Impacts of media violence on violence against women

Impacts of media violence on violence against women Media Violence as a Causal Agent for Violence Against Women Through Desensitization, Reinforcement of Gender Roles for Women, and Social Learning Theory. Media Violence as a Causal Agent for Violence Against Women Through Desensitization, Gender Roles of Women, and Social Learning Theory In the span of about one century the western world has made significant strides to amend the discrepancy in equality between women and men (Crow Gotell, 2004). Beginning with the first wave of feminism in the nineteenth and early twentieth century, the official rights of women were sought and established, resulting in important and favourable amendments to the existing legislation, such as womens right to vote (Johnson-Odim, 1991). Nonetheless, inequalities between women and men were not confined to court documents and legislation, rather they extended further into the community (Johnson-Odim, 1991). As a response to this the second wave of feminism took precedence to address unofficial, social issues including those related to sexuality, the workplace, and reproductive rights (Johnson-Odim, 1991). Yet, and despite the contributions made by both movements, several issues remain on the changing and diverse identity of women (Crow Gotell, 2004).In response to this, the third wave of feminism was dedicated to refuting the notion of a universal female identity and instead prioritizing diversity among women (Crow Gotell, 2004). Ultimately, however, the forms of violence and aggression toward women have evolved, become more subtle and implicit, but equally unjust (Rice, 2005). That is, although womens rights and freedom are made present on the surface, there continues to be questionable events that threaten the dignity of women (Rice, 2005). Specifically, popular media has played a significant role in facilitating, as well as perpetuating, violence against women (Bocock, 2006). With liberalism becoming more adamant in western culture, the visual depictions of women to capitalize on products and services has become normalized (Bocock, 2006). As a result, women are often directly associated with sex and sexuality, completely negating the rest of their being (Bocock, 2006). Currently, there is a large body of research dedicated to exploring the relationship between violent media and aggression, but few studies have been done to specifically address the transition between exposure to violent media and committing acts of violence towards women (Ferguson, San Miguel, Hartley, 2009). Because this issue is still a relative novelty, it is important to be cognoscente of extra variables that influence violence towards women in real life, all of which should be considered and weighed. However, the intent of this review is to decons truct the ways in which violence in the media, specifically in television, can facilitate and perpetuate violence towards women in real life. The type of real life violence under consideration focuses on physical and sexual violence, as well as negative stereotypes and attitudes about women. Although several perspectives and paradigms can be used to explain the contributions to violence towards women, this review will detail the mechanisms of psychological desensitization, reinforcement of womens gender roles, and social learning theory to analyze the role of violent media as a contributing factor in violence towards women. To begin, and as aforementioned, the exploration of the relationship between media violence and real life violence is not a new subject, rather an ongoing quest to further break down the phenomenon. A common reoccurrence is the issue of media violence and the desensitization of traits that allow us to associate inappropriate acts with human suffering (Fanti, Vanman, Henrich, Avraamides 2009). Fanti et al (2009) define desensitization as diminished emotional responses to a negative or adverse stimulus after repeated exposure to it. Essentially, repeated exposure to media violence can habituate adverse reactions, voiding a persons innate and natural negative response when viewing violence (Fanti et al, 2009). One plausible explanation for the way desensitization works is that exposure to violent media eliminates inhibitions to violence, which in turn may foster pro-violence attitudes and lower empathic responses (Fanti et al, 2009). This proposal further confirmed by Fanti et al (2009 ) in their empirical study, in which they exposed young adults to violent or comedic television clips. They hypothesized that repeated exposure to violent media would not only lower the empathic responses of participants, but also increase their levels of enjoyment when watching violent media (Fanti et al, 2009). Ultimately, their study showed that desensitization to media violence can occur after repeated exposure to media violence, and that these results can be seen in a short-term period (i.e. desensitization does not need extensive time to develop) (Fanti et al, 2009). In addition the researchers found that with repeated exposure to violent media not only was the psychological impact and sympathy of the participants reduced, but they reported an increased enjoyment of viewing violent media (Fanti et al, 2009). To further strengthen their results, the researchers were also able to discount existing personality traits (i.e. aggressive individuals) as being correlated with desensit ization (Fanti et