PennyMartin has not created any debates.
That's true! There may be modifications that could be made to this exercise (i.e. an instruction of terms and sociological concepts before the activity or a dissemination-like procedure afterward to check-in with the students), but overall, I think this could be useful in classrooms throughout the U.S. Personally, I feel as if this would be substantially beneficial in classrooms of students living in high socioeconomic households - Just to broaden their perspectives of others in the world.
Hi! I am so sorry to hear that you are struggling. I like the previous commenters that suggest seeing a therapist. From learning about different types of therapies and mental health professionals, I would encourage you to look into therapists (Master's degree) or psychologists (doctorate degree) who practice Cognitive Behavioral Therapy but specifically exposure therapy. Facing your fears little by little in a safe and secure environment could really be beneficial in the long-run. Also, meditation and centering exercises could also help you out in reducing your anxiety before and after social situations. I wish you the best of luck!
Haha, good points! I think human nature is sometimes seen as ideal and perfect, but this quote kind of turns that notion on its head. Interesting quote to think about!
At first, when I saw the assignment, I felt a similar sense of confusion and slight outrage that middle school-aged students were asked to do this assignment, especially since they were probably unaware of some of the relevant terms needed to understand this assignment to its fullest (i.e. implicit bias, stereotyping, etc.). However, the more I thought about it, I began to come around to the idea of the assignment in it of itself. While I do not think it was necessarily appropriate for this age group, the premise and intended takeaway of the assignment are not inherently bad. By requiring students to pick a selective group out of a larger group of "who they want to save", they are forced to question why they value certain qualities, identities, and characteristics more than others. In some cases, this may not be a bad thing but rather just a way prioritizing features. It could also allow them to question why they think the way they do and if they are based on their own personal experiences/background (i.e. socioeconomic status, job, education level, etc.). All in all, I don't think it's a bad assignment; however, I think it could be optimal in an older age group.
I don't think this is necessarily sanitizing communication. Facebook has specific policies (i.e. prohibiting hateful or violent speech). Any online platform is allowed to set up its own rule, and individuals who don't follow them are able to be removed or restricted. With that being said, I do not think Facebook acts with such rapidity and forcefulness when everyone acts in a way that violates these policies. I think Jones' public prominence was definitely a contributing factor to Facebook's quick and restrictive action. Overall, I don't think this is a sanitization of communication; rather, it is just Facebook adhering to its own policies.
I don't think that it "crossed the line" just because the information went to a Republican organization this time. Selling Facebook users' information is morally wrong, especially if the person did not agree to share it. However, I don't think it is based on the two-party political system as you seem to be implying.
Good points! I have been really bothered in the past by your second point in which talk show hosts are seriously reporting a tragic event and then "flip a switch" and then laugh about some other story. I don't think that infotainment should be people's only method of acquiring news and current information. Rather, it should only be supplementary or for fun.
I do think that Twitter could be viewed as a public forum, especially when it's from the President. Although not all of his tweets are politically relevant, they act as a means to communicate directly with Americans. I think they mirror the impact of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Fireside Chats" between 1933 and 1944 when he would get on the radio and talk directly to the American people. I don't see anything wrong with it being classified as a public forum. All people should be able to see them.
Yeah, I agree with you at
Yeah - Really good points! I think people do sometimes make conclusions based off of correlations which is definitely problematic. I also feel as if there should be a limit of some sort regarding the amount of violence in video games. First-person shooter games are definitely one in addition to those with excessive blood and gore. Good debate - thanks for your response!
I guess it would depend on who's watching it to determine the potential harm. There are definitely certain types of individuals (i.e. those with an eating disorder experience, victims of bullying, etc.) who may be more negatively impacted by this show. Maybe they could put out a disclaimer before each episode just to inform the audience on what the content consists of?
I think that the general public is overly focused on people rather than on policies and good leadership. The media takes every word, comment, look, accusation, and minuscule activity of a candidate or politician and over-exaggerates it to an excessive degree. I wish that the media could be less biased towards certain candidates and put aside petty and childish comments/"digs" at the opposing ones and provide a more impartial view of politics and current events.
Really good points. I definitely think the context is extremely important! During wartime, it would definitely be a benefit. In a time of peace, those skills may not be as useful. However, I do believe that having a military leader as a President is helpful in his role as Commander-in-Chief and making critical military-related decisions. With that being said, I do not think it is an imperative prerequisite for a good President. It may just add some advantages in specific areas of his leadership.
That's a good point - Personally, I think I would be more likely to vote for a third party in my local elections rather than the national ones. Although the odds are still not necessarily in the third party's favor, I feel as if my hypothetical vote for a third party would count more in local elections. I think many people think that a third party vote in national elections is equivalent to a "throw-away" vote. I don't think it's impossible for a third party candidate to win a local election; however, I think it's definitely a long-shot. The other 2 candidates would have to be severely disliked by a majority of voters.
The government is at least partially to blame in this horrific situation. Without doing the proper testing of the water, the Flint/Michigan governmental leaders continued with the plan to use this toxic water, even though they later found out there were high levels of lead in it. Even though they were aware of the situation (at least the risk of the harmful water), they did not put an immediate warning out but waited. There was a ton of corruption going on in Flint such as lying and hiding the truth from citizens regarding the water (in addition to many other issues going on in Flint - Check out the Netflix documentary, Flint Town, for a better picture of that). Here's a timeline of the crisis in Flint from NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/465545378/lead-laced-water-in-flint-a-step-by-step-look-at-the-makings-of-a-crisis. As you can see, there have been multiple government officials and corporations charged with crimes relating to negligence. On April 20, the three officials arrested in face felony charges "including misconduct, neglect of duty and conspiracy to tamper with evidence. They've also been charged with violating Michigan's Safe Drinking Water Act." On July 29, six more officials were charged. This group was charged with "misconduct in office, conspiracy, and willful neglect of duty. Rosenthal is also charged with tampering with evidence, for allegedly requesting water tests that did not show elevated lead." Hence, while there are many factors contributing to this case, the corrupted government and officials 100% failed the people of Flint.
I think there's a difference between standing up for what you believe in through advocating for socially just causes and being overly sensitive about political correctness. There's also a huge difference between decency/respect and political correctness. I think the latter is more focused on the outward portrayal of one's words or actions whereas actually being a decent human being who respects diversity is an internal value. As a college student, I have definitely seen students overreact to things that honestly are not as big of a deal as they are created to be. For example, a students' for life (pro-life) organization had a table about federally qualified healthcare centers. These are health care centers (for women and men) that do not provide abortion but provide actual health care while offering way more services than Planned Parenthood. There was a HUGE uproar from the campus community (before the day of the event and before anyone saw the display) that essentially revolted against this notion and was counter-arguing, "I stand with Planned Parenthood". They had a makeshift display and table in our campus center even though they did not go through the administrative processes to secure a display table and poster. It was a childish act of intolerance for another person's/group's opinions. Therefore, while I do agree that being respectful and tolerant towards diversity/opposing views is critical, there is definitely a PC problem on college campuses. Personally, I think Seinfeld is onto something.
