13 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - South the h... · 0 replies · +1 points

South Park is funny. They make fun of everyone. If you feel that you were made fun of unfairly or your religion was made fun of unfairly then tough luck. Suck it up and stop being a little baby. It is not like South Park hates those people it is just that there is funny aspects of celebrity figures and other famous people and groups that is funny. I’m sorry if you can’t take a joke. Those Muslim groups are radicals anyway. Kind of like radical Christians who oppose gay marriage and gay anything, the groups are few and far between. They make a lot of noise because of their radical viewpoints when most of the people who believe that Muhammad was a prophet and belong to the Muslim faith do not feel that same way. Most probably laugh at it just like the rest of us. Ever since that newspaper printed the cartoon of Muhammad and the one group threatened them, the group’s actions just make it more popular to make a cartoon about Muhammad. To solve this problem one must go back to grade school. Where one learned that when someone makes fun of you, you laugh at yourself and not hit back because hitting back makes everyone remember. If you laugh at yourself then the insult is quickly forgotten because the bullies do not get a rise that they want. Using the same school children mentality those Muslim groups should just ignore it, post something civil, and go one with their lives. This would cause the whole Muhammad cartoon and voice beeping absurdity to be forgotten. Also the South Park episode was very funny. The whole beeping thing was quite entertaining albeit a little annoying at times especially for the solid minute of it at the end. The episode even blacked out the image of Muhammad until the last few minutes. The whole episode was funny bringing together the insults of everyone including the Denver Broncos, Barbara Streisand, and others. It was hilarious and just because one group of extremists believe that the only way to do something is there very ineffective and stupid way then shame to them and their idiocy. Hopefully those groups will all die in a fire and stop spreading radical views that hurt people. It is not just the radical Muslims, it is also the radical Christians. Like that racist group Sam showed us last week about the racists white children being raised by their racist white mother. Why do these people just go into seclusion and live in their own world where they can’t bother the rest of us. Until we can ship them to the moon where we will never see them again they should just shut up and stop being little pansy bitches.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Christian Invaders - t... · 0 replies · +1 points

After being in class last Thursday my mind has been opened up to new ideas and a new point of view which I never thought of before. What if someone invaded the U.S. like we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan? That I took as the main gist of what he was trying to get across. Sam says he understands why those who are invaded can take up arms and become insurgents and I think I can understand too. I can see how he believes that Christians are trying to take over the world too. However I think politicians and leaders are just using religion as a tool to bring people into their way of thinking and a supposed reason to invade or occupy another country. Sam mentions that the U.S. is in the Middle East for oil. That may be true. We may be there for oil but hopefully our leaders thought that the use of our military was required instead of diplomacy or fair trading. I can manage to pay a little bit more for my gas or something like that so that our military does not have to secure our interests in the middle east oil. I wish our leaders and we could trust those in control of the oil (which is now us because of our military) but should be the people who live there. We should trust those that live there to be open and honest and trade with us. We need their oil, maybe they want something from us. We should not use force and kill hundreds of thousands of civilians. After we get rid of our dependence on oil we will need lithium for all of our batteries. China is where the largest supply of lithium is located. Will we be dependent on China or will we invade to try to secure the minerals. If we try to invade we will lose. China is too big and too powerful. We need to develop a strategy where the U.S. does not need to invade another country to secure its resources. We should be able to negotiate with money, products, and words to secure our interests. The reason for using a military may be justified in regions of instability of some kind but why is there a need to secure an entire country? Would it not be easier to bribe the government leaders, supply them with arms to control the nation, and then send the military to the actual oil fields? They are much smaller and easier to control than major cities with millions of people. But whatever the case I can understand why people take up arms against an invading force. I can understand why Iraqis do not like American forces in their countries and why we should just leave them alone.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Nothing About the Cens... · 0 replies · +1 points

The census is supposed to be a straight forward questionnaire. It appears to not be quite so straight forward. If some people think that the government is trying to be racist or something like that then they are probably crazy. Why would the government ever think about being racist on an official form where everyone can see it? They would probably not even try to pretend to be racist in the secret agendas they make up but in the public’s eye be racist? Give me a break. That is utter nonsense. Now the census should offer a much clearer method of choosing race vs ethnicity. It should show definitions of each race next to the word so that it could be clearer. Maybe that would not work. It should probably just get rid of it in general because what does it help when people check off a certain race? It may help affirmative action statistics but other than that what service does it provide? Statistics for different racial groups? Is that needed for the census? I thought the census was originally counting the number of people for districts resizing and such. How does race affect numbers? Is this back to how a slave was worth 3/5 of a free person? I do not know but the whole situation would probably go a lot smoother without many questions. People do not like answering many questions and if all it asks is how many people are in your family and children and ages there would be a lot less paper used and a lot less confusion.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - If men could menstruat... · 0 replies · +1 points

