en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/757127 Comments by CJS5469 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/this-is-totally-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment67438035 I want to begin this post by saying that I do not support games like the ones portrayed in the video. However, it is important to remember that in our own Constitution (for those of us that are US citizens), we guarantee our citizens the right to free speech. I realize that the games we are discussing here are based in Japan, but still, I think that everyone should be entitled to freedom of speech, expression, and the likes. Although I think the concept of the game is wrong, I cannot knock the makers of the game because they have not done anything wrong. It would be a problem if the game was somehow subliminally encouraging players to rape women, but it seems as though the games are just that; games. It would be equally as sensible to attempt to ban movies, literature, or jokes that concern rape. Of course they are off color and in bad taste, but nobody is being harmed and nobody is sexually assaulted as a result. I think that as long as nobody takes these things seriously, they are none of our concern. You should just as well ban video games like Halo and Gears of War because they promote murder and violence. There is such a difference between games and reality, and that is why the right to free speech exists. People are not so easily influenced that they will rape someone as a result of playing a video game centered on rape. Likewise, people are not so easily influenced that they will kill people as a result of playing a video game centered on killing. One only needs to go as far as a television to see proof of this. I’m sure that everyone has seen the Wikileaks video “Collateral Murder.” This footage sparked quite a bit of controversy. People all over the country were shocked and appalled, but Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 has game play that looks almost identical to “Collateral Murder.” Some (such as Sam) would argue that this is a problem, and people should be reacting just as much to Call of Duty. However, I believe that people can accurately make distinctions between games and reality. If someone is going to commit a crime as heinous as rape, or mass murder of civilians, they are going to do it regardless of if they play a video game or not. Something as trivial as a video game will not cause people to all of a sudden snap and begin their lives as sexual deviants and mass murderers. I love Call of Duty, I play it all the time, but I am never going to run around with an assault rifle shooting people. Although I would never play a “rape game,” who am I to tell others not to when I am allowed to play my shooting games? Mon, 12 Apr 2010 17:54:12 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/this-is-totally-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment67438035 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-if-we-got-rid-of-welfare__trashed/#IDComment65643563 I think that we should abolish the current welfare system that we have today. All it does is enable people to continue to be on welfare. Yes, the majority of people on welfare are children, as Sam said. However, if someone is born and raised into the welfare system, they will as a result think that they can get away with it for the rest of their lives. It takes money away from better causes, like education reform. What happens is a family enters the country with no money, so they need a leg up. That is completely understandable. The government gives them that step up through welfare. In a perfect world, the family would use their time to get a good job and begin supporting themselves. But in the real world, things do not work out so perfectly. The family realizes that they can continue to get welfare money, so the parents do not get jobs and continue to cash in their welfare checks to take care of their children. This is how the majority of people on welfare are children. If the government did not offer this free money to all the families that do not have jobs, we would have so much more money for other things. Our economy is not in any condition to enable people to stay on this cycle. A better alternative would be to give people a set amount of money/a set timeline of how long they will be able to receive this aid. This system would work better because it would force people to actively search for jobs and make an effort. If we completely abolished the current welfare system, however, and did not replace it, it would be very rough for our country until society adjusted itself. More people would be born into poverty, which would initially lead to an increase in crime. What most people fail to realize about this situation, however, is that after this initial hit, society would recover for the better. I believe that cutting everyone off from social services such as welfare would eventually end up cutting down the numbers of homeless people. A great deal of people that are born into welfare stay on welfare and then have children, who they take care of with… that’s right, you guessed it, welfare money. If welfare is eliminated, these people will not have children because they will not be able to take care of them on their own. As cold as it sounds, this is a clear example of Darwinism. If we were in the jungle, people who could not take care of themselves would clearly be eaten first. I see no reason for the government to step in and take care of people that can not fend for themselves. Which is why the health care reform sucks. Fri, 2 Apr 2010 23:07:33 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-if-we-got-rid-of-welfare__trashed/#IDComment65643563 