en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2451187 Comments by mwapnick http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment145463936 This video and the whole concept of Jihad is particularly frightening and disturbing to me. To see the dates of attacks in chronological order is terrifying. The goal of these terrorists is to wipe out America, amongst other people. To see that over the years attacks have been followed through, to know that there are followers of terroristic leaders and that these groups are possibly growing at this minute is terrifying. Seeing this brings me right back to my Hebrew school days and hearing for the first time about the Holocaust. At the time it was incomprehensible to me that one person could lead to so many deaths, that one person could reshape the thinking of millions of people, that a single human being could cause the deaths of millions. A man like Bin Laden had tons of followers, and possibly still has them. To see people holding signs expressing their want for people to die who do not believe in allah makes me think the world has a huge way to go before equality, acceptance, and peace will every be something remotely tangible for the human race. America got its first real taste of terrorism on 9/11, meanwhile the rest of the world experienced bloodshed because of the concepts of Jihad many times before. It is when lives are personally affected by terrorism that people begin to experience fear. After the twin towers were hit my grandmother told me that these suicide bombers are crazy, loonies from the Middle East. "But Grandma," I said to her, "if they were Americans doing the same thing you wouldn't say so." She told me then, that it wouldn't be Americans killing in that way. I never forgot about this conversation because some of what she said rings true. Though not legally insane, suicide bombers are brainwashed, just as nazis were. The supporters and followers of Jihad all hold the belief that allah is the almighty and powerful and if he is telling them to kill the crusaders, or the jews, or the americans, then that is their purpose, to fulfill the desires of their god. I would not say they are crazy, but that these people were brought up with a concept and had it pushed on them with no explanation and they are forced to believe what their people know to be true. To question authority is not an inbred ability. When you look up, you see the sky. It is blue. Why is it blue? Well, someone, probably your mother or father, told you early in life that this was the color to see when you see the sky. Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:00:51 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment145463936 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/the-cost-of-empire-soc-001-blog/#IDComment142955435 This video completely supports what Sam has said in class about decisions not being up to the president. I agree completely that Obama has the potential to be a great leader, but we are a military country, we support the war. So, even though at the start of his election, Obama vowed to get the troops out as quickly as possible, this does not seem to be the case now. This video brings about the idea of the expansion of the military. The U.S. is responsible for over one half of the military spending to begin with. With the new technology and equipment being used and further evolved, even more money needs to be put forth. It is all of a sudden in our best interest to increase the amount of people in our troops. As previously stated in other posts, I was also completely unaware of the extent of our military needs and the bases that are all over the world. Is this helping, is this fostering peace, or is this making people feel threatened and therefore increasing violence? It's apparent that war is draining for our country and our civilians, forgetting about other countries. It also taking a toll on our economy, the opposite of what it is supposed to do. I would argue that we are reaping zero benefits from this war. So, why are we spending more and more money on it, why are we expanding our troops? There is a larger plan at play, but so far it has not been working. Our country is pouring billions and billions of dollars into into a lost cause, an empty promise, the ideal purpose of our country (to protect us, to save the world). We are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a dark hole and financing what has been detrimental to us. There has to be another way, however obscure or difficult it may to be find or follow through, it should be supported. Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:18:16 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/the-cost-of-empire-soc-001-blog/#IDComment142955435 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment140871831 The oil industry, like the majority of corporations and even the U.S. government, is corrupted. The bill was not able to be passed because the people with the money denied the possibility. Just like the documentary in class proved, the common people had no say. It showed people sick and harmed, setting their water on fire because of all of the natural gases in it. When these people made it public, the people who were at fault blamed it on nature and payed off these people. When the man who made the documentary was in the middle of making it,he got warnings left and right not to go public with it, that it was too controversial. The people owning and managing the big industries won't ever take the blame. The people who have money are the people who have power. In this case, the oil industry refuses to allow the public to have less taxes because they do not want to suffer. Nothing is honest when it comes to matters of money and the government. The futures of the oil companies are ensured because they are have a personal relationship with the government. The common people are not making money hand over fist to spare a few million for the government to have and therefore have little or no voice in the matter, or any matter. Fri, 8 Apr 2011 00:51:05 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment140871831 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/women-and-war/#IDComment140869633 At first, I thought her ideas about women and war were outdated. But, she started stating facts, statistics, and then included the idea that she is a woman of war and she has experienced things first hand. The war is double-sided. I agree that the majority of women are able to see the front lines and be involved in the back conversations of war. However, some women can only see one side. In the countries she mentioned, I can see how her ideas are more valid. The fact 75% of refugees are women and children and are killed is beyond frightening. The fact that millions of women are raped within 100 days in Rwanda is an atrocious statistics. But, I'm not all that surprised. She has just confirmed the dreadful suspicions I previously had. Even in the U.S., war affects lives negatively. This woman's stories were so real and so true. I think she described perfectly the impact of an explosion by saying people could not truly fathom what it is like. She explains how it is so much more intense than anything portrayed in