en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2437944 Comments by bkon01 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144296669 There are people who are hateful out there, but it is important to keep a perspective. First of all Islam itself is not a hateful religion, and many people who watch this video could get the impression that the religion itself is the problem. I am not a scholar on the religion but I believe the emphasis is on the greatness of God, not war. True, Islam has been involved in many "holy wars" and even at one point conquered an area larger than the Roman Empire, from Spain in the west to the Indus valley in the east. But Christianity, the predominant religion of the west, also has a history of "holy wars" and prosecution of the nonbeliever. It like many other religions, that primarily teach good deeds and moral behavior, however can be twisted to support hateful acts. I believe that the main cause of the hatred is the ignorance and poverty that exists among the lower class of many Muslim countries. As Americans, although sometimes we cannot help but feel fear and anger, it is important not to fall into the same ignorance and hate as our enemies. An American hero and legend said it best, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that" Martin Luther King Jr. It is very easy to hate, however it is not right. It easy to make broad generalizations about a huge group of people. For example, in Israel its easy to say that all Muslims(and some Muslims do) want to exterminate that Jews. However, for a Jew living in Israel it is probably nearly impossible to empathize with the people who have been displaced living in poverty with little power. In the area most people have probably lost someone in the conflict. The enemy as Chris Hedges describes in "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" is dehumanized. This dehumanization of a group makes empathy nearly impossible. No doubt groups are also polarized by all the people around them that feel the same way. The most inspiring people in my opinion are those who are able to rise above hate and have empathy for those who oppress them, these to name a few historical figures would include Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and as I already mentioned Martin Luther King Jr. If a group of people feels they have been wronged or are being oppressed they should find a solution they should try to emulate great men like these. They should work towards a solution that does not require them strapping bombs to themselves. Violence will only lead to more misery for all parties involved. Tue, 19 Apr 2011 20:03:18 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment144296669 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/the-cost-of-empire-soc-001-blog/#IDComment142308358 "The Cost of an Empire" is quite any interesting idea. This video reminds me of some of the topics we talked about in class yesterday. Specifically how the United States spends nearly as much on military as every other country combined. Logically I think it is safe to say that America has the most powerful professional military in terms of influence and force. In class America was compared to the biggest bully in the school yard. Also, the United States, certainly evident in the title of this clip, is referred to by many as an empire. Personally when I think of empire I think of ancient Rome which ruled most of Europe, North Africa, and the Near East. Rome in its height like the United States had a massive and powerful military. It would not surprise me if Rome spent proportional more on its military than the United States. I have heard many people cite the fact that all empires fall, including Ron Paul in this video. This is true, but empires like Rome lasted many centuries, much longer than the the United States has had "empire" status. Logically no empire lasts forever because nothing lasts forever. Society is in a constant state of evolution, adaptation, destruction, growth, and creation. However, my point is that just because empires of old have been replaced does not mean that contemporary "empires" will not last just as long as their predecessors or even longer. So by this logic the United States still has a while left, and who knows if we have even reached our peak. True, economic troubles may indicate a decline but who knows how the next few centuries will unfold. Part of me likes to think of myself as belonging to the most powerful "empire" on earth. Perhaps I am ignorantly playing into the nationalistic myth of America as the greatest nation on earth. Perhaps my belief of the United States superiority is not as different as I would like to think as the foreign nationalist that Chris Hedges describes in his book "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" who us myths about their own nations to fuel war. Tue, 12 Apr 2011 22:17:36 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/the-cost-of-empire-soc-001-blog/#IDComment142308358 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/women-and-war/#IDComment140278778 Very powerful message. I was really impressed by the various imagery she used to describe her experience. It perhaps gives the audience something close to a sense of what being in a situation like that would be like for the vast majority who have not experienced such things. She also threw out a lot of powerful statistics. One would think that most casualties of war would be men, given that most soldiers are men. However, according to this woman that is not the case. A significant amount of the casualties are women and children. Also many women are raped during wars. Perhaps if this was known people might think of war differently. Even though warmongering is looked down upon in the western world war is still looked at as a noble endeavor, such as "fighting the good fight." However, I am not sure if here statistics reflect western wars well or if they are more representative of more militia group wars like those in Africa. I find it hard to believe that professional soldiers would rape women, but i sit is possible. It did happen at the Rape of Nanking when atrocities where committed by the Imperial Japanese Army. It does seem that war changes people to act in ways they would not in peace. What I am saying may sound negative towards soldiers, this is not my intention, in fact I believe that no matter how liberal a society is a military is still required. Like I was saying though, war does turn normal people into killers. This is obvious, a soldier would be useless if he or she was reluctant to take an enemies life. However, sometimes soldiers do acts that are considered particularly heinous. This is often due to the "Just following orders." Soldiers are trained to follow orders with out question. It is part of the socialization of boot camp. Lower tier soldiers are not supposed to think because that would get in the way of action. On the other hand perhaps a portion soldiers are to some extent numb by war and perhaps find some joy in sadism. Also, I do agree that since women are so affected by war, its not a bad idea to give them more negotiating power. Tue, 5 Apr 2011 22:53:32 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/women-and-war/#IDComment140278778 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment138971956 I think as time has progressed and countries become modernized, there old religion and traditions usually remain but are less important and central to government and daily than it once was. The main reason many ancient religions formed in the first place seems to be explain the natural world. How the world worked most likely baffled ancient people so they turned to the supernatural. As religion evolved it probably faced many other essential questions of existence and life. Some aspects of religion such as explaining natural phenomenon have been replaced by modern science rather than mysticism, however, perhaps one reason that religion prevails other than tradition and culture is the fact that there are questions that science has not been able to answer and probably will never be able to answer. I personally am not opposed religion and I do not wish to sound judgmental but it strikes me as very arcane. This is probably because most popular religions have very ancient roots. Even founded religions are usually heavily influenced by earlier religions. For example Christianity was a reinterpretation of ancient Israelite religion which also evolved into modern day Judaism, and Buddhism was a reinterpretation of Hinduism which has very ancient roots. Perhaps some people believe the ancients knew things that we do not. Perhaps another reason religion is in decline other then the rise of science, though it kind of goes along with science, is the rise of academics. When religion is looked at completely empirical from perhaps a sociological lens it seems a little far fetched. However, as Sam mentioned in the class on religion, to the believer faith is more important than logic. Historically there seems to have been conflict between religion and science. This is probably because the church saw science infringing on and contradicting theology. Science has prevailed because today it is the standard not theology, however, religion still has its place even in the modernized western world. Religion is declining. Perhaps it will go away entirely, but I personally think that would be unlikely. There will always be a sector of the population who wants to find answers, or wants something to hold onto, and there is nothing wrong with that. Religion does serve a purpose. Many people find inspiration in there religion to become better people. Religion also teaches morality and ethics, though sometimes religion is twisted to commit evil and some laws are seen as obsolete in modern society, most of the time these ethics and morality are for the good of society. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 00:20:16 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment138971956 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/b-s-response/#IDComment137582416 I really enjoyed reading this letter. Thanks for sharing it with us. I thought it was really cool how you brought up the amputees. A one legged veteran finishing an iron man is some epic stuff. Even though it seems that some bad things have happened to you in your life you still appreciate what you do have, and you do not seem very bitter or mean about it and I really respect that. I never had any communication with somebody in prison before so its cool to get your side of the story. All I know about prison is what I have seen in movies and TV shows. I admit I like everyone else am guilty about having preconceptions about lifers. I agree that one moment, one mistake should not define somebody as a person. There are some bad people in this world, some dangerous people, even so we should not group people into categories and judge people when we do not know all the circumstances. Even if someone does kill someone, yeah they have a debt to pay society and the public has a right to be protected, but there more to them than a single act. There are varying degrees of dangerous people, but maybe some of them where hanging out with the wrong people and in the wrong place at the time. Some people might be able to be rehabilitated and become better people. Its seems that religion often plays a rule in people changing their life for the better. Spirituality is very powerful thing. God is unconditional. Anyone can have a relationship with God. He is everywhere whether you in a prison cell or in a church or a synagogue or a mosque. No matter how worship is done all three of the big religions worship the same God of Abraham. Anyway that is kinda a tangent, I just think its strange how there is so much conflict over religion in this world between three religions that are all an extended family if you think about it. All three evolved from a single ancient religion. I enjoy studying religion from a sociological perspective. Is religion big in prison or are religious individuals like you a minority? Fri, 25 Mar 2011 22:20:19 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/b-s-response/#IDComment137582416 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135440646 I have no problem with two women raising a child. Especially since even lesbian women can have children when certain procedures are taken. There is value to having a father figure, but in my opinion have to mothers is better than having only one mother, and many Americans are raised by a single mother and turn out fine. Being a single mother without a father-figure counterpart is perfectly legal and in this day and age socially acceptable so why should having to mothers not be aloud. In class on Monday we talked about everything a family provides a child. Everything that a traditional family provides a lesbian family would provide as well. Two mothers would be able to provide they children with lots of love and support. I believe that not having a man there would cause the child to be socialized differently, however, it would be ignorant for me to make a value judgment and say that one is "best" or "better than the other." I am not even familiar with the statistics. I do know however that certain situation can predispose and individual to certain problems or poor life choices. For example many criminals come from broken homes. Perhaps there are similar statistics for Lesbian families, but i doubt it. Lesbians do not seem to be particularly violent to me, but again I have not seen the data so I cannot say for sure. Men do commit the majority of crimes, but some lesbians are masculine, so I do not know how the data differs from heterosexual women. At any rate all that I feel safe to say is that and individual from a contemporary family such as these would be affected markedly. Again I do not mean that they will be affected "badly" or anything like that, again that would be a value judgment, and I am trying to be a subjective sociologist, but certainly different. I believe that many children from lesbian families will go on to be successful, contributing members to society, however, they will have been socialized differently than other children. Perhaps personality will be different. Perhaps the children will tend to be more feminine or maybe even more masculine, I could not say for sure. Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:17:20 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135440646 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/28/the-lottery-as-a-blessing-or-a-curse/#IDComment131474111 One thing that seems to be evident is that many of the lottery winners do not know how to manage their new found wealth. Reading this reminds of a special I saw on T.V. on this very issue. It examined a number of the stories of lottery winners. Some of the people where able to pursue there dreams, taking on paths they never could of without the finances. However, many people where not smart where there money. They squandered there on the many luxury goods they believed would make them happy. They would spend the majority of their new money on homes, cars, and various luxury goods. Even a few millions dollars does not last very long when spent at that rate. During this spending spree the people do not work so have no additional income. Soon they have to pay taxes. They probably do not have much money left over by this point but have lots of expenses. Taxes on there mansions and fleet of new cars are needless to say very high. So it is no surprise that these people go into debt. By this point they are so deep in the hole they have little hope of getting out out of debt. By this point they will likely file for bankruptcy. Now for the sociological part. The vast majority of lottery tickets are bought by lower class, poor people. Sociologically these people will not know how to manage money. Since they are poor they have never needed to know how to manage large amounts of money. Probably if a upper middle class or upper class, wealthy individual won the lottery they would not run into the same problem. They would likely know how to manage money. They would likely increase their spending in the event of winning but they would also save a portion of the winnings. They would likely invest it so their wealth could grow even further. Of course wealthy people would probably not play the lottery in the first place because an educated person would realize how bad the odds are. The odds of winning are so low the lottery is a waste of money. Tue, 1 Mar 2011 03:15:13 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/28/the-lottery-as-a-blessing-or-a-curse/#IDComment131474111 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/15/social-structure-shapes-free-will/#IDComment128912800 Hearing about polyandry was quite bizarre. I am aware of polygamy, which plays an important role in human history. The most successful and desirable men who had wealth would be able to have multiple wives. Although some men might have favorable attitudes towards polygamy due to the fact they envision themselves with multiple women in a polygamous society this probably is not the case. In polygamous societies the typical man will either not have a wife or have a wife who is less desirable than he would in monogamous society. So contrary to popular believe the typical man is hurt by polygamy and the typical woman is actually helped because she gets to marry someone much more wealthy and desirable than she would have before. On the other hand the most desirable women are hurt because they have to share their husbands which they would have had exclusive access to had they been monogamous, and of course the most desirable men benefits the most of all because they get to have many women and children. I am happy i live in a monogamous society even though I believe myself to be desirable. The more single women the better. Shifting back to polyandry, I wonder the same pro slash cons for