en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2398527 Comments by dlo5057 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment145221982 I think that situations like this are simply repetitions of situations we have already been seeing for the past hundred years. First it was women's rights, then race equality, this is just the next step. When we as Americans say that every man (and woman) is created equal, we need to then learn what we mean by "every man and woman". Its a learning process. As time passes the American people will grow more comfortable with homosexuality and transgenders much like they did with women voting and African Americans. Im not saying its fair, but through time this issue will blow by. One more thought to leave you with, if this is a cycle of Americans learning to accept different types of people, who will the next one be? Keep in mind that in past examples of this there have been those who were raised to believe something that was then challenged. Even if right now you are all for equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, you might not be the next time this comes around. Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:41:04 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment145221982 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment145221941 The way I see it, situations just like the one presented in this article are simply the latest form of a cycle our country has been going through. Ever since the 1960s, sex has been taken out from the depths American culture kept it in, and brought it to the forefront. It was no longer a taboo word. People openly talk about it today. With the topic of sex, came the topic of who people prefer to have sex with. It only makes sense that people started to feel more comfortable about their sexuality. Today, now that homosexuality is open and on the table, people are learning to deal with it. (I should mention here that when I say homosexuality, I am also including, bisexuality, transgenders, and everythign else that typically is listed with that). There are many who support gays as equals to heterosexuals, as the should be. But there are also those who see homosexuality as unnatural and that people shouldn't be doing this. They would look at this article and say that LJ is a woman and she was rightfully fired because she had no buisness doing that job. (I used the word she to further my point). Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:40:49 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment145221941 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment145221769 This article shows a problem that we have faced as a country many times over. Our constitution strives for and promises equality for all. But the American people as a whole aren't entirely along for the ride. In the early 1900s women were going through a lot and fighting through a lot of mistreatment to achieve women's sufferage. It was a radical ideal at the time. People who criticized the movement believed that voting is a man's thing to do and that women shouldn't be concerned with that kind of thing. Simply put, today that opinion is considered stupid. Society today accepts that women are just as capable as men and that they have just as much right to vote as men do. Next was during the 60s. African American rights had been restored by the the government but on the state level, and in everyday life, African Americans were not equal. As they protested behind Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and many others, people began to see that African Americans deserved to be treated equally to whites just like women were as apposed to men. Fri, 22 Apr 2011 21:39:58 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/transgendered-complications/#IDComment145221769 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment141157076 Okay first off, the video we watched in class today was so powerful. The people who didn't come to class today missed out on just an amazing class. Having said that here is my response. The video in class today talked about how in every war our country has been in for a while back, there have been many documented cases of soldiers experiencing what we now call postraumatic stress. This isn't all that surprising. I don't remember where I heard this but apparently soldiers who get deployed to a war zone have a lot of trouble with killing people at first. When ordered to fire on the enemy they will purposefully miss so that they don't have to actually kill them. Often times their officers will have to break their soldiers in and get them used to the idea of killing someone else. Its no wonder that people come home with really fucked up problems. Any person who has to be broken in so that they are ready, willing, and able to kill another human being will pretty much inevitably have some problems. It is also worth noting that more casualties are caused by soldiers committing suicide due to post traumatic stress than are actually killed by enemy combatants on the battlefield. Post traumatic stress disorder is actually more dangerous than the actual enemy combatants. Officers need to figure out a better way to train soldiers. In my opinion we need to come up with a mindset that soldiers can go into battle with that won't hurt them later. One of the soldiers talked about having to accept the fact that he is already dead so he could do his duties without worrying about being killed himself. I don't mean to criticize his commanding officer for training his men that way but I do think that we need a better way for soldiers to perform their duties. Basically, what kind of mindset can a soldier go into battle with that won't cause post traumatic stress later? I don't have an answer to that question, I just think the answer needs to be found. Sat, 9 Apr 2011 03:34:12 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment141157076 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment139179029 As a sociologist, we need to ask a few different questions about this article to fully grasp what it is implying. The first thing we should ask is what is causing this increase in “no religion”? They talked about social media as a way that the belief is spreading. Almost like a virus. It says that the lack of a religion, much like any belief system, is just a fad. People are likely to believe what their friends believe. If you are surrounded by people who have no religion you will likely have no religion too. This brings up another important question: what is the difference between religion and no religion. Before I described “no religion” as a viral belief system. How is belief in a god or some religious belief system any different from not believing in one? Can you not look at different religions as their own viral belief systems? They