movies. I can't even imagine seeing that kind of explosion and knowing that people I know could be dead. To hear stories firsthand from someone who has seen the atrocities of war themselves, is earth shattering in itself. The woman who is frightened that her children have hate in their hearts over being financially stable and okay does prove something about the mind of females. The speaker states that women can provide new insight and change in the perspective on war. She finds that giving it a chance would, by default, sort of save the world. I have to say, it is something that hasn't been tried and unless it has been, no one will know for sure if it will work. I find that it could not hurt for women to have a larger voice, to rehabilitate lives already affected by war and to even possibly prevent war in the future, could be the most beneficial thing for us. But, unless it is attempted and unless minds are expanded, it won't be a possibility. Fri, 8 Apr 2011 00:39:32 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/women-and-war/#IDComment140869633 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139285336 I have friends who are somewhat poor with families struggling to maintain their homes and barely paying for their education. I also have friends who have families who cannot afford their education. I have friends who are not going to college. I have friends who are somewhat poor with families struggling to maintain their homes and barely paying for their education. I have friends who are not going to college, I have friends that are or will end up paying their own ways for college. I also have some friends of extreme wealth. i have extended family who receive financial support from the government, I have a friend that got presents from holidays and hand-me-downs from the local church. I also have a friend with multiple homes, a private jet, and who travels regularly. I know first-hand how extreme the distribution of wealth can be. I also know that it can be lower and higher in the spectrum than I have or maybe will ever see. I have family members who may would hate because they "cheated" the system. I also have family members who got caught for it and served sentences. I do not think that they were right or that the money stolen as a part of their businesses was fair or just. It very well could have been used to feed needier people or reduce another's taxes, amongst other things. Since I also know firsthand about the consequences and gains of cheating the system, I find that even though it can reap benefits there is a possibility of parole. So, members of my family might have gone from middle class to upper class, but I doubt any of them would have said it was worth the time that they served for a white collar crime. The truth is, so many people do cheat the system and get away with it. That does not mean its right and people must not think about the implications or how their actions could be detrimental to other lives. But, legalities aside, corporation owners pass down wealth to their children and the same goes for actors and actresses. Is it at all fair that future generations are reaping the benefits of someone else's work? Also, why is it that people in the acting business or advertisement industry making more than miners or construction workers? Sadly, money is not handed out based on work ethics or sacrifices, but by popularity and the demand of the upperclass. If wealth was more evenly distributed the world would have much less issues and there would not be such a huge gap in the separations of the classes. People on the top would lead lives of less extreme luxury, but the people on the bottom would suffer less. However, this will probably never be completely realistic because those who have money and power value luxury far too much and wouldn't give it up easily. This idea of being overly comfortable is so enticing, that many even risk jail time just for a small taste of it. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 03:41:27 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139285336 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment138494832 I have no doubt in my mind that religion is becoming less widespread and that fewer people are affiliating themselves with a particular religion. If data were to be done on religious worshippers and more reformed worshippers, I would think that over time the religious group deteriorates. Also, I would bet that smaller amounts of kids brought up in extremely religious households go on to raise their kids that way than the statistics would have been decades ago. I think part of this is due to the fact that people are being introduced to different religions and ideas than ever before. People learn a history and have a smattering of knowledge of so many religions. I think that this causes people to think differently about their own religion, be more open to new ideas about religion, and question the concept of a higher power in general. People are realizing that one group believes this, another supports a completely different theory, a separate religion or group thinks that this other concept is true. So, they might think, which is it and why is mine right? The article and video clip talk about how in the late 1800s and early 1900s certain countries had a much lower rate of people claiming they did not believe in god or have a religion. One possible reason for this is that times have become more accepting and the world is less narrow-minded. I am sure that more people back then did not believe in god or affiliate themselves with a religion, but just did not admit to it. They could have feared the responses of others and might not have even admitted to themselves or questioned their own traditions and beliefs. The further back in time one goes, the less open-minded people were. However, I do think that more people truly don't affiliate themselves with a religion or are unsure of the existence of god now more than before. More people feel that is okay to admit this and express these kinds of ideas also. The article also states Religion will never be completely obliterated, but may deteriorate more and more. I find this to be true. People will continue to question their own beliefs, the way they were brought up, the existence of one or many higher powers. I do not think that this growing skepticism will demote the value of people's morales or wellbeing. Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:05:19 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment138494832 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/20/frost-bitten/#IDComment136617546 This poem is extremely profound. The fact that it is written by a person serving a life sentence makes it that much more real. This is not a person who feels heartless or numb because of hereditary depression. Although, this person might be depressed it is not the purpose of this poem to exaggerate that. This person is in prison for committing an irreversible crime. He or she feels that being in prison is similar to walking amongst the dead and heartless. This person wants to love and feel warmth. This person wants to feel human, but does not and cannot because of all the remorse. I like how in the poem there is a question mark after dubbing other prisoners heartless. Since this person is one of the prisoners, he/she is claiming to have a heart, a heart that is frozen. But, this person is also acknowledging the fact that many perceive lifers as heartless for ending or ruining lives. This person is on the outside looking into his situation. I find that most people are unable to see themselves or the group that they are associated with from other people's lives unless they are forced to think outside of the box. Prison has certainly helped this person accomplish this. This person is describing what it is like to feel inhuman, to be drained of emotion and feel worthless. Is this person heartless? Clearly not, each being in a prison has a beating heart under his or her chest. But, having a heart in the sense that this person is saying, is a different story. The fact that this person is questioning its existence and acknowledging absent feelings, desiring a soul, means that prison has offered a different perspective. This human's heart, cold as he/she claims it is, is clearly in the thawing process. I do think people should have faith in the rehabilitation process prison can accomplish for people. Tue, 22 Mar 2011 01:25:06 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/20/frost-bitten/#IDComment136617546 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135725460 The speaker in this video, Zach Walls, preaches something that is an extremely controversial topic worldwide. He is right in every way, that gay couples should be granted the right to marry and raise children. But, even though this is my opinion, many people are against homosexuals raising children. This video also attempts to define family. Zach Walls says his family is like any other and that he was brought up in an equally beneficial manner as kid's with straight parents. He brings into the equation his ACT scores and overall success. Although this proves that his upbringing probably helped bring him to his full potential, that should not matter. Even if this man was unemployed now, it should not reflect on the fact that his parents were gay or straight. It is sad to think that people would see a struggling child, teenager, or adult and assume that it is due to their upbringing. Granted, sometimes that's the very culprit of failure, unloving or neglectful parents. But someone's gender preference does not indicate whether they are more or less likely to be loving parents. I do understand that by nature, opposite sex are "supposed" to be attracted to one another in order to reproduce and continue the cycle of life. However, through artificial insemination and adoption, to bring a child into this world or enhance the quality of one's life is certainly supporting this cycle. It's sad to me to think that it was harder for a gay couple to be cleared for artificial insemination than my aunt's single friend. She wanted a baby and despite not having a spouse, she filled out paper work and in days it was accepted. For a gay couple, even when adopting a child, the process is more strenuous. I do find that society has had some break throughs and expanded narrow mindedness and questioned the "norm." A family is a family, a name to be decided by the individuals under a roof, or in a group, connected by bloodlines or not, it is no one's decision or label but their own. Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:41:46 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135725460 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/01/lighting-our-way/#IDComment131717178 The sun not only provides light, but boosts the absorption of vitamin D in human's bodies. It is proven that sunlight improves moods. Overall, the sun is almost an imperative part of living. According to the video, people suffer from a certain disorder, depression, weight gain, and fatigue due to the prolonged darkness. The lack of sunlight is not only taking a toll on people's physical health, but their mental health also. A person's wellbeing affects the way he/she views the world and interprets the events around them. What is also an interesting thought, is that depression is contagious. I don't mean that in a literal sense. But, when you spend extended periods of time with someone who is happy, you too, often tend to feel happy after a while. The same goes with sadness. If the lack of sun is affecting the majority of people in the negative ways it has been, then those who are affected less by the darkness, are still affected. When it is difficult to find happy people, I'm sure it is difficult for people's spirits to be lifted all that much. I have a friend who has seasonal depression. It is obvious that her depression is in the winter, when the sun hides the most and the weather is colder. Her treatment is to stare into a bright light for a certain amount of time a day or when she feels depression coming on. People in Finland stare at bright lamps (with their morning coffee at times) to improve their moods. Also, they have light festivals and try to light the city well. Although it's not sunlight, the simple act of starting at light can lift spirits. I worry they will have a power outage over there! Although I'm sure it helps, people report having to leave the city in search of the real thing. For people already prone to things like seasonal depression, I find that living in that city must take an extreme toll on their psychological health. I would not be surprised if there were higher suicide rates over there due to the higher levels of depression. It scares me to think that even I or my friends and family could endure extreme depression just from being in darkness. Although exercise and lights and keeping busy can help, it is proven that sunlight cannot be replaced by anything else or have the same effect on humans. There is no doubt there is something keeping citizens in that dark town; be it work, family, or comfort, people are staying. Not only would I not visit that city, but I would strongly discourage anyone from doing so for an extended period of time. People tend to take trips for prolonged periods of sunlight anyway, probably because they realize it puts them in a better mood! Tue, 1 Mar 2011 23:30:36 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/01/lighting-our-way/#IDComment131717178 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/28/the-lottery-as-a-blessing-or-a-curse/#IDComment131713440 Money certainly does not guarantee happiness. It can enhance people's lives in some ways, but also downgrade them in others. It is true that the woman in the article who once worked four jobs and now only works one has a lot less stress. However, she has more stress when it comes to dealing with friends and family. Her family wants to control how she invests her money and friends are putting unfair pressure on her to give them money. People who were once so generous are now bitter because the tables have turned, and she is the wealthy one. The man who won five million and invested most of the money safely claimed that it didn't change his life greatly. But, the fact is it changed him in ways he might not be able to identify. Simply knowing that you have the ability to make larger investments can change the way people think and the way