al, 2009). However, there is an extensive body of research that counters the argument that media is accountable for violence, and instead analyzes other factors that have a heavier contribution to anti-social acts like violence. To illustrate this, a study by Ferguson et al (2009) looked at 603 youths in Texas, half of which were male and half female. Their aim was to evaluate the multiple variables that are associated with violent behaviour in youth (Ferguson et al, 2009). They found that in comparison to exposure to violent television, the most influential factors on the existence of aggressive behaviour were: delinquent peer influences, anti-social personality traits, depression or depressed mood, and parents or guardians who use psychological abuse in their personal relationships (Ferguson et al, 2009). These results undermine the argument, as proposed by Fanti et al (2009), that violence in the media is the most influential agent in desensitization, leading to violent real-life behaviour by the viewer. Although it is certainly important to consider the multivariate relationship linked with acts of violence or aggression it is important to acknowledge how detrimental violent media can be. The argument that violent media can desensitize individuals and disinhibit their violent impulses or behaviour can be supported within a biological framework (Strenziok, 2010). In a study by Strenziok et al (2010) 37 healthy male participants were tested to analyze the relationship between their exposure to media violence and left orbitofrontal cortex density (LOFC) as mediated by synaptic pruning. Because the orbitofrontal cortex is responsible for important regulatory functions, such as decision-making, social adjustment, and inhibition, any changes that occur in the cortex as a result of pruning can have significant effects (Strenziok et al, 2010). When synaptic pruning occurs the process happens within context (Strenziok et al, 2010). That is, the en vironment plays a major role in selecting which neuronal connections will be pruned and which will be maintained (Strenziok et al, 2010). Strenziuok et al (2010) found that there was a negative correlation between exposure to violent media and left orbitofrontal cortex density. Their findings suggest that media violence can facilitate synaptic pruning in the LOFC, which then short-circuits/decreases neuronal connectionsultimately disrupting normal orbitofrontal cortex functions and allowing for anti-social violent behaviour (Strenziok et al, 2010). Furthermore, the desensitization process and the serving biological functions can be applicable to violence towards women. In a society that upholds equality, freedom, and rights as priorities, there continues to be sensationalized displays violence in the media. One study aimed to examine the effects of repeated exposure to sexually violent films on emotional desensitization toward victims of domestic violence and abuse within sample of 138 males. (Mullin Linz, 1995). The results showed a decrease in emotional response, physiological arousal, and ratings of how sexually violent the films were with repeated film exposure (Mullin Linz, 1995). These statistically significant results were relative to the results of the control group, and lasted for three days. That is, when re-evaluated three days after the initial experiment, the results remained static (Mullin Linz, 1995). However, it is important to also acknowledge that these results did not extend further than three days (Mullin Linz, 1995). When tested again five days after the initial experiment, participants baseline responses were restored, essentially suggesting that the effects of sexually violent films were only maintained for a limited and short-term period (Mulling Linz, 1995). The authors suggest that the results may reflect a lack of ecological validity in the study, since exposure to violent media is longer and more continuous over time compared t o exposure in a clinical setting (Mullin Linz, 1995). What this implies then, is that in a real life setting these results may be inapplicable and possibly irrelevant to violence towards women. Above differential perspective, what this study ultimately supports is the existence of a strong relationship between exposure to gender-based, sexually violent films and overall desensitization (Mullin Linz, 1995). Lastly, a study by Linz and Adams (1989) measured physiological desensitization (i.e. heart rate) and its relation to cognitive, affective, and attitudinal components of desensitization. Participants were exposed to either a videotape depicting violence against women or a videotape of non-violent, but exciting content (Linz Adams, 1989). Then all participants watched video clips of violence towards a woman, with a male as the aggressor (Linz Adams, 1989). Linz and Adams (1989) found that heart rates of participants in the violent videotape condition were lower during the final 90 seconds of each violent video clip compared to the control group. In addition, participants in the violent videotape condition attributed less injury to the female victims portrayed in the media in comparison to the control group (Linz Adams, 1989). To further delineate the contrast between the experimental and control conditions, the control condition experience significant increases in hostility, anxiety, and depression during the violent video clips- a testament of their adverse responses to and disapproval of violent media (Linz Adams, 1989). Ultimately, based on the growing body of literature on violence and media, there is significant evidence to support the role of exposure to violent media and its facilitation of real life violence, as it pertains to women. Such evidence not only addresses sociological perspectives of desensitization, but also provides psychophysiological support to explain the biological processes that enable such a relationship. Because humans tend to be swayed from and influenced by several variables, it is important to further analyze sociopsychological and cultural variables in the relationship between media violence and women. Specifically, gender norms and roles as they relate to women will be discussed in the context of media and real life violence. Although these roles and norms are an integral part of our identity beginning from birth, one must consider the unanticipated consequences. Often times with such social and cultural standards there runs a risk of placing individuals into very concise and finite societal niches, which may be difficult to break free from. For example, in western societies, the moment a baby is born he or she is often assigned a colour, according to gender appropriateness, be it pink or blue. The process of socialization begins from the moment an infant is introduced into society. From that moment onward, the child is brought up to meet societal and cultural standard of correc t ways of being, according to their sex. Unfortunately, this strenuous and confining process is difficult to stray away from, and individuals who attempt to establish themselves as persons first, rather than male or female, often experience disapproval, backlash, and even social isolation. In addition, the role of the media has been another influential means by which to enforce norms and roles in western worlds. Specifically, recent literature has proposed arguments that violent media reinforces the self-image of women in accordance with gender roles, and can even foster intra-female real life violence. What this implies then is that not only is violence towards women a reality, but that women themselves are now engaging in their own demise and contributing to the same hegemony that oppresses them. Although it was traditionally understood within the scientific realm that aggression is primarily related to males, and that aggression is singular in nature (i.e. direct, physical), rece nt literature is debunking this claim. Specifically, indirect aggression, which is not physical or explicit, in female-female relationships has take centre stage (Bjorkqvist, 1994). In theory, there is no reason to suggest that women are as violent as men, considering their physical ability. In reality, however, women have adapted to this difference by using indirect hostility and aggression by way of verbal and social manipulative (e.g. spreading rumours, excluding peers, etc) acts as a means of being violent ( Bjorkqvist, 1994, Cote, 2007). Bjorkqvist (1994) suggests that this indirect aggression can even be considered more sophisticated and powerful than conventional aggression (i.e. physical) because the aggressor is able to harm another person without being identified. However, the nature of aggression displayed by women and men cannot be solely attributed to biological or physiological differences. Social and cultural variables, and their influence on learning help perpetuate these modes of aggression (Bjorkqvist, 1994). With violent media being so pervasive and omnipresent, particularly as it relates to women, it is important to explore its effects on real life actions. Ringrose (2006) examines the way in which media sensationalizes indirect violence, now being referred to as the mean girl phenomenon and the implications it brings forth. This novelty depiction of women poses a bilateral problem, in that aggression is often synonymous with power but remains as a type of behaviour frowned upon in women. For example, Gonick(2004) proposes that the stereotypical vulnerable girl has now been replaced by the mean girl in the public eye. What would be ideal is to avoid polarizing womens behaviour, or homogenizing them into black or white categories, figuratively speaking. Nonetheless, what is ideal is rarely reality. Although the recent creation of the mean girl in the media appears to provide equality between women and men, as it provides an over reactive res ponse and antidote to the idea that women are nurturing and not aggressive, there a are serious side effects to this new sensation (Gonick, 2004). The pervasive presence of this construction of the mean girl in the media is now redefining normal behaviour for women and girls, allowing femininity and aggressive behaviour to be re-pathologized (Ringrose, 2006). Now that popular media, specifically televised and print media, is disguising indirect female-female aggression behind the facade of female empowerment, a new template of appropriate girl and women behaviour is being inherited by newer generations. The media often portrays indirect violent behaviour as exciting, dramatic, sexy, and especially as a marker of status and power. For example, feature films such as Mean Girls and Thirteen glorify indirect and relational aggression, depicting relating such behaviour to physical attractiveness, popularity, and success. Not only are such media positing that such behaviour is appealing a nd even glamorous, but is also negates all other equally important aspects