Sticking to the status

Being called a “fag” is a bad thing in today’s society, it is it used to be being called a Negro. By refereeing to a boy as a “fag” is to refer to him as girl or in touch with his feelings, yet it was taken a wrong connotation, if it is to be called in that way, to be gay.  Words as we have discussed in class can be seen in different manners. Language in general has different meanings for every person n this world, for it being the symbol that it is.

 It is remarkable for me the way that society is going against everything it has fought for. Our ancestors fought against discrimination and this is what is mostly around us on a twenty-four-hour basis.  Discrimination against people who think different from us who express themselves in an opposite way. People who love and have relationships with our opposite images.  Our women had fought against the discrimination of women and for us their descendents not to have worry about image and being the perfect wives, and for us to be able to do the jobs man could.  This effort seems to be unsuccessful after all this years.

For a man to be called in touch with their emotions or girly is an insult. Women worry everyday more about their image and what they are wearing, who they are wearing, and how to be perfect. Books like Twilight have appeared which further point out that difference between the sexes. There are even more cook books up in the stores and society has a hole is preparing Bradford wives.  Men who are closer to their feminine side are called metro sexual or homosexual.

A man cannot be metro sexual or care for their appearance without being told to be gay, gay marriage is highly discouraged and each day women are being created for wives. I am ashamed to admit that even I am a part of this stereotype. Whether we like it or not this happening every day of our lives.  We are sticking to the status of clothing and appearance and the way we act or what not.  Children are killing themselves because of bullies. And schools are worried about bullies using the words gay or fag. This because if you are called this way one would lose part of its status and that would be horrible. I believe we should all change this subconscious for of thinking which is becoming everyday more evident and slowing us down even more. There are many problems in the world and there should not be so many people worried and even killing themselves because their status has been endangered.

http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/who-are-you-calling-gay/?pagemode=print

Messy statement

Another mess involving Perez Hilton what a surprise, but this mess was an expression of closeness from Miss California Carrie Prejean. She was asked in the Miss America pageant by Mr. Hilton that if she was in favor or against gay marriage as many states are passing the law and California is one of the states that are in the process of this. She answered on national television that she was against gay marriage, that she had been raised with other values and standards and that her religion did not allow this to happen therefore she was completely against it. In any pageant or public speech one can never be so brutal with ones answer, especially something being watched worldwide.

That answer is said to have cost her crown. This comes up with two different issues that completely shock me. One of them being the fact that a pageant participant cannot express her opinion in public without it having it back fire against her. Where is the freedom of speech, where is that liberty that many have fought for? The other is that how can a pageant participant discriminate so much and in such a brutal form by addressing the public in a very direct and straight form of something that is so controversial and that has so many sides.  This two sides of the situation re very controversial on their own, which makes it worse when they are put together.

It is incredible that in the nation of free will and expression a candidate would not win because of something she said. Gay marriage has caused many controversies and in this case Miss California said her position was against it, because of her religion and the moral values she had been thought. It is said that she did not win the pageant because of this statement, then in what type of society are we that someone cannot express one self. She might have expressed herself in an incorrect form, meaning not politically correct, yet it is her opinion and her form of being. Her opinion was said in this statement and many wee against it, but she said it in a direct and meaningful way for her.

If no one can express their feelings anymore then how is society meant to go any further? Our rights are being stopped and people are interfering with them because of personal beliefs. We think that we have gotten over slavery, yet having to think what we say and how we say is a form of slavery. If no one can continue to express what they believe nor think not feel then what our ancestors fought for is a waste of time.

On the other hand her statement was pretty full of resentment and segregation towards gay marriage and homosexuality in general. In the world we live in homosexuality is very controversial, I understand this, what I do not understand why people have not faced the true reality that there exists other people different from who they are. Miss California is the typical stereotypical all-American-girl that is homophobic and has not seen beyond her own reasoning. This is not only her fault is societies in general I am appalled by the fact that homosexual people are being discriminated and have not yet been accepted as different yet normal.

I understand that what I am saying may seem sort of controversial, I was raised as a Roman Catholic and I am I hands on Christian, yet I believe that homosexual people are just like all the rest. They cannot be discriminated like the Blacks were and sometimes they still are. Society needs to be educated into the fact that we are all different and that everyone deserves an equal treatment and that this segregation is not fair and is stopping our development as a complete society. This Miss was very controversial in the way she expressed her opinion the mire fact that she say I do not have a problem against this people is a discriminatory statement. Why would she have something against homosexual people? She would be calling herself a racist and she is also expressing in an indirect form that there is something wrong with homosexual people.