others (friends and even family) treat and view them. Winning the lottery places so many new invisible strings on a person as well as readjusting older ones. I also find that people who win the lottery tend to move, maybe even by multiple homes and new vehicles. When one's setting is changed, their lives and their beings are permanently changed. Once you have been exposed to a new class of life and have simply seen what it is like to live a certain way, that event has shaped the way you view the world and are viewed by others. The people who stole millions of dollars and moved into a mansion, only to throw out all of the expensive and fancy items left in the home, did not fit in to a higher class. They not only did not get along with people from that neighborhood but stuck out like sore thumbs. Although these people were criminals, people who win the lottery most likely have similar experiences. People who were not exposed to wealth and that lifestyle at a young age will not mesh with the upperclass. It makes sense for someone, even if they all of a sudden possess loads of money, to have more in common with a poor person than someone who was born into wealth. the article talks about people feeling better when they spend money on other people. To pay for a meal or go on a vacation with family is much more rewarding than to spend money on yourself and be stingy. However, there is always some sort of an expectation for someone who possesses a lot of money to foot the bill every time. This puts a social and psychological strain on people. My father was once an extremely wealthy man. Whenever he went out with people even if it was multiple families, he would foot the bill. Eventually, people stopped offering and it was silently expected that he would pick up the tab. Even if spending money on others is more pleasing than to never do so, it becomes a burden on people if it's a constant occurrence. I find that this is also why it is easier to have friends from the same socioeconomic class so that it is not always expected for one person to pay. It makes sense why different classes associate with each other in that way. Overall, money changes not only an individual and different societies, but the way we view the world. Tue, 1 Mar 2011 23:07:45 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/28/the-lottery-as-a-blessing-or-a-curse/#IDComment131713440 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment129962086 This video presents many unique and modern ideas. I never had a doubt that our education system is constraining. That is not to say that subjects taught in school and concepts learned are not beneficial in some way or that they don't expand the mind. I do think schooling and education is imperative to kids. However, the fact that the learning system leads to more narrow-minded thinking and closes creative passageways is perfectly understandable and true. It is proven that the group of kids in kindergarden could think of the most ways to use the paper clip and scored in the genius level. That very same group declined in scores when asked the same thing at an older age. The video says we all have this ability and it deteriorates overtime, probably because the education system provides the idea that there is one right answer. I find that standardized testing is a huge burden on children and an unnecessary and inadequate measurement of capabilities, as well as the SATs and ACTs. The education system puts unfair limitations on kids, yet promotes unfair expectations and principals. Getting a college degree, however, further ensures a good job. People do become successful without it, but it is less likely. Why? Well, people tend to hire people with higher education. People who are dubbed experienced by the state and professionals should perform better in a job situation, right? Well, there's no one to prove otherwise. The video also addresses the idea of teaching people the same age the same material. People graduate with a class, the people within that class are mostly within a year's difference in age. Every individual is different, learns better in different environments, and may have strengths greater than those three year's older and weaknesses more prominent than those two year's younger. So, I find that education is conducted this way for convenience. However, at my elementary school, from grades K through 4th, they had something called MAG. This stands for Multi-age Group. It has been going on for years. Not every student in the school participates and the kids are selected and must accept to be in it. In this program, all kinds of learners from the ages of four to 10 are mixed. Not for the entire day, but for part of the day, they participate in activities and partake in lessons together. Every kid that I know who went through this program loved it. No studies have been conducted, but I would say the majority were more well adjusted and prepared for the later elementary years. This program actually works, which proves that kids can learn at all different levels and benefit from being placed with kids much older and younger. This program is a rarity, and my elementary school is the only one I've heard of doing it. But, it clearly works. So, it must be routine and convenience that prevent more schools from doing the same. I agree with the video in that schools are organized so meticulously, from the physical to psychological formations of it. It is all meant to prepare students for success in a future career that will benefit themselves and society. But, if something is not working or could be working more efficiently, why is change unattainable? Students do need to be stimulated and their creativity needs to promoted. Daydreaming and video games aside, I find that kids should not have to sit in a mundane classroom absorbing information like robots. Performance would be enhanced if the education system would be willing to make some adjustments. Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:34:46 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment129962086 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment129958842 In today's society, people are overly cautious. When my mom was growing up and people let their children walk to school by themselves (at least more often than now) and kids took public transportation by themselves, fear was hardly existent. Even then, though, my grandma told my mother not to talk to strangers. But, back then I find that kids had more independence than they do today. When kidnappings started to show up on the news more frequently and safety and laws were stressed, parents started telling kids to avoid strangers even more and let them venture out alone much less frequently. When my grandparents were children, I'm not even sure if not talking to strangers was preached by their parents' or those of their friends. What we've come to realize is that the world is unsafe. Parents are educating their kids about this at a young age. However, it is much safer than we think. Even though it's far less likely for someone to kidnap a child than to help one in need, people expect the worst. I find that as Americans, the majority of us are overly cautious. We expect the worst and want to make sure that our children