Influence of music

How much does much influence you? Is music just something you listen to or has it become a part of you?

I think that music has a lot of impact on society. I think it influences people more than they realize sometimes. People in the music industry have become icons and are role models to people. Whatever the say or do is taken seriously and people try to imitate them. Musicians are not just people who make music; rather, they are people whose make music that can influence people positively and negatively. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?

It depends whether this influence is a good or bad thing. If the musician is fighting for good causes and sending out a "good" message then it is good. However, what is a "good" message? To me, a good message things such as acceptance of others and a need for change. Music that suggests the degrading of women though is a negative message. I believe that music such as rap music does this. Yes, some rap songs are not like this but when you watch music videos, all they do is degrade the women.

Overall, I think music has a major influence on society whether we realize it or not. It can influence some more than others but everyone to an extent is impacted by music.

Music as a Culture

During class on Wednesday, Professor Johnson asked if music was a language? I think that it is. Language is a way for the artists who create it express how they feel. Also, it allows their listeners to see what the artist is thinking and sometimes relate to songs. For example, I have heard of people saying that an artist's music has "saved their life"--changed them for the better, prevented them from suicide, etc. Language is a means of communication. If a music listener has that impact from a certain band then I believe music is its own language. It is a language that people sometimes do not understand but it still is a language. Furthermore, if music is a language I believe it is also a culture.

Cultures are able to communicate through their different languages which is what music does. It allows the musician to communicate to their listeners their feelings on a certain subject through their lyrics and music. Also, music is a culture because of the impact it has on people. For example, I have a friend who is into a music genre called alternative music. A few bands in this genre are Boys Like Girls, Valencia, and Paramore. For her, this type of music has become a lifestyle for her. Most of her friends listen to the music, she meets a lot of friends at the concerts, and she dresses a certain way as a result. As a result, she always wears tight jeans, tight t-shirts, bright make-up, and Converse chucks. People might say that this is just her style of dress, but it is not.

Everyone who is "scene" and has made alternative music part of who they are dresses this way. I think the same goes for goths. They dress a certain way which I think is affected by their taste in music. I do not know much about this for goths. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think that some people clearly can just listen to the music and not dress any differently as a result. However, I think if music becomes a huge part of who they are it affects it to an extent.

Why help those who are oppressed in Iraq where other countries need our help more?

After Professor Johnson giving the reasoning of the United States being at war with Iraq to help "liberate" the Iraqis and spread democracy, I wondered why we are not helping other countries in need or in fact our own country itself. When Katie brought up Darfur and the Sudan, it made me wonder why we aren't helping them when they need more help then the Iraqis. In fact, the Iraqi president said he did not need our help anymore? Then why won't the our troops get out of Iraq?

Honestly, if the only reason we are truly in Iraq is for oil that is really selfish and stupid in my opinion. I do not think oil is worth thousands of people being injured or dying. Also, if we are just staying Iraq to be the "heroes" of this then that is stupid also (in my opinion). If we are truly going to be heroes we should help countries that actually need our help like Darfur and Sudan. If the Iraqi president says he does not need our help anymore, we should listen to him.

Which sickens me even more is how the troops are not helping those in New Orleans. After spending my spring break in New Orleans, I realized that the people of New Orleans still need our help. Why can't we be heroes in our own country? Why can't we help people that actually want our help?

Bush and the rest of the government need to realize that we need to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. The British were smart enough to get out of Iraq. Why can't we be that smart? In my article Tony Blair said 'I said I 'm with you. I mean it' (Harrison 1). Clearly, if Blair takes his troops out of Iraq, he is not "with" Bush anymore. Bush just needs to get the hint and realize that our troops are needed elsewhere.

Why did the war in Iraq begin?

Why did the war in Iraq begin? After discussing this yesterday, most people agreed that the government gave the reasoning of believing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However, the underlying reason was oil. So, if there is an underlying reason, does that make the reason the government gave us invalid?

Yes, I believe that it does. First of all, we did not even find weapons of mass destruction when we tried to find them in Iraq (at least the ones we were looking for). Also, if there is an underlying reasoning, then the reasoning the government gave us is pointless. It holds no validity at all. Is going to war for oil stupid? Yes! Going to war for oil is causing people to risk their lives and die for a cause that is not worth it. Yes, we do need oil and it is an important source of fuel. However, I do not believe it is worth going to war about. The United States should of only started a war in Iraq if Americans were in danger. Since we were not in danger after all, we should not have started the war in the first place.

Now we are stuck in a war trying to help the Iraqis. Who knows when this war will finally end.

Patriotism

After talking last week, I wondered whether many people are truly patriotic or not. Is patriotism a trait that many people have these days?

From my experience, I do not think many people are patriotic these days. Due to many people being against the war, I think people are not "patriotic" according to the definition. What does that say so? Does that mean the people are wrong and should be punished? No. I think that many people are not patriotic today because they are willing to speak against the government's decisions and justify their reasoning.

Looking back at the questions I made after the reading last week, I wonder what were really "American" characteristics. Are there really any characteristics that separate us from other countries?

Why do we have to support the war in Iraq to be patriotic?

I do not understand why we have to support the war to be patriotic. Supporting the war means supporting the reasoning for the war. And from what I know, there really is not a justifiable reason, in my opinion, that we are still in the war. So does that make me unpatriotic? I think it is more important to support the troops than support the war. The soldiers are the ones that are receiving the direct consequences of the war. I believe we should have to support them to be patriotic rather than supporting the war themselves. Being part of the war was the government's decision. However, the soldiers did not choose to enter the war. Instead, they chose to serve their country and are fighting the war in Iraq as a consequence.

Also, I believe that the definition of patriotism must change. As I said to Nikki, it needs to change to fit the society we live in today. We are not the not same society we were 20 or 50 years ago. Due to this, I believe that expectations of being patriotic have changed.

I would like some input on this. Should we change our definition of patriotism or not?

Last Week's Q&A

Last week's Q&A: I have been meaning to make another post about it but keeping forgetting. I do not understand how morals cannot be mentioned in any of the premises yet is in the conclusion. The two premises--Humans are omnivorous by nature and Omnivores can eat meat have nothing to do with the conclusion--Therefore, it is morally permissible for humans to eat meat. There is nowhere in the premise that mentions and even hits are morality. There should be an ought premise that deals with morality to make this argument valid.

How could there be an ought premise that discusses morals and connects it to meat? Honestly, I have no idea. All I know, is the morals and meat should be the "glue" to fills the gap in this argument. Assumptions cannot be made when making an argument. It needs to be perfectly clear to someone who is foreign to the topic of the argument to be able to understand it.