en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2390376 Comments by ams9229 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144631816 that’s why he acted that way. So I feel like I can partially (on a much smaller level) relate to the average Muslim person a little easier. I can understand that when people hear news about an Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:57:20 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144631816 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144631789 This video is definitely alarming and quite scary. Yet, calling this video scary, and connecting this video to all Muslims are completely different things. Of course people in the US don’t want to see their country being attacked. But this video is using specific situations to make a (false) statement about an entire religion and ethnicity group. The creators of this video are using fear tactics to create animosity towards Muslims in general. They’re not separating the average Muslim from the extremist. But when I see quotes like “Jihad’s goal is death to America”, there is definitely some one-sided thinking here. I don’t know a lot about Islam, but I know enough to realize that America’s death is not the goal of jihad. And even with my limited knowledge, it frustrates me to see people make false claims to the general public, knowing that someone will accept this as true. It was interesting to read the comments made by Muslim students. Growing up Jewish, whenever a well-known Jewish person would do something bad (Bernie Madoff for example), it always made me extra uncomfortable because I knew that people would be thinking that he’s a Jew and that’s why he acted that way. So I feel like I can partially (on a much smaller level) relate to the average Muslim person a little easier. I can understand that when people hear news about an extremist Islamic group, most Muslims probably cringe because they know what will come from it. People stereotype so easily that even if the act is done by an extremist organization, the average person will still feel the repercussions. I also thought it was interesting how Muslim students find this scary, too. And it makes sense. We are all in the same boat because the average Muslim isn’t any closer to being a terrorist than the average Jew, Christian, or Buddhist. Just because the extreme Islamic groups are technically of the same religion as an average Muslim, this doesn’t connect Muslims with their extreme actions. I don’t see myself as being any closer to a Jewish extremist group than a Christian to the same Jewish extremist group. However, people have difficulty distinguishing extreme from normal, so they stereotype everyone into one category. Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:57:15 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144631789 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144630497 This video is definitely alarming and quite scary. Yet, calling this video scary, and connecting this video to all Muslims are completely different things. Of course people in the US don’t want to see their country being attacked. But this video is using specific situations to make a (false) statement about an entire religion and ethnicity group. The creators of this video are using fear tactics to create animosity towards Muslims in general. They’re not separating the average Muslim from the extremist. But when I see quotes like “Jihad’s goal is death to America”, there is definitely some one-sided thinking here. I don’t know a lot about Islam, but I know enough to realize that America’s death is not the goal of jihad. And even with my limited knowledge, it frustrates me to see people make false claims to the general public, knowing that someone will accept this as true. It was interesting to read the comments made by Muslim students. Growing up Jewish, whenever a well-known Jewish person would do something bad (Bernie Madoff for example), it always made me extra uncomfortable because I knew that people would be thinking that he’s a Jew and that’s why he acted that way. So I feel like I can partially (on a much smaller level) put myself in the shoes of the average Muslim person a little easier because of my connection to Judaism. I can understand that when people hear news about an extremist Islamic group, most Muslims probably cringe because they know what will come from it. People stereotype so easily that even if the act is done by an extremist organization, the average person will still feel the repercussions. I also thought it was interesting how Muslim students find this scary, too. And it makes sense. We are all in the same boat because the average Muslim isn’t any closer to being a terrorist than the average Jew, Christian, or Buddhist. Just because the extreme Islamic groups are technically of the same religion as an average Muslim, this doesn’t connect Muslims with their extreme actions. I don’t see myself as being any closer to a Jewish extremist group than a Christian to the same Jewish extremist group. However, people have difficulty distinguishing extreme from normal, so they stereotype everyone into one category. Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:51:04 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144630497 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment142623193 So much of our lives are affected by our gender (where we live (if we’re in a dorm on campus), where we go to the bathroom, what types of jobs we can hold, and generally how we’re treated). I think the main reason why this question is causing such a problem is because the topic of transgenders (or any talk relating to people who don’t feel that they are actually the gender they were born into) is never brought up. This is an extremely taboo subject in the US (and probably other countries as well, though I don’t know for sure). No one wants to admit that there is a gray area in gender because it would have a lot of implications. The military is one major area that would need to reconsider its recruitment. The question of “who is a man?” would need to be looked at closely and an actual decision would have to be made. And it’s not a clear decision. I understand that the job Devoureau held would preferably be done by a man. It would be like having a man measure women for bras at Victoria’s Secret. It just wouldn’t make the customers there feel comfortable. However, it seems like the company fired him because it was easier. It’s much easier to fire a transgender person than to really consider the question if he’s male or not. Although he didn’t disclose the types of surgery he got, he is considered a male by the state, so I don’t know how much more “male” he can become (at least legally). I believe that the company was being discriminatory against transgenders because for all legal purposes, Devoureau is a male. It’s unfortunate that topics of sexuality and gender are so taboo. It’s publically known that there are people who don’t feel like they were born into the right gender, and that there are people who were born as hermaphrodites. But no one talks about it. I assume that everyone considers it easier to just ignore it until a problem occurs. This isn’t a good way to go about it though; people’s lives are affected by these decisions such as “who is a man?” and “who is a woman?” We are completely ignoring a group of people – acting as if they don’t exist. This is no way to deal with the situation. Thu, 14 Apr 2011 00:04:20 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment142623193 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment140824474 While I don’t doubt that the amount of unaffiliated people has increased over the years, I find it hard to imagine (at least any time in the near future) that religion will become completely extinct. I’ve never been to another country, and I really don’t know that much about religion in different parts of the world, so my opinion is mostly based off of my experience with religion in the US. Nonetheless, just because the number of unaffiliated people is increasing does not mean that religion itself will become extinct. My main reason for believing this is because people are always going to want some answer as to how and why we are here and what happens after we die. As the world becomes more scientifically inclined, there is less of a desire to relate our existence here with any supernatural forces. However, I think the desire to have a purpose for being here is still prevalent in most people in society. Also, a person can be religious without being affiliated with a particular religious group. The feeling of being religious is becoming more and more of a spiritual connection, rather than a prescription to follow certain customs, rituals, and regulations. Personally, I consider myself to be Jewish, but I don’t consider myself religious. This could be different than other religions because Judaism is largely cultural, not just religious. But I feel like regardless of the religion, people don’t need to consider themselves religious to be part of that group. Similarly, people don’t need to consider themselves in any group to still consider themselves to have spiritual or religious tendencies. The article states that, “people will become so bored with what religious groups have to offer that they will look elsewhere”. I don’t agree with this statement. I don’t think it’s a matter of becoming bored with the religion, rather than it’s a lack of faith and belief. As we learned in sociology, religion is dependent upon faith. So, it isn’t unfathomable that in the far-off future, religion could become extinct (or at least much less prominent) in various countries, because faith seems to be declining. But, spiritual tendencies will likely outlast religion. Either way, I think we’re still a long way from religion becoming extinct. Thu, 7 Apr 2011 20:52:21 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment140824474 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment138916536 There is obviously inequality between different classes in our society. But, as we discussed in class, the extent of the inequality isn’t well known. I come from an upper-middle class household. My dad’s a doctor and we’ve never had serious financial trouble. But, ever since I can remember, my dad has always talked about how unequal the wealth is distributed; not that he should get more money, but that the super rich are getting more rich, and the poor are becoming poorer. Most people assume that doctors would be less likely to point this out, and less likely to be so upset at it. On the contrary, he has always talked to me about how the wealthy are continuously getting wealthier because the people in office are providing them with more help than they provide many underprivileged people. We discussed in class how those around us shape our opinions, which gives me no doubt that my opinion on inequality has been shaped by the views of my parents. So, when we talked in class about the distribution of wealth, it didn’t surprise me so much as it just angered me even more. When I really think about the wealth distribution in our country, and how the wealthy keep getting tax breaks and other benefits that allow their wealth to grow, it really does strike me as surprising that more people aren’t upset at this. Why aren’t people in the lower economic classes more infuriated? I think there could be multiple reasons for this. One is that they probably feel helpless. Most of them probably haven’t been given special privileges in the past, so it is likely that they