I Am Animal

My first question on the film we watched on Animal Rights is if that one lady volunteered to be on the panel. Because she was so nervous and anxious that I was paying more attention to her body language than what she was talking about. Anyways, the idea that animals are lesser in ever way that means anything to humans has been the societal norm for so long, but taking even five seconds to think about the problem of animal rights will leave a bad taste in any sentient beings mouth. While watching the film they brought up if retarded or senile human beings were considered as individuals then they would be thought defective and then should be sent to live on their own little island. But we don't do that because they are human, because of their genetic code. But we do not in any way treat animals with that kind of consideration. I thought of horses who are shot and killed because they can no longer race as fast because of age. And although some cultures take elderly humans and send them out on a raft to die an "honorable" death, animals are not even given the honor of death. It is more like the horse is a prisoner or war stood up against a wall, blindfolded and then shot or beheaded. It is not right. While runt piglets are killed off because they are considered defective, kinds with autism and disabilities are given more protection and rights. It's rather disgusting since we are all animals. Every single one of us. Perhaps people are just having a hard time seeing the truth as it is, that we are all animals. Saying that humans are animals and actually believing the words are two very different issues.

Natural Nature

Using "nature" as one thing in a specific field and then using it in a different way in another, I think is a big problem and where the main cultural confusion comes from. Mnay people agree that human beings are animals (those who do not admit I suppose would only be devoutly religious). But for some reason, perhaps the fact that humans have the capability to self reflect is why the majority of people place humans although animals outside the realm of nature. Many people think of nature apart from humans because of the societal/cultural definitions placed upon the word. The variety of meanings does not help to simplify the issue. In my environmental class nature is used to describe everything except humans, so it is not surprising that Professor Johnson received the reaction that he did in class today. I agree that there is nothing unnatural about human beings destroying their habitat, its just unnerving and horrible. The terms that we use in everyday life are being meant to mean one thing while their actual definition is perhaps very different. This complication of language is another way that humans with such "high" intelligence have made life more complex.

The Greatest Threat

I don't have the facts. But I do not understand how the USA is the greatest threat to the world. If anything it is the greatest threat to itself, but I think that is relevant to every single country and every single individual as well. Perhaps one of the greatest threats to the world is China or India, that continue to increase the population by hundreds of thousands or more every year. That is why there are so many third world countries that can not support themselves, why everyone is worrying about the scarcity of water, etc. The United States has a lot of negative attributes that it needs to work out but so does every other country in the world. Everyone needs to be looking for new ways to stop pollution and to create new forms of energy and so forth, but I do not see how the United States is to be blamed at the forfront. Everyone needs to take responsibility for their short comings. Although I do agree that terrorists are not the greatest threat to the world. The greatest threat is the Bush administration. Period.

Working it out

Work defines a large part of who I am. So, to me, it just makes sense that what I put into my work, the final product, will be a part of who I am and that will be shown through a material object. I do not agree with the idea from Marx that work alienates its workers. Instead I believe that workers are competetive. But it is in no way a bad or negative attribute. Competition forces humans to use their minds and to create new and better technologies in order to make people's lives better and more effiencient. I know that many people complain about their jobs, I do, but for the most part they do not know where they would be without the job that they hold. Partly because people need to know that they are needed and capable of doing a good job at something. This is not just miners or desk jobs, but also housewives, stay at home moms, and children. Everyone wants to know that they are doing something well and by getting this kind of appreciation they are more apt to do better/more.

Competition for All

Alienation is an interesting idea, especially when it is used in comparison with education and students. It is something that we can relate to, which I think is very smart on Ollman's part. I do not think that we are alientated in most classes. For me, I decide what I want to research, when I want to hand it in and how well it is done. And as far as others having control over how and what I write, I think that for the most part that is structure, not alienation. I use the essays and research papers that mean the most important to me, they are not worthless, and the ideas inside them can be used over and over again. In class someone mentioned that socialism would get rid of competition, whic h I think is a horrible idea. I think that competition is very healthy and forces people to go above and beyond what they normally would do.