Ugh - Wish McGregor won!
I agree with your comment that mental illnesses are often the underlying force behind excessive over-eating and obesity. Especially with the high levels of eating disorders that are currently plaguing the U.S., I think there's a finer line to walk when looking at eating healthy - obesity rather than smoking - not smoking. With obesity, one's body is part of who they are; regardless of its' size, it is the physical make-up and representation of who we are. We can't get rid of it. Eating healthy is part of managing a healthy lifestyle, but we are unable to cut it out completely of our lives. As for smoking, we do not need smoking to live - a cigarette is not an integral part of who we are. I think society is harsher on smoking because they see it as an unnecessary feature of one's life whereas eating is imperative for survival. It is a really complex comparison though - Good debate!
Not tipping is rude, and even if a waiter/waitress does an amazing job, sometimes people just don't tip (or tip extremely low). It is not always resultant of the restaurant's environment or their experience there. By including labor costs in the food and drink prices, obviously, those prices will go up (which could deter business). However, I wonder if food/drink prices would go up variably (i.e. depending on what type of food and the formality of the restaurant). There are a lot of questions that surround this concept: What would be the standard "labor cost" percentage added to the food costs? I know for breakfasts or lunches, tipping is often less than a full dinner. With this idea, I think there is some confusion around what the actual labor cost would look like. Lastly, I think it is also an issue that all waiters/waitresses would be "tipped" (i.e. paid labor costs) equally across the board. As commenters have already mentioned, an extraordinary job deserves a higher tip. I don't think that all waiters and waitresses should have a standardized amount that they make per client.
These are good points! Improved mental and behavioral health services within schools themselves are a critical piece in the puzzle, in my opinion. When mental health professionals are able to detect issues in their early stages, less mental health disorders and violent acts will go unnoticed. Although this may not be a complete answer to solve all of the gun violence and other acts of violence in our schools, I think it is a really important step on the right path! I hope that schools are able to find funds or allocate their current funds/budgets to make space for mental health professionals.
Regardless of her intent, her comment could easily be interpreted as racist (as it was). I think it was the right call to take her show off the air in order to preserve the reputability of ABC and Disney as enterprises. It is unfortunate for the directors, producers, and castmates who served as "collateral damage" in this debacle; however, I think the correct decisions were made.
I think that what Southwest did was completely fine. The child's last name differed from his mother's - I think that is what the main concern was. Although it was stated in a prior comment that it doesn't require airlines to match the child's and guardian's last name, that does not mean it will never happen. I think Southwest was looking out for the well-being of the child to ensure that he wasn't in a trafficking or kidnapping type of situation. I am sure there could be a more efficient and standardized procedure to do this (which I would suggest), but I don't think there's anything inherently wrong or discriminatory about what Southwest did.
I still think it's too early to tell since the longitudinal, economic outcomes will be far more telling than the preliminary ones presented in this article. However, with that being said, it does not look like Brexit is causing the deleterious outcomes that it was originally predicted to. Thus, I believe one can be optimistic that the global economy will not be negatively impacted by the UK leaving the European Union.
Good point! It could definitely just mask the underlying issue. This reminds me of the notion that playing violent video games can lead to, or even cause, more violent behavior in children and teenagers. I know there was a push a while back to ban (or at least reduce) the use of video games with guns, weaponry, and other types of violence in them. What are your thoughts on this?
That's true too; it's definitely a tough balance. I hope Self Magazine (and others) start to promote a healthy lifestyle in all its' forms: physical, mental, and emotional. It would be great if they started showing "average-sized" women on their covers and in their magazines.
Lol no - I don't think it's a white supremacist symbol. People should focus on the innumerous amount of other important topics that are affecting people every day, not this type of thing!
Agreed. This baker should have made the cake, in my opinion, since it is his profession (regardless of his religion). Professionals serve those who differ from themselves in many different settings! However, his attitudes cannot be generalized across the board - either to all bakers or all Christians. There are probably many other bakers, even those who have faith-based backgrounds, who would be willing to make the cake for this couple. I am not sure if it is an act of discrimination, per say; however, I do wish that the baker allowed himself to put aside religious beliefs to do his job and provide the gay couple with the cake.
Even though I disagree with the illegal and inappropriate images, words, and posts on Reddit, I do not think that they will ever be required to ban certain content if they don't want to. As an independent platform, they are permitted to allow whatever they want. It may be inappropriate, but if Reddit doesn't change their rules, what can be done? Therefore, I am not sure that any change will occur if Reddit is not willing to budge. With that being said, I do believe that Reddit information and data should be used as evidence in criminal investigations and things of the like.
Obviously, there is nothing to be done at this point, but I don't think that the World Cup should have been moved. Yes, some of their laws/regulations are unjust and should be questioned and eventually change; however, I don't think the World Cup needs to take into account the political and social debates/turmoil of each country before it makes its' decision on the location of the tournament. Each country has its' flaws, so I am not sure if a consensus would ever be reached.
While I do agree that selfies can be taken out-of-hand, I don't think that it is as out of control as you seem to be indicating. Yes, taking a selfie over the Grand Canyon is a horrible idea that can result in negative consequences; however, each individual is allowed to make that decision for themselves. Although it can be argued that it is fueling our society (especially the younger generation) to become more narcissistic and vain, what can really be done? Should selfies be banned? Should there be a "cap" on how many selfies are "healthy" for one day? I think the mediator to this situation is parental intervention in which parents educate their preteens and teenage children about social media, appearance-based worth, selfies, and other newer technologies. Other than that, I am not sure what else can be done.
Definitely - I, unfortunately, have as well. Those with mental illnesses (alcohol and drug addiction included) are often blamed for their illnesses and in some cases, death. I think it goes to show how stigmatized and misunderstood mental health conditions are across the general public. In addition to safe-messaging when reporting suicides, I think it would be great if a certain set of guidelines and resources are utilized/provided when reporting cases of drug overdoses.
Good point. In reality, the world is a fast-moving and competitive. I would fear if the U.S. doesn't get involved early on in a space force that it would become too late. I don't think it is necessary to place tons of money in this initiative right off the bat, but I think it is a good plan to have.
Good points! I think that human drivers, without any self-driving, are inherently more defensive drivers because they know they are in total control of their vehicles. Most drivers also go through some sort of drivers' education class in which they learn the rules of the road, how to operate a car, and what to do in challenging circumstances. When the self-driving technology is in place, I feel as if they instinctively think that they have less to do. Human unpredictability is a valid point as is animal unpredictability. Squirrels, cats, dogs, deer, etc. commonly run out in front of cars - this could be super dangerous for the animal and the "driver" of a self-driving car! I don't think this technology will catch on quickly, maybe just for special occasions, a fun outing, or movies. I am glad that Uber removed itself from the self-driving car testing, especially after the unfortunate death of Elaine Herzberg.
I agree that obesity is a huge issue in the U.S. It is leading to health-related problems, among other types of problems, that could be avoided. I think you're right - a crucial area of research is obesity in children. It would be interesting to identify the stand-alone effect of biological and genetic predispositions for obesity and whether there are any mediators to this relationship. I do understand the body-positive movement's perspective though because health is subjective and dependent on the individual. I think doctors need to be more attuned to social contributors to weight gain as well as negative social effects that can result from it. Doctors should bring up weight and BMI in a sensitive way that treats patients with dignity but also provides beneficial recommendations for maintaining a healthy weight.
College is definitely worth the cost. Even though there could be a huge amount of money, loans, and some debt involved, there are many doors that can be opened by having a bachelor's degree. Even though having a Master's or another higher level degree is optimal for the best jobs, college in it as itself is so valuable. Not only is the end goal (having a bachelor's degree) important, but the skills, educational endeavors, and experiences one has along the way are extremely beneficial to one's personal and career development. Following a commonly held notion of "you learn more outside of the classroom", the learning experiences one has during college are critical. However, I will say that the lack of financial support (in the form of need-based aid and merit scholarships) is hurting the college-aged populations and their families. It could also deter bright students from applying and going to a college. I think this type of improved financial aid plan should occur on a school-basis, not a governmental level.
I, personally, don't like the appearance-based nature of many online dating apps (such as Tinder). Yes, someone has a bio that contains basic information about themselves; however, so much of the initial interest is a product of one's profile photos. I think this is leading to a generation that is increasingly invested in how their future partner looks rather than he or she is as a human, particularly since the reason you first became interested in them was most likely due to their photo. Some dating websites have higher success rates than the apps, but I would encourage my friends to avoid both in general and look for a mate in their daily life (school, work, going out, etc.)
I think this ban is an appropriate step in securing our country. Those countries were selected because there are either terrorist organizations currently at work or past terrorists against the U.S. from those countries. There may happen to be a majority of Muslims in those countries; however, that is not why the ban was created. In addition, it is not a permanent ban but will allow legislators time to create a more comprehensive and safe immigration policy. I do agree with Sessions who believes this decision will protect "the safety and security of all Americans." The climate and level of violence were different in the past; our ancestors were not engaging in attacks on innocent people in airports, trains, marathons, work towers, and more. I am glad something is being done to secure our borders and country so that we are only allowing immigrants who truly do want to achieve the American dream into the U.S.
Women should be able to breastfeed wherever they want. I know there are options on the market (blankets, cover-ups, etc.) that allow women to breastfeed in public but cover themselves which I think is a great idea for more modest women. However, the pizza-store owner acted wildly inappropriately. If she was so uncomfortable and preferred Bullard not breastfeed in the middle of her restaurant, she could have mentioned it in a respectful tone and maybe even provided her with a more comfortable space to breastfeed in. Covering her with a dishrag is offensive, rude, and overall damaging to mothers. I hope the store-owner received some sort of complaint and/or consequence for her actions.
Let her live her best life and show off a body she's proud of! Her health and appearance are not important to anyone other than herself. Although this magazine was spread to a wide audience, I don't think that Self magazine is trying to promote an unhealthy lifestyle and/or poor eating; rather, it is showing that women (and men) of all bodies can be confident in themselves and love their bodies. There is some truth, though, in comments that discuss body shape not necessarily being related to one's overall health. There are some physical health conditions (i.e. hypothyroidism) that result in weight gain, even if the person lives a healthy lifestyle. Regardless, judgment about others' bodies is extremely harmful, and I am happy Tess Holliday is confident in herself and can inspire a similar confidence in others.
I definitely think that it is difficult to accept an unpaid internship. In the past, I know I have had to work multiple other part-time jobs to maintain an unpaid internship. I don't think they should be illegal though - they offer a fantastic experience to students who can accept them. Yes, they may be more favorable to students who possess the financial ability to accept them, but that doesn't mean they should be illegal. Options should be improved so that students with less privilege can apply and try to make an unpaid internship work. For example, there are certain collegiate programs or internship that will offer a stipend for living expenses and/or travel which is beneficial. As for bosses and companies exploiting unpaid interns, obviously this is wrong, but I don't think that this is extremely common. That would be classified as more of a specific organization's issue rather than a macro-level problem with unpaid internships. With all that being said, I agree that these valuable career-related opportunities should be made more accessible for all students, not just those with the financial standing to accept them.
I don't think that IGD should be a diagnosed disorder. So many young children and teens play video games, and some play more than others. I think the problems that arise from video-game playing are resultant of other psychological causes such as ADHD, OCD, anxiety, depression, or more. I don't think that this should be a stand-alone disorder; I think it will be over-diagnosed.
This definitely wasn't an act of discrimination. If they were violating his rules for his car, he had every right to tell them to get out. Of course, we will never know actually what happened in that car. If they were just hugging and holding hands, that's different; however, I am not sure that is all that happened. I think their filming of the event and pegging it on prejudice about their sexuality is unfounded. Maybe a statement was a good move just to clear the air, but El Boutary should not have lost his license in my opinion.
That is true. I don't disagree with you guys! I mean, keeping an open mind and looking at other country's policies NOT with the intent to copy them but rather to learn from them, can't hurt. There are definitely conditions that are specifically American though - can't avoid that!
I agree. I don't think the SAT/ACT should be removed because socio-economic disparities and the lack of financial resources on the part of some students; I think it should be removed to better represent a student's abilities. As for students who are working multiple jobs and can't be involved in as many extracurriculars, I think it's super important for college admissions offices to account for these as positions as leadership and self-improvement. I also agree with the notion of schools themselves providing better financial aid, especially for students from lower income areas and communities of color.
I agree that not only did John Schnatter act completely out of line and inappropriately by saying that word in the first place, but I completely understand why his stock plunged post-scandal. After circumstances like this, it is quite common for stocks to plunge and commercial support (from other companies) to be removed. I feel as if fewer companies would want to associate with Papa John's indefinitely (through advertisements or promotions); however, the Papa John's stock will most likely resume itself. It may not go back up to the 120,000 corporate and franchise sponsors it once had; however, I do not think it would be radical to think that they will regain a significant amount of their stocks once this scandal shifts out of the limelight. As for me, I agree with the CEO Steve Ritchie: Papa John's is a company, and John Schattner is an individual. Although the latter was deeply tied to the company, I do not think the company should be permanently damaged by his action. I would eat here again!
I disagree - I think working to improve strained relationships with other countries is a critical part of international relations. Whether an individual's subjective opinion of the outcomes agreed or not, the intention behind this summit was a good one I believe. It does not mean we are "aligning with Russia" by attending and having a "very friendly" conversation as you stated prior.
There's always something else that government money could go to. Similar to the United State's first entry into space and creation of the space force, competition prompts action. I am sure there are other places this money could go, but I don't think this is a bad thing at all.
