Sam brought up a great point in class about how we never think about reversing the situation. The whole Chinese taking all the coal from our state/country really made me think about how our war in the Middle East, maybe not the full extent, but definitely a very large part of it is about a natural resource that THEY clearly are entitled to. In my discussion group, we talked about the war and if our perspectives changed as a result of what Sam talked about, and granted my perspective on it did not really change. However, I did say that without a doubt, if someone in my family died as a direct result of a war, that I would want to avenge my family's death by any means necessary. So in this whole flip-flop situation, basically what I said is that I understand how someone who lives in the Middle East may hate America, especially if a family member was killed by, for example, a misguided bomb. Personally, I would be furious that such a thing happened and would want to go after anyone that I saw was responsible, be it soldier, commander, anyone.

I agree with many of the posts who say that it is hard to understand what going through an event like that must be, and clearly, I cannot fully relate. However, I relate it to this simple situation: a big brother has a younger sister, younger sister goes out and dates random guy, random guy breaks younger sisters heart, big brother (and consequently, father of daughter) goes out and breaks random guy's face. For me, that is the simple equation, and the ultimate example of how we truly act as humans. Sure, we all say we want to be civil and deny our animalistic side, but when push comes to shove and one of your family members is harmed, whether that is simply hurt emotionally or killed, you want to go out and find the person responsible for the pain.

Believe me, I am not a violent person, nor am I saying that in this situation, every single person would act like me. I just feel like anyone who says that they would not go out and exact some revenge is trying to be nice and cordial about the whole situation. If someone killed your mother and you DID NOT do something about it, then there is something wrong with you. Yeah, revenge and violence are never the answer and we all should forgive those who hurt us, but in my opinion, there are some things you can never forgive someone for. Vengeance should never be the real reason for doing a certain act, but at the same time, it is impossible to deny our animalistic side when crazy stuff goes down. We all want to look out for ourselves and those we love, so why wouldn't you want to get revenge on someone who did something horrible to your family?

I've been a Catholic since I was born, and I have always thought about what I was doing. However, Sam brings up a valid point about the person across the world who God may be comparing me to. I don't know, I guess I never really thought about that, but for that matter, I have never really considered that even a remote thing. Catholicism's general rule of principle is The Golden Rule of "Do unto others...," but another major aspect of it is the whole "last will be first and first will be last." Now, this is where the debate comes in. I am between Middle Class and Upper Middle Class I would say, and I guess the whole notion of "the last will be first" as definitely come into my head. But we, as humans, cannot possibly understand or comprehend how God is judging us. If it is the case that God is judging us based on our living situation, well then a lot of us well-off Catholics here in the United States are pretty screwed, while the slaves around the world who are Catholic can rejoice because they have a foot in the door of heaven. However, that presumes that God ONLY cares about one thing: basically how much money you are worth...and if we presume God is more of the omnipotent and all-merciful God (which we all [I'm speaking in generalities of course] hope that God really is like) then sure, our situation matters, but so does our character and how we act towards people. I really do believe that God is more of the second kind: God judges you on your actions and decisions in life and how you acted towards your fellow humans.

Now here is the part in the argument where people can jump in and say, "Well you acted terrible to other humans because you bought slave-made goods and things that people possibly died for." Yeah, sure you can say that, but I think if you become aware of the situation and try to do anything you can, whether it is learn more about it and try and buy stuff from fair trade organizations or give money to organizations who help fight slavery or any other things, then that is doing your part. You may not have ended slavery, or really have had a huge impact, but at least you did what you were capable of doing.

God, I want to think, grants us certain talents and abilities that we are to share with those around us. Most of us, if not pretty much all of us, are not going to do anything crazy in life, like cure cancer or win the Nobel peace prize or anything like that. But we CAN all be good people to those around us including family friends and even strangers, do our part to help make the world better by volunteering time or money to philanthropic organizations, and living life the best we can using the gifts that God has given us.

There was a level in the latest Call Of Duty game that was banned in some countries where you were undercover in a terrorist organization and went through a fake Russian airport basically shooting all the civilians. Before starting the game, the player is prompted saying that there is a level that may offend others, but if you skip the level, it won't affect the overall outcome of the game. I believe in this situation, that is fine, it warns the player in advance, and granted, that is really the only offensive thing in the game. When a game in its entirety can be viewed as offensive or morally questionable because of its intent, then I think that game should be pulled off the shelves.

Games like Grand Theft Auto and war games and any other game where you kill avatars are not that bad because they do not depict actual events. However, games such as this one, or an online game depicting the massacre at Columbine where you are one of the shooters, or a game depicting the 9/11 events should NEVER be allowed to be made. And those who make them should not be able to hide behind the First Amendment, because the games are malicious and made with mal-intent, even if the developers say that the game was not made to merely depict the events.

