en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2441237 Comments by NickFrain http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141126006 Clearly an oil corporation’s focus is to make profits, but that’s the focus of any business in the world, everyone is in the business of making money. Does anyone complain about tax breaks or subsidies the government provides to the agricultural industry? The answer is no, and the reason is that people perceive that industry to be noble. They provide the world with food and agricultural products. The oil industry just destroys the earth. These are all false perceptions. On another note, I think it’s important to make another distinction. When Obama said let’s stop giving breaks to old energy (oil/gas) and invest in new energy (one can only assume renewables; solar, wind, hydro) he was talking about one in the same. The big corporations mentioned in the article, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, are not just oil companies, they are energy companies. They’re the leaders in new energy technologies. Now I understand that Obama most likely meant he would then provide tax breaks for young startups companies who would potentially have the energy source of the future, but the likely source of such a thing is most likely going to be one of the established giants. Sat, 9 Apr 2011 00:35:05 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141126006 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141125974 The oil industry seems to be popping up in class discussion a lot. First we looked at the effects of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale through the lens of a completely biased source and an instructor who seemingly agreed with it all. Now we have this article, a follow up to the discussion about legalized bribery in our political landscape. In response to reading this article you ask us to look at it from a different perspective, but the thing is, the only reason many have this perception of the oil/gas industry is due to the mudslinging in class and the instructor’s obvious stance on the related issues. The fact is that oil/gas are fundamental in our society both physically and economically. Every industry, especially large ones, has special interest groups representing their needs. People are eager to criticize the negative aspects associated with drilling for oil and drilling for natural gas, but they are even more eager to complain about high prices at the pump, and even higher oil bills to heat your house. All decisions produce both winners and losers. Sat, 9 Apr 2011 00:34:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141125974 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139164133 Although, in this scenario, I didn’t have to work hard to attain my position, there is still the possibility that I could take Berkshire Hathaway, grow it, and bring the company to a new level of prominence. The more money we have, the more power we now hold over those around us. But that power exerted from non-government individuals is often over looked. If you asked a group of people who have the most amount of power in this country they would probably all choose government officials and people of that status. As Sam has repeatedly mentioned in class; those with power act on their own best interest. The wealthiest individuals usually those who assume power, are more likely to create policies that benefit themselves or individuals close to them, further widening the inequality gap. I have come to realize this is just a way of life. But I think that a country like the United States of America is structured in a way that gives individuals more of an opportunity to shrink the inequality gap. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:06:11 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139164133 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139164078 The invisible strings come into play here. Wealth distribution is partly determined by true hard work, but most is actually determined by the aforementioned invisible strings. People are born into privileged situations, situations that will undoubtedly affect their future income and stature in society. First, I question if this is wrong. Personally, I don’t come from wealth and because of this fact I may be embittered towards people who do and subsequently reap the benefits of their situation. But if I were to speak truthfully, if I was put in the situation of wealth and privilege, I would be eager to take advantage of my stature in society. And I don’t think that’s wrong. I understand that it’s important for people to prove their own worth and merit, but who is to say that those qualities are unattainable from a position of privilege. Say my father was Warren Buffett, and he handed down Berkshire Hathaway to me. I would have the great advantage of being President and CEO of one of the greatest companies existing today, an advantage that no other would be rewarded. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 18:05:53 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139164078 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/b-s-response/#IDComment137607921 But the fact remains that I need to wake up the next morning and face the repercussions of my actions. Clearly waking up in a jail cell for years on end is the same concept. If I got drunk and was with a buddy who sexually molested a girl, I would be considered by all her friends and anyone who was aware of the incident, as a creep or a rapist of sorts. Am I a creep or a rapist? No, but my choice, even if I was intoxicated, was to associate myself with a creep and am therefore viewed by the majority as such. In reference to my other point, why let it get to you? We are college kids forced to read these things and respond to them. The fact is that your actions have put you in a position where people can make false assumptions and false judgments about you, and as a student, we’re forced to. Don’t get bogged down in what someone referred to you as, rather spend your time trying to prove why you’re not these things, and by all accounts, you have. Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:12:09 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/b-s-response/#IDComment137607921 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/b-s-response/#IDComment137607888 I understand your frustrations with being stereotyped in the worst light possible, a murderer. When I responded to your original post about freedom, I have to say I really empathized and understood with what you had to say. I too play guitar and express myself artistically and really believe it to be one of the truest forms of freedom. There are so many decisions to be made and opportunities to explore when behind bars. The fact that I see that previous statement as the truth helps me understand what you mean about feeling free although you are physically contained. To speak a little to your most recent annoyance with students assuming you are a murderer, I can’t necessarily blame them, and furthermore don’t understand your frustration. It’s true you have not killed someone but you have committed a crime that our legal system saw fit to place you on the same level as people who have. I believe that you’re a good person, who in a moment of poor judgment, did a terrible thing. And yes, I myself have done some really stupid shit, far regrettable shit, particularly when under the influence. Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:11:58 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/b-s-response/#IDComment137607888 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135914690 ? It seems ludicrous that we allow vast inner-city populations to breed like insects, welcoming child after child into impoverished, drug-addicted households, but have inhibitions on simply allowing two human beings of the same sex to do so responsibly. On the other hand, it’s important for me to mention that I do understand that same sex families may face a great deal of hardships. Having homosexual parents would definitely present some unfortunate circumstances for children. Bullying and teasing at school would certainly be a fear for the children of these families, but what do kids lean on in times of hardships? Family. In times of woe children will always rely on their family to help them get through it. Homosexuals are just as inclined and capable to provide the love and support necessary to properly rear a child (no pun intended). This video was a perfect example of all the things I just mentioned. The man was a talented speaker and really proved that homosexuals can be capable parents. Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:33:42 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135914690 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135914635 I am a conservative, heterosexual male. It’s true that homosexuality generally makes me feel uncomfortable. Things like this video make me question why though. Is it that I am truly that uncomfortable observing homosexual situations and behavior, or is it that my sociological situation makes it not “ok” for me to embrace other’s sexual tendencies. As I examine it, I tend to believe it’s the latter. When it comes down to it love is love, whether its love for a man by a woman or vice versa, or whether it’s love for a woman by another woman, the constant remains love. Once you can come to terms with that notion, it becomes a lot easier to understand or empathize with a lot of the situations that rise from same sex couples. Love is the fundamental element to any relationship. If a man loves another man, truly loves him, then why would we prevent them from entering the sacred covenant of marriage together? If love is at the root of what makes a family succeed, and there is ample love between same sexes, then why prevent them from starting a family of their own? Fri, 18 Mar 2011 21:33:17 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135914635 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/07/freedom/#IDComment134283475 No definition of freedom is wrong because you define it for yourself, and that thought may be at the essence of freedom itself. No matter what it is, it should never be taken for granted, because as the lifer explained, one bad choice, in one split second, and what you currently perceive as freedom could be forever altered. Fri, 11 Mar 2011 21:02:33 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/07/freedom/#IDComment134283475 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/07/freedom/#IDComment134282622 Reading this also makes me think if this man's definition of freedom is the same, conceptually, as Martin Luther King Jr.'s. Dr. King wanted equal freedom for all races, creeds and ethnicities, particularly in the form of civil rights for everyone. In a way I see dissent between MLK Jr.'s definition of freedom and the lifer's. I would argue that in following the lifer's definition, all races, creeds, and ethnicities were already free. They had capable ears, eyes, hearts and minds to think and freely guide their own lives, a concept that even allowed for a man like Martin Luther King. Maybe MLK Jr. was one of the first minorities to realize that he was in fact "free", and in doing so was able to propel a movement that resulted in legal freedom. He realized that he had a mind to think with, and an able body to carry out his thoughts, and in doing so created a whole movement of freedom for all minorities. Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:58:05 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/07/freedom/#IDComment134282622 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/07/freedom/#IDComment134280836 This is a very interesting perspective. When I first started reading this man's thoughts on exactly what freedom is or what it means to him, I was skeptical and was sort of in disagreement. I do agree, however, that freedom is an intangible thing. It's not solely or even primarily defined by one's possesions, but rather by a more spirtual concept that is reflected in people's actions and how they choose to define specific situations or parts of their lives. I think it was crucial when he said that although his range of motion may be predetermined to specific areas, he still has eyes that see, ears that hear, a heart that loves, and a mind that thinks. Those things are essential to one's freedom. As I sit here and type I have headphones in my ears, and am listening to music. It is a beautiful song, and I can find myself escaping somewhere with it. This may be the essence of what this man is trying to say. Although I'm sitting here and am forced (in some way) to type this blog, I have the presence of music and the ability to hear with my ears and think with my mind. I have the freedom to escape mentally and go somewhere, think about things, and reminisce on feelings. This lifer can have similar feelings, and think similar thoughts as me, so who's to say he is not "free". Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:48:43 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/07/freedom/#IDComment134280836 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130682604 . It kind of relates to a general sociological concept that a huge collection of different situations with some relating factors creates a need for laws or rules to govern and create norms to people actions and reactions. In this case we have several situations; kids who live in cities, suburbs, walk to school, drive to school, are wealthy, are poor. And although their situations are different, parents have the general need to know what level of protection or freedom they need to enable their children with because of the consistent fear for all of them of possible abduction or similar bad things. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:57:41 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130682604 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130682557 The woman at the end of the video really showed how most parents would react to this situation. She is now more cautious and will not let her son walk down the street without holding her hand. To some that may seem crazy, that a woman is basically keeping her child from informal human interactions, and in their eyes possibly overly sheltering him. On the other hand, most parents who saw that news segment will completely agree with the woman at the end, and possibly enforce stricter rules for their kids. The reason behind this is that although the risk of having a child abducted is incredibly slim, people would rather take steps to prevent or avert it than roll the dice and have it possibly happen. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:57:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130682557 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130682453 This video really emphasizes a point I’ve made in previous blogs about most people tending to be risk averse. I’ve learned about people being “risk averse” in several insurance, economic and financial classes, usually in the context of how people choose to spend their money. Sociology has introduced several scenarios that make me realize that people in general tend to act in a “risk averse” nature. This video really shows that. The scenario introduced is incredibly rare and random, and shouldn’t be considered normal under any circumstances. Sociologists or people who study human interaction will tell you that 999 out of 1000 times, strangers will do everything in their power to help a vulnerable child rather than do something as grotesque as abduct them. Besides this logic and findings of these numbers, there are still parents who see this bold and blatant attempt on the evening news and decide to do everything possible to prevent it from happening to their children. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 20:56:56 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130682453 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/09/4092/#IDComment127415831 He may have been drunk, he may have been abused as a child, he may be gay, and all of that could have made him more likely to commit a murder than other sociological groups, but the fact is that as a society we need someone or somewhere to place the blame and responsibility. This need is what presents the need for rules, or sets of rules so that as a society we know how to handle certain situations. As bad as I feel for this man, and to whatever extent I empathize with his situation, his actions left a man dead and for that we have rules that punish you to a life in prison. It’s an unfortunate but necessary evil in this case. Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:02:51 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/09/4092/#IDComment127415831 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/09/4092/#IDComment127415784 . These are the type of things that sociology help you think about, and things that I’m learning to value when assessing certain situations in life. I still consider myself a conservative person which I guess translates to a conservative thinker. One of the main things that conservatism relies upon is responsibility. In this case it may become difficult to pinpoint exactly who or what is responsible for this murder. Obviously it’s the prisoner who we hold responsible because after all, it was his actions that left a man dead. But what else caused him to do this? What sociological factors were at work? Does this man have a history with abuse as a child? Was this man raised Christian, Muslim or Hindu? What is his sexual orientation? All these questions garner answers that set this man in certain sociological groups, groups that data proves have certain similarities in their actions. I guess the moral of the story is that there are several factors leading to why this man was capable of committing murder. Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:02:35 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/09/4092/#IDComment127415784 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/09/4092/#IDComment127415727 When I read “Remember” my initial feelings were that of remorse. This man has spent so much of his life, 26 years of a 48 year sentence, behind bars in practical isolation from everything he cared for because he made a terrible decision one night when he was drunk. I drink and I can relate. There has been several times when, under the influence of alcohol, I’ve done things that a sober me would never even think of. The difference is I wake up, my friends fill me in on whatever asinine events occurred, I feel embarrassed and remorseful, and with time, all is forgotten. This same thing happened to this man, except the next morning he woke up in prison and will never be released. How can you not empathize with this situation and feel sorry for this prisoner? The fact that I drink, shows that me and him are related sociologically. We are drinkers, whatever drove us to drink or whatever predispositions led us to alcohol are other certain invisible strings that make up our unique sociological self. But for now we are related by the fact that we drink. Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:02:13 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/09/4092/#IDComment127415727 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125938877 Although conforming in some ways is necessary and appropriate (the example about eating properly at a formal dinner), I think many people would benefit from not conforming to others norms. I feel that when a person decides to be a non-conformist their true personality can show, and that person may have a better likelihood of succeeding. Many actors who have made it, particularly comedians, are surely non-conformists in social norms. Going back slightly to the suicide example. Comedians are seeking attention too, but instead of seeking attention in the form of guilt, they seek attention in the form of humor and hilarity. I'm sure if you met a famous comedian or actor in a social setting you'd think, hey that dudes weird. Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:14:34 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125938877 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125938857 I'm a business type major, and when learning about insurance and other topics, I've learned that most people are risk averse, meaning that if risk were involved, most would take actions to decrease or stay away from it. This is true with conformity and attention-getting. Most people conform to the social norms as a way of not putting themselves, and their ideas out there, because that way they experience no adverse social effects (like alientation, ostracising, etc.). Think about it in the context of a classroom, our SOC 001 classroom. We have 300 some kids in class and most just sit there, absorb, and try to get through class. When questions are proposed, the tendency by most is to sit there and wait till a brave soul answers, because most are risk adverse and fear that their answer may garner a negative reaction from the professor or group of their peers. Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:14:29 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125938857 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125938652 First of all, that video was hilarious. I was reading some of the earlier posts to this and someone's comment really stuck out to me, and resonated with something discussed in class. They said that drawing unnecessary attention to yourself is frowned upon, which I tend to agree with. Someone mentioned in class how attempting suicide may just be an attempt at gaining attention. I would also tend to agree with that sentiment in some cases, but I think in that case they are trying to recieve attention in the form of guilt, specifically guilt for the immense pain and depression they are feeling. With that said, suicide is an irrational act in most cases, and it's not one that many people would conform to. Seeking attention in general is not a conforming act, because your putting yourself out in social situations to either succeed (garner positive attention from your peers), or fail (garner negative attention from your peers). Fri, 4 Feb 2011 16:13:53 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125938652