How We Represent Ourselves

In order to represent ourselves we must first have an identity.  I think an identity is the way we see ourselves.  Dictionary.com defines identity as "the distinct personality of an individual regarded as a persisting entity; individuality."  Those definitions are similar, however, I would argue that a persons identity can be perceived differently by different people, including themself.
 
Race, gender, and sexuality definitely changes the way we choose to represent ourselves.  Reality television actually does a good job of demonstrating this.  When you watch those shows, it is always amusing to watch how over-the-top people go to demonstrate that they are black, female, gay, etc.  People are also very sensitive to the fact that they are something in the minority.  For instance someone who's gay will believe they were voted off because they were gay, not for any other reason such as performance.

My main point is that people give you an identity, and you have an identity you give yourself.  I also believe there are times when you assert different parts and amounts of your identity.

Artificial Life

To me, "Artificial Life" is anything that believes it is alive and is actually not. I have a strong belief that for somehing to actually be alive, it has to fit the biological rules laid down by science. I do, however, believe that artificial life-forms should have close to the same rights as the rest of us regular life forms do.

The basic laws of life that scientists came up with to decide what is life and what isn't still have to apply. These rules include the ability to change and adapt, which are things that an Artificial Life could forseeably do. However, science does have the rule that living things contain DNA, and Artificial Life does not have DNA. Also, living things are born...in one way or another (plants sprout, animals are born from sort of egg fertilization, single celled organisms split, etc.) and artificial life is created or engineered.

My last paragraph notwithstanding, Artificial Lives should be treated with a higher degree of respect than the average unaware robot. I believe it is wrong to kill anything without a proper reason so ending an Artificial Life just to see what happens, and causing that Artificial Life pain and anguish is wrong.

"A Look at Catholicism on the Web"

My thesis is that the two sites I looked at (Catholic.org and Catholic.net) were aimed at two different generations.
The first thing I did was compare the two websites on their relative merits. My first point was that although both sites put news on the front page, the .org site was much more broad in what it considered news and would therefore appeal to a broader audience. My second point was that the secondary and tertiary pages on the site were more user friendly and advanced on the .org site so it would, again, appeal to a broader audience. I next talked about how .net was much more simplistic with fewer graphics so it would appeal to an older audience who like to have things as simple as possible. My last major point in the initial comparison was that the mission statement of .org was to basically appeal to the broadest group of Catholics possible, and .net wanted to provide Catholic-approved media to Catholics.
In my analysis of the respective inclusiveness of each site, I decided that both were focused on Americans, although .org at least offers translations of their site in a handful of other languages. So that doesn't effect my thesis.
I next delved into what I believed Brasher would think about the sites, under the assumption that Brasher would like sites that appealed to the younger internet savvy generation more than she would like boring sites for people who only visit to read news articles. I decided that .org would be Brasher's favorite, but would not enjoy .net much.
That was basically my argument. My conclusion was that, although it sounded like it I was not bashing .net, but that it served a purpose and catered to an audience that did not include me. My thesis that .net and .org were different audiences seemed adequately proven to me.

hate.com

Brasher's novel seemed a little naive before I watched hate.com, but now it looks incredibly uninformed. Many of the sites mentioned on hate.com claim to be religious but they don't seem so happy and new-agey like the stuff Brasher was talking about. The Christian Identity movement is a perfect counterpoint to Brasher's argument.

The C.I. movement claims to be religious, backs their movement with quotes from The Bible, and, of course, uses the word Christian in their name. However, most mainstream Christians would never identify with this movement. In fact, most Christians would explain that the doctrines of the C.I. movement are inherently NON-Christian, and that the supporting texts from The Bible having been twisted away and taken out of context from their original meaning.

Brasher's optimism for a non-racist global religion overlooked the amazing amount of hate that the internet would simultaneously foster.

Religion

There is no one thing that religion does specifically. The most popular answer, as to what religion does, would be that it gives people purpose or meaning. The more cynical answer would be that religion controls people. I believe religion should give people hope.

It is a common problem amongst humans to find purpose in their life. Religion fulfills that purpose void and directs people. One thing that all religions (at least the ones that I am aware of) have in common is a code of ethics that guide people and tell them exactly what they should do in most situations. People with religion take comfort in the fact that they will be accepted within society because their actions in most situations will be similar to others who share their faith.

A famous quote goes "Religion is an opiate for the masses." As harsh as that seems, there is definitely some truth to it. Religion is definitely a tool that, when used effectively, can be very powerful in uniting, oppressing, or inspiring large groups of people. Taking a look at Middle Eastern countries that use Islam to unite their people against "infidels" is good evidence of this. Looking further back into our own past, Christianity was used as an excuse to conquer the Americas.

I believe that religion should serve as a beacon of hope. Religious groups do a lot of good things, like helping the sick, providing support for members, feeding starving children, etc. Almost all religions also promote behavior that most people would consider "good." Most religions also promise an after life for those who believe. Those are all things that religion should do, in my opinion.

Wes's First Post Ever

I think that this class will be about the vast diversity of topics that the digital world covers. You can find pretty much anything you want on the internet, and a lot of things that you don't want. I think this class will be very interesting because, while I already know a fair amount about the internet, I tend to do the same things over and over again. It will be nice to get a larger perspective on just what is out there.

For the most part, my internet usage is mainly limited to downloading mp3's, reading about sports, and communicating through instant messages and e-mail's. I know there are a lot of interesting things out there, things I should know more about since I'm a DTC major, I just need a push to go out and look for them.

I believe this class will provide that push, and I look forward to it. I'm always happy to expand my horizons.