With the post above me, I agree that there are certain universal laws. Regardless of what someone's culture is or anything like that, I believe that there are some things that are just blatantly immoral and wrong. Murder, stealing, rape, etc., these are things that I believe to be wrong no matter what. There is no excuse when any of these rules are broken; they are wrong, plain and simple. However, there are plenty of games that depict these actions. Do I agree with the taste of these games? No, of course not. However, do I think that they are technically morally wrong? No, not really. However, I do think that games like these should be banned on basic human principle of being blatantly morally offensive.

Of course I do not agree with this type of a game. I, like many other people in our society, would consider myself a recreational gamer. I am not a hardcore gamer, spending all my money on the newest and latest systems or games or even going online for that matter to play games online, but I do enjoy playing all types of games whenever I have the time. Obviously, no one wants to see a game like this come out. Rape is considered such a terrible thing, not only in our society, but generally around the world. However, I do not know if there would be a legal way to block these games. Maybe the government could consider them pornographic material, but at the same time, you can't really block porn or I'm sure that is a violation of one of the amendments in our constitution. I guess technically you could block it for the 18 and younger crowd, but after the age of 18, the game would be legal.

I don't think that guys aren't educated enough in a woman's menstrual cycle. For the most part, every guy has had to deal with sex ed in high school and should know (even if they didn't pay attention) about a woman's cycle. And on top of that, guys in college definitely know about a girl's cycle because they never want to hear the fateful words, "I'm late..." So, I think that for the most part, that a guy knows about a woman's menstrual cycle and more or less what it entails. They may not know the exact specifics, like someone who has a biology background (hell, women themselves may not even know the specifics), but they more or less have an idea about what is going on. Granted though, there are definitely some guys out there who are clueless and you can't really blame anyone but them. The information is readily available if they want to access it, but they probably don't care enough to know.

And you're asking why guys don't go talking about it more? Well, coming from a guy, I don't go up to one of my buddies and ask "Hey, let's talk about girls' periods." We just don't talk about it with each other, basically because it doesn't really mean anything to us. I also would say it's just something we don't feel like discussing. Do girls walk around telling their friends, "Hey, let's talk about boners today." I don't mind talking to a girl about it if she wants to discuss it, but in my experience, there are VERY rare occasions when a woman is willing to talk a man about her period, probably because she thinks he will get grossed out and just not understand where she's coming from. I wouldn't get grossed out, but at the same time, it's like what Sam said about how white people know what being white is, whereas black people just can't grasp what it is to be white. Guys can't full comprehend what it's like to have a menstrual cycle and what it's like to deal with having your period and what it's like to have to plan everything around a 28 day or so cycle. We can empathize, sure, but we can't fully get it. Maybe that's why girls should just be straight up with their boyfriends or whatever and just talk to them about it. Just like women can't relate to having the old random boner or morning wood. Sure, women can guess what it's like, and even say "how can you relate those two, what happens to me is not something pleasant." And you are very right about that fact, but it's the principle of the fact that I'm trying to make of not being able to relate and you can't 100% full understand what it's like to deal with that because you're not a guy.

And tampons should be free, just like condoms.

Come on man, really?! It is 2010 and people are still that much of assholes to purposely berate someone just because they have opposing viewpoints as their own? I am a registered Democrat, and did I agree with President Bush when he axed or passed bills that were against what I believed was right? No I did not agree with him, but at the same time, I understood that there is no need in completely hating someone just because they have a different viewpoint than my own.

I completely believe that this has nothing to do with what people actually believe, but more what they are told to believe, whether it is by their representatives in Congress or pundits on television. For example, pundits just use the same rhetoric over and over again to force their point, which leads people who watch their shows on networks like FOX News to just spit out word for word what someone like Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin tells them to say. I am currently pursuing medical school and I support the new Health Care Reform bill, because we need it. If you ask someone who opposes it why they disagree with it, they usually say something like "it takes away our civil liberties to choose my own doctor" or "it's too expensive for health care, I don't want to pay for anyone else." None of these things are changed in the bill, you can still choose whatever doctor you want to go to and the only people who don't get to choose their own doctor are those who can't afford health insurance and are supplied a doctor. Once the bill is explained, people will usually say that they agree with the bill then. But it is because of these pundits who just want to stir the pot and fuel the fire that there is such a divide between democrats and republicans. And this goes both ways too, because the democrats have the same types of pundits on their side as well that don't help to resolve the issues and make things better.

