Thou Shall Not Kill

So today we talked about the death penalty. Conservatives are for the death penalty, stating that when criminals are killed, justice has been served. Also, they think that having the death penalty as an option works as a crime deterrent in that criminals become scared of being put on death row, and their fear prevents them from committing more heinous crimes that would be punishable by death. The liberal side contends that killing a person to make them pay for a crime is morally wrong and hypocritical, and also point out that it is more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in jail for life (due to court and legal fees). Also there's the chance that the person executed was innocent, in which case, nothing would have been solved.

Personally I believe that using violence to solve problems, whether it is with war, punishment, or or everyday interactions, is completely unacceptable and extremely barbaric. Notice how every other developed country has banned the death penalty because they have deemed it "uncivilized", while in America, we refuse to let go of it. The idea that the death penalty is a crime deterrent seems somewhat ridiculous, considering it almost seems more threatening to be confied in prison for the rest of your life. Also, the crimes/murders the person committed won't suddenly turn around as soon as they are killed. By killing a killer that has already been caught, all you're doing is killing them: the people that they killed will still be dead afterward, the surviving victims will still be traumatized. It just seems unnecessary and ineffective to kill another person. I understand that the criminal's death may feel justified, however all it is doing is bringing yourself to their level: that of a killer.

Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people...with guns

Today's issue was gun control. An interesting debate. Conservatives lobby for harder punishments against criminals using guns and claim that "guns don't kill people... people kill people". Their main argument however is that guns are used for mainly for protection, sport, and are harmless inanimate objects which people manipulate for the wrong reasons. Just because people are violent and shoot each other, doesn't mean guns are the problem. On the other hand, liberals recognize that punishment for crimes involving guns has actually gotten tougher in the past several years, and that the main objective in gun control is to prevent gun crimes before they happen. If guns are less available and more difficult to obtain, the chances of them getting into the wrong hands are significantly decreased.

Being the liberal that I am, I agree completely with stricter gun laws and more gun control. While conservatives argue it infringes on their 2nd amendment rights, the fact remains that America has the highest gun-related mortality rate out of any other developed country. Too many people are injured or killed by guns to ignore the fact that harder punishment clearly isn't working, and that prevention would be much more effective. With the amount of school shootings in the past decade (Columbine, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois...) and the amount of other gun related massacres (sniper shootings), punishment after-the-fact will do NOTHING to stop shootings from happening. Punishing the criminal won't give any victims their lives back. The entire "people kill people" argument just seems hilarious. If people kill people, then why would anyone want to provide them with guns?

Marriage for love? GASP.

So today's topic was gay marriage. While the liberal side states that gay marriage should be legal and that banning gay marriage or denying homosexuals the right to marry and giving them the option of a "civil union" instead, is an infringement of their civil liberties. Also, the liberal side argues that since marriage is a personal choice, it should be left up to the person, and not the state to decide. On the other hand, conservatives believe that because our government is a democracy and that the majority of americans are against gay marriage, that it should be illegal. They argue that since the Bible is against homosexuality, along with other religions, that that should govern homosexuals' rights to marriage. Also they claim that same sex marriages ruin the sanctity of marriage, since it is "supposed to" be between a man and a woman.

Personally, I think it is a person's right to marry whoever they love. Conservatives' point that marriage is for procreation is the most far-fetched justification I've ever heard, especially since there are many cases of heterosexual couples who are unable to conceive. Does that mean a marriage is worthless is the couple is sterile? Also, I feel the "sanctity" of marriage is brought down more by one-night-stand-type Vegas marriages, reality tv shows advertising marriage to a stranger, and our country's extremely high divorce rates (one in two marriages are estimated to end in divorce) rather than same-sex marriages. Marriage is about love. And if two men or two women love each other, who has the right to tell them they can't be together? I think the real argument beneath this is not the sanctity of marriage or procreation or religion or the well-being of the child (since supposedly kids raised by same-sex parents will have emotional problems)... I think its just Conservatives' extreme homophobia.

Its cool, I wasn't using my civil liberties anyway.

So today's pop culture topic: abortion. The Liberal side of the argument is pro-choice and promotes women's right to have control over the choices they make that involve their bodies. Other huge issues involved with abortion are rape and competency in caring for a child. If a woman is raped, should she be forced to raise a child she didnt consent to in the first place? And if a woman (or a couple) who is unable to provide for a child accidently becomes pregnant, should they really have the baby? The liberal side of the argument maintains that the person should be given the choice as to whether or not they will endure 9 months of pregnancy and a lifetime (possibly) of childcare, whereas the conservative side of the argument states that they are pro-life, and that abortion is murder. Conservatives believe abortion is morally wrong and is equivalent to killing an infant, since life is observed in a fetus only a few days after conception. They also recognize the emotional problems related with abortion, and the high rates of depression following the procedure. This often leads to higher suicide rates.

Personall, im extremely pro-choice. The last time I checked, none of the old white men currently running our country ever had to deal with the prospect of becoming pregnant whith an unwanted child. In fact, last time I checked, many of these men don't even have a uterus. Now maybe things have changed, but I don't know. All I really know is that NO ONE, especially the government, should have the right to tell a woman what she is and is not allowed to do with her body. Having a child is a life-changing decision, and the government has absolutely no right to intrude on something like that. A baby is unable to live on its own before the third trimester, and the mother is more than some faceless incubator giving the fetus "life support". She should have a right to have a say in what happens to her. All in all, I believe that the government has no right to dictate what women are and are not allowed to do with their bodies, and their lives. Especially since 99% of the people who would be making the decision can't even begin to empathize with a pregnant woman faced with this decision, seeing as how they are men. Men don't get pregnant, men don't have babies, and men aren't faced with either of these things if raped. If men were faced with pregnancy and the prospect of caring for an unwanted child, I would bet my life that the government wouldn't even question the right to have an abortion.

Arguable... but lets be honest

What is the difference between liberal and conservative?

Even though my definition is biased, I believe that the terms “liberal” and “conservative” signify very different things. While liberals tend to stand for philanthropy, helping others, advocating for progress and open-mindedness, conservatives tend to focus mainly on their own personal gain, the idea of “tradition”, and the neglect of those of a lower status than themselves. Liberals are often more skeptical of their government and advocate for freedom of personal choice. They are also often criticized as being hippies and idealists. On the other hand, conservatives tend to trust their government wholeheartedly with the belief that their government is out for the people’s best interest, and in terms of poverty and health care, would rather not deal with things that don’t affect them personally. Conservatives are criticized as being greedy, self-righteous, overly traditional (difficulty in separating church and state, homosexual issues, etc.) and uneducated (President Bush).

Authenticity is a made up word if you're referring to the media

What is authentic about YOUR teen subcluture? Does your generation have anything that it can call it's own? If there is nothing authentic about your culture, discuss how you feel about that. Does this even matter to you?

Personally, I don’t think my generation really has much that it can call its own. The things we do call our own are manufactured products that remind us of our generation. For example, just about everyone my age remembers Crazy Bones, Pogs, and other marketed products that were all the rage in elementary school. I’m sure the girls remember wearing butterfly hairclips in 5th grade and using gelly-roll pens, and I’m sure most of the guys were obsessed with finger skateboards around the same time. Our culture and the thing we enjoyed were (and still are) manufactured; packaged and sold to us with the intent of making us want to collect and buy more, or just to make other people buy into the product. So agreeing with part of the question, I don’t think our culture has much authenticity. We’re spoon-fed different trends, and as soon as something sticks, EVERYONE wants it (example: Ugg boots). We’re not given a whole lot of room to think for ourselves. And as soon as we do come up with something original, its taken and marketed. Even though its obnoxious from my point of view, that the media has to exploit literally everything we might be interested in, its not something I mourn over on a daily basis. Living in America, that’s what we do: We sell things to make money.
I’m not a terribly eclectic person… I generally go with the flow of our culture. Now that more alternative/”indie” music is being marketed, yes, I’m buying into it. Is it annoying that the market seems to seek and destroy just about anything teens like? Yes. Extremely annoying. BUT, at the same time, it doesn’t really matter that much. If the media is going to get to it anyway, what’s the point in complaining about it? I completely agree that its pathetic that the media has marketed us our culture (from manufactured goods to our attitudes), but at the same time, that’s life in our country. Personally it doesn’t matter that much to me, since I still feel like I can be myself, and I don’t feel like the products I buy define me as a person. But to sum everything up, its true: Our generation doesn’t have much of an authentic culture.

it WOULD be a shame if it was true, and hopefully it isnt for anyone.

"It's a shame that the people who are listening to you the most are only interested in you because they want you and your peers to buy their product."

Honestly? I don't necessarily agree with this. I see what the "Marketing of 'Cool'" video is trying to say, but in terms of "listening to us the most"? Hmmm... I have a little more faith in people than that. Adults are definitely in their own world about 90% of the time (so are teens, so are little kids, so is everyone else in the world) but the important people in life definitely take the time to listen without their own selfish motives. I understand that the video is trying to say that the media listens especially attentively because, well, their job is on the line, but to say they're listening the most? That's a bit of a stretch. Another thing the quote generalized is that all teens have bad relationships with their parents, which isn't necessarily true. Not all parents neglect their kids and hand them the credit card to make up for the fact that their job is too time consuming. Even though the media is definitely out to exploit peoples' interests, I'd like to think the good people in the world outweight the bad, and that the people close to us are more prone to listening than a major corporation.