I am a strong supporter of gay marriage and until someone can tell me a real reason why this is not a good or productive form I will not change my mind. I understand the other side of thinkers might feel the same and I have nothing against them, yet for me it is very hard to see that people have not matured into accepting others. My own mother can stand two men or women kissing each other. How is this different from two heterosexuals kissing? What is the difference? That is what I do not understand how can people be so homophobic if their absolutely nothing wrong with it.  

I believe that society as a hole should be educated into acknowledging that there are other thoughts and forms of living, other than those which they live or do. People should learn to accept different opinions and forms of living. Expression should be free and not censored, a pageant or competition in general should not be decided by what a contestant has said. A person should be free to express themselves whichever way they please. On the other hand I think that society should learn to not discriminate others just because they are different in the way they act or in the way they think or in what they believe. I think discrimination is a very ridiculous form of thinking and acting and it should be stopped. Homophobia should be overlooked and people should learn to deal with other opinions other than theirs. I know this statement sounds controversial and ironic to what I am trying to communicate, yet I think that people should be acknowledge that they are others who think and are different than them and learn to live with it, while respecting who they are and how they are.

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/new-battle-lines-on-gay-marriage/?pagemode=print

Judging a book by it’s cover

There is an infinite question of why do some people get it all. This question is not entirely nonsense, this because of a psychological trait that humans have that we categorize people into groups. This was done in the early ages when categorizing people was a form of basic survival. Now a day it is used to divide the pretty people from the ugly the gay from the straight the Latinos from the Americans or the Europeans. It is said that the people who are beautiful get it all, because society gives them all. A beautiful person will attract other people from its same category and from other categories. Therefore when being surrounded they “are happy” and they get everything.

When a person like Susan Boyle breaks the pattern it interrupts with the human psychology which has categorized everything. She does not have a place in a category, she would be categorized as normal or even ugly. She has never been kissed, therefore categorized into a prune or a weirdo. In a high school click she would fit into an excluded group that all the nerds or rejects hang out. Yet her voice breaks with any category she has the exterior of an ugly duckling, and the interior of a gorgeous person.

Many people in society in general do not care for the interior of the person they stop and judge a person by its cover.  This is known to be part of a basic survival tool, yet it is the time for people to out of this tool. To evolve it for the sake and well being of humanity in general if this categorizing continues it is just like racism. Society as a hole was shocked by Boyle because she broke the categories and this is a good thing. This categories need to be broken and people need to start seeing each other  equals and stop classifying each other by social status or gender or color.

If this parameters are not stopped or changed the basic survival tool of our ancestors will backfire at us and discrimination will not end. If discrimination does not end then the evolution of our race will stop being, or better said will continue to be a dumpster and the world will continue to have its clicks. Also women will never be as equals as men nor whites from colored. This discrimination affects everyone and it is not healthy for human beings to keep on this road. More Susan Boyles are needed we need to break with this patterns for the wealth being of future generations. Accepting someone from a group different than yours is a start, not being nasty towards people who are different than you is a start. Anywhere were the change starts is good as long as it starts. Society as a hole needs to start evolving  and stop discriminating for it’s wealth being and its betterment, otherwise wars will keep on going and women who cannot go out of their houses without their husbands will continue to exist. This pattern needs to be broken for the sake of those oppressed by the segregation.

Stem cell research

Stem cell research is a very controversial issue that has the capability to save millions, yet it has to kill an embryo to be able to do this. This because the take a sperm that is donated and an embryo that is also donated and make an embryo which is later processed into studding stem cell research. President Obama has said that stem cell research is open for investigation. This is seen by many groups as inhumane and as killing a human being that has the right to live.

This new human is created for the specific purposes of steam cell research. Therefore I feel that it is not as killing another human being, more like one that never would have been born if not for this procedure. I am completely against abortion, unless it is in the case of rape. Yet I feel that in this case one is not truly killing anyone, because that person was purely created for the research and that one small conjunction of cells has the possibility to save several lives.

This research has been stopped several times and has not yet been fully developed because of these same reasons. I find it to be a valuable research that should be continued and is completely necessary. I am a vegetarian because I believe that animals in general should not be killed for our pleasure for things such as leather, or meat. Yet in this case I find it that it is valuable that this research takes place. I would even be willing to donate eggs, yet it needs to get more developed and the research needs to be opened for different people due to the fact that this could find the cure for cancer or for the renewal of tissue and give a “normal” life for a young person that has suffered a burn. I truly support the decision of Obama and find it a relevant change in the US government.

If other countries start to develop this same idea it will be a great change in the world. Some might believe that this change will lead to unwanted effects as allowing cloning. Yet if measures are taken it will not become this horrible tragedy, yet a greater effect on the world. Stem cell research is of great importance in the modern world. If we postpone this research any more thee lives of more innocent people will be lost. This due to the fact that people are getting in the way of the right development of the research because of personal ideals. This should not get in the way because if this would happen for everything in the world, which is happening now-a-days, then the progress of the world will not get better. We will stay the same and stay stuck without progress. If progress does not occur then society will not evolve therefore other sides of the world will stay the same causing different and diverse problems.

http://www.slate.com/id/2213287/pagenum/2

Castration to sex offenders

Chemical castration for sex offenders might be an extreme measure, and it has not been proven to make an effective change in the offender, yet it has given to some of them the chance to start over and go on with their lives.  Human rights committees say that it is against these rights to castrate them, this offenders have taken the rights of other people away, so why should theirs be protected? This procedure has caused a positive effect on several sex offenders. I believe that this procedure should be offered to sex offenders and even made mandatory to some of those who have committed the crime more than once. I know that it is a very controversial decision, but I believe that those people that cannot be changed by surgery should at least be changed one way or another. This because the world is pretty bad off to keep validating those who rape and kill the children, those that rape and kill our teenagers or our adults.

Many children are being killed all over the world every day by sex offenders, why do they have to suffer because they are afraid of taking the rights away from sex offenders? Fathers that have children with their daughters, the latest case were a daughter was imprisoned for 14 years by her father and raped during all of these 14 years. If they are as cold to do these to their own daughters they will be able to do it to estrangers.  In this specific case a young girl’s life was taken away her rights were stolen from her. She did not have the chance to grow up as a “normal” child. She was raped from an early age and hidden for the rest. Human rights defenders are saying that they still have the right of not being castrated. They took somebody else’s rights and will probably keep on doing it if they are left out of jail.

Castration is not the only way out they could keep sex offenders in jail for the rest of their lives, yet this will be a violation to their rights also, because they will have finished their sentence and are now free to leave. If neither can be done how are we supposed to go on feeling safe, how can the children have a “normal” life? I know that they have the same rights that we do, yet ones rights finish were other people’s rights start, they did not know to stop at that line. By castrating them the chances of the event happening goes down from 80% to 2.3% out of 100 sex offenders that affected many victims, 80 used to go out and repeat their crimes and injure many more. With this procedure 77.7 more victims are saved these sex offenders lowered their rate of harm and is it not worth the wail to stop them to save the many children, to save the many teenagers and adults.

They say that part of the reasons why they are violation their rights with the procedure is because they would not be able to have children. They took other persons child and they expect to have their own? If they please to do so they may as well do it there are many sperm banks were they can keep their sperm frozen until they someone with whom to reproduce. Another reason that they say that the procedure is no good is because sex offenders can get testosterone through the internet.  They should make testosterone selling illegal through internet and make it an over the counter medicine. This might lead to other concerns yet I believe that the safety of the public is more important that just taking away rights or creating a little controversy among the human rights group. I strongly believe that the castration method should be taken to make sure that the public in general has an ensured safety and is able to keep what wrights are left intact.  It is also important to state that not in all the cases should this procedure take place, and it should not be forced to those that have committed the crime once and are evaluated by a psychiatrist to be “cured”. Also this measure should not be taken for all the cases.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/world/europe/11castrate.html

What side do we believe?

Memorizing phrases or small pieces of information tends to be practically impossible for some people. Now there is a scientific explanation of why this happens. It is not because people are too lazy, or because they simply do not want to think. It has to do with the fact that the brain’s frontal lobe cannot memorize big chunks at once, or it shuts down when feeling anxiety. This is what happens during tests and why a classmate might know the information, yet get a wrong answer will doing the test.

