Forgiving deceased "wrongdoers" is different than remembering deceased victims.
Memorials like that are about the grieving process for the living as well as collective repentance for the horrendous acts committed by other humans. Either way, victims and villains are dead, so anything we do won't make a difference to them, but it's a way of dealing with tragedy.
My favorite in the U.S. is NPR -- as a medium, radio news tends to be less sensational than television because there's no need for visual stimulation to keep audiences' attention (I don't count talking head radio shows as a news source). It's also not as tied to corporate interests as networks like fox and abc. It's funding breakdown is as follows:
31% from listeners in the form of pledges, memberships, and other donations
20% from businesses via corporate underwriting
11% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which is federally funded
10% from licensee support
9% from foundations and major gifts
5% from local and state governments, and
14% from all other sources.
(from the NPR website)
It depends on where kids are in the socioeconomic scheme of things. While it may be cooler in upper middle class schools to get good grades nowadays (I wouldn't know) it seems like the old rules still apply elsewhere. I recently had a particularly depressing conversation with an 11-year-old girl in my neighborhood who told me that she didn't have any friends until she stopped trying to get good grades. Now kids hang out with her and she's happier.
It takes a lot of time and energy to create and maintain a "beautiful" fake appearance, and it usually shows in personal development.
A stereotypical "fake" woman allocates a lot of resources on: regular hair/nail appointments, working out, tanning, plastic surgery and recovery, buying clothes, etc. This is in addition to an intense daily ritual of remaking herself with cosmetics. The same applies to men, albeit to a somewhat lesser extent in many cases.
The amount of time spent on these activities leaves less for the things that make people interesting and unique such as hobbies or intellectual pursuits.
Also, most people who place priority on their appearance seem to rely heavily on it when dealing with others. If they're already attractive ("fake" in this case), it's easier to make friends and get dates, whereas those who are deemed conventionally unattractive often develop other skills that help them to relate to people. Thus the "ugly" ones are the funniest, or the smartest, or the most talented in some respect compared to their fake counterparts.
Of course there are exceptions, but conventionally unattractive people are generally much more interesting and have better-developed personalities than fake ones. I'd go for "ugly".
An innate part of humanity is our capacity to change: over time as individuals, from generation to generation, following major historical/technological/scientific upheavals, etc. Part of these transitions involves the death of generational viewpoints, specifically through the death of individuals.
If I had the choice to live forever, I assume other people (or everyone) would be given this option as well. Us immortals would just get in the way of the future, probably develop some elitist statuses and might become cripplingly permanent connections to obsolete traditions and views. Think about it -- Thomas Jefferson was amazingly ahead of his time, but he still owned slaves.
An inherent part of life is it's opposite: death. Without a thought for the unknown oblivion beyond some decades of existence on earth, what would our lives be worth? With an eternity of possibilities extending in front of us, wouldn't everything be reduced to triviality? If given the option to live forever, I'd decline, opting for some definable number of years filled with certain excitement and meaning, knowing they could end at any minute.
It's really cliche, but I also believe in paving the way for future generations and their ideas, allowing for the evolution of society rather than the stagnation that would most likely come from widespread immortality.
Not to be too combative, but free-floating claims are not very good for debate, IMO, especially ones you predict will be controversial.
Interestingly, if you read my reply carefully, you'll see I included common stereotypes for both men and women. I see now that I failed to make it obvious that I believe these stereotypes are detrimental to development of both, not just women. I think it's unhelpful for girls to grow up thinking they're inherently bad at math, just as I feel it's bad for boys to grow up thinking they're not masculine for expressing emotion.
Also, the reason I zeroed in on your math / communications example was because I accept most, but not all of your other examples as valid.
For the record, I really think that a norm requiring men to always pay for dinner is sexist, and my argument for the main debate question is below.
cheers!
I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're missing something a couple paragraphs in. In the "nature vs. nurture" debate you've dismissed "nurture" completely in accounting for discrepancies seen between men and women in various fields of study. The article you cited below as evidence for your argument is slightly ambiguous in this sense, but also sides in favor of the biological explanation rather than the environmental one.
