The social and economic differences between the upper class and lower class are apparent to almost everybody, I think. Most people know that the way they experience is vastly different from the experience of a person from the upper class. I think the statistics that were presented in class show that people may not understand the numerical differences in exactly how large a percentage of the country’s money is controlled by the top 10 percent, but I still hold on to the idea that people know the extent of the differences between their lives and the lives of the upper class. People use their imagination concerning the things they would do with boat loads of money; also, several shows on television depict the lives of the upper class. My first point is that contrary to Sam’s belief, I think that a lot of the people in the class understand the social and economic inequalities.
This second part is my opinion of the inequality situation. Like Sam said in class, many people do not rally against the actions of the upper class for two main reasons. A lot of people, especially students who attend Penn State University falsely think that they will be members of the upper class. Due to that belief, they think that if they can put up with the inequalities for a period of time, that they will eventually reap the benefits of being rich. Like I stated before, many of the people who think this way will end up not making it to the top like they thought. Still, for the rest of their lives, most of them will continue to fight to claim a piece of the prize. As for the other reason, most people are correct in this way. Most people have resigned themselves to the fact that the inequalities that exist are just a part of the way that the world works or that they are part of a culture that cannot be changed. This is most likely going to be true. While it would technically be possible if everyone in the country and/or the world came together to make a stand against the upper class upholding the inequalities, this type of situation would surely never happen due to lack of organization and laziness.

The first thing that pops in to my head when I hear the question “Should homosexuals be allowed to have families/ be married?” is “Why do I care?” I do not meant to sound crass, insensitive, or homophobic, but the truth of the matter is, it doesn’t affect me. If what people do has nothing to do with my life, then what people do is their own business.
One point of contention might be, “It concerns your life because homosexuals are sexual deviants and will therefore raise children that perform other grotesque acts.” I do understand that people have concern for their own wellbeing as well as the wellbeing of their parents, children, spouses, and friends. In this case, the result is left up to the beliefs of the individual, specifically whether he or she believes that a homosexual family/ marriage will lead to some form of harm for his or her family.
However, I’m not so sure that a lot of people feel this way. Also, a majority of the homosexuality debate is about homosexual marriage. This certainly does not raise different children; it is just two people gaining happiness by partaking in an activity and being recognized by the government. People who are opposed to homosexual marriage just think it is wrong and/ or it devalues their own or others’ heterosexual marriage. The question I want to ask them is “Why do you care?” Why does it matter to people who do not know any homosexual people? Even if they did, why should the way someone else lives their life affect the way you live your life in any way? There are people all over the world who beat their wives and claim to love them and people who live in a box on the street or in prison and say that they are happy the same way that homosexual people will say that they are happily married. Why is it that only the last situation has people changing laws and protesting courthouses?
On the other hand, homosexual marriage proponents want to have the right to get married because they want the government to recognize their commitment. This comes from a more personal level, but I hold almost no value in marriage but for the tax write-offs and other legal perks. What does the church or courthouse have anything to do with how I feel about my significant other?
In this way, both homosexual marriage proponents and opponents confuse me.

Another thing that bothers me is the fact that people are claiming offense that things that are not meant to cause offense. The word retarded means something that has been slowed down. Later, this became a derogatory term after being applied to those with an intellectual disability. Now, people who want to use the word in its original sense are labeled as hateful and impolite. This might seem like a small setback compared to the suffering of the afflicted, but this has happened countless times over the ages. Like I stated before, the word “gay” has transformed from a word meaning happy and joyful to a word that some hold near and dear to their hearts while others vehemently disapprove of its use. This effect is not limited to words, as it has affected the swastika as well. It was once used as a religious symbol, yet the only way it is perceived among the general public is as a sign of hateful and violent anti-Semitism. What if another genocide took place with the Christian cross as its insignia? Would Christians give up their religious symbol as easily?

The first thing I thought of when I read this article was Spring Training for my position as an RA. We had to go to a diversity seminar where one of the coordinators gave a presentation about name calling and using derogatory words in everyday speech. One of the big topics was the word “Gay.” The point of the discussion was to acknowledge the fact that many people use this word in their everyday speech and how it could offend some people without intending to. However, after the presentation, during the question and answer period, one guy pointed out something that I have been thinking for a long time. At what point should we stop allowing people the power to control what other people do? What if I were to say that the word “I” offends me because I know too many people that are self-centered and would prefer that everyone refer to themselves in the third-person? Surely people laugh at me, call me crazy or say that I am asking too much, and continue about their lives. Why should my offense be less important than anyone else’s?