are just exactly the same. So now we can look at religion not as the answer to where we came from and what happens after history, but as a fad. I don’t mean to say that religion is just the latest craze, but people do respond to what is popular. Religion and “no religion” are both just fads that people follow. Right now, thanks to the fast spread of social media, “no religion” is simply the current fad. Maybe they are right and one day almost everyone will have “no religion”. And maybe after that “no religion” will start to die out as a fad back to people having a religion again. The south park episode “Go God Go” presented a really interesting world that was ruled by three atheistic empires. They all were separated because their interpretations of atheism were different. This again brings up the point are religion and “no religion” really all that different? One other thing that would be interesting to find out is how is “no religion” spreading in the other countries. How is “no religion” spreading in the United States versus say a third world country? A third world country with much less access to social media probably has a much stronger hold to their religion than the developed world. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 19:20:55 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment139179029 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/managing-crowds/#IDComment137562748 When there is a fire in a building, everyone knows the easiest and safest way out is to follow the exit signs. People also know to walk calmly and not to push. It is the fastest and safest way out for everyone. The problem is that people think individually, yet people think as a group. People will be selfish in saving themselves, but they will be thinking as a group in what they are allowed to do. If one person starts panicking and becoming violent in order to save himself, everybody else will too. I don’t really know how to keep massive groups of people calm but I do understand the problems. All it takes is one person to panic then soon everybody will. Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:16:23 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/managing-crowds/#IDComment137562748 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/managing-crowds/#IDComment137562721 That isn’t the only problem. Like Sam always says there are the invisible strings. People moving as a mass will do things that an individual won’t. as Kay from Men in Black said: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.” You have to come up with ways to keep people calm. What if there is a hurricane hot on people’s tails. What if it is literally a free for all? What if it is literally every man for his own life? How do you create situations where people won’t be forced to put others at risk in order to save their own life? There are the obvious answers like keeping people calm, but how do you do that? Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:16:14 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/managing-crowds/#IDComment137562721 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/managing-crowds/#IDComment137562697 First of all, I’ve never really thought about it before but the logistics of moving massive amounts of people are quite substantial. You need to give people food, shelter, a way to get to their shelter, and a way to know if it is safe to return home. You can’t just simply tell people to get out. Major highways will congest and people will be left with nowhere to go. You need a plan. You need to tell people where to go so that they are safe and how to get there. If it isn’t done right you’ll run into problems like they faced with Hurricane Rita. Fri, 25 Mar 2011 20:16:04 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/23/managing-crowds/#IDComment137562697 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment130647417 This video does a really good job of pointing out the flaws in our educational system, but I’m not convinced that his solution is correct. It is really easy to point at something and say “this is wrong and this is why.” It is a lot harder to then offer a solution. He did offer a solution in the paper clip example. But all he really did was show that lateral thinking is a skill that children lose with age, probably due to our educational system. He didn’t prove that lateral thinking is the way of the future. All he said is that people aren’t taught how to do it now. I’m not saying he’s wrong, I’m just saying he isn’t necessarily right. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:03:19 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment130647417 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment130647397 The education system was designed when if you got an education, you are automatically getting a job. So they didn’t really need to focus on perfecting the system. As long as the system worked it would automatically give their students an edge over those who don’ have it. Now that everyone is getting it, it is no longer a guarantee for a job and so it needs to change. The system needs to change from just teaching people, to teaching people how to get a job. It needs to condition people on how to be effective workers in today’s economy. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:03:10 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment130647397 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment130647312 First of all I just want to say that I think this lecture brought up a lot of interesting points about today’s educational system. It is based on a model that was developed in a different period when the nature of the economy was different. When public schools were first developed, getting a full education all the way through college was pretty much a guarantee for getting a job. School was the new thing for most people and so those who had it were uniquely trained to enter the real world. However school is now the norm and college is becoming quite common. Most people do it now and so now education isn’t a edge to be had over competitors for jobs but it has become a necessity to get almost any kind of skilled job. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 18:02:43 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment130647312 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127475515 My question is how will the empathetic part of our brain be affected by technology. Humans have evolved to have this part of our brain that makes us feel other peoples’ emotions ourselves. But as social networking sites and digital communication slowly start to replace real social interaction, will the empathetic part of our brains remain active or will it shut down. If the latter is true then we will start seeing what is described in the video: a society lacking in empathy. If people’s empathy starts to disappear what kinds of results will we see? I don’t want to say that technology will be the end of our society but if it does lower empathy like I worry that it might, we will see consequences. Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:49:14 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127475515 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127475498 Now having said that, I would still argue that humans are still naturally selfish. Humans honestly don’t care about other humans. But because of them empathy, it becomes in our interest to help others. Like I said, people don’t help others out simply because it’s the right thing to do. People help strangers out with their problems because when they do, their empathy makes them feel good about themselves. They see that this stranger is happy and so they themselves feel happy. Even an act of charity is still a selfish act. Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:49:07 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127475498 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127475370 There are a couple things that this blog brings up. The idea that humans are naturally hard-wired to empathize with other humans implies a lot about why we do things. Why do people help strangers? Because it’s the right thing to do? People empathize and feel that by helping strangers they help themselves. Our society runs on the idea that people will help each other out. Our society runs on teamwork. The fact that people are willing to trust each other and work together for a greater good is the reason that human society works. Empathy is a huge part of that. It allows people to trust each other they can work together. We are able to understand each other; we are able to give and take. That is why our society works. Sat, 12 Feb 2011 04:48:45 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127475370 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment126009839 There are really two sides to this issue. These 90 girls are both free and not free. They are free in that they made the choice to have sex with a guy without protection. They made that decision, and although they might not have been able to afford it, abortions were still an option and they freely chose not to get one. On the other hand these girls aren't free. There are so many other forces at play that affect their chances to get pregnant. These girls live in a community which probably has many contributes to their likelihood of getting pregnant. These girls were almost in so much pressure that their likelihood almost forced them to get pregnant. There are obviously invisible strings that are affecting their probability of getting pregnant. But one must point out that there are more invisible strings than the school. We can't just assume that the girls at that school are likely to be pregant because its their school. The decision to go to that school as apposed to another school in that district doesn't really affect their probability of getting pregnant. If a girl is considering that school, she probably already lives in a situation (location, upbringing etc) where they are likely to get pregnant. What specific school they go to doesn't determine whether or not they will get pregnant. I'd be curious to se what the pregnancy rates of the surrounding schools are. The other schools obviously don't have pregnancy rates that are as high as this particular school otherwise that school would be on the news instead of this one. My point is that the surround schools although they aren't as much as this school, they still probably have an alarmingly high pregnancy rate too. Fri, 4 Feb 2011 22:54:29 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment126009839 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/19/rise-in-national-guard-and-reserve-suicides-whats-it-all-about-soc-001-blog/#IDComment122673278 This then brings us to possible solutions. General McGuire talked about giving soldiers more access to mental help and promoting a help-seeking culture among soldiers at home away from the battlefield. Then it occurred to me, if post-traumatic stress is really a bigger enemy to soldiers than the militants with whom they do battle, shouldn’t they be trained to face this new “enemy” just as they are trained to face enemies in the more traditional sense? Shouldn’t the ability to block out and/or deal with the horrifying images they see in the battlefield but just as important as the ability to safely handle a rifle? Soldiers should be trained how to deal with and/or prevent post-traumatic stress once they return home from the battle field. One more solution I had is simple. They mentioned that soldier’s suicide rates are increasing. This means that something we are doing right now is causing more suicides in soldiers than before. Something must be different now than it was before. I have no idea what it is but the army should look into why suicide rates are higher now than before. What is different about what a soldier goes through today than, say, five years ago? Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:01:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/19/rise-in-national-guard-and-reserve-suicides-whats-it-all-about-soc-001-blog/#IDComment122673278 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/19/rise-in-national-guard-and-reserve-suicides-whats-it-all-about-soc-001-blog/#IDComment122673160 I think there is no question that the horrors that soldiers must face on the battlefield are taking a toll on their minds. The fact that suicide rates are this high among active soldiers is a clear sign that something is wrong. However, I do have a few questions about this report. The first question is: Is post-traumatic stress (and all of the other mental problems soldiers face after battle) really causing more deaths via suicide than the actual battles? They said that more soldiers kill themselves than are killed by terrorist and other enemies, but how many of those suicides are somewhat influenced by the horrors of battle? Another way to word this question is: How many of the soldiers who have taken their own lives would have done it anyway even if they weren't on the battlefield? I simply ask this question because we may be blowing this problem out of proportion. Soldier or not soldier, people do kill themselves, is post-traumatic stress really the cause of every soldiers’ suicide? If the answer to the latter question is yes then we are dealing with a serious problem (that is NOT to say that any soldier killing themselves as a result of battle isn’t a problem). Fri, 21 Jan 2011 05:01:23 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/19/rise-in-national-guard-and-reserve-suicides-whats-it-all-about-soc-001-blog/#IDComment122673160