You make good points too. In addition to schools closing and too few police on the streets, lack of familial involvement and consequently role models could also play a role in the increased violence seen in Chicago. More after-school programs could assist in this common lack of familial foundation in the home.
That's true, I think it did "wake people up" to many people's opinions of the Silent Sam statue. However, I believe the same widespread effect could have been created through other means as well, such as a petition, an organized contacting of political representatives, or a peaceful protest. This was not the only way to attract media attention!
That's a good point. Without as many followers, it may be harder to monitor. However, shouldn't Facebook site-managers (or whatever you call the main leaders) have some sort of function that can identify and notify them of hate speech, aggressive language, etc.? I feel like that would be wise on their part in order to manage comments (from smaller users as well as larger ones) that go against their policies.
Good points - If they did photoshop the hand to be darker, there would really be little to no reasoning for why this was a good idea. They know that people will be able to conclude that they could have just hired a model with darker skin but didn't, and that will look horrific for their public reputation. Thanks for your response!
I think mental health and background checks are good, but we shouldn't be doing them just because Iceland is, and they have less gun violence than the U.S. We should look into them because they are logical and rational suggestions that could reduce the amount of gun violence, especially in public areas and schools. We also do have economic inequality and gang violence in many major cities (i.e. Chicago), as you mention in the debate, so if we go through with other suggestions (such as the test before receiving a gun), it would definitely have to be modified. Even then, I am uncertain how well it would work. I'm not saying Iceland has bad ideas, and I am sincerely happy their laws are working out for them. However, I don't think we should be replicating (or adapting them) to fit the U.S. for that reason. Rather, we should look at the underlying causes of U.S. gun violence (oftentimes mental health and gang-related violence) and try to implement positive suggestions for those issues.
This such a good idea! I'm happy that some stores are taking into account the needs of not only able-bodied, but also disabled, people. I think this adds much-needed accessibility to an often inaccessible space.
I agree. As we are seeing in the news currently, past mistakes come back to bite you as an adult. Even though he has grown up and has supposedly moved on from his past actions, I still think that the chairman and Walt Disney Studios make the best decision to protect themselves and their brand.
I think TV shows are meant to portray realities that are different from and similar to that of its' viewers. They are seen as a mode of entertainment, learning, and enjoyment - not everything needs to be taken so literally. Honestly, I think people are becoming way too sensitive to the content within TV shows and movies. Yeah, what happens to Debby Ryan's character (i.e. the bullying) is wrong; however, I don't think that means the show should be censored or removed by any means. If people don't like the content, they can make the decision for themselves not to watch it.
I have definitely noticed a drop in Facebook usage, especially by teenagers as many commenters have mentioned. Even before their recent privacy scandal situation, I felt like the typical Facebook user was older and even more business-related (i.e. they had a Facebook page or group to promote a certain product or organization). As with many other social media platforms (such as MySpace), many will rise in popularity for a while and begin the steady decline. I think that Facebook will remain in existence, but I do not think it will regain its' past popularity.
If other countries (Russia and China) are implementing a space force, why shouldn't the U.S.? I think it is positive that the U.S. wants to remain a competitive force in all circumstances.
This was definitely a bad move by L'Oreal and Stylenanda. It is totally valid that this is seen as offensive. Whether it was intended to be racially insensitive or not, that is how it came across. I hope they issue a statement soon.
I agree - I don't think 3D printed guns are that much of a threat, to be honest. But overall, registration for all weaponry is probably a good idea. I was surprised at first that they don't have any type of registration and regulation for these already; however, BB guns and other types of weapons don't either. Would you agree that all weapons (i.e. BB guns, knives, etc.) should have some sort of required registration process? Or even a training and/or license process?
It definitely doesn't violate the establishment clause!! The Pledge of Allegiance isn't a law? "Under God" has been part of the Constitution since 1954, and I honestly don't think that it's going to change. The United States has so many other things to worry about right now. This should not be one of them.
Yeah, I agree with
I am glad this research was done because it displays the prevalence and seriousness of alcohol addiction in the U.S. The past studies referenced that support low-level alcohol use (for health benefits) could influence people to drink more than they normally do. However, this new study could potentially prevent additional drinking of "health reasons." Going off of past comments, I don't think that this study will change the view of the majority of people's mindset on drinking. That is, people who want to drink will continue to drink. However, I do think it is important research!
It definitely should not have been torn down. If people wanted it removed, they should have gone through the legal and civil processes to do so (which are peaceful and formal). The riots and violence that occurred at this protests were unnecessary and dangerous, especially being in such close proximity to a college campus. This was the wrong way to go about "removing" this statue. Especially since it has to be reinstalled within 90 days of being torn down, it can be argued that this protest did not really result in any long-term change - other than the notion of anger regarding Confederate monuments and statues.
I think legacy can play a small role in the application process and still be ethical. However, I don't think that the sum of donations to a school over time should play a role at all. I know some schools favor students whose family have donated a certain amount of money, a building, or some other financial gift to the institution which I do think is wrong and puts students at a disadvantage. They may do this in discrete ways though (i.e. not explicitly stating that monetary donations are favorable in the application process). However, legacy does not have to always be interpreted in the same way. A student may want to attend a school that his/her grandmother went to because it is important to carry out a family tradition, he/she knows this school benefitted the life of their family member substantially, or a myriad of other reasons. Also, legacy does not create an "all-or-nothing" perspective in the admissions department. I attend a strong-legacy school and am not a legacy student here but still received acceptance. On the other hand, I know a girl who's dad went here and had a similar academic background as me and was denied admissions. Therefore, some schools may not prioritize legacy as much as other qualities. Overall, I don't think it should be removed.
I don't think that ALEC is inherently doing anything wrong. As being a not-for-profit organization, they try to create legislation to pass onto American groups. I am sure some Americans who work at the corporations who use ALEC's services are unable to write and create legislation by themselves. This is an optional resource for those who are interested in using it. Of course, as with any organization that serves the same or a similar purpose, there is always a chance for the misuse of power. Also, I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having ALEC lead by conservative individuals.
While I agree with the comments above stating that Twitter and social media can be misconstrued easily and "spinning narratives", I hardly think that this will lead to fascism. I think that's a super extreme over-generalization. Trump's tweets have never reminded me of "a frightening political act", and I don't think that this will lead the U.S. into a challenging political territory.
What age were you thinking? I definitely see where you're coming from; however, I think the use of technology can be helpful when used in moderation for younger children. Particularly those with ADHD or a learning disorder, specific apps for literacy and certain games can be beneficial in teaching them certain skills. With that being said, there are definitely games and apps that are not as educated and would potentially harm children and their development. It's a tough balance for sure!
I think student loans are an issue - so many students struggle with this financial burden. However, I don't think it will result in a financial crisis. Students do receive a lot in governmental loans; however, this is not their only source. Students receive loans from their universities and their endowments/alumni donations, private organizations, and more. So no, I don't think it will inflate to the next financial crisis.
