Ben X

This movie deals with two issues at once: autism and addiction to computer games. Ben, who suffers from autism, seeks escape from reality by playing computer games. What surprised me about Ben is that he was capable of communicating, although not effectively. The autistic people I saw on TV were hardly capable of normally communicating except through their own talents, such as playing the piano. But Ben communicates as well as any other people on the Internet when he is chatting with the girl, being able to hide his identity on the Internet. And unlike my expectation that autistic people will not be good at standardized tests, it is mentioned in the film that Ben has excellent grades. He just might be an extremely shy person and not autistic-he could be just labeled as autistic by doctors. I think it is possible for Ben to overcome his shyness and live a normal life, but judging from what Ben's mom said, something tragic happened. I like the movie so far and I have high expectations about its ending.

Power (Earthlings Essay)

The video <Earthlings> accuses people of being "specists," meaning "species-discriminatory." I perfectly believe specism is fully justifiable, but the video is so specist itself that I don't need to argue against the video; the video does it for me. 

What did the video show us? Brutal, cruel, inhumane images of pigs, cows, chickens raised in terrible, disgusting conditions, only to be killed mercilessly and painfully, just to satisfy humans' "lowest desires." But why do we even think those images are terrible and despicable? Before answering this question, let's assume that the video filmed the genocide of ants, flies, protists, or bacteria. Would it have earned the same emotional effect it has earned by filming pigs being massacred? No. If the video was concerned about our "food animals" as a whole, as species, relating to the circle of life, it need not to. Because we constantly demand those animals, those animals will never become extinct as long as humans are powerful enough. If the video tried to stress the pain the animals were going through, the ant that was drowned by a curious seven-year-old experienced as much as pain. We kill mosquitoes, small bugs that irritate us, without even the slightest hesitation or consideration that this might be wrong. And the video purposefully exclude these examples, because hardly anyone would ever sympathize with bugs. The video used pigs, cows, and chickens, which can scream like we can, which can bleed like we can, which can writhe in pain like we would writhe if we were in pain. The animals were deliberately chosen by the video to arise sympathy because they were related to us humans. Who is the "specist" here?

At least, it is understandable that they didn't include bugs in the film. Bugs are not really that related to humans as the food we eat is. The food we eat. Our three favorite animals is cow, pig, and chicken. The video displayed disturbing images about the slaughterhouses of the three animals. It's not that I would like them to be in pain, but unfortunately we fully have a right to do that, although we have no moral justification whatsoever.

Before I argue that things we do to animals are justified, I would like to discuss some of the images the video used. This video focuses on showing that human beings are terrible and we do terrible things to the planet. Therefore I believe we can conclude that the images shown are probably the ugliest image the video could get hand on. Although I believe those acts could be justified, I was very discomforted with the images and surely do not recommend them. But some of the acts were actually extremely necessary: like slitting the throat to kill the pig. What does it want us to do-euthanasia for every single animal we want to kill? Leaving animal in extreme pain for an inhumanely long time is a problem. Slitting the throat to kill it is not. Maybe we should isolate all the carnivores from their prey and feed them animals that we personally killed painlessly, to ensure that no animal would feel pain. Ridiculous. Slitting throat is not cruel: it is in the range of "natural death," as the claws of a lion on a zebra would have a similar effect. If one wants to argue killing itself is cruel, then he denies the natural world itself.

Now, do we have the right to do what we do to the animals in the slaughterhouse? Yes.

I found a cartoon which has a nice analogy to the situation. In the cartoon, aliens invade Earth, and one of them, Lockhey (left in the picture below), uses humans for his experiments. A human soldier, Esna (right in the picture below), accuses Lockhey of being despicable. Lockhey answers:

1: Let me ask you something. 2: Do you get permission when you use your 'lab rats?'

1: You use those rats in your experiments because you have more power over them, right? And that is not wrong. That is the way it is. 2: No matter what you do with your rats, since you are the most powerful predator in the food chain, they have neither means nor  rights to complain. 3: Meaning......

1: But now since we arrived on this planet, you are no longer the most powerful species. Therefore, you have no right to complain even if we use you as lab rats.

We human beings like to think of ourselves as unique beings, and maybe we are. But so are other species in the world in that aspect. We are just one of the 44 million species on the planet, but we assume "human rights" exclusively to our species, Homo sapiens. As the video states, animals share many of our pain and pleasure, and it is these basic rights the word "human rights" encompass. Therefore, if human rights exist, animal rights should exist. But human rights do not exist, and therefore neither do animal rights. 

What are human rights? Why do they exist as a separate concept? The concept is only a few centuries old,  relatively young compared to the five hundred centuries Homo sapiens existed. Why did they emerge so recently? The world is a simple place. The rights one can have is proportional to his power. After the Neolithic revolution, social stratification occurred and hierarchy was established. Kings, chiefs, and aristocrats had power over people, and "normal" people had very restricted rights. Slaves had even less rights. Then how did people achieve rights? Because "majority" itself is a power. When people learned to use that power, they were able to achieve rights. 

What about animals? Animals lack the intelligence to unite and use the power of majority, and therefore we do not need to grant them any rights. The concept of "right" itself is a phantom: it is merely a projection of power. Therefore powerless beings do not deserve rights. "Human rights" are promises mankind made when the majority used its power; and since animals were never a part of those promises, it is absurd to say that they have any rights. And since "human rights" are promises between humans, an alien has no responsibility to obey them. Therefore, it is never unjust for aliens to conquer us.

Perhaps we should have more government regulations that would prevent unnecessarily excessive pain to animals in slaughterhouses, because we have no interest in giving them pain. But the crux of the matter is that animals don't really have rights, as none of us do: there is only power. The video appeals to emotion by showing us animals in pain without much logic and commits the "specism" it tries to destroy. Therefore I cannot agree with the video, although it was cleverly made. Actually, it is because it is cleverly made that I am not convinced. It was calculated to influence human beings using psychology and not logic.

Therefore I feel no more obligation to eat less meat even after watching <Earthlings>. There are some other reasons eating less meat benefits the environment, but animal rights are not on that list.

Reflective Essay Revision

*Mostly just grammar errors fixed. Sentences are almost the same.*



     Kids are always focused on something. Butterflies, Legos, books, or nature. Whatever. And although you were interested in all of them, Wonhyuk, what you really craved was knowledge. You would read and read and just never let go of a book. At a young age you discovered the superiority of knowledge and the shame of ignorance. You wanted to know everything-but of course no one can know everything.

     You had no idea what you really wanted to be, but you always loved science and mathematics. You would memorize the names of the planets in the solar system for no apparent reason and admire the ingenious theory of Einstein that you barely understood at all. You knew more than your peers, but you never really knew much to know that you did not know much. The more you learned, the more you knew that there was more to learn and study.

     Once, you cried just because you felt your limit of your knowledge. You might not remember, but all of a sudden you cried while watching the television. In the television there was a kid who knew everything about cars, and somehow that made you sad. And when asked why, you answered, “I don’t know what he does.” Why are we so impotent? Why is the universe so large and so mysterious, that we cannot bring to understand even its single aspect? Why must we die so early, only learning that we have actually learned nothing? As Socrates said, “all you know is that you know nothing.”

     The root of the problem is ambivalence. The individuals of Homo sapiens are neither stupid enough to not realize ignorance nor are they capable of fully understanding the nature surrounding them. But this was not something you could fix. Facing an insoluble problem, you had to give up-no one can be omniscient.

     You instead chose to learn the important things. Probably the most important things in the universe. The universe itself-and its laws. It’s not that you would refuse to know what the neighbors ate for dinner, but only that you felt it was unnecessary to ridicule yourself for trying to concern with those trivial matters. Time was running out. Time is still running out. As Yoda said, “much to learn, you still have.”

     Your youth hero, Einstein, looked much more respectful, real, and human. You truly understood the great accomplishments he had made and almost felt compelled to respect such a genius. You almost felt embarrassed for the young you who had babbled about theory of relativity you read in a children’s book without really understanding what it meant. The irritating thing about ignorance is that when you are ignorant, you don’t even know that you have something to know. Realizing you are ignorant is the important part. Actually learning it is a rather easier process.

     You gave up knowing everything. But it was an inevitable choice, because no one can know everything. Now you selectively accumulate knowledge; you’re becoming closer to a so-called expert. You are now immersed in physics and you enjoy learning it. You should remember, however, that it was only out of need that you chose not to learn everything else. You should never really give up. Who knows? Maybe God might give you omniscience in afterlife. You never know.

Martian Chronicles Quote

But you're not thirsty.

This is probably the phrase that made the deepest impression in my memory. The sentence itself, when read without context, is not that striking. But inside the story, the sentence is immensely creepy-which I shall explain later.

I must first say that the depiction of Martians by Bradbury was very different from my expectations. I was expecting something more realistic; what would really be on Mars if there were some form of intelligent organism? Of all the things I have imagined, superpower was not among them. I do believe it is physically possible, or rather, it is not prohibited by the laws of physics to be able to communicate telepathically. But it completely ignores, almost insults the laws of physics to say one can create objects with thinking only. Although there is a great discrepancy between the book and reality, some twists in scientific laws are the joy and beauty of science fiction, and despite being rather unlikely and unexpected, the exotic powers of Martians was entertaining.

Until 2000, all three Martian expositions from Earth had failed. The second and third exposition is extremely creepy-especially the third one. In first and second expositions, Earthlings (people?) were killed, but it was either compulsive or taken not seriously. But in the third exposition, Martians realize who Earthlings are and lure them into a trap, killing them intentionally in cold-blood. (Maybe they have cold blood literally.) 

This is how Martians killed Earthlings: using their extremely dexterous mind-controlling abilities, Martians created a hallucination of a childhood village of Earthling soldiers, actually constructed on Earthlings' memories. Dead family members of soldiers (which are of course also hallucinations) appear, and soldiers believe Mars is a some kind of afterlife. Soldiers go to their families' homes, unarmed, spaceship abandoned, and in belief that they are completely safe. The Captain of the Earthlings think that the village might be a hallucination, and tries to escape. When his dead brother (actually Martian in hallucination-disguise) asks where he is going, the Captain says he is hungry. The brother replies,

But you're not thirsty.

And the Captain never reached the door..... Very creepy.

You never know (Reflective Essay #1)

     Kids are always focused on something. Butterflies, Legos, books, or nature. Whatever. And although you were interested in all of them, Wonhyuk, what you really craved was knowledge. You would read and read and just never lot go of a book. At young age you discovered the superiority of knowledge and the shame of ignorance. You wanted know everything-but of course no one can know everything.

     You had no idea what you really wanted to be, but you always loved science and mathematics. You would memorize the names of the planets in the solar system for no apparent reason and admire the ingenious theory of Einstein that you barely understood at all. You knew more than your peers, but you never really knew much to know that you did not know much. The more you learn, the more you know that there is more to learn and study.

     You cried once. You might not remember, but all of a sudden you cried while watching the television. In the television there was a kid who knew everything about cars, and you cried. And when asked why, you answered, “I don’t know what he does.” Why are we so impotent? Why is the universe so large and so mysterious, that we cannot bring to understand even its single aspect, and we die only learning that we have actually learned nothing? As Socrates said, “all you know is that you know nothing.”

     The root of the problem is ambivalence. Homo sapiens is neither stupid enough to not realize ignorance nor is it capable of fully understanding the nature surrounding them. But this is not something you could fix. Facing an insoluble problem, you had to give up-no one can be omniscient.

     You instead chose to learn the important things. Probably the most important things in the universe. The universe itself-and its laws. It’s not that you would refuse to know what the neighbors ate for dinner, but only that you felt it was unnecessary to ridicule yourself for trying to concern with those trivial matters. Time was running out. Time is still running out. As Yoda said, “much to learn, you still have.”

     Your youth hero, Einstein, looked much more respectful, real, and human. You truly understood the great accomplishments he had made and almost felt compelled to respect such a genius. You almost felt embarrassed for the young you who babbled about theory of relativity you read in a children’s book without really understanding what it meant. The irritating thing about ignorance is that when you are ignorant, you don’t even know that you have something to know. Realizing you are ignorant is the important part. Actually learning it is a rather easier process.

     You gave up knowing everything. But it was an inevitable choice, because no one can know everything. Now you selectively accumulate knowledge; you’re becoming closer to a so-called expert. You are now immersed in physics and you enjoy learning it. You should remember, however, that it was only out of need that you chose not to learn everything else. You should never really give up. Who knows? Maybe God might give you omniscience in afterlife. You never know.

CR - Catfish

Facebook. One of the hottest social network service site today. It is easy to create an ID, the server finds your friends based on your information. And many interesting applications to play with. What are the problems? No identification is needed to create an ID. This is what the film "Catfish" focused on.

What the film showed was simple. There was a woman whose name was Angela who made a fake facebook ID and fooled a man named Nev. I don't see what the film was trying to show. Sure, it was interesting, but a documentary should have a message. What Angela did was a lie, and that is of course not recommendable, but nothing illegal happened. She never asked for money, nor did she take any advantage of Nev using her fake photos. He have not called her if he knew who really she was. But I believe the wrongdoings of the film is larger than what it tried to show.

Facebook is not tight in security, and never intended to be so. As its only purpose is to have fun and to contact friends, it needs no security. And the case of Angela is not only facebook's problems. In many internet sites where users are anonymous, many people pretend to be someone they are not. They do this because they don't consider themselves valuable as the way they are. They try to seek love online, and that is all they want. We should pity them, not call them names and punish them.

But "Catfish" portrayed as if it was a problem of facebook. This is a problem of an individual, not facebook. KMLA students are making IDs impersonating the dorm parent, the president, and anything else that might be funny. This is something we shouldn't do, but nevertheless unrelated with the necessity of prohibition of impersonation by law.

Furthermore, "Catfish" has many problems itself. First of all, I don't believe it's real. Whether everyone faked it, or the filmmakers researched Angela and knew beforehand she was a fake. If it was real, then the "Catfish" did some bad things. Show up in one's doorstep with a camera, film her, and tell the whole world she's a liar. I don't think what she did was bad enough to be announced globally. They would have gotten permission, but I don't think they got it from everyone that shows up in the film. And if they didn't get permission from some people, they might have just released it and payed back later, after millions of people saw the movie.

Debate motions

1. THB facebook should tighten its security.
2. THBT films made through unlawful means should be punished.
3. THBT the "Catfish" portrayed the flaws of the facebook successfully.

CR #6

There is a fact that I learned from taking psychology course last year. It is easy to believe that we have free will, that we could choose between chocolate ice cream and strawberry ice cream, