Will Gay Marriage Destroy Our Society

| No Comments


The article I read about gay marriage is one that does not support it. The authors discuss how gay marriage will destroy our society and that heterosexual couples are the best way to raise kids. They provide five grounds to support their claim. These include religious freedom, rights of children, traditional marriage, education, and husbands. I will not elaborate on each one but the article goes into further detail. One of the sections discussing the rights of children states that, "more children living in gay homes means more children living lives absent a relationship with at least one biological parent". This is assuming that children can't be happy with two parents of the same gender, which is untrue. The same amount of love is shown for a child if it's a man and a woman, two men, or two women. Another piece of support I wanted to focus on was the husbands. The article is focusing on the reproduction of kids and genetics and not about the love given to children and the alternative options it provides. Husbands allow for more children to be adopted and placed in a loving home. Even though neither of them is biologically connected to the issue, they are still legally responsible for that child through the adoption process. In my opinion, gay marriage will not corrupt our society. It gives way for change and development. Society is constantly changing and new generations are becoming more accepting of people and their individuality. Some may consider a heterosexual marriage to be tradition, but traditions break. The article also noted, "A recent Newsday editorial said opponents 'will be seen by future generations in much the same light as those who opposed school desegregation'". I think this statement is very true. People always look back and wonder why people acted the way they did. Generations change and the views they hold do as well. Do you agree with this article? Are the arguments they make valid and what do you think the future holds for gay marriage?

Beyonce on Her Super-Sexy Album: Own It

| No Comments


In this article, Beyonce discusses the implications of being a sexual woman in the media. She starts by talking about the roles that women are "supposed" to play in the media, and the roles that we believe are "right". Beyonce really wanted to break those roles and show that women should not hide their sexuality, unlike men. In her most recent self-titled album, she breaks these barriers remarkably. She hopes that her music can help open up conversation for women's sexuality in the media. She states perfectly in the article, "There is unbelievable power in ownership, and women should own their sexuality. There is a double standard when it comes to sexuality that still persists. Men are free and women are not. That is crazy. The old lessons of submissiveness and fragility made us victims. Women are so much more than that. You can be a businesswoman, a mother, an artist, and a feminist - whatever you want to be - and still be a sexual being. It's not mutually exclusive."
I fully agree with Beyonce. I think that now is a better time than ever to realize that we should take another look at these social roles that we are placing on women. For a lot of people, it is just an innate belief that women should be more "classy". I strongly believe in the equality of both genders and their representation in the media. The thing I like the most about this article, was when Beyonce discussed the pressures she feels to say the right thing and make the right impression. While having women's sexuality increasingly represented more in the media, it should come in doses -- just like with men. Artists need to be conscious and recognize the crowd that will be listening/seeing them. After all, these artists are making bold statements, and need to continue to inspire their fans.

Response to "Unsung Hero"

| No Comments

I really enjoyed reading your blog post. I personally dedicate a lot of my time to volunteer work, as I am a part of a coed service fraternity here on campus. A lot of times I get the reaction from people of, "Wow, you are such a great person. You do so much." In truth, not really. I don't really do that much. I feel like what I do is my job as a human being. I completely agree with what you said about how kindness is not overrated. No it is not, and it never will be. What comes around really does go around and everyone should live life with that in mind. If you are able to help anyone at any time-you should be. Whether it's dedicating a weekend to volunteering or just an hour, or even holding the door open for somebody or leaving a generous tip. If you are able then you should be helping others. It's what makes a person whole-heartedly good. Now, it might be my opinion that everyone should give and be generous and give help to anyone who needs it. It might seem idealistic, but I see it as an expectation. As a human being it should be a part of our nature to want to help each other and the environment we live in to thrive. I mean, if our ancestors didn't help each other out in terms of survival we wouldn't be here, would we? I was happy to read a post that I could agree with so much and think, finally, someone agrees that kindness is not just an extra act that only "good people" put effort into. It is a part of our nature and crucial for the survival of the human race.

In recent news, the debate of if illegal immigrants in Minnesota should be able to receive Minnesota driver's licenses has been extremely popular. Fox 9 KMSP of St. Paul and Minneapolis covered the topic of the bill that was passed by legislatures that would make it easier for illegal immigrants in Minnesota to obtain driver's licenses. Democrats feel that allowing illegal immigrants to apply for driver's licenses would, "make Minnesota roads safer by funneling more drivers through the state's driving test and making it easier for them to buy automobile insurance." This is a very valid point that I had unfortunately never considered before. Illegal immigrants already make a huge percentage of the American population. Making abiding by the law safer and less risky for immigrants could really result in a much safer public environment. Like Fox stated, immigrants would not have to avoid the DMV or care accidents, because getting a driver's license and car insurance would be legal and welcomed. This would save other Americans the frustration of possibly getting in an accident with an illegal immigrant who does not have insurance, and flees the seen in fear of extreme prosecution. The Republican point of view, according to Fox 9, involved the concern of, "illegal immigrants using state IDs to vote." Yes, this could be a potential problem, but as long as strict monitoring is followed through with, illegal immigrants should not be able to vote with their driver's license. A special marking on their license could indicate that their state issued driver's license cannot be used for voting, etc. This would have to be further discussed by legislatures agree on a way to prevent illegal immigrants from voting, but still having a driver's license to keep the streets safe. So the question is, should illegal immigrants be allowed to have Minnesota driver's licenses? If so, should there be an indication on their license that they cannot use it to vote? Would the risk of an illegal immigrant voting out-weight the benefits of them going through state mandated driving tests and buying car insurance?


"Unsung Hero"

| No Comments


"Unsung Hero" is an insurance commercial made by TVC Thai Life Insurance. I watched this video last week because I was interested with the video's title. It was definitely worth the watch. This video play around with pathos and use emotions to impact human behavior to do a little act of kindness in the world. The main argument of this video is that people have to help other people without expecting any rewards from them. After watching this video, want to say that kindness is not overrated. Furthermore, we can still achieve happiness and show an example to others through our good deeds.

I will elaborate on my first point that kindness is not overrated. After our discussion about Peter singer's article in class I know that some people have the perception that this is another video idealistic video to help the poor. For those who think in that way, I am going to say yes, this is another idealistic video. However, the message in this video are much more than the act of giving to save humanity. This video act as a reminder for us normal people to do good regardless of who we are and regardless of how much we have. Because in the end, our little effort can bear sweet fruits. The effort of kindness shown in the movie is not only by giving money, but also spending little time for others and sometime by giving presents to others. This means, that we can do a lot of thing to help another person as an act of kindness. There is going to be an argument of how much good is good and I would say, if you are sincere, that would be more than enough. If you feel you need to do more then do and if you feel that what you do is enough then its enough. From this video, I learned that, you do not need to force people to do kindness. If you have more strength to do good and set up an institutions to do good, then by all means do it. However, if you are just like the main person in the short commercial, then your little deeds can also help people smile and change their lives in some way. From this video, it also give a message that an act of kindness can also resulted in happiness. You might not see it the moment you give, but in time your effort will be worth it. Think about it, if you become an example and other people follow, then there will be two people giving and then the number of people giving double and then more people will start to give. Now, my previous statement is too ideal but it is definitely not impossible.

What do you guys think about this video?
how well does it uses emotion to make people do more kindness inside their community?

response to "Violent Effects of Video Games"

| No Comments

An online visit the United States recently conducted by Harris Yuji show New Year's Eve win over the majority of Americans believe there is play between the electron and violence. But many researchers say, not worth mentioning too much evidence that will lead to playing electronic game players become brutal. Instead, they pointed out that there are a lot of positive e-playful infection moved. Researchers at Children's Hospital Boston is also a declaration that a game can help children control their emotions irritability.
Is this game, the player is to enemy fire while the spacecraft by friendly forces to avoid accidental injury. Mindful rate rose to more than a certain level, the player will lose shooting ability. The play can teach them to keep stillness skills. Although electronic play and their potential harmful effects have been repeatedly criticized, but now discuss personnel and developers are playing in electronic health, study hard to take the role of other social problems arising from the proposed recognition.

"Blackfish" Exposes the Truth

| No Comments

I recently watched the documentary called Blackfish, as suggested by my roommates who saw it and felt moved by it. The documentary touches on something that is not often talked about and little is known about by the general public. The producer and director of the film created it in order to uncover the truth about what really happened to senior trainer Dawn Brancheau at Sea World back in 2010. Throughout the film, they argue that killer whales held captive should be set free back to the wild because they belong there. There are researchers, scientists, and former sea world trainers who are featured, offering their opinion and information about the long held debate of keeping orcas captive. Blackfish provides a lot of evidence to support its position that orcas are only seen to kill humans while in captivity exploring the deaths of three different people. Whales become aggressive because they are stressed and aggravated confined in a tank too small for them. In the wild these animals swim up to 100 miles per day with large families that they stay with from birth till death, but in captivity, whales have are separated from their mothers and kin family members. This often leads to fighting and aggression between orcas in order to show dominance since they are unfamiliar with each other and speak different languages. This is comparable to humans in that it's like taking a few different individuals with contrasting cultures from various regions of the world that speak completely different languages and all put together in one room not knowing anyone. That would be a very terrifying and stressful experience, as it is for orcas. The film gives background information regarding killer whales explaining that they are highly intelligent and sociable animals that are not to be meddled with. The film does a great job exposing Sea World and its legal team who consistently defends its actions and portrays the killings of people as "accidents." All three of the people viciously killed were all attacked by the same large bull orca named Tilikum, who is still at Sea World. I have been to Sea World myself as a little girl and loved seeing the animals perform it was very exciting and magical but after watching the film, my views about marine mammal parks have completely changed. I strongly agree with everyone who took part in creating this film in that keeping orcas held captive is just inhumane and they live much better, happier, and longer lives in the ocean where they belong.

Response to Super Size Me

| No Comments

The film Super Size Me points out many arguments surrounding the controversy around America's growing fast food industry. I have seen this film many times and it still churns my stomach every time I watch it. The first time I saw the film I actually didn't eat MacDonalds for two years. The evidence it poses and the cause and effect nature of the arguments against the healthfulness of fast food were so disturbing to me and the typical viewer that it opens the door for more research to be done to prove the negative health results of consuming these food options.

Morgan Spurlock's experiment introduced us to the adverse causes of consuming fast food in excess. Personally, we all should have known that fast food is not health based on the prices of the food and the ingredients used to prepare the food. Before I saw this film and understood the arguments it presented, every time I ate fast food I was left with an unsettled feeling in my stomach, which should not be the case after eating good and healthy food. Ultimately the fast food industry's argument that it is the consumers decision to step into a restaurant and purchase the food holds. The problem is that the fast food industry was not choosing to show the calories and health information of the food they were serving to the public. This lack of transparency in the fast food industry allowed many to not see the negative health benefits of consuming this type of food. Luckily today fast food establishments are required to have health information on the food they are serving available to the public, but still they are not advertised or clear. You still have to ask to see the health information here in Minnesota or take the time to go online and look yourself, which does not go in line with fast food's benefit of being available quickly. I, as a consumer of fast food, am not going to take the time to learn about the negative health information of a meal because the only time I choose to get fast food is when I have little time, so why would I spend that time looking up all of the bad things I am eating when I order. They should really be presented with the food in order to increase the health transparency of the food.

It is true however, that Morgan Spurlock's findings allowed a viewer of his film to know that fast food is not health compared to any standard. It presented the challenge to the American consumer to make the healthy choice to not eat fast food in excess. The causal argument that was presented by the findings of the film have been cleared up. Scientific findings have made it clear that fast food is a very unhealthy option and causes obesity and other health issues when consumed in excess.

Response to "Effective? Or just plain offensive?"

| No Comments

More than anything, Colbert's commentary furthered my opinion that it is not wise to have a race as one's mascot. Obviously, stereotypes are rarely true and he portrayed his Asian "mascot" as stereotypical as they come. However, comedians can get away with saying much more offensive things than normal people would in everyday life. By saying something offensive in a sarcastic tone or a hyperbolic manner, one can easily categorize the topic under "comedy." His methods highlighted the ridiculousness of the situation by making them so extreme that at first glance, it would seem like nobody could ever do what he was doing. His portrayal was only a stone throw away from the truth, and it helps to see how out-of-hand the problem can easily become. I do think it was an effective way to address the situation; however, I do not believe that comedians should be the only ones "allowed" to make offensive jokes such as these simply to make a point. (They should not receive special treatment.)

Respond to "Ten Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty"

| No Comments

Mary provided ten reasons to oppose death penalty. She used pathos and logos, which make her argument seem effective and strong. When I look close to her reasons, I feel they are not hard to refute, because she build her arguments mostly based on her own evaluation, which is lack of evidence to support. For examples, let us analysis the first three reasons she provided. First, the probability of the case that there is a mistake of executing a man for a crime he did not commit is very small. The judicial departments would not make careless decision without enough evidences. Second, she points out that there is racial and economic discrimination. There is a high probability that poor people or black people are executed. She might forget there is also a high probability among poor people and black people of committing crimes. How could she evaluate the application of death penalty tend to be arbitrary based on a single case she know in her third reason?

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Recent Comments

  • benzx052: This article was very interesting to me because I did read more
  • yusof002: In my opinion, violent video games may be inspired from read more
  • kimx1272: I think the main purpose of punishment is to protect read more
  • kell1168: I completely agree that the drinking age should be lowering. read more
  • yusof002: My first impression on the article title was there must read more
  • mccar681: I completely agree that the high number of fast-food chains read more
  • yang4025: I remember during my Junior high school years, students read more
  • xiaojing: I appreciate the author's perspective because the main factors of read more
  • xiaojing: I appreciate the author's perspective because the main factors of read more
  • xiaojing: I appreciate the author's perspective because the main factors of read more



Powered by Movable Type 4.31-en