I'm all for smaller companies/organizations creating products and platforms that are popular. However, the monopolization of the market share in the technology/online shopping/etc. I think that is one the main priorities of this industry and this is how it was meant to run.
YES. The value of a bachelor's degree has declined substantially in my view. Many positions, especially in the sciences/social sciences/language degrees, seem to require (or at least prefer) a Master's degree. In one view, it could lead to a more highly skilled workforce. On the other hand, it favors those who can afford a higher degree. So, overall, I am not sure if the shift is a positive, but I am definitely seeing it in many fields.
I agree with this comment. In theory, it's a nice idea. Bernie Sanders would approve. However, in reality, it won't be that easy. College educations are extremely expensive, as we know, and where would all this money be coming from? Penalizing taxpayers by increasing taxes to sky-high levels is not a good way to handle this! Maybe colleges should start offering better financial aid and scholarships for their students?
I do think that teachers are not paid enough. Some (especially in certain states - like Oklahoma) are barely being paid livable wages. To earn a livable income, many need a job (or a few) on the side. I definitely think the profession as a whole is underpaid which not only hurts the teachers who are currently in the workforce but also the prospect of new teachers joining the field. However, I don't think this problem has a quick or easy solution. Especially for teachers working in public schools, a tax increase may be implemented in order to raise their pay which I don't think is the best option either. What are your thoughts on this?
I disagree. One of our freedoms is to decide which healthcare/insurance company we are interested in using. Under the Obama administration, it was originally promised that people would be able to keep their doctors and healthcare providers; however, that did not occur. Now, with the Affordable Care Act being contested and a new healthcare bill being designed, doctor and healthcare choice should be considered. With that being said, I do think healthcare and insurance costs should be lower so that more people can afford it as it is a really important feature in a person's life. However, I don't think single-payer healthcare is the way to achieve that.
I don't think art programs should be removed. Although there is a focus in the STEM disciplines and jobs in finance/economic fields can result in more prosperous careers, the arts are still important for psychological, emotional, creative, and academic development. Also, in the 21st century, a majority of big companies require graphic arts, design, marketing/communications, advertisement, and other artistic positions within their companies. The way we advertise and promote products, companies, and ideas are often portrayed in physical modes (i.e. posters) or online (i.e. websites, social media platforms). Thus, I think it would be damaging to not only children but also the economy and workforce to remove arts programs from schools.
I agree that men also have a set of social expectations to fill in society. When notions of masculinity are threatened, anxiety, fear, aversion, etc. can arise. For example, oftentimes, eating disorders are stereotyped as a "female disorder" since it is associated with weight, outwardly appearance, and the thin ideal. This idea of men being immune to social standards results in an extremely stigmatized view of men with eating disorders and results in secrecy and unreported cases. Obviously, this is just one example, but it does flesh out the notion that men do have social standards which cause pressure. Honestly, clean room or not, I think social pressures will still creep into basically every crevice of life unless an individual is aware and mindful of these features.
Although it could be seen as similar to getting paid for a task or job, the chores that allowances are often given for are basic and rudimentary (i.e. feed the dog, take out the trash, clean your room). Oftentimes, the chores could be things that the child should be doing already (i.e. put your dirty clothes in the hamper). In a way, providing an allowance can give children the expectation that they will always receive compensation for their responsibilities. It can also motivate them to do helpful tasks around the house for the wrong reasons. Overall, I disagree - children shouldn't be given allowances!
I agree that maternal and paternal leave is important. It not only benefits the mother who just gave birth, who is healing herself, and needs to do everything for her new baby, but as you mentioned, her baby thrives off of the relational and social interactions with not only his/her mom but also dad. The study you brought up was really interesting; however, I do worry about how some smaller companies (i.e. start-up's, not-for-profits, etc.) would be able to afford paid maternal and paternal leave for all of their workers. Therefore, it is probably optimally implemented on a company-to-company basis. On another note, it may be a beneficial idea to implement an optional time after the first few months of paid, m/paternal leave for reduced hours at work (more hours working from home if possible) so that even though the mother or father is back into the full-time workdays, he or she is still able to spend more time with their newborn child. Overall, would love to see maternal and paternal leave in more companies throughout the U.S.!
Honestly, such a good idea! It allows users to be in control of their phone usage in a very specific way. I like how it can reduce time on specific apps but setting time limits. I also think this can be super beneficial for parents looking to monitor or eliminate their kids' screen time, specifically on certain apps. Overall, a really good idea!
I think there should be more funding for public universities. There are not enough scholarships and financial aid for students who are attending them, and as you said, many are finishing with an enormous amount of debt. Private schools operate under different conditions and with large endowments and alumni donations, they may not need as much in public funds. However, I think it would be wise for states to invest in their public, state-universities and the education of their students.
Rankings can definitely be hurtful and deter possible students from a college. They consolidate all of the possible resources and academic experiences of a school into a single number which can either scare students into not applying to the school or prevent them from applying because this particular school accepts too many incoming students. Also, you're right about the variance in what the reviewed topics are. People could be reviewing the dorm rooms, food, social scene, etc.; thus, the ratings could be holding those features to the same standards as academic rigor, course selection, leadership opportunities, faculty, and other critical features of one's education. It is best to go into each school's website to learn about their programs and determine whether it is the right fit for you.
I don't think high school starting times should be changed. Honestly, students need to get used to waking up early as it will be critical in many of their jobs down the line. Schools begin early so that they can end mid-afternoon which enables sports, clubs, organizations, and more to meet in the afternoons. If schools started later, they would also have to end later since schools (at least public) are mandated to be teaching for a certain amount of hours per day. Although you claim that "for the most part, teenagers aren't actually physically tired until around 11:00 pm at each", I have a hard time believing a busy student will reject an earlier bedtime if possible. However, I do agree with your last sentence on the importance of sleep education. Students (and all people honestly) need to know how much sleep they should be getting, the types of sleep they experience, and tips for a more restful sleep. There definitely is not enough of a focus on this in schools and the workplace.
I don't believe in spanking because it instills fear within a child and will consequently stop their "bad" behavior without working through the reasoning behind the punishment. Children benefit from knowing what they did wrong, why it was wrong, and what they can do next time in the same situation. Spanking does not do any of this; rather, it results in children fearing their parents and authority figures. There are definitely many other ways to discipline children (such as the facilitation of healthy dialogue as you mentioned)!
Honestly, I am not sure! If the royal couple was okay with it, then that is fine. I do see your point though. Bringing up a heavy and traumatizing topic at a wedding is not always the best idea. Iwould have hoped they all discussed and decided upon his sermon topic prior to the wedding day itself.
Your research is really interesting (but I also see how it can be frustrating). I like your "narrowly tailed interventions" approach. I think that could be beneficial in reducing the number of gun-related deaths (i.e. suicides, domestic violence, and gangs). With that being said, I still think that violence within schools should be prioritized because although it may not happen as often in a statistical sense, it should not be happening at all and can be prevented. Great article!