of existence, such as stable family relationships, and a breadth of education. In addition to assigning indirect aggression as a vehicle of power, violent media also sets up such aggression to take place in female to female social relationships. It is often said that a civilization destroys itself from within rather than being conquered by outsiders and the western female population exemplifies this heuristic. That is, because violent media sensationalizes indirect aggression in female-female relationships, the integrity with which women relate and identify with one another is compromised. As such, this population is left vulnerable and more susceptible to patriarchal standards of life, and is once again turned into a commodity that can be regulated according to trends and demands. A study by Lavin and Cash (2000) demonstrates the complex relationship between violent media portrayals of women and real life in direct aggression in female-female interactions. They conducted an experimental study to break down and examine the effects of mass media and womens body-image experiences (Lavin Cash, 2000). In this study 66 college women were made to listen to one of two audio tapes: one containing information on the subject of appearance stereotyping and discrimination and the other containing information on television violence aggression (control condition) (Lavin Cash, 2000). At the conclusion of their study they found that although neither condition differed in the altered mood of the participants, exposure to t he appearance-related condition versus the control condition yielded significantly less favourable body-image evaluations (Lavin Cash, 2000). The results, produced by Ten Visual Analogues Scales and the 14-Item Appearance Schemas Inventory, demonstrate the ways in which western media showcases beauty and physical attractiveness in conjunction with covert and overt social benefits (L avin cash, 2000). In addition, the violent media often depict strong associations between beauty and desirable traits. That is, women are learning that beauty is good, and that is it the most important factor in leading a fulfilling life is the virtue of beauty. Because of this trend in the media of using womens physicality as commodities and means to capitalize and turn a profit, women become more invested in their aesthetic selves. In turn, women who have deep psychological investments with their self aesthetics become more susceptible to adverse social events, such as negative feedback about their weight or comparison cues (Lavin Cash, 2000). Such events become critical experiences, and pose the possibility of increased body dissatisfaction. For example, the images of dismembered women in print ads are rampant. What is meant by dismemberment is that only parts of womens bodies are used to sell a product of service. A good illustration of this is the prototypical beer print ad, in which the only thing visible is a womans torso with specific attention paid to the bust, followed by a posing hand holding a beer bottle. Such media pays no attention to the woman in question, rather reduces her to specific anatomical parts, in total disconnection to her individual self. In fact, a face is not only unnecessarily in such violent media, but is also obstructive because violence is more acceptable when identity is unknown (CITATION). Ultimately, violent media not only encourages and portrays indirect aggression as a means of power and representation of status, but also regulates its usage in womens relationships with one another, such that women become active participants in their own oppression and violence. To add to this, women also internalize their roles in western society as portrayed by the media. That is, women begin to see themselves and their bodies in terms of their sexual and aesthetic worth, disregarding other important aspects of their lives. Clearly, t he role of violent media cannot be ignored in light of the consequences it brings. This is not to imply that violent media the sole cause of such effects, as there are other variables to consider. There is a significant amount of research that supports the argument that exposure to violence and aggression enacted in parental relationships in the home have the most significant impact on violence inRather, the aforementioned information should be used to support the significant contributions and influences between violent media and violence towards women. Another mechanism by which violence in the media influences violence in real life violence is through the social learning theory. Bandura (1978) defines the social learning theory as a process in which people learn new behaviours by observing the behaviours of others, and assessing the benefits of exhibiting that behaviour to determine whether the behaviour will be sustained over time. That is, if the behaviour in question results in positive outcomes, then the observer is more likely to display this behaviour (Bandura, 1978)

Is Atheism a Religion Essay

