 |
| Rwanda article click here |
 |
| German cannibal article here |
 |
| You don't need to read about this, you know what this is! |
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
|
| Rwanda article click here |
|
| German cannibal article here |
|
| You don't need to read about this, you know what this is! |
Ejd5436
ReplyDeleteThe 41-year-old German cannibal I believe is the most qualified to be the answer to this question. This man had a fantasy of killing people from the age of eight years old starting at a young age. He had a lot of pent up aggression in him from a young age because his younger brother was “better looking” then him and was ignored by his father. The aggression this man had in him was pure hatred from being neglected as a child and it carried over into his adult years. The reason I picked this one over the Rwanda genocide because I feel like that was a political move and they had something to gain from it. This man had nothing to gain but everything to lose even though the victim volunteered himself. The aggression this man you are not born with it is bestowed upon you through years of neglect and abuse.
947467913
DeleteEjd5436
I now come to find out my initial answer of Armin Meiwes; the 41-year-old German cannibal fits only two out of the three parts that define aggression. The two out of the three parts of aggression the German cannibal fulfilled were (1) intentional behavior and (2) intent to harm. The third part of aggression that disqualifies it from being a true act of aggression is the victim did not want to avoid harm. The victim willingly signed up to fly out to Armin Meiwes home in Germany and be dissected by him. The certain act of aggression here is the Rwanda genocide where the Tutis and the Hutis slaughtered each other. The genocide meets all three requirements to form an act of aggression, and the article talks about tutis women being raped and tortured along with men I can firmly say they were trying to avoid harm from the Hutis men. There were acts of aggression throughout this war that makes this one the most violent acts of aggression from this blog.
985295225
ReplyDeleteAll three photos are acts of aggression. Aggression can be perceived in many ways. It can be done out of anger or in some of these cases, these people are being aggressive in ways that were not meant to harm anyone. The genocide was an act of aggression that was meant to hurt people. Killing people in this sense is out of anger and meant to scare and hurt people as a way of showing the kind of power someone can have over another. The cannibal took place in an act of aggression that caused many people their lives but to the man doing the killing, it was to meet his own needs. During the football game, the aggression was not meant to be harmful to anyone. Football is a game that many people enjoy playing. No one who plays is trying to harm anyone out of anger.
926714485
ReplyDeleteWhen I think of the meaning of aggression, I think of the intention to harm someone else. The only one of these I would call aggressive would be the Rwanda Genocide. Clearly in the genocide killings, the Hutus only wanted death and humiliation for the Tutsis and Hutu sympathizers. I wouldn’t say the German cannibal would be considered aggressive because he didn’t have intentions to harm anyone exactly, but just to fulfill his fantasies. Although I think it’s a wild and crazy fantasy, he didn’t go out killing random people or anything like that, instead he simply asked for volunteers. With football, we all know it’s a contact sport and the players do too. I don’t think the sport itself is aggressive in that the players look out for each other’s safety as much as they can and don’t generally want to cause harm. Of course there are some exceptions but as a whole I would call football aggressive as in looking to harm people.
916105999: Aggression is defined as an intentional behavior, with an intent to harm, and the victim wants to avoid being harmed. Of these 3 articles I believe only the Rwanda Genocide was an act of aggression. I say this because it involves all 3 characteristics of aggression. The cannibalism article is not aggression because the victim agreed to the situation and did not want to avoid being harmed. In the case of football, I do not believe that the athletes intent is to harm, rather just play and win the game. So neither one of those cases can qualify as a aggression by the definition. There could be exceptions to that though, because I believe that "dirty players" do intend to harm others.
ReplyDelete985295225
ReplyDeleteAggression is defined as being an intentional behavior that is meant to hurt someone else. Although all of the images seem to be very aggressive, the only real act of aggression was the Rwanda genocide. It is the only one out of the three that was meant to be done in order to hurt other people without them consenting to it.