I think I am pretty well educated on the women’s menstrual cycle. I have a girlfriend and she always reminds me when she starts bleeding and I know to be extra nice because she gets ticked more easily than for the rest of the month. If men went through the same things as women tampons would probably not be free. If there was a easily used female condom that could be cheaply and effectively made then it would be free. Tampons I do not think would ever be free. Tampons do not prevent pregnancy of prevention of sexually transmitted diseases so it would not be in the public’s interest to give away tampons even if the same bleeding cycle occurred with men. With some of my guy friends they sometimes run on a 28 day cycle with their emotions. They can get really irritable sometimes and I think they act like a woman on her period. Most of the time I do not really recognize any period type cycle of irritability with my guy friends. Some of my girl friends can seem to have a wide range of emotion during the month however they never really tell me when they are on their period and I never really ask. If men had menstrual cycles there would be a lot more advertisements for drugs to fix the emotional baggage that comes along with the period. There would be more drugs to stop periods with fewer side effects and less risk for cancer from the chemical interactions. Drugs would be very much more heavily invested because men rule the world. If men had menstrual cycles there would a more days off during the month for special time to recover from the menstrual cycle and to get away from the stresses of work and other people. Men would have more access to tampons at work kind of like the condom and Advil machines. However that is already available in women’s restrooms so it is not much special. Men would be able to take time out of their day to cool down from emotion and stress during their period too. Men would be able to get off from work for pregnancy more so than women today if it were possible. Also men would have more access to child care during work and after work. Men would be able to take care of their privacy concerns without being secretive about it of being embarrassed at work. They would joke about it just as much as we joke about jacking off. We joke about it we don’t talk about when we did it last or anything like that. Just the general concept of it. Men would joke about periods just as much about everything else.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Does this rudeness thi... · 0 replies · +1 points

When comments are made that offend people generally there is some uproar about it. Most people do not appreciate being offended. However when it seems as though one group of people are easily offended and raise an uproar about it more often than another group it raises a question. Why does one group of people feel that when they are offended it is more outrageous than if another group is offended in the same way? Take the example the speaker on the video presented about how the class reacts. Some rude comments were made on the poll website while in class and everyone was in an outrage over racists comments made toward black people. However when some rude comments were made toward white people the class generally laughed it off or did not think twice. The problem with this situation is not so much how one group can be offended and create a storm of outrage but when another group is insulted and it does not bring outrage. Another example is the recent furor over Wal-Mart and one of its stores in New Jersey. The PA system in the store asked all black people to leave. Obviously this must have been a joke, a childish one at that, but some people took it seriously and were very offended at the rude comment. Yes the comment was rude but given the situation it should not have made the news. I for one would think that if the PA system told all the white people to leave I would laugh and just continue shopping. There would not be an outrage. Most white people would laugh it off and just continue what they were doing. This situation and the poll question in class bring up something that is a little bit disconcerting. How can one group feel offended and raise an uproar when the same thing happens to another and no uproar is raised? I believe that something like this should not happen. I do not easily get offended when people try to insult me. I just laugh and ignore them. Why can other people not do this? Maybe they feel slighted or who knows. I do not. Have I just gotten lax with caring about when people insult me? Should I feel more offended because another group gets offended when they are insulted? No. I feel that as long as the insult if not spit into one’s face or something similar in how the insult is delivered then people should just laugh at the person. This would make the insulter feel like an idiot and in today’s racially charged atmosphere where uproar happens with the slightest insult such an action would make insults less frequent.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Prom or No Prom: Just... · 0 replies · +1 points