Throughout the countless generations of our existence, we as a global community have pondered a variety of noteworthy enquiries. Most notably, the following come to the forefront. How did the universe come into existence? Does God exist? Does evil exist? What is the ultimate reality? The emergence of these thought provoking questions is something we as a society have become accustomed to debating. Rationally speaking, there simply cannot be one precise justification for these questions. Judging on the history of this heated topic, it is apparent that a variety of possibilities have arisen. The truth of the matter is that the nature of God and religion in itself can be perceived and interpreted through a broad array of individual beliefs. What one individual deems to be the ultimate reality can differ tremendously from another individual’s viewpoint. Ultimately, a person’s culture experiences, traditions, and beliefs all carry significant weight into their perceptions of God and religion. This in fact, is the ultimate reality. Fortunately for us, the use of religion alleviates some of the speculation as it gives us a firm basis of discussion for argument sake. To begin with, it is fundamental to interpret what is classified as religion. Religion has been globally renowned as a set of symbolic world views, theories of action and institutions that relate individuals and groups of individuals to that which they consider to be the ultimate reality. Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism are all vivid examples of belief systems that are devotedly practiced worldwide. Although unique in their own respective way, all of these belief systems share the common ground of being classified as religions. Contrarily, Atheism (although it possesses the â€Å"ism†) is often disregarded as a religion due to a variety of reasons. Not only does majority of the public disregard Atheism as a religion, but also refuse to accept it as an ideology, philosophy, worldview, and belief system. Nonetheless, it is vital to construe that religion is merely one mode of reasoning to justify our existence in this intriguing universe. According to science, the universe came into existence from an â€Å"arbitrary pop† globally accepted as the Big Bang Theory. More specifically, the Big Bang Theory was a â€Å"theory of the creation of the universe first introduced by George Gamow in the 1940s where the universe started as very small, dense, and hot about 15 billion years ago and then expanded into our modern day universe and continues to expand today† (Gribbin, 1996). Prior to this colossal event, there was no matter. However, the purpose of this essay is not to favour one argument over another but rather to examine the nature of Atheism and reflect on both sides of the argument respectively. Firstly, with regards to Atheism not being classified as a religion, many Christians oppose this fact by stating Atheism can be classified as a religion. However, through a perspective of the majority who don’t, one simply cannot make this judgement with the full understanding of religion. The fact of the matter is that Atheism lacks every one of the essential characteristics of religion. Furthermore, with the use of various external resources, we can gather a better grasp of what religion is commonly referred to. This in return will enable us to elaborate on how Atheism contradicts Religion. According to one resource, â€Å"Religion can be the service and worship of God or the supernatural† (Wolf, 2010). By focusing solely on this definition, Atheism is without a doubt NOT a religion due to the fact that Atheism is commonly referred to as the doctrine or belief that there is no God. Furthermore, the United States Supreme Court claims that â€Å"religion is based on a belief in the existence of God and that religion is founded on different beliefs† (Hammar, 1991). This evidently contradicts Atheist viewpoints due to the fact that they believe in no supernatural being. Thus, it’s not possible to call Atheism a religion. It can most definitely be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. These two factors are in entirely dissimilar categories. Atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs. An analogy that can be directly correlated with calling Atheism a religion is stating that not collecting hockey cards could be classified as a hobby. As you can see, it is evident from the factors listed above that Atheism should not be classified as a religion. On the contrary, looking through the perspective of those who consider Atheism a religion, the following points do raise some speculation. To begin with, Atheists believe that a religion does not necessarily have to be comprised of worshipping a God. For example, as learned in class, there are religions which are classified as polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) and non-theistic (Buddhism). As you can see, Buddhism is classified as a religion even though Buddhist’s do not worship a God. To put it into perspective, Atheist’s claim their religion is anti-theistic, but their Atheism is indeed religious. Moreover, Atheists possess their very own worldview which can be referred to as Materialism. â€Å"Materialism is a viewpoint that there is in fact only a material world† (Li, 2009). Atheists merely interpret information within the very slender worldview of materialism. An analogy that can be made here is that of an individual wearing dark sunglasses to influence others perception of the sun being out. Additionally, Atheists believe that their own orthodoxy (set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community) should be sufficient for their inclusion as a religion. The reason being, just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is Atheist orthodoxy as well. This orthodoxy preaches that everything can be clarified as the product of inadvertent, undirected, meaningless evolution. The basis