Honor Students Everywhere!

The truth is that esppecially for freshmen, being an honor student is a great idea because you get to sign up for all of your classes before almost everyone else. That means that you are practically guarenteed to get every class that your little heart desires. I admit that I loved this part of the process. Although I understand how the benefits can be exploited by students who take one honor class and then never think about taking another, instead they continue to register for their classes early. I'm just glad that I have enough credits to be one of the students who will be registering first anyways, because of my amount of credits. I'm safe, but the freshmen and sophmores, not so much.
There are a lot of characteristics that I think honor students should exemplify. Skepticism was a great one, a girl in class brought up. You can not sit back passively. I think a great idea for a first intro to honors class would be to come in saying a lot of things that no one in the world would agree with just to get the students to call you on it. That way they are speaking in class and also realizing that dissenting is okay and that there are going to be diverse opinions no matter what topic is being addressed.
ANother characteristics is work ethics. I think that more is to be expected of honor students. In the amount of work that is given to them, also in the response senction of classes. Although not everyone feels absolutely comfortable speaking up in class, blogs are a great way to say what you need to without having to do it in front of a class. But that showing of critical thinking is important.
Also, an open mind, that respects all other views while having their own is important for honor students. No one is going to agree with everything that someone else believes, because every individual is just that, an individual. The action of listening to other view points without getting up in arms defensively, but being able to add to the conversation by saying that you do not agree and explaining why.

Religion as Denial

So, religion was first used in order to explain natural phenomenom, such as
Q. What causes the sun to move throughout the day?
A. The (Greek) God Apollo pulls it everyday in his chariot.
I can understand that religion gives a hierarchal structure to its believers:
God
Priests
Believers
And it does give people a feeling of belonging and communionship. But I do not see where that is such a bad thing. Yes, the radicals are nuts, but for the average person who chooses to believe in whatever God they choose, how can that be harmful.
Yes people fear death. Why do others have to criticize those who believe in heaven or reincarnation, or whatever, if they are not harming anyone in the process? I think that believing in something greater can be very beneficial. It's not denial, it is faith. For many believers it is not a way to escape the reality of death, or loss, or failure, instead it is a way to cope with reality. And if their relaity is to believe in something which is beyond, I see nothing wrong with it. We all lie to ourselves on a daily basis, in order to make ourselves feel better and to get through the day. So even if Heaven ends up being just a dirt sleep, that isn't anyone else's problem.

Relating to Relationships

I still think that nurture and the environment that we live in along with the experiences that we have as we develop into adults are the main points that shape us as individuals. It's not the genes from family members that make us sarcastic or emotional, it is simply the family members themselves.
What I don't understand is the fact that debaters on the subject don't seem to want to change their viewpoint in any way. You would think that giving into the parts that you can agree with on the otherside would make your argument all the more concrete. As Coleridge points out. But maybe its stubborness, the act of not wanting to be wrong, or perhaps as stated above, they simply can not give into any other side in the smallest degree because that is not how they were taught. Again, its not in the genes, it's in the relationships one has with the people and the world around them.

Assuming Responsibly

I think that assumptions are always a good thing. The more knowledge you have about a topic or subject, even a person, the better you can understand why they act the way they do and when/if ever to remove yourself from that subject, when it is in your best interest. Even if you look at the foster children example that we used in class. If the kid was violent when confronted about a certain issue, it is probable that the issue would resent itself, if you knew how the kid would react then you could be ready to act a certain way to the assumed reaction of the child. If you hadn't known what would cause the child to react violently you would have placed the child and yourself in perhaps even more extreme danger.
Assumptions are not bad, but the way that we act towards a person once we know their history is what could be detrimental to a relationship between the individual and yourself. Being neutral and somewhat of a mediator is the way, I believe, to address situations with the best possible finese. I can't think of an instance when I would want to be left in the dark and not told the truth.