera near) it would be a useless gesture.

I never tried to deny that, I'm just saying that I see too many things in common across the world for it to all be based on environment and upbringing.

Environment and genetics are connected, though. Certain genetically inclined behaviors are more favorable and are more likely to continue into the next generation. Those behaviors undoubtedly effect the environmental behaviors of others.

Nice one. I hadn't even seen the movie, nor had I heard of the scene. The parallels are not exact, but close enough...

Will, obviously I know you're not gay. I was using an example of what I consider to be fatal idealism in a place like Mexico, since you said you'd been hitchhiking there.

Cameras do not protect most people, nor do they give meaning to otherwise asinine gestures. Yes, media coverage helps, but it all depends on the particular spin and bent given to that coverage. Nothing is guaranteed, except your own death when doing something like that.

Being a martyr is overrated.

have to say, the piece works doesn't it?
what other point could there have been to it beyond having this kind of discussion?
i mean, no matter how it played out, the piece is an exemplary gesture and the point of such gestures is the discussions they trigger. if she had been able to get to her destination unharmed--sadder but wiser--whatever, there's have maybe been the opposite discussion, with folk being all pissy that something DIDN'T happen to her because human beings mostly suck.

so it's kinda funny: some of you comrades who argue that pippa branca was stupid as an individual to put herself at this kind of risk are doing *exactly* what her project was designed to engender when you say it.

sometimes art is more complicated than you think.
and not all of it is pretty.

Her death was not guaranteed, but if it was then wouldn't that just reinforce my statement that Turkey should be ashamed?
Do I have to bring up MLK, Gandhi, and such again?

Neither are humans.