Blog 3

The Danger of Being Bronze

Tanning beds are increasingly becoming more of a problem for all ages; females in their young adult and teenage years are a growing number of tanning bed users ("Indoor Tanning: The Risks of Ultraviolet Rays"). My guess is that young adults, especially the women, want to look a certain way to boost their confidence, and they feel like one way for them to do this is through using a tanning bed. It sounds silly to hear having a tan can affect your confidence, but i know it's true because i used to tan on a daily basis. I was borderline addicted to it, and i felt like i needed to be tan in order to feel good about myself. Thankfully, i opened my eyes and realized that risking my life for tan skin was absolutely ridiculous, and i finally decided to quit. Now that i am as pale as a ghost and quite content with the color of my skin, i believe tanning beds should become illegal for anyone to use, except for those who suffer from a medical condition (like a Vitamin D deficiency) and need ultra-violet (UV) radiation to help better their health, because it is expensive, causes premature aging, and increases your chances of developing a skin cancer.    

Back in the day, i would drop about $50-$60 a month for an unlimited tanning package, not including the tanning lotion, which is about $20-$30, depending on the lotion you buy. That adds up to be somewhere around $70-$90 a month, again depending on what level of tanning you purchase and what lotion you buy. Regardless, that's a lot of money for a young adult to be spending to use a tanning bed. As i stated earlier, much of the tanning population consists of young adults. Think about where young adults typically work and how much money they typically make. It’s not very much, is it? So spending $70-$90 a month on tanning is not only absurd, but it’s unrealistic for the average young adult who makes minimum wage.

Now I want you to think about how much money you're going to be spending on anti-aging products you'll eventually want for your skin to try and reverse some of the damage tanning beds caused it. A good way to preserve money and your skin is to just take care of it while you are young. This means no tanning beds! According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), tanning will cause your skin to lose its elasticity and allow wrinkles to sink in prematurely ("Indoor Tanning: The Risks of Ultraviolet Rays"). I don't know about you, but i certainly don't want my skin looking like leather ever, but especially not in my younger years. Unfortunately, i've already damaged my skin by tanning so much that i'm afraid i will have premature aging later on in my life. On the bright side, you can reduce your risks of premature aging by not tanning, and hey you'll save some money to while you're making this smart decision. 

Though tanning in tanning beds is expensive and causes premature aging, the most important reason why tanning should become illegal is because of the dangerous skin cancers it puts you at risk for. It's quite scary if you think about how much of a risk you put yourself at when you decide to sneak a tanning session in. Common skin cancers associated with tanning in tanning beds include squamous cell carcinoma and melanoma ("Indoor Tanning: The Risks of Ultraviolet Rays"). Below are pictures of the two different types of skin cancers that you can develop from indoor tanning. 

Squamous Cell Carcinoma
Warning Signs

Melanoma
Warning Signs

Neither of them are pleasant and i hope every day that neither one of them ever shows up on my body. Since i tanned pretty regularly when i was younger, i have a higher chance of developing some type of skin cancer in my lifetime. The fact that i have to live with this fear is unfortunate, but if tanning were to become illegal then a person's risks for developing skin cancer would drastically decrease. 

Text Response 2

Let the Teacher Teach and Let the Students Learn

Teachers are hired to educate students, right? But how can students gain an education if they are only learning about one man’s hypothesis? Ben Stein's article, "Florida's Darwinian Interlude" attempts to explain how the state of Florida considered banning discussions between teachers and students, in public schools, about how life originated. Stein explains how Florida wanted these students to just accept the idea that life began by accident without further discussion. Stein continued by saying Florida eventually realized it wasn't a good idea to proceed with this idea and decided to back out.

After reading the article I believe school boards and state governments shouldn't have the power to mandate what is discussed in a classroom between teachers and students, as long as the teacher's students are still meeting their education regulations. I say this because i think allowing such debatable topics will help a student reach autonomy and become more educated.

Autonomy is a term most of you are familiar with from taking a philosophy class. For those of you who have yet to taken a philosophy class the word basically means being able to think yourself instead of going along with other people's views and opinions. I believe that if a school board had the power to control what is discussed in a classroom and what hypotheses we are allowed to accept, then none of us would ever achieve autonomy because we'd simply be brainwashed in to believing in something we don't even want to believe in. Let's take Stein's article for example, if the state made it illegal for teachers and students to discuss the origins of life, we would all believe in the same thing, which in this case would be that life happened by accident. 