Sociology plays a role here in that society gives people a lot of preconceived notions that people assume are true and use to shape the way they live their lives.
I was in a pretty serious relationship for over 6 years with the same girl. While there are tons of other things to talk about regarding that relationship, the one thing that pertains to this discussion is one of the main reasons that we had problems as a couple. While we were in the middle of a rough patch, we were talking about why we were having problems. She felt that I should be doing more things for her to make her happy. I brought up the fact that I was doing everything that I could do and wanted to do. I brought up my idea of equality in relationships. That is, both people in the relationship should have equal say and equal participation in the relationship, at least to the extent that both people are satisfied with the result. She disagreed with my idea, so I asked her frankly, “Do you think that the woman should have more say about what goes on in the relationship?” She was wary to use those words, but I could tell that she was trying to word that exact phrase in a different way. It shocked me that she thought that way. All I’ve seen on tv or been warned about are men who overpower their significant others, so I made it a point not to be that kind of guy. I searched for the right answer and came up with my equality idea.
The difference in opinion must have come from the different sociological factors that affected each of us. I haven’t asked her about this specifically, but I think I know a couple of the reasons she thinks the way she does. First of all, she might have seen the same things I’ve seen in terms of abusive relationships and overcompensated. Another factor that I’m more confident about is that she watches a lot of sitcoms such as Everybody Loves Raymond, My Wife and Kids, and the like. With most of those shows, wives are shown to be the ultimate rules of the house. They often make fun of their husbands who do nothing to help their own case. And in her own household, her mother has the run of the house while her father takes a more passive role. Throughout her childhood, she might have grown up thinking that this was the way things were supposed to be. Anyone experience anything similar?

The perfect way to run the world is a subject that has bugged me for a long time. Depending on the situation, I come up with two different opinions. When I think about the stupid things that people do with their freedom such as drive like maniacs or develop alcoholism, I get the overwhelming urge to have a government regulate everything that everyone does. That way, we could make sure people don’t do stupid things when better judgment would prevent them.
However, on the other hand, when I think about my own personal situation and the things that I do that other people might think are the result of bad judgment. For example, I enjoy a very unhealthy diet. After taking a lot of time to think about what I want to get out of my life, I decided that I would be much happier if I do what I want for as long as I can instead of trying to live a long, healthy life while being miserable. The multitude of people that I’ve told about this don’t understand the choice I’ve made and would not live the way I do if they were me. If the big government that I wanted to put in place for all the other “stupid” people were in effect, the lifestyle that I want to live would be impossible. With that in mind, the other type of government that I would want in place is one that protects nothing more than the basic human rights. That way, people would have complete freedom to live their lives the way they each want.
These two ideas of government are highly contradictory and obviously both cannot be in effect at the same time. Both ideas have merit and reasons to be followed. The problem then is to find the right mix of the two to provide the happiest life for everyone involved. One solution that I thought of was to evaluate everybody in order to decide whether or not people are sane enough to make their own decisions. That way, those who had the ability to understand the complete result of their actions can be governed less than those who do not. But then who decides who is able?

The perfect way to run the world is a subject that has bugged me for a long time. Depending on the situation, I come up with two different opinions. When I think about the stupid things that people do with their freedom such as drive like maniacs or develop alcoholism, I get the overwhelming urge to have a government regulate everything that everyone does. That way, we could make sure people don’t do stupid things when better judgment would prevent them.
However, on the other hand, when I think about my own personal situation and the things that I do that other people might think are the result of bad judgment. For example, I enjoy a very unhealthy diet. After taking a lot of time to think about what I want to get out of my life, I decided that I would be much happier if I do what I want for as long as I can instead of trying to live a long, healthy life while being miserable. The multitude of people that I’ve told about this don’t understand the choice I’ve made and would not live the way I do if they were me. If the big government that I wanted to put in place for all the other “stupid” people were in effect, the lifestyle that I want to live would be impossible. With that in mind, the other type of government that I would want in place is one that protects nothing more than the basic human rights. That way, people would have complete freedom to live their lives the way they each want.
These two ideas of government are highly contradictory and obviously both cannot be in effect at the same time. Both ideas have merit and reasons to be followed. The problem then is to find the right mix of the two to provide the happiest life for everyone involved. One solution that I thought of was to evaluate everybody in order to decide whether or not people are sane enough to make their own decisions. That way, those who had the ability to understand the complete result of their actions can be governed less than those who do not. But then who decides who is able?

