Best 1098 quotes in «conflict quotes» category

What are the implications of ethnic identity for multi-racial and multi-ethnic societies? Tatu Vanhanen of the University of Tampere, Finland, has probably researched the effects of ethnic diversity more systematically than anyone else. In a massive, book-length study, he measured ethnic diversity and levels of conflict in 148 countries, and found correlations in the 0.5 to 0.9 range for the two variables, depending on how the variables were defined and measured. Homogeneous countries like Japan and Iceland show very low levels of conflict, while highly diverse countries like Lebanon and Sudan are wracked with strife. Prof. Vanhanen found tension in all multi-ethnic societies: “Interest conflicts between ethnic groups are inevitable because ethnic groups are genetic kinship groups and because the struggle for existence concerns the survival of our own genes through our own and our relatives’ descendants.” Prof. Vanhanen also found that economic and political institutions make no difference; wealthy, democratic countries suffer from sectarian strife as much as poor, authoritarian ones: “Ethnic nepotism belongs to human nature and . . . it is independent from the level of socioeconomic development (modernization) and also from the degree of democratization.” Others have argued that democracy is particularly vulnerable to ethnic tensions while authoritarian regimes like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or Tito’s Yugoslavia can give the impression of holding it in check. One expert writing in Foreign Affairs explained that for democracy to work “the party or group that loses has to trust the new majority and believe that its basic interests will still be protected and that there is nothing to fear from a change in power.” He wrote that this was much less likely when opposing parties represent different races or ethnicities. The United Nations found that from 1989 to 1992 there were 82 conflicts that had resulted in at least 1,000 deaths each. Of these, no fewer than 79, or 96 percent, were ethnic or religious conflicts that took place within the borders of recognized states. Only three were cross-border conflicts. Wars between nations are usually ethnic conflicts as well. Internal ethnic conflict has very serious consequences. As J. Philippe Rushton has argued, “The politics of ethnic identity are increasingly replacing the politics of class as the major threat to the stability of nations.” One must question the wisdom of then-president Bill Clinton’s explanation for the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia: “[T]he principle we and our allies have been fighting for in the Balkans is the principle of multi-ethnic, tolerant, inclusive democracy. We have been fighting against the idea that statehood must be based entirely on ethnicity.” That same year, the American supreme commander of NATO, Wesley Clark, was even more direct: “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.

What does syadvad (speech that does not hurt the ego of any living being) speech say? Speak in such a way that 5 people benefit from it and that it does not interfere [conflict] with anyone.

What he wanted to say was that two thousand years of peace could be undone in a month of war.

What kind of a stage should we attain? One where our intellect becomes such that it never creates conflict within our home. Everything else is acceptable but there must never be any inner conflict.

What wills to grow, will grow. What wills to flow, will flow.

Whenever you are in doubt of your lover, Consider that he knows you unlike any other. Recall the choices he's made in your favor, The patience for your sake he's had to muster. Then see if you can paint him in a dark color.

When the current reality creates conflict, distance is often a solution.

When the uninformed argue with the misinformed, there is no need to choose a side.

When there is conflict between us, we don't need to put our energy into fighting each other. We can combine forces to search for a solution that respects the needs of all parties. The child is an active participant in solving his problems. This will stand him in good stead in the years to come.

When writing, I uncage KAT: Keep Adding Tension. Even if I don't know where the story's going, petting the KAT keeps it purring.

When we reached the car that was waiting to take us back to the Copa, Dean actually spoke to me for the first time in weeks. "You did that good, pal," he said. "Thanks," I said, and then we were quiet. Very quiet.

When we forget our essential similarities, we forget how to get along, and that cannot but lead to prejudice, discrimination, and eventually, conflict.

When you walk around with a long face in the house, that is called conflict.

When you keep hitting walls of resistance in life, the universe is trying to tell you that you are going the wrong way. It's like driving a bumper car at an amusement park. Each time you slam into another car or the edge of the track, you are forced to change direction.

When you confront, you are trying to avoid a conflict.

Where do you see conflict in this world? Only where there is infatuation (attachment).

Where slightest of conflict exists, there is neither God nor Religion.

Where there is conflict, there is no God.

With a common ground, solution of problems is easy.

While it is true that religious beliefs are often a source of conflict but the so-called rational thoughts are no better. The two World Wars, which killed more than 75 million people were not fought on the ground of religion but on the basis of so called rational thoughts like freedom, communism, nationalism, fascism or Nazism.