feel that their frustration won’t help. Another reason is that not enough people know about this. This was proven in one of the charts that Dr. Richards showed us in class, comparing the actual distribution of wealth to what people think is the distribution. There is a major gap between reality and people’s beliefs. It’s awful that this isn’t more well known. Even if it was, though, from what we learned in class about activism, people may not even do anything about it. Hopefully, though, if the word can be spread more about this major inequality, something will eventually be done. Thu, 31 Mar 2011 19:54:43 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment138916536 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/18/m-s-story/#IDComment137096582 M. wrote, “maybe reading my story would inspire someone to work with kids and stop them from walking the path I chose in life.” However, we’ve been learning in sociology that the paths we take in life aren’t completely our choice. Yes, M. wasn’t fated to this path of life, and he could definitely have chosen another one. But, there are undoubtedly aspects of his life, the invisible strings, which made him more likely to choose his path of life. Nonetheless, maybe his writing will helps those whose invisible strings are pulling people’s lives in the wrong direction. Many people commented on M.’s crime, saying that they couldn’t understand how he could have failed to act during the murder. If I were in a situation where I saw/knew someone was murdered, I would like to think that I would do something. And, I think in most situations, I would. But he was 14 years old and probably felt helpless and terrified for his life. I’m not saying that this is a valid excuse, because he still could have acted. However, if we were in his exact same situation, it’s impossible to know what anyone would do. It’s similar to the bystander effect. While we would like to think that we would help a random person in need, it is likely that we wouldn’t (or that we would give an excuse as to why we couldn’t help that person). It’s really interesting to hear what M. has to say about his life, and about his time in prison. He seems to truly understand the enormity of his past actions, and the need for punishment. He also says he wants to be free. But either way, he seems to have accepted his place in prison. From my perspective, I find this to be a huge task. All of us, everyday, probably question if we are doing something meaningful with our lives. People want to know that they’ve made a difference with their lives in a positive way and that their existence has some sort of function and value. Being in a prison must be extremely psychologically challenging. I think it would be tremendously difficult to be in prison, and to still try to find a meaning out of your life. I’m not saying that people who are in prison don’t have a meaning to lives. What I’m saying is that it must be even more difficult to discover what that meaning is. However, M. seems to be succeeding in this aspect. While I’m sure it took a lot of time, and while he doesn’t want the focus to be on himself, it’s good that he turned his life into trying to help other inmates. Wed, 23 Mar 2011 21:40:00 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/18/m-s-story/#IDComment137096582 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135692687 People often speak of marriage as if it’s analogous with love. But these two words aren’t always related. While many people in our society today get married because they love each other and feel a strong attachment to each other, that is not always the case. For thousands of years, people married based off of necessity. Even now, marriage doesn’t prove love. While it would be nice for everyone to marry based off of love, marriage itself really only allows two people two connect their lives economically and legally. Even though it’s a legal contract, however, the divorce rate in the United States, where so many people claim marriage to be sacred, is quite high. Why, then, do so many people claim that homosexual marriage should be forbidden? There are many reasons to this (most stemming from a religious context) but none really make sense. And more importantly, all of the reasons are discriminatory. Zach Wahls doesn’t look any different from an “average” man. Just from seeing him and listening to him speak, no one would guess that he has two moms. He’s living proof that homosexual parents don’t have a negative impact on their children. Many people will argue, though, that having homosexual parents will cause the child to go through teasing and taunting while growing up. However, this will likely happen regardless. Almost all children are teased at some point. Providing that as a reason to not allow homosexual marriages is just making an excuse. In class, we talked about the role of the family. Families are supposed to provide assistance like emotional support and shelter. Homosexual parents can fulfill all of the key functions of a family. Two moms or two dads can protect and help their children just as much as a mom and a dad can. Zach Wahls testified that his family is really no different from a family with heterosexual parents. A topic like this – who a person is allowed to marry – shouldn’t even be an issue. But, unfortunately, it is. The only way to move past it is for people to stop focusing on nonsensical reasons to keep homosexual marriage illegal and to realize that it is no different from a heterosexual marriage. Thu, 17 Mar 2011 22:36:03 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135692687 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/28/the-lottery-as-a-blessing-or-a-curse/#IDComment132209226 This article reminds me of what we talked about in class - just because people’s