Wow, I didn't know all this about Pittsburgh. From what you've said, it makes sense on why Pittsburgh is a contender for Amazon putting HQ2 there. Good to know - Maybe I'll get around to visiting one day!
I think so too. With the current situation, I would feel comfortable having an armed officer in the school. Yes, it could be a transition for some kids but having that person there is critical to remove the "sitting duck" aspect of many of these tragedies. More additions such as bullet-proof glass on the doors, better surveillance cameras, and locked doors (that would need to be rung with the person being seen before entering) would be helpful too. Overall, I think security is a great option to prevent more tragedies especially until better laws (i.e. more comprehensive mental health screenings prior to receiving a gun license) are in place.
I don't think this argument discredits white people who have been discriminated against or treated unfairly. I think the issue is Dolezal's lying about experiences as a "black woman" that are not her own. The examples you gave were under the assumption that that person experienced discrimination, police brutality, etc. I don't think many people would want to change their identities to become accepted for something like that. Rather, they look for individuals who have shared experiences and can relate to them on a personal level not because they look the same as them but because they have been through similar lived experiences.
Yeah, I agree with what's been said! It seems ridiculous that they banned her outfit solely based on the notion that it "disrespects the game." Since it also helps her blood clotting problem, it doesn't make sense that they would ban it. Also, for the sake of modesty (which I think is what they were ultimately getting at), she was completely covered. I feel as if the Federation wants to standardize the game too much and make each person look/act the same. Unfortunately, that isn't realistic for anything, especially an international sport. I saw she wore tutus as attire for the 2018 US Opens that recently occurred. Good for her for taking another fashion risk in spite of what the new rules were!
Couldn't it potentially remove many Uber and Lyft drivers from the busy streets? There are already so many cabs there, many that are unused.
None of those words are really okay, and they reduce the effectiveness and believability of the media. The "she said it so I can too" opinion is weak and immature. Although Samanta Bee's shows cover relevant and controversial issues in the media, she is not a news anchor in this role. However, the way she delivers her points, opinions, and biases makes a difference when it is received by the viewers. Going off of what a prior commenter said, a civilized discussion or debate (even when the two parties do not agree) should NOT contain vile words and derogatory statements. The level of respect for others in our modern today society, especially in the media, seems to be dwindling which to me, is an utter shame.
Potentially but not necessarily since the number of taxis on the road currently are not being utilized to their full extent, since so many people user Uber and Lyft. Many sit on the side of the road or peruse the streets, waiting for a customer, but not all of them are used. Also, the physical appearance of a taxi allows drivers and people to recognize it as a transportation vehicle whereas Ubers and Lyfts use the drivers' personal cars. I'm not saying this will help the traffic portion of this issue, but it may allow for more coherence and organization with the flow of vehicles on NYC streets.
I agree with your points regarding the role of parents' choice in their children's education. Parents should be able to make decisions regarding their children's education, whether they prefer to bring them to a public school, private and/or religious school, homeschool them themselves, online school, and more. However, I think parents in all of the situations above should still pay property taxes and support their local, public schools. Agreeing with a previous commenter, it supports the education of the community as a whole and had the ability to support your own child, if you decided to choose that route. Removing property tax for those whose children do not attend the town's public school would also lower the number of funds in the town's education department which can hurt the community as a whole.
I do not think that ICE should be abolished. There are many benefits to having ICE that secures the United States. Recently, in the news and media, it is becoming increasingly more hostile towards ICE. Especially during and after the children separation at the border, which happened under both the Obama and Trump administrations, ICE has been receiving even more coverage and individuals are more eager to stop them from existing in the U.S. There have been rallies to protest ICE, even with one woman climbing up the Statue of Liberty on the fourth of July to make a statement. I personally believe that although every single ICE member may not be the "ideal" person (because you really can't accomplish that goal in any institution), they are just individuals trying to do their job. I would support changes and improvements to the existing ICE agency so that it can run more smoothly while being more transparent, so Americans can become more educated on the purpose of ICE as well as what they are and what they are not doing.
I think this is a really great question as different types of leaders and leadership have been gradually changing in many spheres of society (i.e. politics, economic organizations, and more). In a good leader, I look for someone who is trustworthy and a team player. That is, although I know it is important for individuals to acquire personal gain and improvement in their careers, I want to know that a leader of mine is not acting in a certain way solely for that goal. I want him or her to have an intrinsic desire to better the company (organization, community, the society he or she works for) while caring for those he or she is leading. I also believe in fostering strong organizational skills as well as open lines of communication so that employees are welcome and comfortable asking for help, pursuing difficult tasks, and obtain the support they need to achieve their goals.
Yes, I think the Pope was right in this instance. Although he can not say for sure if this boy's father is actually in Heaven, I think he did the right thing for this child's faith formation, continual love for his father, and positive trajectory of his life even while dealing with grief. It was also a really beautiful reminder for the crowd that was witnessing it and the online audience as well.
I agree with your points. I am opposed to the death penalty because ethically, it is taking the life of another human which is morally wrong. Punishing criminals in the same way (by death) that they most likely inflicted on another person (murder) is not the answer. Also, your point about the taxpayers' contributions to the death penalty is important. Some people who agree with the death penalty say it's easier to execute criminals and more cost-effective, but that has proven to be false. Some U.S. states no longer allow the death penalty, so hopefully, we are on a trend to where no states will allow it.
I think casting Johansson is okay as long as there wasn't a line of successful and talented trans men that could have done an equally great or better job for this role. I think lived experience adds to the authenticity of a TV or movie role (arguably, in a way those without this experience cannot), but I don't think this should limit castings. For example, that would mean only straight women could and should portray straight women on TV shows and/or movies and so on. I think theater and acting are meant to push boundaries and learn about others' experiences, but it still important to be understanding and open to the views and lived experiences of others, particularly those in minority and historically oppressed groups.
Good points. There is definitely a difference! Many people are wearing shirts that say certain things (i.e. Army) but aren't actually a part of that organization and are not claiming to be either. With that being said, I don't think it's necessary for him to wear an actual (or a copy of) the issued Ranger shirt. For the writer of this post, if it really upset you, I am sure you could have gone up to him and asked if he was a Ranger. If he said no, you could have inquired about why he was wearing the shirt, where he got it, and other questions you feel are necessary. I don't think it would be aggressive if you went up to him and asked in an approachable and inquisitive way.
I personally think this is a bad idea because the transition from in-person classrooms to online ones over the span of just a few days is not necessarily going to work well. When I was younger, we would just be sent home with a little extra homework (i.e. readings, worksheets, etc.) if the teachers thought the next day's weather looked bad. If the storm was unpredictable, it wasn't the end of the world - we just caught up in class over the next few days. I think changing to online classes for one day will be too much of a difference (especially for younger students) and will result in a decrease of attention and actual learning. I am not against all work on snow days since school is a priority, but online classes aren't the way to go necessarily. Also, kids (especially younger ones in elementary school) deserve to have some fun on snow days!
