"illegal to boycott israel" bill enters congress [Archive]

View Full Version : "illegal to boycott israel" bill enters congress

Silver Rocket Bitches!

12th February 2014, 01:57 PM

A bill that would outlaw academic boycott of Israel by U.S. universities, under penalty of loss of federal funding, was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives last Thursday by Jewish congressmen Peter Roskam and Dan Lipinski. H.R. 4009, Protect Academic Freedom Act, is virtually identical to a New York State bill I discussed last week. (See NY Bill Defunds Colleges which Boycott Israel (http://truthtellers.org/alerts/NY-Bill-Defunds-Colleges-which-Boycott-Israel.html)) Its stated purpose is "to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit an institution that participates in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars from being eligible for certain funds under that act."
This bill reacts to continuing efforts by the prestigious American Studies Association to withdraw U.S. academic cooperation with Israeli educational institutions (but not individual academics) that defend Israel's injustices.

In a video before the House of Representatives (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVmKc6wjtJ8), Rep. Roskam described such an effort as "anti-Semitic." His bill says the U.S. has the duty to protect "the principles of academic freedom guaranteed by the United States." Roskam evidently believes the U.S. government's First Amendment protections should extend to academics of a foreign country!

Like similar legislation in New York and Maryland, this bill attempts to portray academic boycott as a violation of Israeli human rights. In punishing the boycotting universities, their staffs, or even students who have presumed to influence Israel with more than just words, H.R. 4009's penalties could be very great. Johns Hopkins University receives more than a billion dollars annually in federal aid. Even more calamitous would be the chill on free speech as universities and colleges are coerced to cooperate or close their doors.

Yes, it is unpleasant for Israeli educational institutions to be restricted because they support Israeli policies of discrimination, harassment, land seizures, arbitrary imprisonment and denial of basic human rights, etc. against the Palestinians. Yet such inconvenience pales before the sufferings and deprivations Israel continues to impose on innocent Palestinians, especially in Gaza but also the West Bank.

An academic boycott simply says to Israel: "Allow freedom and full human rights and dignity to the Palestinians, and American academic institutions participating in our boycott will restore free academic cooperation."

This is unacceptable to Israel and those who propose H.R. 4009. They contend Israel should be allowed to bulldoze Palestinians' homes, seize their land, divide their orchards and farms with concrete, and enforce a state of continuing siege against Gaza. It is Israel's prerogative to rack up enough human rights violations, even war crimes, to place her among the "rogue" nations of the world, with no cessation of the academic privileges Israel has always enjoyed with the U.S. (See "International Law, Israel and Palestine, (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/int_law.html)" ifamericansknew.org) In other words, since Israel is America's special "ally in the war on terror," she should be granted a special international criticism-free zone.

Where H.R. 4009 Can Take Us
If private efforts to restrain Israel's injustices through academic boycott are now regarded by our government as violating some legal right of Israel to academic privilege, the next step is easy to see. It will be to criminalize those unflattering "anti-Semitic" words that cause even more discomfort to Israel. Such legislation may even describe critics of Israel as seditionists, undermining the joint U.S./Israel "war on terror."

Such words of criticism might, in fact, by their cutting penetrating truth have much more power to damage Israel than academic boycotts. Legislation following passage of H.R. 4009 could well be patterned after ADL-inspired hate crimes laws already on the books in many nations. These define a "hate crime" as holding up members of a protected group to "hatred and contempt." The only difference will be that Israel will become the protected group.

This bill is designed to take America toward Israel's ultimate dream: outlawing criticism of Israel anywhere on earth. As I pointed out in my article about the similar New York bill, Jewish supremacism already has made it illegal in much of Europe to question the accuracy of the alleged six million victims of the Holocaust. The penalty for doing so, even supported by scrupulous research, has been for some, such as Germar Rudolph and Ernst Zundel, deportation to Germany for up to six years’ imprisonment. David Irving, World War 2 historian, was similarly imprisoned in Austria. These political prisoners found the penalty also included serving much of their sentence in solitary confinement.