are at the greatest advantage if they venture off alone. Even though I am now aware of the statistics, and know that is better for a kid to trust strangers and talk to them if in need, I know that when I am a parent I will preach the same nonsense. Why? Well, given the slight or even minuscule chance that my kid might speak to a kidnapper or child molester or crook, I'd prefer that he or she does not speak to strangers. Also, if in an emergency situation I would tell my child to confront an adult with a child or somebody working ( in a book it said that someone on working hours is bound to want to keep their job rather than run off with a child). However, this is also potentially dangerous. There is some possibility that I or a member of my family could get shot upon leaving home. I wouldn't tell my mom not to leave the house because of that. Using that same mentality, I shouldn't tell my kids not to talk to strangers, although the likelihood of getting kidnapped is somewhat higher. I find that people should rethink the way that they present the "stranger danger" concept to their kids. After all, that mentality could harm a child more than help depending on the situation. Wed, 23 Feb 2011 00:15:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/stranger-kidnapping/#IDComment129958842 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-much-government-do-we-need/#IDComment129294845 I find that the government is not in any position to make decisions for society. The fact is, America is overall a democratic society. Laws and standards are set by the government, but at the the end of the day people make the decisions for themselves. Sometimes, depending on how drastic the decision, if caught, people must suffer the consequences. Consequences previously decided fit by the government. But, until technology is advanced enough for mind control, the government can only do so much. By providing information about the nutrition of McDonald's Big Macs, a difference can be made. I mean, yes it is unfair that taxes are potentially raised for the poor health this food causes. However, it would be going overboard to ban any sort of food distribution, just as the government won't one day pass a law forbidding eating grass. To each his own, right? Well, an invisible line does cross when it comes to the growing, consumption, and distribution of certain plants. It's hard not to address the fact that although a law is in effect, it does not at all prevent people from doing so, regardless of the government rule. So, if they were to ban Big Macs, I find that people would find a way to still get their hands on them even if not eating them might prevent a number of slow deaths. However, I find that the government recently passed new laws that serve to improve society and possibly humanity. By banning texting while driving, there is no doubt that accidents have lessened and that roads are much safer. Also, by banning smoking in public places the environment is more comfortable for nonsmokers and the air is cleaner. I find that since smoking is directly detrimental to health and the direct cause of lung cancer, it is fair for the government to take action. In this case, laws are saving lives. I guess you could also say by banning Big Macs, it could improve the health of many Americans and potentially save lives. But, for whatever reason, I find that it would be far too extensive and would seem much more of an authoritarian approach to governing. So, breastfeeding is proven to prevent child obesity. It is clear that the government is by no means about to ban baby formula. However, they can provide incentives to make people more inclined to breastfeed their children, just as the government is able to provide reasons not to eat Big Macs. On that same note, the government didn't ban texting or cigarettes, but only provided the places appropriate and inappropriate to do so. Are they making our decisions for us, is America one step away from 1984, or are they simply guiding us towards healthier and more beneficial ways of living? Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:00:58 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-much-government-do-we-need/#IDComment129294845 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/15/social-structure-shapes-free-will/#IDComment129285315 It is clear that when most people are presented with the idea of polygamy, people think of one man with more than one wife. In fact, I find that one woman with multiple husbands is rarely acknowledged and many might not even be aware it exists. This video is the first time I have actually seen this concept in action. This makes me think about the world as a whole and gender issues. It is true that humanity has come a long way and women have gained equal rights and largely practice more freedoms than ever before. However, I, even as a female, and more astonished at the concept of a woman having multiple husbands than a man having multiple wives. I think that this might be so because men are considered the more dominant sex. Maybe I find that in many situations men are the breadwinners. And, although this concept is changing, it might be that if the man can afford to raise multiple families (be it as one, or not), then they should be allowed to do so if law permits. It's sad to me that I'd consider this as as an explanation, especially since the roles between men and women are shifting and sometimes shared. Also, polygamy featuring a man with multiple wives is often a popular theme in many shows ("BIg Love") and movies. However, I have to see a movie exhibiting multiple husbands. It is probably because of modern culture and the history of the genders that causes polygamy in general to be a questionable practice. In the video, the families talk about how their set ups work for them. Men work together to provide for their wife and kids. It is in a way like group living, and it makes survival easier for them. I find it unfair, though, that when a farm is owned by a family, it is the first husband's child that claims ownership once he is gone. However, what is fair? The same goes for more common practices in America. Is it fair that I am entitled to more of my grandparent's fortune than my cousins or even their kids? Probably not. In fact, their practice might be even more fair because everyone is aware of who the property will be passed onto. It is interesting to think that even brothers sharing a wife don't have their qualms. And, as the video addresses, jealousy can be a regular occurrence. A man in the video states that if the wife is "smart," she will give them all her time since one man won't require a full night. Well, even the best of us can get tired, and I find that extremely unfair for the wife if that is the only way she can keep the peace. However, I find that not every family would need to handle things that way. One woman suggests that more people should live the way that her village does. They all get along, sit together, and chat together. Since most people in America and many other countries never got to experience this kind of harmony, who are we to judge their preferred lifestyle? Sat, 19 Feb 2011 21:53:35 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/15/social-structure-shapes-free-will/#IDComment129285315 