Another important reason why school boards and state governments shouldn't control classroom discussions is because it limits that student's education. If you tell a student he or she has to accept a certain hypothesis, then that student won’t have the chance to learn about other opposing views, which limits that student’s education. Being able to discuss such controversial topics like how life began gives us a chance to listen to other people’s opinions, which in the end will help us reach autonomy and become more educated. 

WE LEARN FROM EACH OTHER!

Blog 2

Cute and Friendly Deadly

How many of you have been to or at least heard of a famous theme park known as Sea World? I'm guessing the majority of you have, including me. These parks are well-known for their entertaining shows, but they are mostly known for their spectacular Shamu shows, which involves the trainers interacting with the Orcas (killer whales) to showcase both the trainers, for being able to teach these extraordinary whales skillful tricks, and the Orcas, for being able to perform them when instructed to do so. For those of you that have no idea what i'm talking about, watch the following video clip.

Sea World's "One Ocean" Shamu Show

Now that you've watched the clip, you're probably thinking about how cute these Orca whales are and how much fun it would be to work with them; however, before you decide to actually become a trainer at Sea World, you should probably make sure you're aware of how dangerous and possibly deadly they really are. The following footage will demonstrate a couple of incidents that occurred at Sea World, during a Shamu show.

                                                                                                                           Tilikum (the killer whale) Kills Dawn Brancheau

Katsatka (the killer whale) Attacks Ken Peters

After watching the videos, I think it's safe to say these Orcas are unpredictable. Even though they look harmless and friendly, they are predators. They can randomly attack whoever is in the water with them. I don't know how many more injuries or deaths Sea World can withstand before they realize that these creatures are far too wild and dangerous to be putting on a show in front of crowds. I believe Sea World should release the whales in to the ocean, where they belong, and let them live their lives in peace. Doing this will benefit the whales as well as the people by protecting them from us, and by protecting us from them.

To learn more about Orca whales, watch the documentary, Blackfish. This movie explains possible reasons that are contributing to their violent behavior, and it also discusses why keeping them captivated in theme parks isn't a good idea.  

Text Response 1

Gay Marriage: Necessary or Unnecessary?

I came across an article in my English book one day and decided to read it. While i was reading, i couldn't help but to get upset by the rude comments Sam Schulman, the author, was making about gay marriage. The article i found is in Chapter 21 of Argument!, pages 381-384, and it is titled, "The Worst Thing About Gay Marriage". Once i finished reading it, i wondered where i stood on the issue. Are gay marriages really unnecessary just because they don't fit within this "kinship system" like heterosexual marriages do? 

No Gay Marriage...

According to Sam Schulman, the answer is yes, they are unnecessary and later he mentions, "Gay marriage is as good as no marriage at all." He believes there are four important effects that come out of a heterosexual marriage, within the kinship system, that can't come out of a gay marriage:

1. "Marriage is concerned above all with female   sexuality."
2. "Kinship modifies marriage by imposing a set of rules that  determines not only whom one may marry but, more important,  whom one may not marry."
3. "Marriage changes the nature of sexual relations between a man and a woman."

   

   ...Why not?

4. "Marriage defines the end of childhood,sets a boundary between generations within the same family and between families, and establishes the rules in any given society for crossing those boundaries."

Even though he may be right about gay marriages' not

fitting within the kinship system, I strongly disagree 

with him about gay marriage being unnecessary. I believe gay marriage is necessary for some homosexuals for the same reasons it is necessary for some heterosexuals, they want or need to establish a legitimate commitment with someone though marriage, in order to achieve happiness. There are some people who aren't worried about whether or not their marriage fits the kinship system for two reasons: the first being that they are more concerned about actually loving that person, which is what marriage should be about, along with happiness, and the second being that they just don't care about what the kinship system is or what it represents.

According to a study done by Inquisitr News, "75% of married people settled in the marriage they were currently in and lost their true love by doing so." This data might conclude that people, who didn't marry for love, aren't happy with their choices. So my point is that the kinship system may be important, but it doesn't always produce a happy, faithful marriage, which is why i believe we all not only have the right, but are obligated to marry somebody we love and cherish, whether that person is a heterosexual or homosexual, in order to live satisfying lives. If we don't marry people that we truly love and want to make a life with, then why even bother getting married at all?