Proms are dances where the students bring a date and enjoy themselves in dance and music. At most of these dances girls can dance with themselves and we think nothing of them. Even with guys it is not that unusual to see some dancing together in a group or something. However I feel that the school should allow those two girls to go because they offer a way for the conservative school to be opened to new ideas and new beliefs. The school canceled the prom for everyone just because a lesbian couple wanted to go together. That is like saying oh because I like chocolate ice cream and not vanilla everyone can't have any ice cream. It is ridiculous that schools are forbidding homosexuals from attending proms because it may interfere with the educational process. The educational process of what exactly? The dancing and fun at proms? its already promiscuous enough with straight people how can adding homosexuals to the mix make it any worse? What is going through the school administration's head when they make these decisions? Lets make a controversial decision and not allow the students to the prom because it will damage our children and their conservative beliefs. It is a rarity when you see an effective administration. A lot of the news has come from poor administration decision making and for poor reasoning. This case is an example when the conservative nature of the Mississippi school system tries to indoctrinate to their youth that homosexual behavior will not be tolerated. They show the students that trying to ask permission for something as innocuous as bringing a same-sex partner to the dance is met with hostility and determined resistance to refuse anyone to go to the prom. What this teaches the students is that the administration is full of conservative bastards who should retire, take their undeserved pensions, and leave their beliefs with themselves and not to interfere with the lives of others who are perfectly accepting and open to new ideas. It is unfortunate that the older conservative generation and the religious right are not dying out fast enough to allow change in a country that is supposedly full of it and full of equality when in reality it is still full of the prejudice reminiscence of the Salem witch trials. This whole episode of canceling a prom because a same-sex couple wanted to go to it is an utter disgrace. The parents should demand a reasonable explanation and another prom. The students should set up their own prom however the administration may think this is behavior needing suspension or expulsion because they will do anything to nip this free thinking behavior before it can change society.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Native Americans: Ques... · 0 replies · +1 points

In regards to the question concerning when we should first try to teach our children about social norms and society in general i feel that we should play a relatively simple role in teaching our children. our children should experience the world in their own way and not with much influence by adults. We as parents provide an open arena for our children to ask questions and we should provide as much an unbiased question as possible while keeping them open minded about new things because progress can not happen without change. Close minded people are only destined to lack of progress and being stale with innovation and new ideas. They all should be removed from society and put into work camps because close minded people contribute nothing but animosity and hatred toward society. So as parents we should encourage our children to think outside the box and always be open to new ideas. This will provide them with the ability to learn new ideas with a creative and critical thinking process. We should always encourage open mindedness with our children because they will be the leaders of our country and our world when we grow old. As parents we should begin to teach our children to be open minded when they are young so that being open minded is second nature and that they will be very likely to hold beliefs that are prejudicial or racist. As children they believe the world to be vey simple and are easliy influenced by parents and others in authority so we must tell teachers to encourage open mindedness. They can not encourage close minede behavior or only one option is the only option for a particular problem. Growing up in a catholic school i learned that the teaching for the most part is quite secular except for the required religion classes as it was a catholic middle school. However there were some eccentric teacher who were very religious and tried to pass on their beliefs and close minded behavior to me. My mom made me see the illogical thought process involved with my teacher's thinking and it did not affect my judgement but it did show me how easliy i can be influfenced. And if this is the world our children live in is always going to include influences beyond our control but we should show them that they can ask any question and have our conversations include constructive thought proccesses which can contribute to the equality of the races and different thinking proccesses because one idea may be right but there be another solution which si easier or cheaper to institute. This is evident in my organic chemistry class because there are different ways to go from one chemicalto another in which one way is simpler but another is cheaper and this shows that many ideas are needed in any society which needs to grow and flourish. Innovation is the key to success and prosperity and close mindedness is hte path to oblivian and stale growth and even economic contractionn where the people begin to slowly have worse and worse iives. Hopefully the U.S. will always promomte innovative and new ideas that are introducced to the open minded society. We will be the leaders of the world for the rest of humanity's existence if we continue to promote this thinking but if we stifile it in our children then we are lost and deserve our loss of world leader.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - LGBT Class - Question ... · 0 replies · +1 points

Marriage is a religious institution and should remain a religious institution. With that there should be something different for the state to remain free from religion. However because the government declared this union as a marriage religious groups consider this to be their turf and it should not change. When the government said that this union is called a marriage they never considered that it would become part of the religious agenda. They did not realize future implications that this union would be brought into such a debate. Gay marriage should be legalized not only because not doing so is hypocritical but because it is the right thing to do for equality and justice. Love is one of the strongest emotions that humans can feel and to deny certain people their ability to express this in a open manner where its not considered indecent is just unjust. How can one group of people consider that a group of people can not get married because they feel that their love is wrong love. They have to love the right type of people and only those people. This is just inhumane. Its just wrong. These people are close minded ignorant assholes who think that they are the only people in the world whose opinions matter. This is ridiculous. Its just like the puritans and their tyrannical belief system. The religious movement is the major opponent to the legalization of gay marriage. Gay marriage should be legalized because as a society we can not deny the love between two people. If they are committed to each other then it is no different with a heterosexual couple. In today's society if two gay people want to get married they are probably more deserving of marriage than a heterosexual couple because of the cards stacked against their union. Furthermore there should virtually be no difference in legal rights between straight and gay couples. Obviously there will be some differences because gay couples cannot conceive children so they would need to adopt children and this may present some differences in legal factors. When churches activity try to change state laws to follow their religious beliefs they should lose their non-profit status. This goes against everything that non-profits are there for. They do not deserve to use tax free donations to further their own agenda with lobbyists. Every other interest group in the United States pays taxes to lobby the government and churches should not do anything with the government because the government does nothing with the church. The government should not concern themselves with the beliefs of the church and focus on the equality and betterment of the common good. This is how government should work in general. Make things happen that help the common good and not any particular interest group.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - All That is Solid Melt... · 0 replies · +1 points