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128009303 This song toys with the ideas of true love, life experiences, and faith. The singer talks about how he met his wife at seventeen and how in such a short time he could not have possibly met his life's soulmate. This is a valid point. But, is the idea of a soulmate just a superficial romantic notion? If life's events can shape one's life and therefore change an individual as a person, how can someone have one person fit him or her on every possible level when no one is a constant self? This world has countless individuals, to the extent that there is not a perfectly accurate number on any given day on how many humans truly reside here. So, with all of these being, the cycle of life ending and starting every day, huge impacts on individuals occurring at every second, I find it impossible for one person to be a perfect match. The song also talks about how another woman "would do." He means that he would have made it fine without his current wife if their paths had not crossed or if there was a change of fate. I happen to support this man's reasoning in this comical song. There is bound to be another person that he would get along with fine other than his wife. Actually, odds are there are thousands of other people he could be compatible with other than his current wife. In another relationship, be it better or worse than his current one, different problems and positives would be had. This is so because no two people are alike, therefore the interaction between no two people are alike. The invisible strings that come down and affect people, shape who they are, change how they interact with others, change how they view the world and themselves. So, with all of these variations of humans, I find that there are many that could be compatible with any given person. Every relationship poses different: issues, shortcomings, positives, negatives, attractions, different everything. Soul mates could not be an existing entity of life, even though it is an enticing thought to think someone was created to compliment every part of your being, because the world is far too large and complicated. It makes me think of the idea that in today's society the more choices and freedoms offered, the less satisfied people are becoming. With all of those genes (jeans) out there, people's expectations are much higher. Many leave the store disappointed, forever wondering if they could have found a better fit with the countless choices. Tue, 15 Feb 2011 01:27:20 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/13/whats-the-sociological-message-here/#IDComment128009303 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127219594 This video left me, and I'm sure many others, with a feeling of hope for the future of humanity. We have developed over time. The video showed how cognitively, different parts of our brains are now active than that of millions of years ago, and we therefore think differently than our ancestors. I find that this is a good thing. It addresses the idea of being loyal to an original clan and that back in the day, families surrounding your clan were viewed as "aliens." I find that even now, that hasn't changed completely. We all have heard the expression "blood is thicker than water," and many of us would put family first. I know that if it was up to me and I had to sacrifice my brother or a stranger on the other side of the world, I would pick the stranger. That stranger, like thousands of years ago, is considered an alien to me in some ways. I am definitely inclined to hold a greater loyalty to my family than other human beings. That being said, I do not value the life of a friend who holds my religion more so than i would of a friend of another belief. The video talks about how people expanded their inner circles based on religion and then began to do so based on their countries. Humans have evolved in such ways to expand their identities to include the location where they live. And by living in a particular location, others who live there with you share a commonality and possibly have more in common with you than someone in another country. This is how we associate ourselves with others, based on comparisons and similar views. People are very different, so it is hard to have everything in common with a single being, but by creating these strings that can attach one person to another (ex. being in the same class), people are expanding themselves and sociology is evolving. The crisis in Haiti was mentioned. From twitter, to cell phone videos, to blogs, to the internet, people were notified rather quickly. Technology today allows us to be more in touch with the world and society at large than we have ever been. As a result, people were able to come to Haiti's aid much more quickly without these advancements. The connections we have with others are so thin, people are, in a sense, only a click away. This makes it easy to communicate with people of other countries. This makes humans have more in common than we ever had. We are all reaching out in ways that was never before possible, getting a glimpse of what would otherwise be unknown. So, is it possible that we will one day, as a species, be able to view ourselves as one, fighting for a fragile life? I'm not sure. But I do think that we are onto something huge here. Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:45:53 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/06/empathy-might-be-our-natural-drive/#IDComment127219594 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/04/the-not-so-invisible-structure-that-shapes-us/#IDComment127033044 Only a mere 30% of U.S. citizens have passports. The article opens up with this statistic. I am not at all surprised by this percentage. Many Americans are unable, or feel no need to leave the country. We do have a large and beautiful country and people are content traveling only within its confines. That being said, for as long as i can remember i wanted to see beyond the U.S. I had only been to a few states outside of New York and was never quite geographically accurate, but was still able to name a few countries and some characteristics about them that made them enticing to me. I participated in community service trips in Ecuador and Costa Rica and since I was twelve, I've gone abroad with my grandmother, aunt and mom. For an eighteen year old, I'd say I'm well traveled. I can't help but wonder though, about the other millions of people in this country who want to travel and do not have the means to do so. It is because of my socioeconomic status that I am able to have such experiences. Although I am aware that I have grown tremendously from these trips, seen incredible sights, and made a difference with community service work, I cannot belittle the local traveling that others partake in. If somebody were to visit their town's local soup kitchen every week, I cannot say that they are making less of a dent than I did traveling abroad in people's lives. Heck, they might be contributing more since they visit frequently. Also, I do not know that my friend's annual camping trip with her family provided more positive family bonding or better memories. It is possible that they