The "they do it, why can't I?" argument for people making fun of your English accent and your justification for imitating others' is not a strong one. Just because one group of people decide it's acceptable to do something doesn't make it a universal law. I don't know you or your friend, but I think the motivation behind imitating accents is important. If it's not meant to be offensive or condemning, it may be acceptable to some people. However, others in the same ethnic/cultural/racial group may find the same imitation offensive. Although you may not agree, they have the right to speak up and say that they do not appreciate it. You do too to the people in your class who mock yours. Honestly, you can make the same jokes (i.e. the Simpsons reference) without trying to imitate others' accepts and potentially offend them and their culture.
But what if the market can't solve its own issues? Overcrowding has been a problem in NYC for decades and with fewer Ubers and Lyfts on the street, it would consequently decrease the number of cars on it. Also, I think de Blasio is smart to conduct research on the taxi industry in New York as it is useful to have quantitative data about transportation for future policies. It's a year-long cap, not the end of the world in my book.
These are super important points to reiterate, especially with the many recent, public suicides. There is a safe way to message suicide so that the suicide contagion does not multiply and affect others negatively. I wish certain websites and news outlets would allow safe messaging in response to suicide to catch on.
It seems that his accident was at least in part due to his inexperience. However, accidents like this can affect all firemen and women regardless of how long they have been on the job. There is nothing wrong with accepting that the accident was partially resultant of his lack of experience. Mistakes happen (even though this one had very negative consequences), and they can be used as a lesson. I am confused on why he was so defensive about the accident, but I hope he heals quickly.
Honestly, I think they're safe for the most part. Yeah, there will be flaws in certain programs and glitches from time to time, but they're not inherently bad. I use them for small transfers (a dinner, drinks, etc.) just because that's what is convenient for me. Big purchases/payments are done in cash or by a trusted credit card. However, I do understand people's fear and aversion to mobile pay apps after these reports came out. I do think this will "blow over", and people will recognize that it isn't the end of the world to use these apps occasionally and conveniently.
Censoring people without proper support for doing so is an example of censoring the media. Yes, Alex Jones' claims are inappropriate and wildly false; however, he still has a right to say them due to his First Amendment rights. Facebook does have a legitimate reason to remove him though due to his explicit violation of policies. However, I would argue that Facebook is not as quick or as eager to remove other (maybe less famous and well-known) users who violate the same policies on their page. I agree with their decision since it is their platform and their policies; however, I think it's important that those policies are universally followed for all of those who break them, not just the big names.
If the girl was uncomfortable with your friend's "flirting", she has a right to be. Whether or not it was truly harassment is a subjective topic that can and is interpreted and even misinterpreted by those involved and everyone else exposed to the situation (i.e. you, your friends, everyone on this debate). Each person is able to determine for himself or herself what they are comfortable and accepting of in regards to comments, especially about his/her body. If they aren't comfortable with something, they have every right to respectably state that. I would also argue with the point of humans being designed to "sexualize" someone. Yes, your friend may have been attracted to this girl, but outwardly commenting on her body, appearance, and looking at her body in a potentially suggestive manner (i.e. by "maybe once or twice glancing elsewhere), especially when it is not reciprocated or appreciated, is inappropriate and not required "by design". Overall, best of luck to your friend - he sounds like he could use some flirting advice.
This was definitely a targetted attack by Jimmy Kimmel. As part of the liberal media (he has shown very left views throughout his career), he is trying to perpetuate his own views excessively on his audience and the general public. Although the news is shared on his show, it is a late night talk show which makes it less formal. These types of shows commonly focus on interviews and funny segments rather than a full show of the news. This question steered away from that perspective of late night talk shows and honestly was unnecessary; there were no positive outcomes from it. Overall, I disagree with his remarks/bias!!
Removing guns from the general US population does not mean that it will be removed from gangs and those in cities. It is dangerous to implement Icelandic gun laws here since there is such a different economic, social, and locational demographic. We shouldn't just be cutting and pasting laws from one country to the next!
Don't fight back! Violence coupled with more violence does not equal any type of solution. Truthfully, it will just lead to more people getting potentially hurt or in trouble within their school or work or neighborhood. Greg's example was a lucky one that he was never got bullied again; however, some students will not have the same luck. If Greg's bullies continued to bully him or new mean kids found him, he'd be in the same place but now with a violent history. You're correct about kids acting and behaving differently today. The potential for weapons increases the potential for danger exponentially. I think it's more important to inform those who are being bullied about their resources and reporting options while implementing school-wide programs to reduce bullying incidents as a whole. Thanks for the debate!
Definitely, I disagree - yelling at a child does not inform them of what they did wrong or provide constructive criticism on how to do better in the future. It is hostile and unnecessary; it also does not benefit from their emotional regulation and social interactions. Excessive yelling as a behavioral consequence can produce a difficult relationship with adults, especially their parents, and even lead to a lack of trust later in their childhood. It establishes an extreme and unnecessary power struggle between parent and child. Yes, parents are in control of their children and are the authority figures in their relationship but they do not need to dominate interactions in an aggressive way. You are right that sometimes parents do act in a rash or inappropriate manner; however, regular yelling is not necessary.
I agree! Illegal and inappropriate content should not be viewable on a website like this. Especially with the "jailbait" content (i.e. under-aged girls) visible, it puts many individuals at harm. I think it does get more difficult to discern the proper path when deciding about "fat people hat" or racism. Although I feel as if Reddit would be more strict with illegal content, it does clearly define its' freedom of speech notion and its' decision not to "ban distasteful subreddits." Hence, they do not have an obligation to remove inappropriate content even if they morally should. I wouldn't be opposed to Reddit beginning a policy where hateful speech isn't allowed, but unfortunately, that is not the case now.
I agree that the gender pay gap is a reality; however, I think it differs per field. Women are more accepted in certain field s(i.e. healthcare and caring professions) in comparison to sciences, research, etc. I do agree with a previous writer that it is really important to identify why the gap occurs and how it can be reduced. It depends on the organization, bosses, etc. - there are many different factors. It's a hard a question to answer for sure, but I am hopeful for the future!!!
I agree! I think that MoviePass actually has made some change since this post was written. The criticisms you brought up are definitely valid, but overall, I think this is a great idea! Going to the movies has definitely been in competition with Netflix and Hulu, so this could be a great way to increase the movie-going experience again!
No, I don't think that college athletes should be paid for their roles on sports teams. If they wanted a full-time job, they do not always have to play a collegiate sport since the time commitment is substantial. With that being said, I know many can only afford college due to athletic scholarships (which is awesome for them); however, that is a huge benefit of being talented in a collegiate sport. Although other students are able to acquire scholarships as well, athletes at certain schools are prioritized in this process and often do receive more. Therefore, I don't think college-aged athletes should receive compensation. They can find a part-time job and be a student in addition to their sport as many college athletes have in the past.