What I find interesting about this article is that humans have found scientific explanation to almost everything that happiness around us or to us. What we have been discussing in class is how accurate are all of this research? After all we used to think we were the center of the universe.  So how can anybody know that what they have found is true. No one can at least for now, and I do not believe that it is practically unethical to say that they will get to prove this as an absolute true.

Science changes all the time so what do we trust? I believe that humans should learn how to filter the information that we are given every day. It is hard to know what information is the one to trust.  Should we trust an article of art over one from science or vice versa? Our logic tells us that we should trust the information as it comes and from where it comes, yet how do we know that this article in particular is true. It comes from all the right sources, yet it might be a false statement. My brain tells me to trust what I read, yet TOK tells me not to.

These contrasting ideas have helped to make us analyze in a more in-depth form the information we hear. That information is hard to analyze yet I think it should be given the time of the day depending on from whom it comes from. In part the reason why I believe this article is because it comes from a reliable source and different persons who have studied the subject truthfully. If I was told the same information, yet by a comedian, it would lose part of its credibility.  These contrasting ideas are the key element so that one pays more attention what is being heard and what is being told.  Information should be valued by area of knowledge and the importance or relevance of the person saying it. Although it might be that someone completely unknown is the one that has the right answer. It is a risk that has to be taken, because the odds are to the other side, to the more experienced and that tend to have made more research and be more accurate for the time being.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/17/science/17angi.html?_r=1

Yoga making stress

In the US religion in classrooms is not aloud, yet teachers were making yoga in their classrooms to relax their students before a test. Many belief that this is strictly linked with Hinduism and that it should not be thought because of this that it should become an afterschool activity. Yoga is not a practice done only by people who practice Hinduism; this is the case of the two teachers that were teaching it in Denver. 

The teachers were not meaning to teach their students any Hinduism yet some parents were concerned that this might confuse their children. If their children are big enough to be in high school that means they should be big enough to be able to handle doing yoga without mixing it with other things. Also that if by doing a simple exercise they get confused then they do not have a strong base on which to stand and maybe they should be seeing what else is there. Sometimes our ideas need to be shaken and treated as for us to find our own path like what we do in TOK class.

I am a catholic- Christian person, yet I do yoga. I find it really relaxing and it is not meant to stress people and if parents feel that way maybe it is because they feel questions about how they thought their children. If this is the case maybe they should let their children take yoga classes and make prayers in homeroom due to the fact that if they do not have strong bases how do they expect their children to have them?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27008935/?GT1=43001

When is death truly dead?

Words can be defined by many different meanings; each word can represent something different for every person. Death does not fall far from this. When “dead” people are meant to donate organs, who is a doctor or a family member supposed to know when the person is truly dead. Other people are on the border line of being dead if they do not receive that organ, and if they do not get the transplant fast then they might be organ donors themselves.  Again who can a doctor play of God and decide when a person is truly dead? Who can they make that decision if they know that if they wait too long, then they might endanger another human being?

How can one find out if it is ethical or not to “kill” someone to save another human being? This is an ethical question that is very difficult t answer. The economics and business juniors have taken an ethics curse, for me what I learned the most is that there is a social responsibility and there is an ethical issue. This specific problem deals with both. This due to the fact that doctors have a social responsibility to take care of their patients and keep them alive for as much as they can, then how can they kill a person because it is not fully dead so that they can save another patient.

It would be ethically incorrect to kill someone to get their organs, yet how different is it from killing someone who is not fully dead. I do not think it is a crime to “kill” someone who is brain dead or that is leaving on life support. Yet doctors have to be very careful of not using their “power” in a bad way which might then become a mal-praxis. Being a doctor is not easy but nothing in this world is easy and everything takes a lot of effort. One has only to watch that one does not cross a line, because if one does then it will be an ethically wrong situation and the social responsibility will be grater.

http://www.slate.com/id/2201445/

Fallacies

In our day to day basics we say or hear fallacies. They have become so much a part of our lives that we do not even notice that many people are mentioning them or taking note of them. In English A1 class we have been talking about fallacies. I found the story about fallacies very interesting and I have been watching out for people that have been saying fallacies I figured out that people say so many fallacies that I decided to not even count them.

Ad hominem is one of the most if not the most used fallacies. We have been in the presence of many of this even in our TOK classes, I have even seen it in my business class, they have been bothering me about being a vegetarian and they say that because of it I cannot talk about environmental things and even my arguments are not valid. They say this meant as a joke, yet they are still saying it with so much determination, that I am not sure it is such a joke. Also when people say o no your just a small kid and therefore you may not know about that situation and non of your statements are invalid.