Regardless of my political stance though, what was yelled at those congressmen and women was downright wrong and malicious. These people who start the "Tea Parties" and then just verbally and physically assault our leaders are a bunch of jackasses. As one of the posts above, if people from Penn State shout racial and bigoted slurs at people from other schools, we would all be ashamed and look down upon those people. We, as Americans and as much as we love our country, should look down upon those people who have disgraced our country just because of an opposing viewpoint. This is stupid, sometimes adults act like children; some people really need to grow up.

I agree that most of the things about this story are just flat out terrible and no one should be subjected to that kind of treatment at a university. There were a couple of major things that really bothered me about this story, and I'll try to cover them all.

First, the whole noose situation is completely out of line. Whoever decided that they should hang a noose in a public place is a jackass and deserves to be expelled from the university, as well as possible disciplinary action by the state because, like the professor said, it is more or less terrorism. Th symbol of the noose stirs up bad memories of the way things used to be in the United States, and I would like to think that we changed into a more free and accepting society. However, when it is discovered that a minority student who did hang the noose and the president of the student organization said that didn't change anything, I think that is complete bs. If a white student did it, it would be, without a doubt, considered a racist act. If a black or brown student did it, it would be considered more of just a terrible act. You can't tell me that if it was discovered that it was a white student who hung the noose that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton wouldn't be raising a hell-storm over the issue and saying that this is just another example that all white people hate black people and are trying to keep black people down. Don't get me wrong, it is immoral and wrong on all accounts regardless of who did it; however, the race/ethnicity of the person definitely plays a role in how the act is perceived.

Next, here we go again with themed parties and how they are all "targeted against black people." This is honestly the first party I have ever heard of with an outright blatent theme that takes shots at blacks. There are plenty of parties that I hear of in which white people are the butt of the joke, such as Jersey Shore parties blatantly making fun of Italians and Trailer Trash parties blatantly making fun of country-folk. However, as one of the earlier posts stated, these parties are only based on general stereotypes about the group. I am 100% Italian and yes, I have attended a Jersey Shore party and no I was not offended. Do I think that the stereotypes of Italians get annoying and that saying "guido" (which is actually a derogatory name for Italian Americans) gets annoying when I hear it all the time. Yeah, but I am ever really offended and going to cry racism? No, of course not, because it is not the true intent. The party was generally in bad taste, it was poking fun at a stereotype of blacks, just like when white people have parties poking fun at stereotypes of whites. Was it maybe not the best decision and in poor taste? Yes, but do I think it was outright racist? No.

I would have to be in agreement with most of the posters so far in saying that first, I do not think that only white people are the only groups who do theme parties and second, that most of those parties are not geared at making fun of a particular race or anything. I also think that if they are doing a party where the theme is to dress as ghetto as you can, I do not think it is done particularly to say, "Hey, let's all make fun of black culture and dress and act stereotypically like them." If there is a party like that (which first off, I've never heard of one happening), it's just a party and done more out of fun and out of the norm than anything. I think it would be equally hilarious if a whole group of black people got together and got dressed up as the stereotypical white person from the 1950s (kind of like what Dave Chappelle portrays in many of his skits - the stereotypical white guy with khakis and a sweater and pasty white and goofy hair). Most parties that are themed have, for the most part, probably more of a sexual theme, where the guys usually dress up for once and the girls dress very provocatively. Again, you can say that this is being sexist instead of racist. I would disagree, because the guys have a good time dressing up and obviously checking the girls out; and I would say that girls have a good time or else they would never dress like that. It's sexist if the entire group involved in it refuses to participate; clearly girls don't mind doing those parties, so I would make a stab that it is not "sexist."

You also can't tell me that black people do not have themed parties. First off, a theme party is not just dressing up, but it can take on any shape really. As long as a group is obeying a particular set of ideas for the party, then I would say it could technically be themed. As with many of the other posters, I think that theme parties are just a way to go out and have fun and do something that you would not normally do on your average friday or saturday night. I think you should go to a themed party and see what they are all about too and you will notice that there are not only white people there dressing up, but people of other races too.

Again, themed parties are never there to just make fun of other people, but just to have a good time. I've hosted parties at my apartment where the theme was 70s disco party and it was hilarious to see everyone dress up so ridiculously. I've also been to highlighter parties, camo parties (where everyone wears camo, obviously), anything-goes-but-clothes, Jersey Shore parties (which by the way, make fun of other white people), etc.

And like I said earlier, I've also never heard of a themed party where the theme is to all dress up like the stereotypical black person. Your basis that white people only have these parties and that white people make fun of other races, especially blacks, in themed parties is completely without merit. Everyone is just trying to have a good time in college, and no one is looking to offend people. So get your facts straight and go to a themed party sometime, you may just have a good time.