We have seen over the past 50 years that Zionists and Jewish supremacists are particularly eager to silence speech that can effectively expose their misdeeds and even atrocities. Recently, the Knesset of “democratic” Israel is moving rapidly to strip its own citizens of much of their free speech byoutlawing any comparison of Israeli actions to Nazi atrocities (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540581/Israel-moves-ban-word-Nazi-references-Third-Reich-education-purposes.html). This includes comparison to particularly Nazi-like actions in Israel’s past-- for example, Israel’s Deir Yassin and Shatila massacres of Arabs and blowing up the British King David Hotel, as the Nazis attempted to burn down the Reichstag. Perhaps the very worst atrocity ever committed by Israel was the uprooting of 800,000 Arabs in 1948 into concentration camps. Israel’s blitzkrieg attack on American surveillance ship USS Liberty and present Nazi-like enclosure of 1.5 million Gazans in what has been described as the world’s largest open air concentration camp remain distinctively Nazi-like in their oppressions.

It is up to all lovers of freedom to immediately and loudly protest to their members of the House of Representatives. You may call your Representatives toll free at 1-866-220-0044 or 1-877-762-8762. If you do not know the name of your House members, the operator will take your ZIP code and quickly direct you to their offices. Tell them: "Please do not support H.R. 4009, the Protect Academic Freedom Act. It denies academic freedom of speech and action to American universities and scholars."

http://truthtellers.org/alerts/Illegal-to-Boycott-Israel-Bill-Enters-Congress.html

Shami-Amourae

12th February 2014, 02:00 PM

Ponce

12th February 2014, 03:13 PM

Opening the doors to the Zionist is opening the doors to evil.....remember that pretty soon they will not need a visa to enter the US so that many more terrorists acts will be in other to blame others.

V

mick silver

13th February 2014, 05:30 AM

those congressmen are Criminals

bad (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bad), evil (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/evil), immoral (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immoral), shameful (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shameful), sinful (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sinful), unethical (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unethical), wicked (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wicked), wrong (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wrong); blamable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blamable), blameworthy (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blameworthy), censurable (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censurable), reprehensible (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reprehensible); banned (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/banned), barred (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/barred), contraband (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contraband), criminalized (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminalized), disallowed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disallowed), discouraged (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discouraged), forbidden (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/forbidden), interdicted (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interdicted), outlawed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outlawed), prohibited (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prohibited), proscribed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proscribed); adulterine (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/adulterine), bootleg (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bootleg), unauthorized (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unauthorized), unlicensed (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unlicensed), unsanctioned (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unsanctioned); under-the-counter (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/under-the-counter), under-the-table (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/under-the-table); corrupt (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corrupt), unprincipled (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unprincipled), unscrupulous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unscrupulous), villainous (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/villainous) . does this cover them

woodman

13th February 2014, 05:40 AM

Horn

13th February 2014, 07:02 AM

the Not illegal to boycott income taxes bill, should be entering shortly thereafter.

iOWNme

13th February 2014, 10:53 AM

Hope it passes. No seriously. This is a great way to wake up people. Jews do this shit over and over again. They push and they push until the goyim wake the fuck up and kick them out of their country. It's happened for thousands of years in hundreds of countries.

So there are 'hundreds of countries' where the individual has complete and total control over his life? Where are these countries where there is no income tax, private property is respected, there is no Central Bank, individuals are not compelled to act under the threat of violence, the 'market' is run free and unobstructed, and each individual only participates in voluntary transactions?

Surely, with all of the 'Jews' being kicked out of hundreds of countries there should be some real 'freedom' for the individual somewhere, right?

Why do you think that even after the 'Jews' have been kicked out, the system eventually ends up right back where it was before? Dont you think there is a reason for this? See the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) and the Milgram Experiment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) if you want to know why.

'Jews' have NOTHING to do with why humanity is enslaved. People IMAGINE there is a thing called 'Authority' and 'Government'. Once a person has this LIE inside their head, they are an easily programmable Pavlovian Robot. The 'Jews' take advatage of that. But without THAT belief system, the 'Evil Jews' have NO POWER at all. It is literally IMAGINED into existence.

Would the 'Evil Jews' spend all of their time, energy and money to dominate and control the world, if the knew nobody would recognize them as legitimate and RESIST them? LOL Come on man!