Although I don’t know much about how other people think, I’m not sure how prevalent the fear of heights or flying is. I think the reason that the reasons you listed were not included in the article is because the article is talking about what is new or changing about why more Americans don’t travel abroad. While fear is a big part of why people don’t travel abroad, it has not changed much. Even with the semi-recent events of September 11, they were almost 10 years ago. The writer might not have thought that it was relevant to today.

One of the reasons that I agree with is the idea of cost restrictions. While it has been a while since the “Great Recession” of the late 2000’s, a lot of people are still feeling the effects monetarily and emotionally. Therefore, some people don’t have the money to be so luxurious so as to travel to another country to live. Not only are people low on money, but the dollar was also weakened against a lot of foreign currency. That makes it even more expensive to take vacations to other countries. Also, some of the feelings of needing to save money from that time may be left over in a large amount of people. Along with both of these reasons is tied to the work culture. Jobs were and still are hurting a lot. Jobs are hard to find and hard to keep. Therefore, people are putting more time in to both make more money and to maintain their job security.

Another reason that I believe that travelling abroad is becoming less often might be due to the mediocrity of travelling abroad. While it is still considered a fun and exclusive activity, it used to be much more glamorous to travel abroad in the past when flights were less often and more expensive.

As for personal reasons, the reason why I don’t take vacations overseas or to other countries is because it is too much trouble. Booking flights, taking flights, and dealing with currency exchange are all things that I don’t feel are necessary to have a good time. I’m perfectly fine with staying close to home and exploring things by car which is, in my opinion, infinitely more fun and relaxing. One of the things I think about when considering travelling abroad is the multitude of things that have yet to be explored in my own state, let alone my own country.

I suppose you could say that they are all free to make their own decisions. The first of the problems that I have to work through first before I place complete responsibility on the individual is age and experience. How old is this individual? Has he or she had the opportunity to explore the uniqueness of their personality to be able to decide whether or not they actually want to do something? Does the individual have the ability to value different experiences and plan for the future he or she wants? For instance, I would not say that a 5-year old has the capacity to decide what he or she wants. Usually, adults (individuals over the age of 25) are expected to have this capacity to determine their own desires. But this is not the case with all “adults.” Even adults with illnesses that affect the brain may not be capable of making life choices for themselves. Adults who are mentally challenged and adults with Down’s Syndrome are among those who are often labeled as unable to decide for themselves. So that is the first quality that I would have to discern for myself by talking to and learning about the individual. Next, from a sociological standpoint, I would want to know if there was any certain circumstance that led them to act in a certain manner. Among these circumstances are social influences and traumatic events. By social influences I mean something like a pregnancy pact or a boyfriend who pressures the girl into having sex. Even if an individual does not wish to participate, he or she may do so to maintain social standing or goodwill. And by traumatic events, it could be anything from parental abuse or the loss of a friend that causes the individual to engage in destructive behavior. I think that if the individual passes both of these criteria sufficiently, then I would say that they are “free” and are actually making their own decisions. Yet this still has nothing to do with whether or not this decision was the right one for the individual to make.

This is an interesting story to say the least. I can see why people would think a rape game or a shooting game is a bad influence on people, kids especially. They realistically simulate behavior that would be unacceptable were it to occur in real life. These realistic simulations could lead someone of a weak mind who is easily manipulated to believe that this type of behavior is acceptable.
No one is disputing the fact that shooting, killing, and raping people are all detestable acts of violence. However, when is possible violence a legitimate reason to violate the freedom of another person? The freedom I speak of is, of course, the freedom to do any personal activity a person wishes. If you really wanted to end all violence, the simple answer would be to never allow two people to be around each other. Should we stop people from smoking since second hand smoke is bad for surrounding people? Should we stop gay marriage or outlaw masturbation because it offends people of a more traditional or religious walk of life?
While it is being disputed whether or not shooting games and rape games should be allowed for public use, no one is calling for Super Mario Brothers to be banned due to violence against animals. I realize this is a fairly ludicrous example, but all I had to do was show that this problem two “correct” solutions on both ends of the spectrum. That means we need to draw a line. How do we decide when something is too real or too violent to allow into the hands of the public? That, I think, is the real question.
On a side note, something I found interesting about the video is that the representative from the women’s rights group only specified stopping the distribution of games with sexual violence against women. Why did she feel the need to add the extra words at the ends of her sentences to specify sexual violence against women? She could have easily ended her sentence early to include sexual violence against men and women.