That there are nearly 7000 languages in use around the world I think is amazing. I think that this shows that the human mind is capable of understanding in many different ways some of which are constantly evolving. I find it amazing that so many have stayed with us in an ever changing and evolving modern era. I agree that any language that is lost is a tragedy and that a record of the language should continue to exist so that the pain and hopes of an entire culture are not lost to the sands of time. However dying languages are just as much a part of life as death itself. Cultures evolve and people change as does the language. Latin is a dead language yet it is till studied and practiced by millions of people. Languages that have lost a culture which speaks it is not a such a tragedy as a language which is forever lost to us because it may have been an oral language and no recordings are left or a written language and all forms of the script are lost. There should be some way to catalogue the languages so that they are not lost. With this the languages can still be part of the historic human record and the culture is not lost. When the last native speaker of the Bo died it was a tragedy however it shows us that we need to try to preserve the languages that have a threat to their continued existence. The problem with languages is that most are not written and most are all oral languages. It is often difficult to catalogue these languages and as part of the historic human record these languages show a major part of the history of mankind with a single culture. Losing a language is like losing the artifacts from the Incan or from the ancient Egyptians. If we lost those we would have lost a major part of our past. The Egyptians language wasn’t even deciphered until the Rosetta stone was discovered and the Egyptian language of hieroglyphics was readable. Languages like the Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics need to be preserved not just because of the history behind the languages but also because of the culture that the language represents. It offers insight into the lives of the people who used the language everyday and every time a language dies the people who lived with it die again too. Dying is natural part of life but what we do lives on through our children and through books, stories and languages. We can live on with what we do to the world but if that is lost then we are nothing.

12 years ago @ Race Relations Project - Avatar and the White M... · 0 replies · +1 points

When I heard about Avatar I figured it would be another Hollywood film. However after hearing the hype about it and actually watching it in 3-D I found the entire cinematic experience quite thrilling. The movie was created by James Cameron to push the boundaries of movie making technology and I thought he did a wonderful job. As for the story it was a typical story of a hero saving people from the villain. However this movie would have failed if the story was sub-par. James Cameron would have failed in his ambition to push the limits of movie making if he chose a story that did not show some creativity or appeal. The story is very similar to that of Pocahontas and many other films but its set in the future. Many people would say this theme has been over played ever since the movie industry began. Such a person is David Brooks and he believes that this theme which he considers to be the white messiah story is depicted in many movies. He makes note that the white messiah fable is somewhat offensive and I tend to agree and disagree somewhat. The story itself is something that everyone can appeal to, when the white man invades sees the destruction and changes sides and saves the indigenous people. He considers this offensive because it stereotypes that the natives need a white man to be their leader. I never got this message whenever I watched Avatar or Pocahontas but maybe he did and his prejudices may be coming out by trying to convince us that the story is racist in some way. Now I think it may seem racist to some people whereas I see it as James Cameron not trying to force himself to be diverse in casting which many TV shows and movies tend to do now adays to be politically correct. There is always a woman or black or Asian person in the cast that plays a prominent role. Now I’m not saying that they are bad actors just that there is this trend to try to forcibly diversify our world. I say just let things take their own course and everything will sort itself out. Now the whole racist messiah fable is ridiculous because how can it be racist when the story depicts the white man as being oppressive and aggressive and militaristic. How are these flattering traits to put on white people? Brooks argues its racists because of the negative feelings that this messiah fable puts on the native people who tend to be non-white. Why is being spiritual and athletic poor traits to put on a set of people? Remember its all fantasy so who really cares? I just sit back and enjoy the movie and if I want to hear something political I turn on the news.