of Atheist orthodox lies on the fact that no truth claim is adequate if it cannot be subject to scientific scrutiny. In addition, as discussed in class, there were a variety of prophets for each respective religion. Atheists in their own right, have their own prophets as the likes of Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin and Marx. Lastly, Atheists have faith. Although it often seems like the opposite, if one looks carefully at their writings, the revelation in their writings shows that they condemn faith. The fact of the matter is that the existence of God cannot be confirmed or disproven. In actuality, to deny the existence of God (Atheism) takes faith. An analogy that can be used to describe the correlation between Atheism and religion is that of â€Å"black† (which physicists define as the total absence of color) not being categorized as a color. Throughout the world, it is a norm for black to be considered a color disregarding the definition assigned by physicists. However, if black is considered a color then Atheism should most definitely be classified as a religion. In conclusion, looking at religion through a sense of morality, being religious can be looked at being passionate, zealous and scrupulous. We can confirm with sincerity that Atheist’s are in fact passionate, zealous and scrupulous towards their own respective beliefs. Ultimately, the variability in the definition of religion definitely has an impact on all the uncertainty surrounding Atheisms inclusion in the definition. Unlike our class, the definition of religion is broader in scope. By taking that into consideration, how can one with the utmost credibility confirm that Atheism is or is not a religion when there simply is not one precise definition of religion? The facts above depicted why Atheism can and cannot be classified as a religion. These facts lead to our next argument regarding Atheisms inclusion as an ideology. For this particular argument, the sole viewpoint will be of Atheism not being classified as an ideology due to a lack of facts for the opposed. The negligence towards Atheism being classified as an ideology originates from the fact that â€Å"An ideology is the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture† (Grobman, 1990). Simply put, it is the collection of myths and beliefs that guide an individual or group of people. Therefore Atheism is not an ideology due to the fact that it does not meet the most integral component of an ideology. This element is the provision of guidance which is directed towards a group of ideas or beliefs. Atheism in itself is the absence of belief in God. Moreover, it is not even a single belief, much less a body of beliefs. Secondly, Atheism offers no guidance or moral, social or political matters. Consequently, these so called â€Å"philosophers† of religion argue the fact that Atheism is not a religion or ideology BUT can be a part of both respectively. In addition to the all the contemplation regarding Atheism’s inclusion as a religion and ideology, it’s insertion as a possible philosophy has also been heavily scrutinized. The denial of Atheisms declaration as a philosophy will be illustrated below through the perspective of someone who believes Atheism is not a philosophy. An individual’s philosophy is their â€Å"system of principles for guidance in practical affairs† (Bronstein, 2008). Although Atheists have individual philosophy’s by which they live by, the fact of the matter is that Atheism simply does not contain a philosophy to live by collectively. The truth of the matter is that there is no precise defined philosophy that is common to all Atheists. Additionally, as mentioned above, a philosophy is also comprised of two crucial aspects like an ideology. For one, in order for something to be classified as philosophy, it must be a collection of beliefs that provide guidance to its respective believers. Likewise, Atheism is not a philosophy due to the same reason that it is not an ideology. Atheism is not even a single belief, much less a collaboration of interconnected beliefs. Once again, Atheism can most definitely be a part of a philosophy but not the philosophy itself. Atheists on the other hand, argue that their â€Å"religion† is indeed a philosophy. According to their intellect, there is no such religion with a philosophy that encloses so many truths and inspirations. Moreover, Atheism has the ability to prepare us to face life with its multitude of trials and tribulations. The fact of the matter is that Atheism is based on nature which is the very roots of life itself. In addition, they argue that their philosophy is without the additional embellishments and false garments like others. Simply put, there are no pretence’s attached to it due to the fact that Atheism rises above faith, and puts humanity upon one level plane. In the Atheist philosophy, there are no such things like â€Å"chosen people†. â€Å"There are no supplications, no prayers, no sacrificial redemptions, no divine revelations, no crusades, no massacres, no holy wars, no heaven, no hell, no purgatory, no Christ’s , no saviours, no devils, no ghosts, and no Gods† (Bronstein, 2008). Not only do Atheists claim that their religion is indeed a philosophy, but they strive to make aware the fact that it is a very spirited and courageous philosophy. Courageous in the sense that it is not frightened to confront the many dilemmas of life. Moreover, Atheism does an avid job of displaying that