lifestyle and financial system changes, the person doesn’t change. So, with the example in class, even though the group of people stole a large amount of money and bought an expensive home, they sold all of the expensive items in it because they didn’t understand the value of them. This was because they weren’t from the social class of the wealthy. Similarly with the article on here, many people don’t know what to do with their money. There seems to often be a lack of organization for those who win the lottery. What makes people happy is an interesting topic to think about. Most kids are probably told by their parents that “money doesn’t buy happiness”. Like the article said, money can increase people’s happiness, but only to a certain extent. Going form making $500,000 per year to $600,000 per year will likely not make a person, overall, happier. There are many sociological factors that determine our happiness, but it seems like money isn’t a large determinant. The one woman in the article, who had been working four jobs before she won the lottery, said that the people around her changed – that because of the money, her friends were becoming greedy, and her family wanted control. Even though she won the lottery and an outsider would think that this would make everything better, she still lives in the same social class, where those around her would likely want the money too (because they are having the same kind of financial problems that the woman had before the lottery). Another man who won the lottery worried that he wouldn’t be able to stay in the same hometown, probably because of the people in it (and their possible greed for the money). The idea that money makes people happy must be sociological. Money, by itself, is only paper. However, it allows people access to materials and experiences that will, or so they think, bring them happiness. But why do people always want more? And why do they always think that more material items will make them happier? It could be because of what we see in the media, with the rich seeming to live perfect lives, free of troubles. Even if their lives appear perfect, that doesn’t mean they actually are – and that doesn’t mean that they are happy. Thu, 3 Mar 2011 22:01:46 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/28/the-lottery-as-a-blessing-or-a-curse/#IDComment132209226 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130383966 It is not surprising that news reports like this one cause parents to fear for the safety of their children. If there is even a slight chance that a random person will attempt to kidnap a child, all parents will become worried that it could be their kid. And, statistically, it could. But, the chances of that are extremely rare. Like we discussed in class, someone has to win the lottery, but the odds of it being you are so rare that it’s a waste of money to play the lottery. Because of this reason, many people who know the statistics don’t bother putting money into the lottery. However, when the risk is your child’s safety, many parents take this more seriously. I can understand why parents are afraid of child abduction even though the odds are against their own child being abducted, though. When it comes to the safety of your child, you don’t want to take any chances. On the other hand, as we discussed in class, why isn’t anyone afraid of driving their child to a friend’s house five minutes away? A person is most likely going to get into an accident at a location closer to his or her house. However, people don’t worry about this like they worry about the random event of their child being abducted by a stranger. Also, while many people know the statistics of playing the lottery, I doubt that many know the statistics for stranger child abduction. With the 24/7 news casts that we have now, one random even (like a kidnapping) seems more common because every step of the abduction, search, and rescue are followed for hours. When we follow a news story in such detail, and hear about how it was completely random, we worry that this could have been our own child, brother, sister, or relative. Although the risk analyses show that this is extremely unlikely to happen, the consequences that would occur if it did happen outweigh (at least in people’s mind) the statistics. We discussed in class that people decide risk based off of what we think, not on the actual, numerical risk. So, when people think that something is likely to happen, that matters more than what the actual statistics tell us. That’s why people think that their child could be kidnapped when they see someone else’s child was. In the video, they interviewed a mother who told her child that he needs to hold her hand while walking down the street because there are people who may try to kidnap him. While this is technically true, the odds of it are so slim that it doesn’t make sense to change your behavior based off of these rare occurrences. However, if it is a family member that is the possible target, it’s not surprising that emotions surpass logical judgments. Thu, 24 Feb 2011 18:25:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment130383966 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/15/social-structure-shapes-free-will/#IDComment128631764 When I think of polygamy, the first thing that generally comes into my mind is that it is not right to marry multiple people. However, this is a very ethnocentric viewpoint that stems from the monogamous society in which I live. When I actually give polygamy some thought, however, I realize that it is just like any unfamiliar or foreign custom; at first it seems strange and illogical, but I soon realize that it makes sense and is, in fact, very logical. For example, in the essay in our sociology textbook about the Nacirema, for about the first