en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/4292578 Comments by jnp5106 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/17/voices-from-the-classroom-150/#IDComment346407148 This is a tricky subject to discuss because it can get complicated from all the different aspects that are part of the conversation. Religion. Politics. Sports. Pop Culture. Homosexuality is a prevalent topic and is always being discussed, interpreted, and debated. Where does it come from? Is it natural? Is it random? Is it genetics? Is it a product of environment? Can it be learned or unlearned? Is it some combination of any of the previous questions? The way I see it, there really is not much of an argument against what science has found. Science has told us that there are known differences in the functions of the brain of a homosexual and the brain of a heterosexual. I am not great with scientific terms and the exactness of it, but I do know that there are types of hormones that affect the way the brain develops. Even the Catholic Church has acknowledged what science has discovered. The Church had used to deny any claim to humans being "born with it", but eventually accepted it, and altered their stance on homosexuality. It used to be a no-homosexuality at all stance. It was just considered sin no matter what. Now they say it isn't wrong for somebody to be gay, it is just wrong from them to practice homosexual activities. It is quite the swing of stance for an organization that had such a rigid and hardline view on the subject. It is relatively unarguable (there are obviously a lot of people out there still that feel conversely) nowadays that homosexuality is something that you can be born with. The question remains, could somebody that was not born gay actually choose to be gay? Also could a person that was born not gay become gay even subconsciously by product of their environment? Honestly, it may not be the politically correct answer, but I really think there are gay people in this world that were not born gay. I just think that if you examined the brains of 100 men that said they were fully sure of their homosexuality, there is no way that all of them would show the same "gay hormones". There just has to be people that are gay because of their environment. If somebody grows up without their father, they possibly could never be exposed to things that would have train their mindsets away from homosexuality. Perhaps, somebody could choose to be gay out of rebellion, or just an attempt to change their whole lifestyle. Maybe they are just trying it because they are bored in life. Often you will hear stories about people that have been straight (or at least told people they were) coming out of the closet later on in life. You never hear of a person that has been gay their whole life later coming out straight. If there are straight people that are switching to gay, shouldn't it also work vice versa? I think this may indicate that some gay people (not all) actually do choose their lifestyle, may fully consider themselves gay, but still may not have been born with it from the start. Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:40:00 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/17/voices-from-the-classroom-150/#IDComment346407148 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/12/voices-from-the-classroom-147/#IDComment340581774 This is probably the most difficult blog question for me to answer this semester but also one of the more interesting ones. It is interesting because it is impossible question, and if you want to answer, you are using reasoning that nobody should ever have to use in a real situation. A lot of the questions this semester have been a lot more rational, where my responses were more of me taking a stance in a situation or trying to see the right and wrongs of each side. In this situation there really isn't any sides. There really isn't any correct answer. Yes, society (further proved by in-class polling) would generally side with saving the child. There is just a general consensus and attitude toward children that marks them as innocent and deserving to be saved. Nobody would really argue if I choose to save my child in this situation. They might even say I did the "right thing". But what if I chose to save my mother? What if I chose to save my wife? Nobody has the moral authority to say that either choice would be wrong. Sitting here writing a blog response gives me a lot of time to consider and weigh the options. Sitting here kind of makes me want to save my wife. My mother just would not be a reasonable decision. If I saved my mother and had to let my wife and child die, she would never forgive me. But my wife, who I will be marrying only if I believe it is til death and that this will be the mother of all my children. She will be the catalyst for the lives that write my family's legacy. She cannot die. We were meant for each other and she can give me other children. I will always love my child but a child cannot give you a new wife. A wife can give you a new child. Again, this is all very easy for me to reason with after 20 minutes of deliberating. If it were actually an all of a sudden emergency situation where there is no time to think, then I really don't know what I would do. Who can honestly say for sure what their gut-reaction would be? If your blood says save your mom, if your heart says save your wife, and the "right thing to do" says to save the child, then wow, it really was as hard of a question to answer as I thought it would be. Mon, 16 Apr 2012 23:54:25 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/12/voices-from-the-classroom-147/#IDComment340581774 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/03/voices-from-the-classroom-141/#IDComment335497091 I really think that there are two legitimate sides to this argument and that neither can truly considered "right". Firstly I would like to look at it from the opinion that is disrespectful to oneself to wear a bikini, or just show skin in general, in public. This is not only a prevalent opinion throughout the world but also in our own country, where