there are conflicts which yet remain to be solved. Although Atheism does not allege to have discovered all the answers to our existence, it does provide us with a sense of assurance by stating it has discovered and learned the appropriate approach. This approach enables us to strive for the ultimate truth by having the mindset that truth for truths sake is the highest ideal and ultimately, virtue is its own reward. Atheists articulate the fact that our passion and devotion should be directed to humanity and not a supernatural being because humanity is the higher supreme. An analogy that can be made here is that of we cannot help God, but we can help mankind. Hands that help are better far than lips that pray. According to their respective viewpoint, praying and worshipping to God is humiliating and degrading. A great quote that can be directly related to the philosophy of Atheism is that of the great Robert G. Ingersoll. He created the quote that states â€Å"Give me the storm and tempest of thought and action, rather than the dead calm of ignorance and faith. Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. † (Robert G. Ingersoll, N. A. ) Atheism can be considered as an independent philosophy that enables one to be intellectually free. Atheists also argue that their philosophy approaches â€Å"what is† rather than â€Å"what is said†. They forcefully believe that their philosophy teaches individuals that unless their full attention and devotion is not towards one particular goal, the level of successfulness of that goal can be tampered. An analogy that can be used here is that of â€Å"failing to prepare, is preparing to fail. † No such reliance upon prayers can alter that. We will now discuss whether or not Atheism should be considered a â€Å"world view† so to speak. It is commonly accepted that a worldview is a widespread origin or illustration of the universe and how humanity relates to it. Many theistic individuals argue that Atheism is not a world view due to the fact that it does not offer as any insight on the â€Å"ultimate reality† and its direct relation with us (humanity). Atheists on the other hand, argue that their â€Å"religion† is in indeed a world view. They are reasoning their assumption on the basis that although Atheism by itself does not offer any guidance on how to conceive the universe and humanities relation to it, it does however provide us with exclusion of other possibilities. More notably, those possibilities of origin centered around a supernatural being (God). Therefore, they claim that their worldview is universal in the sense that it excludes God as the origin of creation. Secondly, excluding certain types of world views as â€Å"potential options† can also be considered their world view. The existence of God is indeed a very heated topic merely for the fact that both sides present very strong and influential ideas that really provoke people to think. Disregarding the fact that this topic has been continually debated for centuries, it is inevitable that this topic will continue to grow as a basis of discussion. The fact of the matter is that no matter what day and age we will live in, the debate whether or not God exists will never cease to disappear. Interestingly enough, these debates have triggered a variety of so called â€Å"arguments† for the existence of God and the classification of religion. One of these so called arguments is that of Atheisms inclusion as a religion. The fact of the matter is that majority of the world’s population adamantly oppose this classification. From their perspective, Atheism is simply and completely an explicit denial of religion. Contrarily, we have individuals in this world who strongly argue that Atheism should be considered a religion just like Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and other respective religions. Upon personal research along with the insight received from roughly twelve lectures in this very class, it appears as if the complexity in this matter lies not in what the people believe about Atheism, but in the definitions used when referring to â€Å"religion. † It is evident that we are witnessing somewhat of a transition from theism to atheism. However, I personally believe this does not justify Atheism’s categorization as a religion. I will stress that I am not against Atheism in any which form. I respect Atheists for their curiosity and willingness to explore what they believe is the ultimate reality. I am merely opposing Atheisms INCLUSION as a religion. In conclusion, it is neither my place nor right to preach my opinions on Atheisms inclusion or exclusion as a religion with the basis of influencing people’s perceptions. I will continue to practice my own religion (Sikhism) and keep MY opinions on the nature of God close to my heart. Like the rest of society, I too am baffled to explain why there is evil and suffering in ur world. I am sure even the most devoted Catholic, Muslim or even Christian has wondered why this is the case. Personally, I believe that my soul knows that there is indeed a God out there and these mysteries are not enough to sway me towards Atheism. Ultimately, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs of religion and God that it would be simply egotistical to justify on e concrete reason of our existence. However, I do advise every individual (whether Atheist or believer) to explore many avenues of our existence ranging from science to religion before reaching a conclusion.