I think at least some of the news should be reported in an objective and factual manner. I would hope that news outlets would at least try to make that a priority in order for individuals to be kept up to date with relevant information. However, certain TV stations (i.e. Fox News), do have opinion shows. These anchors acknowledge their opinions and have individuals as guests on the show who are either in agreement or disagreement with them. It makes for an entertaining and educational interview/show. Not all people agree with segments of shows or shows as a whole that lean either right or left in their views; therefore, it is important for objective news as well. I think it's important that news stations include both objective and opinion-related segments.
I don't think it can be affirmatively stated that trailers ruin movies. Yes, sometimes they may give away a funny joke or a dramatic scene; however, they have benefits too. Trailers can indicate the premise, actors/actresses, main themes, and tone of the movie which allows viewers to be initially interested in watching it or not. Personally, I know I have become interested in many movies after watching the trailers and have consequently gone to theaters to see them. Trailers most likely increase the awareness and attendance of the film which is beneficial to those involved in the film's creation. I don't think there's anything wrong with having them - if you're really worried about it, you could step out for the 10 minute trailers before the movie starts!
I agree that he shouldn't have been publically ridiculed for simply eating at a Chick-Fil-A. I think Dorsey is allowed to have his own beliefs (for or against gay marriage), even if they differ from the majority. He is not using his money to promote anti-gay promotion or organizations; rather, he is just eating at a restaurant with a certain view of same-sex marriage.
I think this would be a really cool invention! There would definitely have to be more testing and research done to prove that they are safe and able to be used for humans; however, it would be a really neat product. I wonder if they would be used for the everyday type of drives or if they would be specifically reserved for long-distance ones, such as distances planes go. It would definitely be an expensive investment, so I'm not sure how many people would actually be able to/want to purchase one. But, with that being said, I hope to see these available in the future!
This is true. I think it is difficult (or even impossible) to determine if the allegations are true at this point. If they are, it does depend on the content of the gestures and words said, and if they are degrading or inappropriate in any way, he should be removed from his position. However, I don't think that he should have been suspended immediately - there definitely should be a complete and thorough investigation before any conclusions are made.
Honestly, so true. There has definitely been a bias in the media that portrays female as the only gender being sexually assaulted. This is not true! Although statistics show men also can be sexually assaulted, those cases are often severely under-reported due to the perception and stigma associated with the topic. For men to feel comfortable reporting and receiving related supports, it is critical that the stigma is reduced. It is horrible that someone in the limelight for the #MeToo movement allegedly acted in this way. However, it is not the end for the movement as many others, who are in better standing, are able to carry on its' mission.
True. There's also no legitimate proof at this point that he said it. I know the media would be losing their minds if it came out and are getting a little too excited even by the notion. It's a difficult situation for all involved, but what is the use of speculating that he said that word until there is any evidence? What is there to talk about?
I think it is possible that preteens and teenagers could be influenced by this show. The show itself is very appearance-driven and creates an idealistic situation for dating, meeting your spouse, etc. It can also be very shallow in some of its' components (i.e. the drama, "group dates", "overnight suites", etc.) These components do not translate to real life and what dating in the "real world" looks like. Also, the show is based to find a spouse which makes it seem like an "end goal" for complete happiness. Not all younger individuals may internalize these glamorized facets of dating and relationships, but some may. I am not saying that the Bachelor/Bachelorette should be removed from TV or anything like that, but it may be a good idea for parents to talk to their children about realistic expectations in relationships, respect between people in a relationship, etc. Thanks for the debate!!
I agree that this act was extremely inappropriate, disrespectful, and disgusting. I think most rational individuals would agree that taunting a homeless man with money is a new low. However, I don't think the MMA will do anything other than potentially denounce it on social media (as the MMA Bible Twitter did - except I don't know if the MMA itself runs that social media page). Truthfully, the MMA will gain more publicity by this act and the October fight will be elevated to a higher prominence in the sport. The act was in related articles across media outlets, allowing readers who may not be interested in the MMA (aka me) to learn about it in the news. As this article's original author said, this action makes the fight versus McGregor "Authentic...team vs. team". Therefore, although Nurmagomedov acted horribly, there seems to be no real consequences other than some fans wanting McGregor in the upcoming fight. I wish the MMA would display their feelings towards actions like this to set a good example for sports and fans alike.
I agree with many of the comments listed here. He shouldn't have been asked to remove his hat since he wasn't voting in an election that Donald Trump was running in. However, I think that this act of asking him to leave the voting location shows people's intolerance for others' beliefs. Increasingly in America, this intolerance and inability to, not accept, but respect people's views seem to be disappearing. I think this is one of the takeaways from this story, and I am glad he was able to vote in the election in the end. Honestly a sad realization.
Good suggestions!!! I feel like if you and your friends implemented these types of logistical components in your case. The school board/principal will at least have to consider. They are (rightfully) worried about people getting severely injured, but if you explain to them that this is not just a "fight club" but an actual sport with techniques and guidelines, maybe they will be more lenient and allow for you to create a team. Best of luck!
Personally, I think kombucha takes absolutely horrid; however, I am glad that Starbucks is creating new products that allow people to choose healthier options. Although it is only sold in grocery stores at the moment, it is nice to have options between a Frappucino or a cold brew coffee and kombucha. I dislike when companies or organizations "ban" or take away one product because of its' less-than-great health standards. That's too controlling for me - I like when companies allow their consumers to have a range of different choices, allowing them to pick the one that best suits their life at that moment. Not sure if I would personally go for a kombucha (haha), but yay for Starbucks for creating healthier options!
Good points! I think the name "space force" and it becoming a branch of the army can misguide the public on the many roles/benefits it can have. Especially with other countries (Russia and China) working on high-tech space technology, wouldn't we want the United States to be competitively working towards new space technology as well? I don't think "American Dominance" (in this circumstance) is necessarily a bad thing. Why wouldn't we want the United States to be spearheading a new and exciting field?
I totally agree that she should have been fired for this tweet. The first one was bad enough but the second was over the line! She was very disrespectful to Homer Hickam, regardless if she knew his position in NASA or not. People shouldn't talk to others like that!! In my opinion, employers look to hire employees that represent their companies in a positive light, whether they are in the office at that time or not. From my employment experiences, many of my bosses have reviewed social media pages (Facebook, Instagram, Linked In, etc.) to ensure that their future employment is appropriate and decent on social media. I agree with NASA's move 100%! I hope that girl learned a lesson and can improve her professional skills for her next job.
Although I believe that companies should improve their safety regulations in order to clarify and specify them to the public, I don't see anything wrong with e-scooters! They are a quick, easy, and relatively low-cost way to get around - perfect for tourists who are interested in exploring a new city but don't want to pay for a rental car or walk the whole way. I used one when I visited a new city recently and loved it. I think a lot of these accidents seem to be user-related; that is, users who do not wear helmets or ignore safety regulations are the ones who seem to be going to the emergency room for injuries. Moreover, the same arguments can be made for motorcycles and other vehicles: those who drive recklessly and do not listen to important safety regulations have a higher likelihood of getting injured. Yay e-scooters!