Think about this:
Women need to be beautiful to be worthwhile. Masculinity involves being aggressive and hardworking.
Women are always talkative and emotional. Men are reserved and quiet.
Girls aren't good at math, but they're good at communication. Men are analytical, and mechanically inclined. Math is easy for them.
These are (unfortunately) common stereotypes widely believed throughout society. Like it or not, they contribute to the way each individual, male or female, develops. To ignore cultural / environmental factors in something like math or communications proficiency is negligent on your part.
Also, citing a poorly referenced article from an obscure Ethiopian newspaper (not a great country to be born female) was probably not a good decision.
"I do not believe in racism. I think it is a negroes's place to be inferior to a white man. It has been that way throughout history, for the most part, so what makes the 21st century so unique in that suddenly black people have so many more rights? Yes they deserve rights. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying how it's kind of strange that society has always been Aryan-dominant and now that it's the new millennium, colored folk are miraculously so much better than before. There has to be a top dog in every species. Humans are not special exceptions to the rule. In nature, there are dominant species like lions and they are the heads of the food chain, as the predator species. Others, like antelope, are basically just used as food to sustain the lions, they are the subjugated species.
What gives humans the right to be exceptions from this rule?"
Congratulations, you've invoked the logic of social darwinism!!!
Personally, I appreciate generosity in everyone whether male or female, and I like to return it in kind. In my current relationship, we split shared bills and groceries 50/50 and take turns picking up the check at restaurants. Of course we don't keep a ledger or anything like that, but we generally operate on a financially equal basis.
That said, I have been in relationships in which the guy absolutely insisted on paying for everything when we went out, and even wanted to pay my bills. Although I appreciate the intent, I find myself irritated to insulted when forced into that role.
To answer the main question, yes I do believe that the idea of men as "providers," (specifically in the context of paying for dinner) is sexist as well as outdated, but mostly when it feels obligatory to either or both parties on a regular basis. Sexism goes both ways. Adamant insistence by the man, or silent acquiescence by the woman, just reinforce old stereotypes for both, defining men as breadwinners, and women as helpless dependents.
some reasonable exceptions:
1. First date: Tradition holds that on the first date, the man pays for the entertainment for the night. As ridiculous as I find this, it's also a tradition just like Easter egg hunting and Christmas decorations, so I suppose it's harmless as long as it evens out after that.
2. Pregnancy: This is where women and men diverge in their ability to work for their own income. For a time, it is not possible for women to work, so it might be nice to pick up the tab as a kindness to someone possibly in need. But this would really apply to anyone who is less fortunate. This really only applies for women without paid maternity leave (only in America).
3. Special occasions: Her birthday/graduation/promotion, etc. Since buying someone dinner is a way of honoring them, it's acceptable, but remember that it goes both ways.
Women and men should treat each other with mutual respect and equality, not according to socially enforced gender roles.
How many teen mothers have to drop out of high school to give birth? How about teen fathers?
Giving birth to a child in unfavorable circumstances puts women at a far greater disadvantage than the men impregnating them. If a woman is trying to support herself while going to school, for example, she would have to take time off work and college to give birth and provide for the first few months (at least) of the child's upbringing. The impact this has on the course of a woman's life is profound. If the father is absent, the woman must rely on either familial or government support to survive these trying times. Even if the father is present and supportive, the woman is deprived of the empowering ability to provide for herself as well as the option to better her future.
A man doesn't have to make a choice between survival/ self-sufficiency and childbearing. Women do.
My experience with facebook:
"So-and-so is taking a shower!"
"Do you want to add UselessApplication to your profile?"
"Some_One_xxx added a new picture!!"
... times one thousand.
And then I received text messages from facebook after I canceled my account.
facebook:social networking::aol:isps.
Oh yeah, and the poke function makes me want to stab myself in the corneas.
Maybe I can explain this better.
Q: Is sex with a robot hooker cheating?
The word "cheating" under other circumstances usually refers to circumventing rules in order to benefit oneself. Applying this to a relationship would mean stepping over established boundaries to pursue something one wants, but the other person probably wouldn't approve of. Therefore, a true definition of cheating varies according to the terms of a particular relationship, and is highly relative. In my argument, I stated that it was my personal reaction to the question, based on my feelings concerning monogamy and my own relationship with my partner. That said, I will further explain my views on this topic.
"There is no possibility of emotional involvement with a robot. Therefore, sex outside of my relationship with a robot hooker is not cheating."
People are emotional creatures, and will attach emotional ties to just about anything. Ask car enthusiasts how they feel about their showroom vehicles, and you'll find sentiments bordering on romantic devotion. Humans personify inanimate objects all the time, as well as animals incapable of human reasoning. Take that tendency toward anthropomorphism and extend it to lifelike robots, who can walk, talk, and imitate human behavior even down to simulating human intercourse. Since we're debating a hypothetical future situation, I don't believe it is too farfetched to suppose this advanced robot hooker is indistinguishable from a human to all five senses. Is it still "just a machine?"
The above line of reasoning also implies that the only qualifying factor in cheating is the possibility of emotional attachment. As I said earlier, behavior can only be considered unfaithful if it breaches the terms of a relationship, which vary. However, I think it's reasonable to say that sex with another person based purely on animal lust is still being unfaithful to one's partner. Providing for emotional and physical needs go hand in hand in monogamous relationships. Falling in love or falling in lust (or both) with another person would be a breach of monogamy.
So, when talking about relations with a robot hooker, we have two of the ingredients needed for infidelity: lust (most definitely) and emotional attachment (possibly). To address the next issue:
"But! It's just a bunch of plastic and metal! It's like a blow up doll, or a vibrator, not a human!"
The key difference here is, again, the similarity to a human being. Part of the reason infidelity is so hurtful is that it knocks down the self-esteem of the partner being cheated on, creating feelings of inadequacy. I don't think any woman would worry that her partner found his blowup doll more physically appealing than her. Would a man feel shamed by a vibrator's stamina? The personal use of sex toys is a far cry from having sex with a humanoid robot.
I have no qualms with the personal and/or shared use of sex toys in a relationship, but only to a certain extent. If a person engages in self-pleasure to the consistent exclusion of his/her partner, they are not being considerate of their partner's needs and feelings. Same with the robot hooker, even if you do classify it as a merely another sex toy, it's primary purpose is to provide gratification to one while purposefully excluding the other.
"My partner should be happy I'm not crawling with STD's and fucking his/her cousin."
This method of justification makes no sense. A healthy relationship is not one that stops just short of worst-case-scenario. That's the great thing about being in a western, unmarried relationship -- if you're not happy, you can leave.
First reaction: I'd rather my significant other have sex with me. Copulating with a robot designed to emulate the female form would be personally insulting and a little bit weird. I guess if a guy's single, it'd just be another one night stand / high-tech masturbation session, which is cool I guess.
I suppose it would take some of the mess out of sex?
To address "toaster" points:
- emotional attachment: Having sex with another person without an emotional attachment is still cheating
- vibrators: These are usually tools that the couple can use together, whereas a sexbot seems geared toward one side only
- "partner should be happy that I'm not... [insert horrible alternative]": As if being in a relationship is so necessary to survival that one must put up with distasteful behavior
If someone feels that they need to go elsewhere to supplement their sex life, maybe they're involved with the wrong person.
Along those lines, do you think Satan was a philosopher? He may have been the first. Think about it -- he questioned his existence and his belief system while all the other angels just accepted God's sovereignty and rules. When he sought to share his ponderings with humans, they were all punished by the original Authority Figure. Without Satan, we'd all be running around naked in paradise Eden, not eating apples. "No apples?!" you say? Beats Jesus for "most influential" by 10 million.
"Oh, implacable march of human societies! Oh, losses of men and of souls on the way! Ocean into which falls all that the law lets slip! Disastrous absence of help! Oh, moral death!
The sea is the inexorable social night into which the penal laws fling their condemned. The sea is the immensity of wretchedness.