I ask this question over and over and nobody can answer it. How many times have you been robbed at gunpoint, accosted, assaulted, harrassed or even caged by these 'Evil Jews'? How many times have you been robbed at gun point, accosted, assaulted, harrassed or even caged by a a fellow 'Goyim' 'Police Officer'?

Read my sig....Are you one of the thousands, or are you the ONE?

hoarder

13th February 2014, 12:13 PM

Why do you think that even after the 'Jews' have been kicked out, the system eventually ends up right back where it was before? There are two kinds of Jews.....overt and covert. When a nation kicks out Jews, only the overt ones leave, the covert ones remain in control.

Jewboo

13th February 2014, 12:59 PM

Would the 'Evil Jews' spend all of their time, energy and money to dominate and control the world, if the knew nobody would recognize them as legitimate and RESIST them? LOL Come on man!

http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2012/03/Two_F-15I_Raam-e1379768505695.jpeg

http://static.flickr.com/73/194170987_7e75805861.jpg?v=0

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/12/10/10/2654776/8/628x471.jpg

:rolleyes: Let's ask this Palestinian father

iOWNme

13th February 2014, 03:43 PM

What would make the guy flying this plane:

http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2012/03/Two_F-15I_Raam-e1379768505695.jpeg

Kill this child he never met before?

http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/12/10/10/2654776/8/628x471.jpg

:rolleyes: Let's ask this Palestinian father

Is it because he is getting 'rich and powerful' from it? NOPE. Its because he IMAGINES that obeying 'Authority' is a virtue.

Next question:

How many Palestinians did this Israeli pilot kill before he joined the Israeli Air Force? Answer: 0

What would have to exist between the ears of an individual for them to act in a way that they know is wrong, just because someone in a position of 'Authority' told them to?

I have pointed out the bleeding obvious truth to you hundreds of times but you refuse to recognize REALITY. Just using the simple 2 questions above destroys your entire argument every time; But you choose to IMAGINE that you have some great understanding about who controls the world. Which means it is a BELIEF system, not something based on reason, logic or evidence.

Go back and read the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Experiment. Or dont, and just keep on hacking away at those little insignificant branches while some of us work at KILLING THE ROOT.

iOWNme

13th February 2014, 03:48 PM

There are two kinds of Jews.....overt and covert. When a nation kicks out Jews, only the overt ones leave, the covert ones remain in control.

So now the 'Jews' have never been kicked out of any country?

Damn this get confusing! LOL

mick silver

13th February 2014, 03:49 PM

Stanford prison experiment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the psychology experiment. For the American punk band, see Stanford Prison Experiment (band) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_Prison_Experiment_%28band%29).
The Stanford prison experiment (SPE) was a study of the psychological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology) effects of becoming a prisoner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner) or prison guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_guard). The experiment was conducted at Stanford University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_University) from August 14–20, 1971, by a team of researchers led by psychology professor Philip Zimbardo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Zimbardo).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-1) It was funded by the US Office of Naval Research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Naval_Research)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-2) and was of interest to both the US Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Navy) and Marine Corps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Corps) as an investigation into the causes of conflict between military guards and prisoners.
Twenty-four male students out of seventy-five were selected to take on randomly assigned roles of prisoners and guards in a mock prison situated in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond Zimbardo's expectations, as the guards enforced authoritarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian) measures and ultimately subjected some of the prisoners to psychological torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_torture). Many of the prisoners passively accepted psychological abuse and, at the request of the guards, readily harassed other prisoners who attempted to prevent it. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself, who, in his role as the superintendent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superintendent_of_Jail), permitted the abuse to continue. Two of the prisoners quit the experiment early and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. Certain portions of the experiment were filmed and excerpts of footage are publicly available.
Contents

1 Goals and methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Goals_and_methods)
2 Results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Results)
3 Conclusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Conclusions)
4 Criticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Criticism)