I would guess the majority of people from the older generations would feel this way. It was so interesting to hear from the Muslim woman's perspective on the topic. In accordance with her religion, the woman does not really have a choice in the matter of whether to cover herself up or not (if they are a Muslim-American, then they may have a choice). It is a matter of self-respect and modesty. They feel that they way that many American girls dress is inappropriate, degrading to women, and non-self-respecting. The speech bubble in the cartoon for the Muslim girl accused the American girl of not respecting herself because she listens to what her male-dominate society wants of her. If the American girl is wearing what she is wearing purely for self-advertisement, for attention or attraction, then how can anybody say that the speech bubble thought is wrong? If all the woman wants is attention, then what explanation besides the influence of a male dominated society makes sense? Nobody can deny that this problem (some may argue that its not a problem) is slanted almost wholly towards women and not men in this country. Female is the gender that wears makeup, high heels, and jewelry. People only make a big deal when a magazine clearly has airbrushed a female on their cover. I've never heard of that happening for a guy (although they are probably airbrushed just as much). The other reason as opposed to doing it for self-advertisement would be for quite the opposite, self-respect, which is the basis of the other side of the overall discussion. If you asked many American girls that wear bikinis what their reasons are behind it, they would say that they are just expressing themselves in a society that gives them the freedom to do so. They might feel good about their bodies and feel the most comfortable in that kind of attire. How can anybody tell a girl that she cannot not wear what she wants. As long as it is not against the law, it is just up to the woman to dress presentably in any given situation. Every professional and social situation calls for a different definition of "presentable". Although there are legitimate arguments for both sides, neither can be truly validated because in the end, it is all just a matter of opinion and personal choice. The same way an American girl can choose to dress however she wants, a Muslim-American can choose to adhere to the policies of her religion, or choose not to. Mon, 9 Apr 2012 20:11:25 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/04/03/voices-from-the-classroom-141/#IDComment335497091 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/03/22/voices-from-the-classroom-131/#IDComment325296497 I think that it is absolutely a good thing for kids (especially minorities) to learn about race and racism at an early age. I know there are many pros and cons that could be argued for either side, but I feel strongly that doing so can be more a lot more beneficial than detrimental to a child. First of all, everyone is unique and born looking a certain way, and there is very little that a person can do to change that. Is it just a fact, and why would anyone want to hide the truth from their child? I do not think it is any good for a child to grow up completely oblivious to the real dynamics of the world, not knowing things that the child will inevitably have to deal with at some point in their lives. Knowledge is power, and a person will be much better equipped to deal with situations if they have the knowledge of how things are in our society. This way, there is no harsh awakening later in life. It is also better to learn things the right way first instead of unlearning the wrong things later. Most of a person's mentality is formed when they are a kid, as to their sense of right and wrong, what they believe, and how they interact and perceive other people. A person is more self-aware if they know about and understand their differences from other people. They can accept their identity and learn earlier how to just be themselves. They will be more inclined to be comfortable interacting with other people, leading to better social skills, more friends, and better networking. They can mature faster, have healthier relationships, and become more tolerant and insightful. I will admit, there are definitely valid arguments as to why it is not a good idea to teach kids about race at a young age. It could be really difficult for a child to understand, which could be really upsetting. Or they could understand and still be really upset. A child could become depressed and become too hard on themselves. It could also take away from a child's innocence. You could ask the question, why should a kid have to be taught these things if he or she is not going to have to deal with it until later in life? Also, warning a young minority of some of the disadvantages or situations they will have to deal with could make them feel like they do not have a true chance of accomplishing what they want to accomplish, and in turn causing them not to even try in the first place. Although all of these cons are valid arguments, I still feel like the better thing to do is to teach kids about race relations relatively early. Hiding the truth hurts a lot more than it can help a child's development. Tue, 27 Mar 2012 03:19:40 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/03/22/voices-from-the-classroom-131/#IDComment325296497 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/03/15/voices-from-the-classroom-123/#IDComment319974240 I have never really had too strong of an opinion on the wars that have taken place during my lifetime. I just really feel like I am not informed enough or have the entitlement to really have an stance on whether or not it is okay for a country to go to war with another country. Because the thing is, nobody is really right and nobody is really wrong. Yes, I know most of the population acknowledges a similar and general idea of what is right and what is wrong, but what if somebody just flat out looks at something on the complete opposite axis? What if somebody looks at something so different, especially when its a topic