Tu Qouque is another type of fallacies that affects us and that people use the most as for supporting the most contrasting ideas. As the handout says the example of the smoking and like one person smokes in okay even thought he himself says that smoking is bad. That happens very often and has happened in many talks about drugs or alcohol where the speaker says that it is bad to take them yet he did do them, and some times, especially when it deals with alcohol.  This fallacie is very used towards me very often when I mention I am a vegetarian people start saying, “but you do eat vegetables don’t they have feelings to, yet you don’t meat for this reason, then you shouldn’t eat vegetables neither”. This fallacie I believe is not only used on me but in many other persons and on a personal manner fallacies like this one, which are used almost every day are not comfortable to deal with.

The fallacie of appeal to authority is very used in subjects that are not very known, for example HIV in past years, and still some people believe that it can be transmitted by kissing or just by hugging someone this being completely false. People believe this because they were told by an older person or by a priest who causes many to repulse this sickness and not treat it. This case is probably not that common but it still happens in small places where there is no information about the disease. Another case that is very common is when a student blindly trusts a teacher or a parent and he is being given a piece of information and they even block their own opinions out of the picture and take what they said as it was the only truth. This used to happen to everyone when we were children and we said “because mommy or daddy said so”.

The fact that the center of the universe was the earth or that the human body was untouchable after death and if  cut to do an autopsy was punishable by death, were beliefs that people had centuries ago. Yet in that time they used the fallacie of belief when talked about these points. As the fallacie that most people believe in God, therefore he must exist. Many people who are in doubt of their religious believe apply to this fallacie when asked where they are and what they think. A more modern fallacie is when people say that coffee is bad for you, yet many believe this is not true, therefore coffee must not be bad for you.

The fallacie of common practice is probably the most used in schools, especially when tests are involved. For many students cheating is seen as okay and irrelevant, this due to the fact that everybody in the class has got the answers and they are going to copy the test, yet this is not a bad thing, only because everyone is doing it. Is like having sex many do not care for waiting till marriage, because they say everyone is doing it, and then there is nothing wrong with it. Even if told by religion or by elders that this practice is not correct. Another fallacie to common practice is fashion; many will dress like hutchie- mamas because that is what is in fashion and everybody else is dressed like that.

The appeal to emotion is very strong, yet it is very easy to make out of the bunch for people who are not involved in the fallacie, yet for the people who are involved in it, it might be a little bit harder to make it out. This because of what has been said the emotion overpowers reasoning. For many including me it is very hard to see and animal being killed, especially when it is for food, cloths, or simply for fun. In me it is very difficult if someone tells me that there is a group of people that is going hunting not do something to stop them. Here reason is completely disappearing from my mind and emotion is going to take control and there is where my actions will start to be a fallacie instead of acting by reason.

Appeal to popularity is something that happens every so often in high schools, and with “celebrities”. This because if Angelina Jolie thinks adopting is great so will her fans and therefore adopting is great. In a high school if Mary is popular and she thinks that blue is the new pink many will follow her path and think the same, therefore blue is the new pink. This fallacie is based on a shallow support and on what one person beliefs and others following him/her, by doing this people lose their individuality and own minds, the capability of thinking on their own.

 The Straw Man fallacie is often used by people who want to manipulate a conversation or other I find it amusing how in many conversations it comes out, especially in tok classes where we are discussing and someone blows out of proportion the other argument. This does not only happens when people are trying manipulate, but when they are trying to act as a martyr they stretch the truth to favor them and so that others will feel pity of them. I think we have all used this fallacie in one point or another of our life’s either to manipulate or make others feel pity of us, yet I consider  that to consciously use it should not be done because then you’re just saying words to hurt o to benefit you and that is plain bad.

When one skips a few steps in process and says that a will lead to d is a slippery slope fallacie. This going from one extreme to the other and when dealing with situations one should never skip anything in between nor exaggerate things because it will only affect  the person who says it and the person that is following the fallacie of appeal to popularity or the appeal to authority and then make a cycle of fallacies. This will then disturb the “truth” and in reality this is what happens when fallacies are mentioned, yet sometimes fallacies are mentioned so that someone might understand what is going on around them. Yet fallacies should not be used.