Goals and methodsZimbardo and his team aimed to test the hypothesis that the inherent personality traits of prisoners and guards are the chief cause of abusive behavior in prison. Participants were recruited and told they would participate in a two-week prison simulation. Out of 70 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white and middle-class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-3) The group was intentionally selected to exclude those with criminal background, psychological impairments or medical problems. They all agreed to participate in a 7–14-day period and received $15 per day (roughly equivalent to $85 in 2012).
The experiment was conducted in the basement of Jordan Hall (Stanford's psychology building). Twelve of the twenty-four participants were assigned the role of prisoner (nine plus three alternates), while the other twelve were assigned the role of guard (also nine plus three alternates). Zimbardo took on the role of the superintendent, and an undergraduate research assistant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_assistant) the role of the warden. Zimbardo designed the experiment in order to induce disorientation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorientation), depersonalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization) and deindividualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindividualization) in the participants.
The researchers held an orientation session for guards the day before the experiment, during which they instructed them not to physically harm the prisoners. In the footage of the study, Zimbardo can be seen talking to the guards: "You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy ... We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-4)
The researchers provided the guards with wooden batons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_%28weapon%29) to establish their status,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-5) clothing similar to that of an actual prison guard (khaki shirt and pants from a local military surplus store (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_store)), and mirrored sunglasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrorshades_%28fashion%29) to prevent eye contact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_contact). Prisoners wore uncomfortable ill-fitting smocks and stocking caps, as well as a chain around one ankle. Guards were instructed to call prisoners by their assigned numbers, sewn on their uniforms, instead of by name.
The prisoners were arrested at their homes and charged with armed robbery. The local Palo Alto police department assisted Zimbardo with the arrests and conducted full booking procedures on the prisoners, which included fingerprinting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerprint) and taking mug shots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mug_shot). They were transported to the mock prison from the police station, where they were strip searched (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search) and given their new identities.
The small mock prison cells were set up to hold three prisoners each. There was a small space for the prison yard, solitary confinement, and a bigger room across from the prisoners for the guards and warden. The prisoners were to stay in their cells all day and night until the end of the study. The guards worked in teams of three for eight-hour shifts. The guards did not have to stay on site after their shift.
Results

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg)

This article needs additional citations for verification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability). Please help improve this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanford_prison_experiment&action=edit) by adding citations to reliable sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Introduction_to_referencing/1). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2009)