half of it, I couldn’t stop thinking how strange and masochistic this tribal group sounded. However, I soon realized that “Nacirema” is “American” backwards and I understood the significance of the essay – we have customs and norms in our society that seem normal to us because they make sense and are customary. However, to people outside of our society, our rituals and actions may seem strange if there isn’t proper understanding of their significance and logic. Similarly, I tend not to understand why there is polygamy. Yet, after watching the video on polyandry in the Himalayans, it truly makes sense to practice polyandry in their society. It would be illogical for families to divide their already-scarce land just so they could practice monogamy. There are real benefits with polyandry in this society that would not be present if monogamy was practiced instead. The invisible strings that we discuss in class are also prevalent here as well. It shows that probably the main reason why I wouldn’t want to practice polyandry myself is that I live in a society where polygamy isn’t widely acceptable. I can’t control the society that I was born into, and I never even considered how it has shaped my thinking in regards to marriage and relationships. However, it definitely has had a large influence. Polyandry for people in the Himalayans is the norm, and therefore they don’t have invisible strings that make them more likely to favor having a single spouse. This example truly shows how much our lives are affected by things we have no control over. Just being born into a certain culture will likely change people’s opinions, beliefs, and morals greatly. Thu, 17 Feb 2011 19:20:02 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/15/social-structure-shapes-free-will/#IDComment128631764 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/16/reflections/#IDComment127208940 This letter is strongly connected to what we talked about in class in regards to personal troubles/public issues. He starts off thinking of whom to blame for where he is. When something goes wrong, we always want to find someone or something else to blame. The first part of this letter seems like he’s only thinking of very specific, personal issues; something happened in his life that let him to be an inmate. However, it soon turns into a look at public issues. He realizes that sexual promiscuity is not a trait of him alone – others are doing the same kind of things he did before he was incarcerated. He understands this and now tries to warn people of the dangers of that kind of behavior. While he realized that sexual promiscuity is a dangerous public issue, we learned in class that there are still a lot of factors that influenced him that are out of his control. Even though he had a loving, safe childhood, he was still living in a part of Philadelphia that undoubtedly had some sort of negative influence on him. Despite his friends that had successful lives, not everyone in his situation was successful. There are factors that are out of his control that made him more likely to engage in risky behavior. Even though he thinks that all of his actions were free, we have learned that they really weren’t. Having so much time to think must make a person really look deep inside himself. It must be a difficult process, too, because you can realize all of the small events that occurred that made you end up where you are now. However, there are a lot of public issues that he mentioned that, while he doubts that they had anything to do with his incarceration, are likely to do with other people’s incarceration. These were public issues such as an absent father, a rough neighborhood, and exposure to violence. While they’re not his personal troubles, they are many other people’s personal troubles; and that makes it a public issue. There are a lot of factors that go into someone’s behaviors. And, even though he thinks that those issues didn’t impact his life choices and eventually becoming an inmate, they very well could have. Thu, 10 Feb 2011 22:39:00 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/16/reflections/#IDComment127208940 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125791786 This video was shown in my psychology class when discussing obedience and conformity. No matter how many times I see it, I still think it’s funny. However, like Dr. Richards points out in his introduction to the video, that would most likely be any of us, including myself. I would like to think that I wouldn’t conform like that, but it’s hard to know for sure. One reason is that conformity sometimes is beneficial. If a person didn’t conform to a culture’s ways of behaving, it would be difficult for that person to get far in a job, relationship, or even everyday activities. It makes sense for people to conform in certain ways simply to survive and live cohesively with a society. However, conformity can also be dangerous. Conforming to others allows the possibility of losing individual thinking. Also, while conforming in small social ways isn’t harmful, other types of conformity could be. We talked a lot during Wednesday’s lecture about hazing to get entrance into sororities and fraternities. This could definitely be related to conformity. People do things during hazing that they would never do under normal circumstances. They conform to the task that is asked of them. However, while these tasks can be harmless and comical, they can also be dangerous. This is where conformity shows its bad side. If people conform and act in a certain way, even if it is dangerous to themselves or others, there is definitely some sociological reasoning behind it. There are undoubtedly invisible strings being pulled that make people more likely in certain situations to do things that would seem stupid or careless