The soul, going down stream in this gulf, may become a corpse. Who shall resuscitate it?" - Victor Hugo
Although Hugo's referring to victims of the penal code, I think the sentiment applies to anyone forgotten or tossed blithely aside by mainstream society. Would you fault a drowning man for losing his footing? For lacking a life-vest?
To condemn an individual for missed opportunities or an irresponsible youth is cruel; to assume that these are the primary causes of homelessness is unreasonable. Excluding the voluntary nomad, people become homeless because their wages are low and housing costs are high. Many people living without a permanent residence already have jobs that are insufficient to meet their needs. As for the chronically homeless, how are they supposed to work their way up out of poverty without an address, a telephone number, transportation, food, clean clothing, a set of teeth...? With an estimated 3.5 million people experiencing homelessness a year, shelters, government housing, charities, etc. still aren't adequate to address the needs of all the people living without a permanent residence.
If you say that homelessness is caused by drug abuse, dropping out of school, and low personal expectations, realize that these are also products of poverty, which is a difficult cycle to break. Sure there are anecdotal accounts of people rising above their circumstances, and there are also stories of individuals with every educational and financial opportunity available to them falling into ruin. On the whole though, I think it's a lot easier to talk from above the poverty line than below.
I created this as a two-sided debate based on the observation that most people's views fall under either category up top. I have a family member who is homeless by choice, so in that case, I tend to view it as an interesting alternative lifestyle. Thank you for making this point! Great stats, by the way.
As a tipped server, I'm probably biased as far as this goes. That said, I am still divided when it comes to tipping. When I go out, I tip out of respect for etiquette and the person helping me, but even at 20% I can't help feeling like I'm tossing scraps. On the other end of things, I appreciate receiving tips as it makes it much easier for me to support myself while going to school. I feel guilty, however, every time someone goes the extra mile to help me out at say, a bookstore and they're still getting paid minimum wage. Society tells me that bookstore employees are not generally people you should hand a couple dollars to for a good job.
I've often wondered how tipping has affected the dynamics of customer service over the centuries. It seems as though many people I come into contact with use a trip to a restaurant to experience what it would be like to have personal servants. Anyway, I agree with Loudacris about tipping based on performance. It's gratifying to have a job in which my competence pays off, unlike some places where the person working their ass off gets the same crappy wage as the one messing around on their cell phone all day.
Service workers should be paid a fair wage by their employer. Tipping just encourages poor labor practices by keeping minimum wage workers from banding together and demanding pay increases or benefits. As a consumer, I should not be expected by society to supplement an establishment's labor costs. States in which tipped workers are paid below minimum wage should change their laws.
It is my view that marriage is a formal promise between two individuals to go through life with one another in whatever manner they agree upon. The fulfillment of this pact relies on both individuals' integrity. If two people decide to get married, and they both agree upon terms that allow for extramarital affairs, they are remaining faithful to their promise. To each his own, as long as the terms are clearly defined beforehand.
However, most marriages seem to operate under the premise that sexual relations will be exclusive. If these conditions are not met, then they have violated their own promise, and compromised their personal integrity.
I cannot personally define what marriage should be, as it is a contract between two individual people who may or may not share my ideas and values. It seems to follow that if you make a promise, you should keep it. In this sense, of course marital monogamy is necessary, if that's what you've agreed to. It's not outdated, it is simply the preferred choice. It's up to an individual to live up to it, or negotiate another way.
As far as marriage itself goes, I believe that it is a bit of an outdated institution. Besides being a symbol of loyalty/affection, it originally served to secure property, provide a stable environment for offspring, ensure financial security for women, and lend legitimacy to a sexual union by making the promise publicly.
In our society, these reasons aren't so compelling anymore. Dowries are long gone. People can have sex without producing children by using contraceptives. Women don't rely on men for their livelihood, and both sexes can do a decent job as a single parent. "Fornication!" isn't punishable by death or scarlet letter. All that we have left is that public promise, and the symbol of affection. Does that reflect well on a person's ability to keep his/her word, that they need to sign a contract in order to prove faithfulness? Why isn't a verbal agreement enough?