After a relatively uneventful first day, on the second day the prisoners in Cell 1 blockaded their cell door with their beds and took off their stocking caps, refusing to come out or follow the guards' instructions. Guards from other shifts volunteered to work extra hours to assist in subduing the revolt, and subsequently attacked the prisoners with fire extinguishers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_extinguisher) without being supervised by the research staff. Finding that handling nine cell mates with only three guards per shift was challenging, one of the guards suggested that they use psychological tactics to control them. They set up a "privilege cell" in which prisoners who were not involved in the riot were treated with special rewards, such as higher quality meals. The "privileged" inmates chose not to eat the meal in order to stay uniform with their fellow prisoners. After only 36 hours, one prisoner began to act "crazy", as Zimbardo described: "#8612 then began to act crazy, to scream, to curse, to go into a rage that seemed out of control. It took quite a while before we became convinced that he was really suffering and that we had to release him."
Guards forced the prisoners to repeat their assigned numbers[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-6) to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity. Guards soon used these prisoner counts to harass the prisoners, using physical punishment such as protracted exercise for errors in the prisoner count. Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, exacerbated by the guards' refusal to allow some prisoners to urinate or defecate anywhere but in a bucket placed in their cell. As punishment, the guards would not let the prisoners empty the sanitation bucket. Mattresses were a valued item in the prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to be naked as a method of degradation. Several guards became increasingly cruel as the experiment continued; experimenters reported that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded after only six days.
Zimbardo mentions his own absorption in the experiment. On the fourth day, some of the guards stated that they heard a rumor that the released prisoner was going to come back with his friends and free the remaining inmates. Zimbardo and the guards disassembled the prison and moved it onto a different floor of the building. Zimbardo himself waited in the basement, in case the released prisoner showed up, and planned to tell him that the experiment had been terminated. The released prisoner never returned, and the prison was rebuilt in the basement once again.
Zimbardo argued that the prisoners had internalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization) their roles, since, even though some had stated that they would accept "parole" even if it would mean forfeiting their pay, they did not quit when their parole applications were all denied.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-Zimbardo.2C_P.G._2007-7) Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalized the prisoner identity.
Prisoner No. 416, a newly admitted stand-by prisoner, expressed concern over the treatment of the other prisoners. The guards responded with more abuse. When he refused to eat his sausages, saying he was on a hunger strike, guards confined him to "solitary confinement", a dark closet: "the guards then instructed the other prisoners to repeatedly punch on the door while shouting at 416."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-Lucifer-8) The guards stated that he would be released from solitary confinement only if the prisoners gave up their blankets and slept on their bare mattresses, which all but one refused to do.
Zimbardo aborted the experiment early when Christina Maslach (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christina_Maslach), a graduate student in psychology whom he was dating (and later married),[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-9) objected to the conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that, of more than fifty people who had observed the experiment, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days of a planned two weeks' duration, the Stanford prison experiment was discontinued.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-Zimbardo.2C_P.G._2007-7)
ConclusionsOn August 20, 1971, Zimbardo announced the end of the experiment to the participants. The results of the experiment have been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. The experiment has also been used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance) and the power of authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authority).
The results of the experiment favor situational attribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_theory) of behavior rather than dispositional attribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispositional_attribution) (a result caused by internal characteristics). In other words, it seemed that the situation, rather than their individual personalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_psychology), caused the participants' behavior. Under this interpretation, the results are compatible with the results of the Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment), in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to administer what appeared to be agonizing and dangerous electric shocks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock) to a confederate of the experimenter.
Shortly after the study had been completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Quentin) and Attica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attica_Prison_riots) prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._House_Committee_on_the_Judiciary).
CriticismThe guards and prisoners adapted to their roles more than they were expected, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted, leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine sadistic tendencies", while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized, as five of them had to be removed from the experiment early. After Maslach confronted Zimbardo and forced him to realize that he had been passively allowing unethical acts to be performed under his supervision, Zimbardo concluded that both prisoners and guards had become grossly absorbed in their roles and realized that he had likewise become as grossly absorbed in his own, and he terminated the experiment.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-10) Ethical concerns surrounding the experiment often draw comparisons to the Milgram experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment), which was conducted in 1961 at Yale University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yale_University) by Stanley Milgram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Milgram).
Peer-reviewBecause of the structure of the experiment, Zimbardo found it impossible to keep traditional scientific controls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control) in place. He was unable to remain a neutral observer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation), since he influenced the direction of the experiment as the prison's superintendent. Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity) and anecdotal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence), and the experiment would be difficult for other researchers to reproduce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility).
Critics such as Erich Fromm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_Fromm) challenged the generalization of the experiment's results. Fromm specifically wrote that the personality of an individual does affect behavior when imprisoned, using historical examples from the Nazi concentration camps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps). This ran counter to the study's conclusion that the prison situation itself controls the individual's behavior. Fromm also argued that the amount of sadism in the "normal" subjects could not be determined with the methods employed to screen them.[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-11)
BiasesSome of the experiment's critics argued that participants were merely engaging in role-playing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role-playing), basing their behavior on how they were expected to behave or modeling it after stereotypes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype) about the behavior of prisoners and guards. In response, Zimbardo claimed that even if there was role-playing initially, participants internalized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internalization) these roles as the experiment continued.
Other criticismsAdditionally, the study has been criticized on the basis of ecological validity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_validity). Many of the conditions imposed in the experiment were arbitrary and may not have correlated with actual prison conditions, including blindfolding incoming prisoners, not allowing them to wear underwear, not allowing them to look out of windows and not allowing them to use their names. Zimbardo argued that prison is a confusing and dehumanizing experience and that it was necessary to enact these procedures to put the prisoners in the proper frame of mind; however, he conceded that it was difficult to know how similar the effects were to an actual prison, and that the experiment's methods would be difficult to reproduce exactly.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]
Marco Reus said that the study placed undue emphasis on the cruelty of the guards, such as one who was nicknamed "John Wayne", and who said that he caused the escalation of events between guards and prisoners after he began to emulate a character from the Paul Newman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Newman) film Cool Hand Luke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cool_Hand_Luke). He further intensified his actions because he was nicknamed "John Wayne", even though he was trying to mimic actor Strother Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strother_Martin), who had played the role of the sadistic Captain in the movie.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-12)
Also, it has been argued that selection bias (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias) may have played a role in the results. Researchers from Western Kentucky University (Thomas J. Carnahan, PhD and Sam McFarland, PhD) recruited students for a study using an advertisement similar to the one used in the Stanford Prison Experiment, with some ads saying "a psychological study" (the control group), and some with the words "prison life" as originally worded in Dr. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment. It was found that students who responded to the classified advertisement for the "prison study" were higher in traits such as social dominance, aggression, authoritarianism, etc. and were lower in traits related to empathy and altruism when statistically compared to the control group participants. Carnahan & McFarland attempted to recruit students using a 3rd classified advertisement geared towards "helping behaviors;" however, not enough participants volunteered for the study to show any statistical significance.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-revisitingSFE-13)
The study has been criticized for demand characteristics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_characteristics). Research has shown that participants in psychological experiments are highly motivated to do what they believe the researchers want them to do. Zimbardo essentially instructed the guards to be cruel.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#cite_note-14)