that does not easily fall into the general right or wrong side paradigm? Abortion, gun rights, animal rights, gay marriage. War? It is no different. Although somebody can feel very strongly about one side or the other, that does not mean they are right. As Sam would encourage, I feel like I can look at war from both sides fully and without bias. For people that oppose the war, they generally feel like that, because innocent people are dying, it is far too costly, we (the U.S.) have become cold-blooded killers, and an endless amount of other logical reasons as to why it is just wrong. For people that hold a pro-war stance, they generally feel like that for completely opposing but still logical reasons. While I do feel that I do not hold the the entitlement to judge whether it is right or wrong, if I were forced to vote on the issue, then I would have to side with the pro-war stance. I am not saying that in application to any of the current or recent wars in the Middle East (still much too cloudy for me), but just in general that I think I do understand, accept, and possibly even favor war in certain situations. The problem with just being completely anti-war, is that the rest of the world is not. Most people would absolutely favor 100% world peace, but that is just not possible. There is not a switch that will just change the hostility and desire for war that people have all around the world. So what other option is there but for a government to protect its own interests first, and worry about their enemies (they are enemies, whether people like it or not) best interests second? Honestly, I would much rather take action, even if it is early, if there is any chance of us (and I mean every single person, pro or anti-war) regrets it because it too late. Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:09:22 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/03/15/voices-from-the-classroom-123/#IDComment319974240 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/02/voices-from-the-classroom-96/#IDComment307545782 There is not a lot of variation where I come from. I went to a Catholic grade school in suburban Philadelphia. I can not even recall one person of another race in my school. I then went on to attend an all-boys private high school where there were just a few Asians and a few blacks in my grade. The girls I hung out with in high school were from other private schools in the area and were almost entirely white. I just never really had any exposure to girls of other races. I've never really thought too much about interracial dating. It's not that I would not date a black girl, but more that its just an unknown quantity. Although I have started to branch out since I've been at Penn State and have met a lot of different and interesting people of different races, even approaching a black girl in a truly socially forward manner has not come to fruition whatsoever. In the future I think I would be opening to "trying" black girls. It would be really interesting to see what the reaction from my family would be if I ever brought home a black girl. I would like to think that both of my parents are very open and understanding people, and I truly believe that they would be okay with it. On the other hand, if we take it back another generation, I think I would find some issues. My grandparents on my Mom's side are very old fashioned, conservative Methodists. I don't think that they are rude people so I really do not think they would make a scene of any kind, but I do think they would be upset and would certainly express their concerns at least to my parents, if not to me. On the other hand, my dad is the result of an interracial marriage. His mother is of Chinese and Panamanian descent (already mixing it up!) and my late grandfather was of German descent. So, basically my grandmother would be a huge hypocrite if she got upset if I ever brought home a black girl. In class we talked about what it would be like to adopt a child of a different race. The possible discomfort that I might have in interracial dating does not apply to the possibility of adopting a child of different race. Honestly, I think that it would be really cool to do that, especially if I had the opportunity to help out a child that was really in need. Giving a child the gift of a home is definitely one of the best things that can do. On the other hand, I think I would be uncomfortable in using a person of another race's sperm in a sperm donor situation. I just do not think I would be comfortable seeing my wife give birth to a baby that is not even the same race as me. I may be contradicting myself, and I don't really know why I feel that way, but not everything has to be explained. Some things you can have a feeling about without really even thinking. Sun, 4 Mar 2012 05:19:05 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/02/voices-from-the-classroom-96/#IDComment307545782 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/23/voices-from-the-classroom-115/#IDComment302438681 Although we have come so far as a society as far as racism and and discrimination goes, a large problem still remains. The simple fact that affirmative action exists proves that there is an unfairness that needs to be compensated for. It doesn't just exist in applying for jobs; it exists in sports, music, school, and many other areas. Although everybody can agree that the unfairness exists, does that mean I should care that I have a much better chance of getting a call-back for a job that a black man and I are equally qualified for (just because of my name)? Should a black male care that although he and I might have identical stats and height and weight, that he would have a much better chance than I (if he had a "black" name) of getting recruited in basketball? When the class was asked whether they would ever discriminate when hiring for their company, most people said they would not. Although that sentiment might be heartfelt from all those who answered "no", I can say with confidence that a very strong portion of these people absolutely would discriminate if put in that situation. These people that are