Assignment Communication Profile

During the course of the day, I spent just as much time listening as I did talking so I guess it is 50/50. I thought before doing this chart that I did not talk much but after I look at it I spend just as much time listing as I do talking. After noticing that most of my day is silent because no one is at home I think I need to find something to do during the day. When it comes to the different types of listing such as comprehensive listening, empathetic listening, critical listening and appreciative listening I noticed I use mostly appreciative listening and empathetic listening.Because I am A stay at home mom about the only conversations I have are with my daughter and her daddy so I spend most of my time soothing them and helping them with there problems and just being there to listen to them. I think I need the most improvement in critical listening because some times I tend to loose the whole idea of the conversations I am in and find my self daydreaming and blocking people out. I think improving on critical listing will help me a lot because not only will I be listing to what people have to say I would actually be paying attrition and understand what they are talking about.I think to improve on this listing skill I will need to get out of the house more often and communicate with different types of people. Over all I think my listing and communications skills could use some work. I think most of my problem is being stuck inside the house except for one day a month when I do errands and shop for food. I think getting out and meeting new people and communicating with friend would help me out a great deal. I think with a few minor adjustment to my normal day to day life will help me in a big way.Now when I go out I will pay more attrition to my communication skills. Because who knows what people think of me when I go out and they try to speak to me and I just smile and shake my head and they can tell I am not listing to what they are saying. Now since I am pa ying more attention to the way I communicate I have practiced it with my family and they told me I was acting different because now I actually take in everything that have to say.I also communicate more with them than I use to and they say I seem like a different person. I enjoy the time I have with my family now and pay more attention to my communication skills. They said before I was like a knot on a log I was always in a daze and never really said anything back to them when they were talking. Now I am on my way to better communication skills not just in my personal life but my social life as well.

Article Review It s Just Everywhere ! Children And...

Jacob Agee Sport Marketing Prof Ayers Article Review â€Å"It s just everywhere!† Children and parents discuss the marketing of sports wagering in Australia The article I chose is from the Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public Health and was published in October of 2016. The article discussed data released in 2015 that indicated the gambling industry was the fourth highest industry for advertising spend in Australia, with a very significant increase between 2012 and 2015. Ten teams from Australia s two major sport associations, the Australian Football League (AFL) and National Rugby League (NRL), have been heavily involved in the ownership and promotion of gambling products and services. Researchers have documented sports wagering companies that have used non-traditional media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to align themselves with match play in the AFL and NRL, as well as the use of current and ex-athletes to endorse products. There is a considerable amount of concern from the Australian government about the normalization of gambling and the costs associated with it around children. History has demonstrated that sport is a powerful tool for influencing children s brand awareness and product preferences when they become an able bodied consumer. Gambling agencies are not necessarily advertising directly to children per say, but they do get a bit of a resonance when using celebrity endorsements, humor, and cartoons. The article delves deeper into whether or not