Within Hobbes’ depiction of the motives for conflict. . . there is a problematic in which the grave threat that human beings pose to other human beings is not constituted simply by the structures of human passions, interests, and desires, nor by the addition of a self-deceptive and egotistical desire for recognition and proof of one’s perhaps illusory power. In this moment, it is the very rationality of other humans, reason in the broad sense, understood as roughly equal to oneself in both capacity and structure, that poses such a threat

While in principle groups for survivors are a good idea, in practice it soon becomes apparent that to organize a successful group is no simple matter. Groups that start out with hope and promise can dissolve acrimoniously, causing pain and disappointment to all involved. The destructive potential of groups is equal to their therapeutic promise. The role of the group leader carries with it a risk of the irresponsible exercise of authority. Conflicts that erupt among group members can all too easily re-create the dynamics of the traumatic event, with group members assuming the roles of perpetrator, accomplice, bystander, victim, and rescuer. Such conflicts can be hurtful to individual participants and can lead to the group’s demise. In order to be successful, a group must have a clear and focused understanding of its therapeutic task and a structure that protects all participants adequately against the dangers of traumatic reenactment. Though groups may vary widely in composition and structure, these basic conditions must be fulfilled without exception. Commonality with other people carries with it all the meanings of the word common. It means belonging to a society, having a public role, being part of that which is universal. It means having a feeling of familiarity, of being known, of communion. It means taking part in the customary, the commonplace, the ordinary, and the everyday. It also carries with it a feeling of smallness, or insignificance, a sense that one’s own troubles are ‘as a drop of rain in the sea.’ The survivor who has achieved commonality with others can rest from her labors. Her recovery is accomplished; all that remains before her is her life.

Winners never talk about glorious victories. That’s because they’re the ones who see what the battlefield looks like afterward. It’s only the losers who have glorious victories.

Without conflict, there can be no trust. Conflict exists to show us who is there for us unconditionally and who is just there for the benefits. (p.183)

Without self-knowledge, the god that you seek is the god of illusion; and illusion inevitably brings conflict and sorrow.

Words motivate.

Work always makes a difference.

Workers can offer guidance for improving the work.

Work works.

Would that I could make of heart and soul something other than a battleground!

YAZIDIS AND CHRISTIANS WANT TO BE FREE OF NIGHT MIST AND BEHEADING DRIFT!

Would you like the rhythm of your heart to be calm? Would you like the music of your soul towards harmony and fulfillment? Deal with any conflict constructively to reduce stress, tension and other unwanted collateral effects. Sharing you strategies on how to deal with a conflict: - take care of yourself and know well yourself - clarify what personal needs threatened by the conflict - identify a safe place and appropriate time for negotiation - seek first to understand than be understood, listening skills is very important.

According to some liberation theologians atheism is not the cause of the conflict between Christianity and Marxism, but is rather the link between them.

You are only plagued with stress in moments of conflict because you are arrogant, and believe others are transgressing by having unfavorable thoughts about you.

You can teach people everything except how to get along.

You can turn every ugly and damaging drama into a genuine blessing by seeing it differently. No one is suffering on purpose. We learn to give up the pleasure we feel in self-righteously blaming others. Healing happens when we see things differently. The question is: do you want suffering or peace? It's that simple.

You'd be teary, too, yes you would be," he said, "if a girl and her bed had crashed into your head.

You need to take the chance because you cannot read the thoughts of people, because you do not want to regret when you grow old, because life is short and time is fleeting, because arousing conflict works at times, because sometimes it’s the only way, the absolute option, because sometimes it’s just necessary.

Acceptance of the power of God in one's life lays the groundwork for personal commitment to both science and Christianity, which so often have been in conflict.

A change initiative can fail for multiple reasons - in fact, there are just too many things that can go wrong. The focus of the initiative might be wrong - too narrow or too broad. The initiative might be poorly executed or under-resourced. But most often, a change initiative fails because it hits a behavioral impasse. Something in the culture of the company is in conflict with the objective or execution of the initiative.

A Christianity that is in conflict with the Scriptures isn't Christianity at all.

You are wrong,” says the man. His voice is low and resonant. The metal walls of the dome, all the knives and swords and spears, all seem to vibrate with each of his words. “Your rulers and their propaganda have sold you this watered-down conceit of war, of a warrior yoked to the whims of civilization. Yet for all their self-professed civility, your rulers will gladly spend a soldier’s life to better aid their posturing, to keep the cost of a crude good low. They will send the children of others off to die and only think upon it later to grandly and loudly memorialize them, lauding their great sacrifice. Civilization is but the adoption of this cowardly method of murder.

You as a whole person are thus unable to reconcile conflicts about anger and learn to tolerate and express anger in healthy ways. Inner turmoil and dissociation are maintained.

You want to discuss the situation and the behavior as the problem, and not them.

A conflict of values is not a misunderstanding. Islamic orthodoxy and the German constitution are not compatible.

Advice would be more acceptable if it didn't always conflict with our plans.

A free and open society is an ongoing conflict, interrupted periodically by compromises.

Adults have not understood children or adolescents and they are, as a consequence, in continual conflict with them.

A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome.

Agreeing to disagree is a prerogative only of those who live under a democratic system.