polygamy exists except for in this case the opposites are true. Probably not because I have a feeling that although desirable women are willing to share husbands desirable men are not willing to share women. I think it is more likely the undesirable males who are forced to share a wife, so the dynamic would not be quite like polygamy. I know personally I would be way to jealous to share a wife no matter how desirable she was. Polyandry when one looks at the big picture probably helps most males though because even if they have to share I guess that is better than being alone. Also it would mean that there would be much more eligible marriage partners for men. Whenever I was watching this clip I began to think about polyandry and polygamy. An interesting thought came to mind, what if instead of one man marrying multiple women or one woman marrying multiple men, a group of women and a group of men married. They would all randomly have sex together and all have children with each other. I don't know if that system would work well or not but I just it would be cool for a group of friends to all get married and do that. That way people do not have to be monogamous, which is a system that often does not work (the divorce rate is high and spouses often cheat) yet no one is hurt by the switch. Fri, 18 Feb 2011 21:25:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/15/social-structure-shapes-free-will/#IDComment128912800 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127180969 The ideas presented in the video seem to be very innovative. The narrator is very progressively minded. This adds an entirely new layer of what it means to be human. It is my belief that people will exploit others to improve their own situation and the situation of those they care for or feel connected to. The narrator uses a lot of good examples of these connected groups from tribes to religious groups to nations. Throughout history certain groups have been united through hatred for another group. The only way to alleviate this however would be to follow the narrators advice and see the human race as all within one's group. I do not know if this will every happen but it is certainly a worthy goal and a just proposition. Chances are however that the human race will manage to eradicate themselves before this is realized. Racism, prejudices, and other issues stem from the "us versus them attitude." In this video the narrator explains how explains how early humans saw their own tribes, many of which where through marriage and blood directly related to the individual as "us," and all other tribes as "them." This lead to conflict among groups, and there was little love for the alien. This of course lead to xenophobia. However, the concept of race as it is in the modern day was not around in ancient times. Prejudices where extended due to class or caste rather than skin color. For example ancient Greece and Rome had slaves, however there slaves where not a specific race. They got slaves from all the lands they conquered which included northern Africa but where also other Europeans from Germany, France, Spain, and many others. Even low class Romans such as debtors and criminals where subject slavery. Anyway, one way to reduce racism and increase empathy would be to start seeing "them" as "us." One way to do this in terms of race would be to intermarry. If one is related to a person of a different group or is biracial they probably consider both groups as one of "us." As mentioned in the video blood ties are the earliest form of group formation and the first way that early humans extended empathy. If this intermarry was done at a large enough scale I believe lines would start to be blurred and racism as it is seen today would be all but eradicated. Addressing the question how will I change my behavior assuming I believe what the man is saying is a little difficult. For one thing extending his theories to all creatures rather than just humanity is a stretch for me. All people are much more alike than they are different. I could go as far as to accept the human race as part of my extended family if this love was reciprocated. The fact the I eat meat for one thing is in contradiction with extending love and empathy for all animals. Thu, 10 Feb 2011 20:15:34 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127180969 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125999505 First of all the video was quite comical. I cannot say for sure what I would do in that situation, oblivious to the fact that I was under such scrutiny. First of all if I was in the elevator with only one other person and they behaved strangely it would probably just make me feel uncomfortable. It is safe to say that if it were just this one other individual I would not change my behavior to be more in line with their antics. Whats more is I would probably think this individual to be eccentric or odd. If another person did the same action it would increase my chance, though I do not like to admit that I would conform so easily. Once about three or four people where all facing the same way it is very likely I would conform and turn not wanting to be the odd one out. Instead of my original thought which would probably be something like, "why is that weirdo facing the back of the elevator?" I would probably think something along the lines of, "All these people are facing the back except for me. They can't all be sociopaths, they must know something I don't." So I might even think that I was the one behaving oddly even though they are breaking what was the norm up until that point. Conformity is strongly related to Group think that we learned about in class today. For example if the famous study when a group of people are asked about the length of lines, one being a naive subject, the rest being confederates. If there was only one confederate the effect would probably be quite weak. The subject would probably just think something along the lines, "that guys an idiot" or "he really should get his eyes