even had a better time than I did with my family in Italy. So, as sad as it is to know that some people do not get the same opportunities as i do, be it because of money or principles, I won't get the same experiences that they do. Regardless, we both come back from our family trips with countless and equally shameful stories. But, because we are experiencing such different forms of vacation, we are completely different people. My friend might have much more in common with a stranger than me, simply because of the different vacations we take. Even if we have the same culture, our lives could not be more different. Financially, America is not at its best. So, it is no wonder why many Americans are choosing not to travel. However, it is also apparent that people do not possess passports because they don't feel the need to leave the country, or even their hometowns. I do think it is somewhat imperative to see the world, to immerse oneself in a completely different culture. But, a lot of people don't want to step outside of their comfort zones. People also don't want to be bothered with transportation and airport security. Many see traveling as a potentially life threatening act. I know somebody that refuses to step inside of an airport. It could also be that many of us are too lazy, the trip planning and packing is just too much effort. I'm not sure, but it would make sense. The article also talks about our vacation spans. In other countries, school and work vacations are of more importance. They have longer periods of time off, and therefore have more opportunities to travel. Could it be our extreme work ethic that prevents Americans from seeing the world? Gap years are promoted in the United Kingdom as well as other countries. Here, although it is heard of, taking a gap year is frowned upon. Parents worry that maybe their children will never pursue further education. Students here shy away from it because it is not a commonality. Also, many people who have to desire to travel are not financially stable enough during their prime physical fitness and then feel it is "too late" once they do have the money. No matter the reason, it is clear that Americans as a whole, travel less than those of many other countries. People in this country who are well traveled have different outlooks, opinions, and knowledge than those who have not been abroad. I find that this makes a big gap in our country's citizens. People who have been abroad are by no means more intelligent or sophisticated than those who have stayed in the U.S. for their lifetimes. However, they have experienced different things. Many possess a greater understanding of certain aspects of the world simply because they have seen more. Our country does have a lot to offer, there are gorgeous and monumental sights to see in just about every state. However, there is a kind of magic in standing at a place so far from where you started with people who do not even sleep and wake on your same schedule, in front of a sculpture made by an artist who did not speak your language thousands and thousands of years ago. Thu, 10 Feb 2011 02:23:23 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/04/the-not-so-invisible-structure-that-shapes-us/#IDComment127033044 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125517306 Soon after watching this video, I saw a commercial for an upcoming film. It exhibited the opposite of what this video did. In this commercial, a girl was shown who was tall and slender and not particularly pretty in the center of a group of stumpy dark-haired average looking girls. A man then pointed out "the tall blonde over there," and the other men were able to notice her right away because she stuck out like a sore thumb. The man even made a comment about the benefits of girls surrounding themselves with uglier chicks! This commercial was depicting the girl's desire to stand out and be noticed. The scene from the short film, was showing various men conforming to what they had thought to be the rules or rituals of the elevator. When it comes to being a part of a group, be it social or temporary (like riding an elevator with strangers), people want to blend in. The reason why people join groups in college, such as clubs and frats or sororities, is to be a part of a larger mass. However, in some instances, people want to stand out in order to seem unique, but usually in a positive way. As human beings, it is natural for us to want to conform to society's ways or standards. This can sometimes be tricky because with different cultures and religions, different ideas and ways are accepted. That is why certain rituals or activities seem sort of outlandish to me, brought up in a reformed Jewish modern home, that might seem normal to a devout catholic. Different families can provide their own standards and concepts of what is the "norm." So, this why individuals have different strings attached to them. And, if I experience the same thing someone else does, it will have a different affect on me than that other person. Therefore, the same string attached to both of us will most likely have different affects on us. Bringing this back to the concept of conforming, my idea of what is conforming is not the same as my roommate's or my professors'. The elevator scene though, depicts a situation that is either to follow, or to continue facing one's initial direction in the elevator. I, like the others, probably would have simply copied. Life tends to be a game of copycat. When in class, each student is part of a unit. Looking around the room, it is easy to see that when one person takes out a notebook and writing utensil, I often see the people around them do the same thing. It might be the idea of efficiency as well as the idea of blending in. But, it's also about doing the right thing. It's the idea of, "If they're doing it, shouldn't I be doing it too?" When a large group of people are doing one thing, people tend to follow, in hopes that they are contributing to a proper cause and becoming a part of the vast majority. This also goes along with the idea of victims of sexual abuse becoming abusers themselves. It's the idea of continuing a process, and adding to statistics to make it more the "norm." This is also why events like the holocaust have occurred. When one person has an idea that blows up and gets put to action, more and more people join the conga line. This idea caused a separate race to be developed (aryan). This is also why it makes it possible for different things to be accepted in different societies. Conforming to some, is not conforming to others. So, in some ways, conforming can serve to benefit humanity, as long as people are joining the ranks for a good cause. People should learn to be more selective, since it can serve to hurt people as a whole even if it benefits one particular mass. But, hey, that's what makes the world go' round', right? Wed, 2 Feb 2011 22:12:16 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/30/conformity-rules-the-day/#IDComment125517306 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/americans-gone-wild/#IDComment124797855 I have a seven year old brother. I know for a fact that some of the actions he makes, gestures, and comments, are based on something heard