en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2409009 Comments by Seanbinnig http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/21/would-you-help-out-or-turn-away-immigrants-in-the-poor-situations-we-saw-them-in-and-why-119-blog/#IDComment145280222 This topic really tears at me because on one hand there is a part of me that is humane and wants to help the immigrants in need but on the other hand there is still a part of me that exists that is impartial to these people because they are taking up a large portion of the United states population, including housing and spreading of their culture. When looking at in the humane sense, these people are still people, born free and with “equality”. These people stand as much a chance to make a living and better themselves as anyone else. They live in such miserable conditions when compared to just about anyone in the US that it really does pull at the sympathy of just about every human being to try and help them. It is only human that we seek to help those who are in such horrible conditions. There is also the factor that they do take up the jobs that most Americans do not want to pursue and help to better off the American life and economy in a myriad of ways. They are able to sustain and keep cheap prices that are expected from most Americans while at the same time settling for such low wages just because it is better than what they could get from their own country. The increase in the work the force also ends up increasing the total yield in the economy. With such a large output of production and such a low input on labor, it allows the economy to flourish. Of course at these benefits, come the discomforts in American society. Overall, America is thought to be quite multifarious with its cultures and people, but in reality there is a large sense of xenophobia, at least with most white people. Because of this xenophobia, people are uncomfortable with different cultures spreading into their own cultures and influence of outside forces. These immigrants aren’t so much dangerous, simply not sensitive to the sensitivities of most Americans because, well, they aren’t American. Its not entirely their fault for bringing the culture they’ve lived along with them. So because of this Americans tend to hold amnesty toward immigrants because they say they are “threatening” their white culture. There’s also the issue that they are “taking” our jobs. In reality of course the majority of immigrants are taking jobs we as Americans wouldn’t accept and those that get jobs other American would take, are much more diligent and hardworking because they have much more to work for. In essence basically Americans expect the best of both worlds, and in reality they can’t actually get cheap prices and the labor to produce such results. Sat, 23 Apr 2011 03:08:07 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/21/would-you-help-out-or-turn-away-immigrants-in-the-poor-situations-we-saw-them-in-and-why-119-blog/#IDComment145280222 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/14/why-did-the-white-students-tell-the-story-differently-than-the-mixed-or-black-students-119-blog/#IDComment143287859 Ok, first things first. One group of people did not tell the story differently from another group of people. It simply was a story that was told and passed down orally, of course things are going to change. Some things will be added, some things will be removed, and some things may be switched around – all this is dependent on the individual who actually told the story and their own unique story telling traits which they simply have picked up from their own personal experiences. In fact, I don’t believe anyone “sugar coated” it, (except maybe for the first girl), they simply told it in their own perspective. Like someone mentioned, this activity was a lot like that whisper down the lane game we used to play as kids. Sometimes the objective of this game was to ruin the phrase or story so badly, that the end result was ridiculous. I think a little bit of that was played into this activity and each person tried to make the story seem more ridiculous my leaving out more and more information and changing the order of events. In terms of this “sugar coating”, it can be seen in a few ways, but not too many. First off the white kids felt uncomfortable because the story, (or at least as much as they heard of it), dealt with colored people being the main subject while white people were portrayed badly (in the story). This automatically makes them the bad guy, putting them in an uncomfortable setting while at the same time trying to make them tell and understand the story from Bill’s (being African American) point of view. As it was said in class, people are still segregated today, more so than ever, so it would make sense that white kids aren’t comfortable speaking of these matters in front of a large mixed class. I’m sure if it was the other way around in a different situation, say a hate crime against a single white student with derogative terms used, people who aren’t white wouldn’t feel too comfortable talking about it out loud either. It’s a matter of political correctness, which we’ve discussed is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time. Of course, the whole picture here and the main issue was the avoidance of the “n” word, which isn’t anyone’s fault but the first girl, who completely avoided it out of political correctness and tried to match it up with other terms such as “argument” or “derogative, mean things were said”. Now someone along the way simply didn’t like the way that sounded, equated it to “scuffle”. So yes, an entire, rather sensitive topic that was completely brought to our attention (I don’t even think Sam has touched this) was avoided and “sugar coated” but it wasn’t the white kids fault, it simply lack of information. Sat, 16 Apr 2011 03:10:48 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/14/why-did-the-white-students-tell-the-story-differently-than-the-mixed-or-black-students-119-blog/#IDComment143287859 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/how-do-you-feel-about-president-obamas-use-of-money-in-comparison-to-haiti-119-blog/#IDComment141151480 Its inequalities like this keeps the world spinning and it’s unfortunate because there is so little we can do. You have to understand that people tend to act in their best interest and for most of America; their best interests don’t include Haiti or any other struggling country. In fact you can say it’s quite impressive that there is so much charity and donation that exists today. But money isn’t the cause of it all. Think back when Erenso said they need jobs, not money. Donating and pouring money into a country like Haiti only gives the outward appearance of helping them, but in reality we are only inflating the local economy. Most of these funds also go to the biggest and most important foundations, so not everyone is benefitting from it. What they truly want and need is their own economic system that can provide stability and let them stand and develop on their own. I know, it’s a lot to ask for and extremely difficult to do. In regards to how I feel about Obama’s spending, this unfortunately has become somewhat of an American “pastime”. Presidential elections are never cheap and meant to cause commotion and stir both the civilian population and the political population. I’m not saying its impossible to avoid, its just this much spending has become some what of a trend, one that if you can’t compete in, you don’t stand a chance of gaining popularity of the people. Although Obama himself, as well as other well-known politicians, is already influential enough that such excessive spending can and should be avoided. Not to mention that he IS a world leader who signed off bailouts because of how bad the American economy is. You’d think he would have the know how and responsibility to put that billion dollars elsewhere. But Obama is not the sole one to blame here, it’s America and all it stands for – its institutions, government, education, society, all demand a certain expectancy of money because they have grown up in and all around it. Hell, minimum wage for an hour is about seven to ten times more than some families live off a day. Just imagine what we could do with so much of America’s wealth to support places like Haiti. For example just think of what a 0.50-1.00 tax on all paychecks for world relief could do – something so negligible but collectively can help save thousands somewhere else. The point is, the world runs on money, regardless of whether you can make it your own or borrow it from other people. Ideally a place like Haiti needs to invest any amount of aid into smart, profitable systems or businesses that they can use to help develop and improve themselves. Sat, 9 Apr 2011 03:01:38 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/how-do-you-feel-about-president-obamas-use-of-money-in-comparison-to-haiti-119-blog/#IDComment141151480 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/18/where-do-the-messages-come-from-119-blog/#IDComment135970342 The most traumatic part of watching the video of the young children choosing between the dolls was their facial expressions as their young minds began to comprehend and process the relationship between their choice of “colored” doll in relation to the questions asked and which doll best represents them. Such a truly horrifying event affecting the youth not just in America but also across the world surely can be explained by some factor, can it not? Unfortunately, it can’t be pinned on one certain aspect. For the sake of this discussion, let’s focus on America. Most of this racial inequality stems from the fact this country was stolen and founded by a white society during colonial expansion. When slaves were introduced, white supremacy and white culture was forced upon the slaves, in order to show a hierarchy and to accustom the slaves not for themselves but so that the slave owners would feel safer and more comfortable with slaves that understood and could reciprocate basic white society. Even after slavery was ended, the ones in charge of authority and power were and still are white. White culture has been forced down the throats of all non-white people residing in America through advertising, media, education, employment, and social attitudes. I mean when one is looked down upon because of an existing racism that they played no part in, it’s no wonder one wouldn’t want to relate to what they’re portrayed to be, but instead to try and become the opposite. That is to say, be whiter - because quite frankly, how can you not be accepted when you are part of the majority? It’s like Sam said, when you fit in a majority, you don’t stick out and become an individual. Many races in America simply don’t want the prejudice and inequality because of a factor they can’t control. So of course they want to be more socially acceptable. It becomes ingrained in their lifestyle. They see it on TV, in the big corporations, and society, that being white equals wealth, success, happiness, or something they want but don’t think they can achieve because of determinism. Even parenting can influence this as they tell their child what is more beautiful – straight hair, lighter skin, etc. – its all just to relate to the white race as close as possible. It’s quite similar to the “unspoken” caste system in India, where the darker the skin, the more you are looked down on. If trying to blame it on one thing, blame it on society and the principles underlying it. It is simply the reaction of trying to fit in and conform to what is socially appealing. Just imagine if you lived in a different country with a majority race that was not white. Would you not adapt to their social and cultural customs to fit in and feel more comfortable? Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:34:28 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/18/where-do-the-messages-come-from-119-blog/#IDComment135970342 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-do-you-feel-about-the-way-people-live-in-america-compared-to-other-places-around-the-world-119-blog/#IDComment129036698 After spending a few years living overseas and visiting many third world countries like Haiti, I can say that the biggest thing that bothered me the most about the American lifestyle was everyone’s ignorance. Americans are brought up with a sociological perspective that they are the best, and therefore have the right to think and talk trash on anyone else. Similarly, Americans live in very secluded lives. Most grow up, live, and work in the very same town they were born in. For some, the biggest thing they do is move out of state to live closer to their workplace. Americans are cut off from the world and choose to stay cut off. They don’t want the problems of other countries and other people to become their problems. Media helps to focus on the status quo of society in America and while there is world news, it is nowhere near the same as the quantity and value of importance placed on local or national news. Hell, sports are more important to most Americans than the daily living conditions of people across the world. Americans are consumers, it what fuels our economy. We are so focused on material wealth that we expect the best that our money can afford at the lowest of costs. We don’t understand that our expenditures are coming at the cost of labor of millions of people who don’t get paid enough to eat a meal a day. So one must ask themselves, is it right to get involved in these other countries problems? This should be met with an answer somewhere in the middle of yes and no, as Sam has tried to show us. It can be said that these peoples’ problems really aren’t our problems, and if we just want to live a content life helping ourselves be more better off, than we shouldn’t involve ourselves. But in reality, it is our problem, in part due to how we live off of their sacrifices and also in part due colonialism, where our ancestors went around conquering half of the world. Many third world places like Haiti, draw its roots of inequality and living conditions from early colonialism and how its after-effects crippled these places. Haiti in particular started with being conquered by both the French and Spanish. The two cultivated Haitian lands and used Haitian labor to do so. Haiti suffered civil war and genocide, and after it gained its independence, ruled with terror. A country like Haiti has been wrecked with war and slavery instituted by white supremacy, that its no wonder why they still suffer today. In essence, Americans don’t deserve their lifestyles because they live off of other peoples’ expense and don’t do anything to reprimand for it. America is supposed to be known as the land of freedom and equality, but should this end at the borders of America? Sat, 19 Feb 2011 04:26:42 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-do-you-feel-about-the-way-people-live-in-america-compared-to-other-places-around-the-world-119-blog/#IDComment129036698 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/10/what-did-you-get-out-of-king-of-the-mountain-119-blog/#IDComment127474884 King of the mountain is a form of autocracy. This example of course makes sense as you can look at previous leaders in history and how they’ve managed to attain power by simply having initiative or power. An autocrat depended on some kind of power structure to rule, such as their nobles, the military, the priesthood, or other elite groups. In this case, the autocrat was Sam, and his power was our benefit of the doubt – that is to say, our sincere belief and subjection to him because he is our professor, so we believe in what he has to say. Of course being a teacher and having influence over his students already puts Sam in a position of power, but just because of that is it really alright for someone like Sam to just assume control because its in his best interest? When such a situation occurs, I tend to believe more in free will than determinism. One person shouldn’t be making the decisions of a whole, and its up to the whole to decide how to deal with such a problem. Of course, something like that the United States has instituted is effective, even with a king of the mountain. A representational democracy has the president on the top of the mountain, but everyone else, mainly the democracy, supports the mountain itself. The can remove the king as easily as they can put up a new one. I simply felt uncomfortable with one person at the top commanding what is to be done and everyone easily obeying. When Sam did his example, it made me feel uneasy because he didn’t actually have any power or justification behind being king of the mountain. He was king of the mountain simply because he was, and no one opposed him. Perhaps it was his attitude