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/whats-the-big-deal-with-periods__trashed/#IDComment64242081 There are some things that are part of nature and human life that we simply do not talk or think about (in great detail) because they are unpleasant. A woman’s menstrual cycle is something that is natural, but also not the nicest thing to discuss. The fact that it is something only women are able to experience only makes matters worse. How would everyone feel if all of a sudden Sam linked the discussion to diarrhea? It is completely natural. “I want to express how functional my digestive system is.” The reproductive system is no different. Or perhaps we could talk about coughing up mucous? Maybe about snot? I am not saying that women should be ashamed about their menstrual cycle, but it should not be something that we talk about openly like we did in class. The list of natural body functions that are unpleasant to talk about goes on and on. There is definitely a double standard surrounding issues like menstruation. Why is it that women speak openly about their reproductive cycles, but if a male would speak out and be “proud” of his ability to reproduce he would be ridiculed? Not that I condone either sex talking about things like this, but I can very easily picture the uproar that would ensue from a move towards a “men’s rights” movement. The situation with the menstrual cycle is exactly how Sam describes the situation “at the race table.” The white people hold their tongues because they are afraid of saying something wrong. This holds true for discussions about menstruation. Men will immediately feel uncomfortable, but are not allowed to say anything about it for fear of coming across as sexist. It is not sexist to feel awkward about certain bodily functions. The act of calling someone sexist for not wanting to talk about menstruation is sexist in itself. Just because menstruation is specific to women does not mean that people should try to be open about it in an effort to be more understanding. We might as well bring everything out into the open, like vomit, snot, and infections. That being said, maybe Sam had a very important reason for bringing up “bleeding.” Like I said before, this is an example of never knowing exactly how someone else feels. I will never know what it feels like to have a menstrual cycle. I have accepted that fact. I think that what many people need to realize is that they will never know how people of other races feel like. You might have an idea, but you can never know exactly how they feel. Once everyone accepts this fact, race relations will be much easier, and many things will be put into a much better perspective. tl;dr periods are gross, so are many other body functions, so its not sexist. Fri, 26 Mar 2010 20:00:48 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/whats-the-big-deal-with-periods__trashed/#IDComment64242081 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/prom-or-no-prom-just-dont-let-the-queer-students-dance-together__trashed/#IDComment63096384 The fact that a school district would even consider banning students from the prom due to sexual orientation is incredibly offensive. One persons decision as to who he or she brings as a date has no affect on the other students’ experiences at an event such as prom. It is none of the other students’ business, and it is certainly none of the school boards business. What is even more ridiculous is that the school board attempted to excuse itself by saying they cancelled the event “due to ‘distractions to the educational process.’” Who one student brings to a function like a high school prom has absolutely zero effect on the educational process at that school district. There is literally no connection between sexual orientation of attendants of the event and the educational process that the school district is offering to the community. Although the school district is in a very conservative state, Mississippi, it is still unacceptable for them to flat out retaliate against a student for something that is not even a personal decision. The civil rights movement fought against this type of discrimination. Constance McMillen was right for standing up to the school district. She should not have to deal with “a bunch of kids at school” who “are really going to hate [her] for this.” A similar situation may happen here on our campus. A publicly recognized homosexual progressive fraternity is now officially part of the IFC. It is the exact same situation. The only difference is that the IFC is being tolerant, whereas the board in Mississippi was being intolerant. If the same thing happened here at Penn State, it would be an outrage. These are real life examples of social discrimination that should not exist today. There have been many strides towards civil rights, but there is still work to be done. In the article, McMillen shows how she is just another normal student. But, because she happened to be born homosexual, she is discriminated against and denied the same experiences as “normal” high school students in the district. The worst part is what the school teacher says to McMillen when inquired as to why the school would ban same sex dates an the prom. The teacher responded by telling McMillen to “remember where she was.” Things like this are what make certain people think they are allowed to act that way. State boards and college communities alike need to take lessons from this, and start being more progressive. Hopefully, attitudes like these will disappear within the next few generations. The only thing that can break ignorance and discrimination is education. As the countries education gets better, as it has been, hopefully the next generations will be more tolerant and see everyone as equals. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:09:12 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/prom-or-no-prom-just-dont-let-the-queer-students-dance-together__trashed/#IDComment63096384 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-three__trashed/#IDComment58519667 The fact of the matter is that it is natural for the superior civilization to come out on top and conquer. Alright, it was the largest “genocide” in human history, and there were many wrongdoings as far as giving land, then taking it back, and relocating, etc. go, but it still did not happen by chance. The conquistadors and other European settlers were simply superior and more advanced. This caused them to defeat the Native Americans and take their land. It is the same as dominance in groups of animals. If a pack of wolves moves into new territory, and is strong enough to kill the wolves that currently live there, is that cruel? It may come across as cold hearted, but I am simply being a realist. There was demand for more land so European explorers found some. It was occupied already, so they fought for it. They won. As a population, the settlers were more advanced, and therefore better suited to survive. A TA made a comment saying that Darwinism was reproduction of the fittest, as opposed to survival of the fittest. Survival of the war led to reproduction of the dominant population, the population that won the war: the Americans. Killing is a part of nature. I understand that some will respond to that negatively, and claim that killing with guns is not natural. But, as a species capable of meta-cognitive reasoning, we as humans are bound to develop advanced weaponry. Although it was killing with guns, as opposed to claws, teeth, or whatever an animal may kill another animal with, all that happened was one colony of organisms took the territory of another colony of organisms. That being said, it is a problem that Native Americans today are part of a minority group that suffers from poverty, and something should be done about that. It is just that it does not make sense to be upset about Native Americans being killed for land, but not upset about anyone else dying over land. It is natural for animals (people included, as we are just really smart monkeys) to fight over land, and it should not be made into such a big deal. The only difference between human war and animal war is that since we are capable of language and coordination, our fights are bigger and longer than the battles of animals. Are we going to start proclaiming our sympathy toward all the animals in the world that are killed over territory? If you take a huge step back and really look at the course of humanity relative to the course of other animals, all that happened was one huge war over territory. The victors took the land. This, to me, makes perfect sense. Wed, 24 Feb 2010 17:25:51 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/native-americans-question-three__trashed/#IDComment58519667 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-five__trashed/#IDComment57635695 I agree that it is ridiculous to not allow gay couples a certified union, but I still do not believe that it should be called a marriage. Allow me to begin by saying I am not religious, and I do not believe gay marriage to be a sin, but I still do not think that a union between two men or a union between two women should be called a marriage. Marriage was traditionally a purely religious ceremony, and then the state adopted marriage and further solidifies the union, but since the beginning of our country, marriage has shifted from purely church and state to society. The term, and the idea, marriage has grown to mean a union between to men and two women. The traditional fairytale of the very young girl planning out her wedding with her friends is an example of what marriage represents. An equal union would be the only logical answer. It may not be fair, because of the whole separate but equal argument, but thats just the way the cookie crumbles. I would imagine that the reason members of the LGBT community want marriage, as opposed to a separate but equal union, is because of what marriage represents to society. They want to be the same, and share the same union. However, by definition, marriage is between a man and a woman. No matter how you look at it, no matter which way you slice it, the church originated marriage. And by the churches definition, marriage is between a man and a woman. Although society has adapted the term, the power still lies with the church. It is not up to us to decide what the church should say. That is being truly conservative. The church is its own establishment. That establishment created marriage. Nobody can tell them to change, or tell them why they are wrong. For instance, say that I am selling red t shirts to everyone who drives a red car. Then, someone driving a blue car comes up to me. I am willing to sell them a blue t shirt, but not a red t shirt, because it is my business. They are not exactly the same, but that is just the way my business is run. It is equal. I am not discriminating. Now replace me with the church, red t shirts with marriage, and blue t shirts with a separate but equal union. That system would work well, and nobody can argue that it is not fair to members of the LGBT community. If you want to argue that separate but equal is not truly equal, fine, but you have to remember that it is still the churches call, and who are we to decide what the church, which is its own organization, should sanctify? Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:35:35 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-five__trashed/#IDComment57635695 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/swinging-past-the-other-end-of-the-ideological-spectrum-on-the-way-to-the-intellectual-gray__trashed/#IDComment56562294 I think that it is blatantly obvious that being in the middle, with respect to any two extremely opposing viewpoints, is the most logical thing to do. When discussing freedom versus determinism, this is that much more important. Sam put in to words what I could not, but I have always had this same method of thinking. No matter what your faith is, it is clear that people are born the way they are, to the families they are born to, without any control over the matter. It is also clear, however, that people get to where they are at least partially based on the individual decisions they make. Both of these concepts merge together to determine where someone ends up in life. Neither are solely responsible for an individual’s success. It is possible for one to dominate the other, but not completely. There are two examples that can be used here. The first is someone who is born into a very wealthy family, but has a very poor work ethic. This person will go through life without doing much, if any, work, but they will ultimately end up still wealthy. Although their individual choices played a tiny role (as in, not losing the family fortune in Las Vegas), the major reason they were wealthy in life was because of their family. In this case, determinism is mainly what accounted for the success (but not 100%). The second example lies in someone who is born to nothing, but ends up with everything. Someone like this could be Bill Gates. Although his family was upper middle class, his own individual actions were what got him to where he is today. In his case, and in almost any case where someone makes more money than their parents, freedom is mainly what accounted for the success. These two opposite, but similar examples can effectively shut down any argument supporting either strict side of the spectrum. A complicated balance between freedom and determinism is what accounts for the differences between groups of different ancestry. Much like the yin yang, one does not exist without the other. But, this moderation comes with a price. In the intellectual gray, it can be hard to deal with problems such as health care. No, it is not fair to the wealthier people to give money to the government to provide healthcare for the poorer people, but at the same time, it is not fair to the poor people who were born with a disability or who did not get a good education because of where they were born. Another issue along these same lines is the issue of welfare. Again, it is not fair to the wealthy people or to the poor people. The only hope can be that over time, equal working between classes will lead to equality. Fri, 12 Feb 2010 23:04:33 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/swinging-past-the-other-end-of-the-ideological-spectrum-on-the-way-to-the-intellectual-gray__trashed/#IDComment56562294 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55547906 After watching James Cameron’s Avatar, it is easy to see where David Brooks is coming from. The plot is very clearly an ersatz of the plots of many movies such as Disney’s Pocahontas. There are a series of movies where a lone (white) savior to the indigenous peoples stops the oppressive white man, and all of them support Brooks’ theory about the “Messiah Complex.” It comes from the general idea that is drilled into the skulls of children all throughout the United States of America that our country was founded off of barren land. We are taught that all of the brave explorers came to America and established our great nation out of nothing. The brutal reality of the matter, however, is that those explorers took all of the land from the Native Americans. The greatest genocide in the history of mankind took place right here in the Americas. Almost 90% of all the Native Americans that were here were killed. The true story is not that the almighty white man came and set up shop right in the Americas, it is that the explorers conquered and captured the land and took it away from the Native Americans. Now the American people think their forefathers are all saviors, and heroes. This is where the Messiah Complex comes into play. The movie is sure to be a success, due to the success of all the other movies with the exact same storyline. The only reason James Cameron’s Avatar stands out so much is because of the visual effects and 3D animation. The reality of the matter is that not all indigenous people will need the saving of the white man. The main plot has a gigantic flaw as it is; the savior is saving the people from the white man, when he himself is white. All the plot shows is the white man causing a problem, then resolving it at the end. That does not make the man a savior, he is simply correcting his own mistake. The success of movies like James Cameron’s Avatar is a clear sign of the ignorance of the typical American citizen. One minor annoyance that comes out of situations like this are the people who see the movie and feel like it is enlightening. They claim that it is a great story about how our tragic hero saves the day, and that it is touching. These are the typical American citizens that come across as ignorant and unknowledgeable. The movie, and these attitudes, perpetuates the stereotype that the white man is so much more enlightened, and that the natives are in need of enlightenment. This is obviously not true, but movies like this make it easy for ignorant people to convince themselves that it is. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 00:16:45 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55547906 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/the-enlightened-west-knows-best__trashed/#IDComment54385337 I find it ridiculous that a government is trying to ban a style of clothing. It resembles socialism, and takes away a persons culture. The women in the video said they would reveal their faces for identification purposes, and I’m sure many other Muslim women would do the same, so there should be no legal problem. I understand that the French government wants to be able to identify people, and wants the best for the safety of its citizens, but banning part of one’s religion and culture is wrong. The women that do not want to wear the abeyya simply don’t wear it. This shows that if a woman doesn’t want to, once she is Western oriented she doesn’t have to. There is no need for the French government to come “save the day” and ban the abeyya. As if the Muslim women were so oppressed that they needed to be saved. The only viable part of the French governments argument lies in the safety issue. Although fully masked citizens can at times be dangerous, that doesn’t justify banning a part of religion and culture altogether. Both of my parents are Iranian, and many women in my family wear shawls on their own free will. It is simply an item of clothing. Many of my family members would be offended and outraged if the United States tried to ban a certain item of clothing that is part of religion and culture. Due to differences in ethnicities, women in France don’t wear clothing that covers their faces, and that’s all it is: a difference in ethnicities. It would be the same as saying that French women aren’t allowed to wear a particular type of shirt, or skirt, or shoes. The only difference is that it just so happens that the abeyya covers one’s face. As long as anyone who is wearing one agrees to show their face for legitimate identification purposes there is no problem whatsoever. I find it strange that France as we know it today was born out of freedom and democracy but is now blatantly oppressing the Muslim woman. The irony is that the French government is claiming to release women from the oppression they face from men, but in actuality they are the ones being oppressive. It is of my opinion that unless there is a clear effort made by Muslim women to ban the abeyya, the government should stay completely away from these peoples’ culture. If free people start allowing the government to take away from their daily choices (that don’t harm others, of course), then they will soon surrender their freedom completely. France banning burqas would only set a precedent that it’s okay for a government to control someone to this extent. Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:54:15 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/the-enlightened-west-knows-best__trashed/#IDComment54385337 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-s__trashed/#IDComment53885905 Comment Tue, 26 Jan 2010 09:06:16 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-s__trashed/#IDComment53885905 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment53203582 I think that people like Pat Robertson are the reason for the negative image of “hardcore Christians.” The things Pat Robertson is suggesting are obviously not true. There is no way he is being serious, yet he holds a large audience regardless. Since nobody can possibly be taking him seriously in his claims that Haiti, collectively as a nation, made a pact with the devil, it raises the question as to why he has his own show, and how he can ever hope to call himself a good Christian. I realize that I am not in any place to define what being a good Christian consists of, but I think it is safe to assume that good Christians preach forgiveness and everlasting love from God if one gives oneself up to Christ. Absolutely nothing Pat Robertson said would make me think he was a good Christian. This alone should stomp his credibility. John Stewart brought up excellent examples, directly from the Bible, about what Christianity should be doing to help the country of Haiti. However, Pat Robertson mentions nothing about salvation and love from God, and makes outrageous claims about imaginary pacts. Keith Olbermann obviously feels that Pat Robertson was wrong, as well. However, no matter how satisfying it was to watch Olbermann bash Robertson, Olbermann was simply playing into Robertson’s game. Olbermann giving Robertson the attention he wanted like that can only make Robertson into somewhat of a martyr. Even though it was excellent to watch and Robertson deserved to be put down, Olbermann really did nothing to help the situation. It is strange to see how Christianity in general continues to survive with people such as Pat Robertson around. Comments like this are made all the time. But no Christians ever stop and think to themselves that some of these things just don’t make sense. Now, most Christians are more moderate than Pat Robertson, but it is still an issue that one such as he can say something like this and “get away with it” as far as the religion on the whole goes. The problem lies in people ignoring fallacies as long as the right person said them. Another problem lies with Rush Limbaugh, saying things like the earthquake was “made to order” for the Obama administration. Again, people with either be stupid enough to agree with him, or they will pass off this fallacy and ignore it. The only thing left I have to talk about is Sam’s comment about being off the medication. I know it’s been said before, and I know it wasn’t serious, but something like that only takes away the credibility of the blog post. Yes, Robertson was out of line and ridiculous, but it isn’t justifiable to make a joke like that. Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:39:46 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment53203582