in any other situation. There are also strings being pulled that make people want to do these actions, even though they know it’s wrong. Conformity is also interesting, because most of us don’t even realize how much we conform everyday. From the clothes that we wear (which, as we learned in class, we really don’t choose without the influence of invisible factors) to the way we talk, we are conforming to certain social standards. The way we act in certain situations, the way we laugh at certain jokes (but not others), and even how we walk are all aspects of us that have conformed to our society. So, in many ways conforming is almost necessary to live in a society. However, it can also be dangerous and harmful if taken too far. Fri, 4 Feb 2011 00:04:25 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125791786 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment124239554 The term “freedom” is becoming less clear the more I learn about sociology. Before starting Soc 001, I would have said that these girls were definitely free and becoming pregnant was entirely their fault and a result of their irresponsibility. However, there are many more factors that I consider now. The invisible strings that we discussed in class are definitely in play here. The school is a public city school, and there are definitely a lot of people from the same socio-economic class, which makes them more likely to become pregnant. It could be that the students who got pregnant are from families where pregnancies at a young age are common. Or it could be that they didn’t believe they had much of a future with their education, and thought they would do better as a parent. Whatever the reason, there are many factors at play that led a surprising large amount of students to get pregnant. Another thing to consider is that if these students were really “free”, then there wouldn’t be a staggering 11% at a single high school that got pregnant. As we learned in class, if everyone was completely free, and were making decisions individually, the rate of pregnancy in high schools around the world would be pretty much equal. However, this is obviously not the case. Another thing to consider in this specific case is that a pregnancy pact could have happened as well. While not extremely common, it would make sense if some of the girls who got pregnant did it intentionally and as a group. If this were the case, they are still just as “unfree”. Whatever the reason for so many people getting pregnant at a high school, there has to be some underlying reasons. However, just because the people who got pregnant weren’t completely “free”, it doesn’t excuse their actions. There are definitely invisible strings, but these students who got pregnant weren’t destined to do that. They were more likely to get pregnant because of the invisible strings, but they didn’t need to. Therefore, they are still responsible for their actions, but from a sociological standpoint, it’s important not to ignore the fact that there are factors at work beyond the control of these students. Fri, 28 Jan 2011 02:43:31 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment124239554 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/15/what-does-it-mean-to-be-free/#IDComment122616770 When I think of freedom, I usually think of the most common examples that are associated with freedoms of a United States citizen, such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. However, this is an egocentric view of the broad term "freedom". In this letter, the man brings up the point that should be obvious: that we have freedoms all around us that we don't even realize as being "freedoms". As Dr. Richards said in class, we don't notice some of the most obvious things around us. I don't think of it as freedom if I decide to go to the bathroom, eat a meal, or play music. However, these certainly are freedoms, and it's unfortunate that I, and many other people, take them for granted. Sociology is the study of how people are free and not free. It's interesting in this letter how the man compares how he's not free with how he is free. While he isn't free to own a pet, he's free to make choices as to who he wants to be. While freedom of actions is important and valued, the freedom to think and make choices is just as critical, if not more so. It's pretty amazing to think that even if a person is in jail, where freedom seems completely gone, they are just as free in their mind. We are not in George Orwell's 1984, where the Thought Police make it almost impossible to allow people freedom of choice and thought. Even in jail, people can decide who they want to be and make choices that affect that. This man's letter shows the importance of not taking any kind of freedom for granted. He has been in jail 13 years - since he was 18 years old. I'm 18 now, so that alone is meaningful. Being able to walk where I want and eat what I want seem like obvious actions I can do - not freedoms that can be taken away. However, after reading the letter, it seems like the only truly "free" action is the freedom of thought that he brings up. He even says that he may be more free now than he ever has. I take this to mean that he understands how he can make free decisions about himself, and that's a freedom that can't be taken away. After reading this letter, I will definitely think of freedom from a much different perspective. Thu, 20 Jan 2011 23:58:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/15/what-does-it-mean-to-be-free/#IDComment122616770 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cs%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment120806948 Soc 001 Wed, 12 Jan 2011 01:51:35 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cs%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment120806948