in being so carefree about being king, but all other six people down there obeyed what he told them to do, without even showing discontent. Of course when applying this to history, it can be seen with inequalities, and where it these inequalities were originally instituted. Its been under the harsh command of white European males, who not only conquered, destroyed, and drove out America’s native peoples, they brought in a whole other group of people who they played king of the mountain on, - the labor force (both in terms of Africans and more recently, Latinos). It wasn’t that white people were lazy; they simply needed a larger workforce in the plantations to keep up with the industrial age in the cities where most hard working white people worked. And so, in order to keep this labor force constantly working, and with no pay, they instituted their power through force and brutality, showing slaves where they belonged on the mountain – at the very bottom. Clearly they were not content, and rebelled, escape, and pushed for rights throughout history. Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:44:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/10/what-did-you-get-out-of-king-of-the-mountain-119-blog/#IDComment127474884 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/01/if-you-could-how-would-you-rename-and-re-classify-people-119-blog/#IDComment126019525 How about the oppressed and the oppressors? When you look at the basics, its not so much racism that exists, but inequality. This inequality is in fact what racism stemmed from. Think about it, when we were told in our second class what the origin of race was, we were given definitions. Definitions that were defined from people who viewed themselves as superior and civilized, putting a biased and unequal definition to race. From this, lesser races were looked down upon and given derogative names, giving a “sense” of racism. In reality, this is just the superior race looking down upon and oppressing what they believe is a lesser race, and in retaliation the said lesser race then creates their own derogative terms to identify their oppressors. This cycle has existed in society ever since slavery, which has existed almost as long as the human race has existed. The idea of slavery is an oppressor exerting power over their subject – the oppressed. Clearly this is a big issue in the United States, although it does not just solely exist there. In the U.S., racism seems to really stand out between the white, black, and Latino populations. Have you ever wondered why? Because of the historic and current relationships between these populations. African were first brought into North America as slaves, being oppressed by the white settlers. The white people physically and mentally oppressed them, to show who was in control and the consequences of not obeying. Traces of this still exist today in terms of inequality and racism. There is still a large segregation between these two people and it can be seen with location, salary, education, and occupations. Similarly, Latino populations are looked down upon and oppressed by white people because they do our manual labor and get paid very little. It is the white institution oppressing these people to show a sense of dominance over them. It’s not coincidental that black and Latino populations have a significant difference in income and owning of houses. This is isn’t racism, but oppression against these people. And like I previously said, this doesn’t just exist in America, but all over the world. Lets look at India for example. Within their large, dense population, oppression and inequality exists within their very own country, hell within their very own race! It’s no coincidence it holds the world’s largest gap between poverty and wealth. This gap is largely due to ancient India’s cast system, which most of India denies still exists. This system is built of superiors at the top oppressing those at the bottom. And thought it is not determined by race, it is highly determined by skin color, or skin tone in this case. The darker the skin, the more likely they are at the bottom of the system. All this inequality is a direct result of oppression of the wealthy against the poor. Fri, 4 Feb 2011 23:36:24 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/01/if-you-could-how-would-you-rename-and-re-classify-people-119-blog/#IDComment126019525 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/why-do-we-need-to-be-politically-correct-119-blog/#IDComment124471386 Well, I would say it is not right to be politically correct, however, it is correct to be, well, politically correct. I say this is because ultimately our goal as humans, a society, and in this class is to eliminate not only political correctness but racism as a whole. This is why we are learning about races, and their backgrounds, and why we have a professor such as Sam who is quite open about race as he tries to expand our minds of why we should not be racist (among everything else he teaches us) and how truly unimportant being racist is in life; after all, we are all going to die someday anyways, right? That is why it is sad to still see stereotypes, name calling, and hatred towards other races today. Most of everything we know about races today comes from our history and what our ancestors started calling and viewing other races like. This has essentially incorporated into our culture, like a stain. But like stains, they can come out after many washes and some elbow grease. That is where political correctness arises. It’s an attempt to try and change our attitudes towards other races. While