mick silver

13th February 2014, 03:53 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/34/Milgram_Experiment_advertising.png/250px-Milgram_Experiment_advertising.pngthen what your saying is that our goverment done every thing

mick silver

13th February 2014, 03:58 PM

Applicability to HolocaustMilgram sparked direct critical response in the scientific community by claiming that "a common psychological process is centrally involved in both [his laboratory experiments and Nazi Germany] events." Professor James Waller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Waller), Chair of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Keene State College, formerly Chair of Whitworth College Psychology Department, expressed the opinion that Milgram experiments do not correspond well to the Holocaust events:[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#cite_note-Waller-111-17)

The subjects of Milgram experiments, wrote James Waller (Becoming Evil), were assured in advance, that no permanent physical damage would result from their actions. However, the Holocaust perpetrators were fully aware of their hands-on killing and maiming of the victims.
The laboratory subjects themselves did not know their victims and were not motivated by racism. On the other hand, the Holocaust perpetrators displayed an intense devaluation of the victims through a lifetime of personal development.
Those serving punishment at the lab were not sadists, nor hate-mongers, and often exhibited great anguish and conflict in the experiment, unlike the designers and executioners of the Final Solution (see Holocaust trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Holocaust_trials)) who had a clear "goal" on their hands, set beforehand.
The experiment lasted for an hour, with no time for the subjects to contemplate the implications of their behavior. Meanwhile, the Holocaust lasted for years with ample time for a moral assessment of all individuals and organizations involved.[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#cite_note-Waller-111-17)

In the opinion of Thomas Blass, who is the author of scholarly monograph on the experiment (The Man Who Shocked The World) published in 2004, the historical evidence pertaining to actions of the Holocaust perpetrators speaks louder than words:

Milgram's approach does not provide a fully adequate explanation of the Holocaust. While it may well account for the dutiful destructiveness of the dispassionate bureaucrat who may have shipped Jews to Auschwitz with the same degree of routinization as potatoes to Bremenhaven, it falls short when one tries to apply it to the more zealous, inventive, and hate-driven atrocities that also characterized the Holocaust.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment#cite_note-Blass-18)

Jewboo

13th February 2014, 05:03 PM

I have pointed out the bleeding obvious truth to you hundreds of times but you refuse to recognize REALITY...

http://www.pollybecker.com/wp-content/uploads/thoreau.jpg
For Encounters column in American History illustration about the time Henry David Thoreau,
who was living with his mother, met Walt Whitman, who was also living with his mother,
to discuss topics of mutual interest: philosophy and writing.

:rolleyes: fags

Your sig line is a quote of Henry David Thoreau. Every Sunday...your brave hero Henry walked from Walden's Pond to his mom's house for laundry and dinner...lol.

hoarder

13th February 2014, 06:19 PM

So now the 'Jews' have never been kicked out of any country?

Damn this get confusing! LOLVery confusing for people who can only think in absolutes.