check." However, the more people who say the same wrong answer would probably make the subject start to second guess themselves. Now the would probably start thinking, "all these people can't be wrong, I must being seeing it the wrong way somehow, " or even, "If I say a different answer than everyone else I'll look like an idiot, even though I don't think its that line at least I wouldn't get ridiculed because everyone else thinks that." Fri, 4 Feb 2011 21:55:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125999505 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment124270015 The question was posed are these young people free? Nobody is forcing them to have unprotected sex. However, at the same time it is evident that this particular population has a very high propensity to do so. Pregnancy is certainly not random. There are hundreds of factors and variables that lead to teen pregnancy. Of course there are other factors at work. In class these factors would probably be referred to as the "invisible strings". For some background information I decide to do some quick independent research on the risk factors of teen pregnancy. Most of the risk factors I found where heavily related to sociology. For one thing, as would be expected, the family one comes from influences the teen. The children of teen parents and single parents are more likely to become teen parents themselves. Also, other statistics about the community and culture are correlated with teen pregnancy. The community looked pretty run down. It was probably low income, had a high drop out rate, and possibly even a high violent crime rate. These are all correlated with teen pregnancy so it is likely we would see these to be true for that community. These are but a few examples of factors of the sociological nature. Regarding the questions are these people free I can look at it two ways. If I were to say "No" I would argue that decisions are made based on a combination of experience and the individuals their personal biology. A person is born with a certain biology which is not exactly the same as any other person alive or dead or who will be born (except in the case of identical twins but even in this case there could be slight variations). A person also has unique experiences throughout there life that no other persons has. These to factors combined are what makes the individual who they are. A person has little choice in this. On the other hand if I were to say "yes" I would take a more altruistic approach. That is to say there is always a choice. It is hard to resist the pressures of society, however, it is my belief that those with a strong character to are able to do so. Fri, 28 Jan 2011 05:51:37 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment124270015 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/18/suicide-in-japan/#IDComment122640611 It does not surprise me that suicide is prevalent in Japan. I remember learning about World War Two my junior year of high school. Even after it was clear that Japan could not win the war they continued to fight on. They would rather die than admit defeat. Failure was not an option. The infamous Kamikaze bombers would suicide themselves by flying small aircraft filled with explosives directly into American ships. Suicide is nothing new to the Japanese people. The Japanese where known to have trained children to roll under tanks and suicide bomb themselves, in preparation for an imminent American invasion that never occurred, due to the Japanese finally being forced into submission after the devastating power of the Hiroshima bomb. Suicide is nothing new to the Japanese people and their culture. The ancient warrior code, Bushido, is a code of conduct which the samurai adhered too. It is deeply rooted in the Japanese culture and partially responsible for their refusal to surrender as well as their alarming suicide rates. Adhering to this code if a samurai acted dishonorable or failed he was expected to perform seppuku, also called harikari, which is a form of suicide by disembowelment. The samuri would likely use a sword to cut there stomach or belly open and spill there guts on the floor. This was believed to be a way to redeem oneself for shame. This particular form of suicide is uncommon even in Japan in modern times, the last time I know about it happening was 1970. A famous writer in some form of protest stabbed himself and had a follower try to ritually decapitate him. His friend was to weak and a third party had to finish the job. The follower than tried to cut his own stomach but the wounds where to shallow, he gave the signal and was also beheaded by the third party. Though most of the Japanese today who kill themselves are not samurai it is the same culture and society as a whole. There are similar values preeminent throughout the society. Given Bushido code and the tradition of seppuku a japanese could easily see suicide as the most honorable alternative. I believe the above to be contextual evidence for the type of culture Japan has. It is a culture that an ignorant western might call "crazy" or "insane." However, it is not my place to pass judgments, but I do believe their values and tendency to be very much different from my own. For one thing Japan seems to be the type of society that holds the individual responsible. This is to say that while an westerner might blame circumstance for his or her misfortunes regardless of true cause, a Japanese might blame himself or herself for misfortunes regardless of true cause, like in the example of this video, economic downturn. Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:38:43 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/18/suicide-in-japan/#IDComment122640611 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cc%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment122186291 SOC 001 Wed, 19 Jan 2011 02:18:26 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/10/last-name-%e2%80%9cc%e2%80%9d-%e2%80%93-intense-debate/#IDComment122186291