or seen on t.v. or he is mimicking a child at school. He often does not mean what he says or does, nor does he understand the value behind some of the new, "sophisticated" language he has been picking up at school. If someone came up to him and handed him a gun, i fear he would not know the meaning of the weapon nor the implications that go along with possessing one. I do not blame him for any of his actions at this age, much less would i have blamed him two years ago. It is apparent that we are not in a free world when you read on the news about a five year old being arrested. It is beyond depressing and ludicrous to know that a five year old was being arrested during the time that a true criminal could have been removed from the streets. What worries me the most is thinking of the impact that this arrest could have on the child and his life. Will this serve as a warning to him, frighten him beyond repair, or be a determining factor for him to be more inclined to commit future crimes? The possibilities are endless on the effects that this arrest could have on this five year old child. However, I am sure that this arrest is not necessary. The boy is probably unable to understand why possessing a gun is wrong and forbidden because he does not understand the no weapons in school policy. For somebody who is barely literate, it is clear that an arrest is so inappropriate. Some teens who participate in underage drinking and are well aware of the implications associated with it and the laws that they are breaking, do not get arrested when they are caught. Many police officers acknowledge the fact that they are children and let them get off on a warning. The same goes for street venders without a permit, often times the police arrive to clear the area and no arrests are made. Kids who shoplift, who are over the age of 5, while roaming the store with their parents often do not get into any trouble. When and if their parents catch them in the act, they will sometimes make them bring the item back to the store to return it. The clerk or manager would never call the cops claiming the child to be an outlaw and demanding an arrest! it would be preposterous. So, this was not a valid arrest for a five year old even if it was something as serious as a gun on a school premises. This boy might now feel like a criminal. On t.v. people who are put in handcuffs are often the "bad guys" in many movie plots and shows. The criminal always has to pay the price and the cops are always portrayed as the good ones, the heroes. This child might have less self confidence and be tainted by this bad image of himself for years. This could serve as an invisible string, this experience, and make him more inclined to commit crimes or exhibit negative behaviors in the future. I only hope that this arrest and the incident was explained to him properly and put in a better light. It also makes me wonder how the boy's stepfather could be so careless as to leave a weapon within reach of the child. A careless environment is a dangerous one as well. I hope that this man would be more cautious in the future. If anybody should have been punished in this situation, it most certainly should have been the stepfather. He is the adult, and aware of what it means to possess a gun and should have realized he had a small child in his presence. But, even so, it would have been overboard for him to have been fined or arrested as well. The whole situation should have been taken much more lightly and handled in a completely different manner. I just toss it up to another bad decision made by people with positions of power. Hopefully, it will serve as a mistake society can learn from. Sun, 30 Jan 2011 22:42:02 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/27/americans-gone-wild/#IDComment124797855 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment124039442 I was not astounded by the fact that 11% of Memphis high school to be pregnant. Pregnancy rates in teens have been on the climb in recent years. The fact that this school isn't financially stable also affects these percentages. It acts as an invisible string because low-income and urban regions tend to have higher rates of pregnancy, drug and alcohol abuse, amongst other things. So, simply residing in a certain area or growing up somewhere can greatly affect the likelihood of adolescent pregnancy. According to "Eleven Facts about Sex Education in the U.S.," over one half of districts in the South have an abstinence-only policy, as opposed to the 20% in the Northeast. So, based on location, a teen could be more or less likely to become pregnant. For instance, if I grew up in the South and the percentages were higher for pregnancy than in the North or Northeast, I might be more or less inclined to engage in unprotected sex based on my community as well as the impact of the abstinence-only policy. A person's perspective of life can be completely different because of their upbringing and communities, greatly affecting their chances of pregnancy and other issues. The idea that a school's pregnancy percentage could be higher based on a group decision is quite comical to me. Although group pregnancies are a real and serious issue, it is perhaps the most stupid and ironic decision a group of teens can make. First of all, it is hardly a decision at all. These girls are choosing to embark on the most personal and intimate journey they could possibly make, together. Yet, they end up completely alone and the outcome is probably not what they imagined. When a person makes a decision to have a baby later in life, when married and financially stable, it is hardly a decision then. This is because their decision is shaped by many other factors like society's standards and modern times. These girls are unable to care for this child properly on their own and their decision to have the child was shaped much too largely by social issues, family problems, lack of maturity, and etc. So, if the decision to get pregnant is hardly one's own choice as an adult, it is clearly not one for an adolescent. Recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraception use and therefore increase the risk of unintended pregnancy and STDs. The organizations that promote this, should therefore rethink their strategies, as well as parents and teachers. This particular invisible string, one supported by the government, communities, and families, has intentions to help improve the climbing statistics of teen pregnancy. However, by demoting the accuracy of contraceptives and constantly promoting a one-way road, it is having the opposite effect on students. These organizations might even be provoking rebellion and frustration in young adults. This causes them to question authority and therefore, make poor decisions in the long run. The more sexually educated teens are, the wiser the decision making process will become in future years. More effective ways of presenting sexuality and safe sex should be practiced and continue to improve, providing teens with the proper knowledge to make their own, educated decisions. Will the decisions be their own? Probably not. But, are they ever one's own to make? Thu, 27 Jan 2011 04:39:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment124039442