deciding who to hire might not realize they are discriminating. They might do it inherently. But whatever the motivation is, there is no denying that this discrimination exists. Is it going anywhere? Is there any real way to curb this kind of discrimination? I really don't think its possible to just change. Since a lot of it is just inherent and embedded into our culture and how people think, if anything changes it will be more of a gradual evolution of society that won't really be able to be seen or quantified. Business can claim that they are "equally-opportunity" employers all that they want, but the statistics speak for themselves. The really interesting thing was that when the black girl told Sam that she might just have to work harder than another candidate in order to earn opportunities. It's crazy that this is the way a lot of people feel (because it really is true). If the only thing separating the two resumes is stereotypical names, then why should the black girl have to work even harder to push herself beyond the white's girl qualifications? If the company's goal is to be as effective as possible in who they hire, shouldn't they be pushing harder to find the true best candidate instead allowing of discrimination to leak into the process? Mon, 27 Feb 2012 02:53:04 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/23/voices-from-the-classroom-115/#IDComment302438681 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/17/asian-stereotypes-and-the-world-of-sports/#IDComment295981334 The sudden and unprecedented meteoric rise to prominence of Jeremy Lin has undoubtably had a strong impact on so much more than just basketball, which is just where it starts. Basketball is unlike some of the other major sports for a few distinct reasons. Basketball is a display of pure and unfiltered athleticism in a way that football, (players only play one-way, stop-and-go, gimmicky, and more strategic), baseball (slow pace, teams can win with reliance only on their pitcher) and hockey (heavy subbing, completely grounded game, and team can with with reliance only on their goalie), just simply are not. This is why something like this has never really happened before in professional basketball. In the NBA, the superior players generally come out on top and if you are the inferior player, you will eventually be exposed. That is why the NBA has so many "superstar" players that dominate the rest of the competition. The big, fast, and the strong survive in basketball, and nobody can say that Asians come to mind when such athleticism is discussed. Jeremy Lin not only has done things that no other player ever has accomplished (undrafted from Harvard, has set records, all after being passed on my multiple teams), he also did it as an Asian-American which takes the entire discussion to a new level. Yes, Lin has the incredible stats, wins, and the credit for revitalizing basketball fandom in the premier market for his sport, but that is not why Asian Americans nationwide have swelled with pride so much in just a few short weeks. Nobody can blame them, it is completely warranted, and any other ethnic group would be just as proud if one of their own was having success in such a fresh way and in an field none had ever broached. Anybody that claims that Asian Americans get the same fair shake in many aspects of life as other races is shortsighted. There are many stereotypes about every race that aren't fair but that really do not have solutions that are tangible, such as white people are all racist, asian people cannot drive, or black people are more likely to steal things. Then there are other stereotypes, very often in sports, that have possible attainable solutions but haven't been approached. It takes a very rare and talented person to chip away at a stereotype such as Lin has. It just is not everyday that somebody like Tiger Woods, Apolo Ohno, the Williams sisters, or Jeremy Lin rises to the occasion and not only achieves success in sport, but also transcends it to mean a lot more to a lot more people. Sat, 18 Feb 2012 22:47:14 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/17/asian-stereotypes-and-the-world-of-sports/#IDComment295981334 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/02/voices-from-the-classroom-98/#IDComment283344069 A black girl upset with her natural hair style might look at a white girl with straight hair and think along the lines of "damn, I bet I would look so much better with that kind of hair." This question of how black girls and white girls envy each other's hair styles is just another example of people always wanting to improve their appearance and never settling for the present. A new trend in the NBA is the superstar black players dressing like preppy white kids, like wearing backpacks, sweaters, and stylish reading glasses. Conversely, a lot of white kids have started to dress in stereotypical black clothing.This is the way of the world and people will always act and feel like this. Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:26:23 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/02/voices-from-the-classroom-98/#IDComment283344069 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/02/voices-from-the-classroom-98/#IDComment283343983 In response to the pilot video, I would like to use the extremely overused (in life and especially in the previous responses) term "you always want what you can't have". Most people are not satisfied with the characteristics they were born with, whether they are white or black or anything else. Short people want to be taller. Tall people want to be shorter. Fat people want to be skinny and skinny people want to put on some pounds. There are an endless number of examples to support this. Black girls that are born with curly hair might be dissatisfied with the fact that they were born like that. The same goes for white girls that were born with straight hair. Since so many people are so self-conscious, they will look at others with jealously. Sat, 4 Feb 2012 03:26:14 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2012/02/02/voices-from-the-classroom-98/#IDComment283343983