it does not quite promise equality, it is a step forward in trying to come to an agreement, to try and show our respect towards other races by showing we are willing to submit to a preferable distinction for people that are essentially just different from other people. And that is why being politically correct is the correct thing to be. Being politically correct is simply being respectful and safe. I mean, would you approach someone, a group, or a populated area of a different race and talk to them without political correctness? Probably not, simply because it makes you look bad and upsets everyone else. As long as you are using the correct political correct terminology, it avoids conflict and uneasiness. Of course, as it was discussed in class, this political correctness is a gray area, where one term may be comfortable and acceptable for one person, it may not be for another. Ultimately, what I believe the goal with political correctness is to simply not address other races the politically correct way. That is to say, I also do not believe other races should be addressed negatively, or whatever term would happen to come to mind. The point is to lose all distinction with race classification all together. Why separate or think of other people as different? Why not simply call them people, or think of them based on their cultures and sub-cultures. Or simply ask what it is they want to be classified as if they want to keep a distinction. Sat, 29 Jan 2011 04:14:11 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/why-do-we-need-to-be-politically-correct-119-blog/#IDComment124471386 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/21/body-image-issues-119-blog/#IDComment122915936 [part 1]No! My answer and personal belief to this is that my opinion of looks is not going to change just because I inherited my ancestors' traits of survival. Way back then, such traits were important and desirable BECAUSE it helped lead to survival, which led to better chances of breeding and passing on such a desirable trait as the theory goes. But that was back then, not now. Sorry if I sound a bit opinionated or pompous, but from where I'm standing, none of us are struggling to physically survive anymore, from birth up to adulthood. Sure there are diseases, but most of those are hereditary themselves. As to why this is, I don't blame society or commercialism, but technology instead. As human beings, we already have a high adaptability rate, and if there's something we can't adapt to, we simply change it - a luxury our ancestors didn't have. If we tend to overheat in hot climates, we now just simply cool ourselves off with accessible water, air conditioning, going indoors, or in the most extreme cases, relocating ourselves. Sat, 22 Jan 2011 04:22:52 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/21/body-image-issues-119-blog/#IDComment122915936 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/21/body-image-issues-119-blog/#IDComment122908018 No! My answer and personal belief to this is that my opinion of looks is not going to change just because I inherited my ancestors' traits of survival. Way back then, such traits were important and desirable BECAUSE it helped lead to survival, which led to better chances of breeding and passing on such a desirable trait as the theory goes. But that was back then, not now. Sorry if I sound a bit opinionated or pompous, but from where I'm standing, none of us are struggling to physically survive anymore, from birth up to adulthood. Sure there are diseases, but most of those are hereditary themselves. As to why this is, I don't blame society or commercialism, but technology instead. As human beings, we already have a high adaptability rate, and if there's something we can't adapt to, we simply change it - a luxury our ancestors didn't have. If we tend to overheat in hot climates, we now just simply cool ourselves off with accessible water, air conditioning, going indoors, or in the most extreme cases, relocating ourselves. Relocating was an idea that even our ancestors thought of, that's why they spread from where they originated, only they didn't have sport cars, or commercial airlines, or boats. This meant it was a long and arduous journey, one that they're bodies acclimated to over time, giving them and us the bodily traits we now exhibit. So now in today's present age with little to no outside forces exerting on our bodies to change, we no longer have the pressure or threat of having to change. This has opened a freedom for us humans, which is to express our tastes and alter our looks into something we desire, simply because we now can. Sure its perfectly normal the way we are and look, but that doesn't mean we have to live with it. We have the technology to change our appearance, and if one has the will to change, why stop them? Wasn’t it this class that Sam mentioned some people look or act or dress the way they do because as humans we want to be different? That we want to express our originality? Even if our sense of originality is fitting in with the status quo of accepted looks in society, that’s our choice we make as individuals. It’s not wrong to want to look different from what we already look like, since that’s what society does – make everything as uniform as possible. Think of mid-19th century suburbs in the U.S. Everyone had identical houses, with identical yards and fences. The occupants even dressed and behaved similar to each other. For America especially, the status quo is a part of culture, and simply shapes they way we think and behave. In conclusion, you’re perfectly normal the way you are, but wanting to look different is perfectly normal too, its just important that you understand where your looks come from and why. Sat, 22 Jan 2011 03:21:28 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/21/body-image-issues-119-blog/#IDComment122908018 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/21/body-image-issues-119-blog/#IDComment122889138 No! My answer and personal belief to this is that my opinion of looks is not going to change just because I inherited my ancestors' traits of survival. Way back then, such traits were important and desirable BECAUSE it helped lead to survival, which led to better chances of breeding and passing on such a desirable trait as the theory goes. But that was back then, not now. Sorry if I sound a bit opinionated or pompous, but from where I'm standing, none of us are struggling to physically survive anymore, from birth up to adulthood. Sure there are diseases, but most of those are hereditary themselves. As to why this is, I don't blame society or commercialism, but technology instead. As human beings, we already have a high adaptability rate, and if there's something we can't adapt to, we simply change it - a luxury our ancestors didn't have. If we tend to overheat in hot climates, we now just simply cool ourselves off with accessible water, air conditioning, going indoors, or in the most extreme cases, relocating ourselves. Relocating was an idea that even our ancestors thought of, that's why they spread from where they originated, only they didn't have sport cars, or commercial airlines, or boats. This meant it was a long and arduous journey, one that they're bodies acclimated to over time, giving them and us the bodily traits we now exhibit. So now in today's present age with little to no outside forces exerting on our bodies to change, we no longer have the pressure or threat of having to change. This has opened a freedom for us humans, which is to express our tastes and alter our looks into something we desire, simply because we now can. Sure its perfectly normal the way we are and look, but that doesn't mean we have to live with it. We have the technology to change our appearance, and if one has the will to change, why stop them? Wasn’t it this class that Sam mentioned some people look or act or dress the way they do because as humans we want to be different? That we want to express our originality? Even if our sense of originality is fitting in with the status quo of accepted looks in society, that’s our choice we make as individuals. It’s not wrong to want to look different from what we already look like, since that’s what society does – make everything as uniform as possible. Think of mid-19th century suburbs in the U.S. Everyone had identical houses, with identical yards and fences. The occupants even dressed and behaved similar to each other. For America especially, the status quo is a part of culture, and simply shapes they way we think and behave. In conclusion, you’re perfectly normal the way you are, but wanting to look different is perfectly normal too, its just important that you understand where your looks come from and why. Sat, 22 Jan 2011 01:05:12 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/21/body-image-issues-119-blog/#IDComment122889138 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/21/body-image-issues-119-blog/#IDComment122883094 No! My answer and personal belief to this is that my opinion of looks are not going to change just because I inherited my ancestors' traits of survival. Way back then, such traits were important and desirable BECAUSE it helped lead to survival, which led to better chances of breeding and passing on such a desirable trait as the theory goes. But that was back then, not now. Sorry if I sound a bit opinionated or pompous, but from where I'm standing, none of us are struggling to physically survive anymore, from birth up to adulthood. Sure there are diseases, but most of those are hereditary themselves. As to why this is, I don't blame society or commercialism, but technology instead. As human beings, we already have a high adaptability rate, and if there's something we can't adapt to, we simply change it - a luxury our ancestors didn't have. If we tend to overheat in hot climates, we now just simply cool ourselves off with accessible water, air conditioning, going indoors, or in the most extreme cases, relocating ourselves. Relocating was an idea that even our ancestors thought of, that's why they spread from where they originated, only they didn't have sport cars, or commercial airlines, or boats. This meant it was a long and arduous journey, one that they're bodies acclimated to over time, giving them and us the bodily traits we now exhibit. So now in today's present age with little to no outside forces exerting on our bodies to change, we no longer have the pressure or threat of having to change. This has opened a freedom for us humans, which is to express our tastes and alter our looks into something we desire, simply because we now can. Sure its perfectly normal the way we are and look, but that doesn't mean we have to live with it. We have the technology to change our appearance, and if one has the will to change, why stop them? Sat, 22 Jan 2011 00:25:58 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/21/body-image-issues-119-blog/#IDComment122883094 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cb%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment121142418 Soc 119 Thu, 13 Jan 2011 20:58:33 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cb%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment121142418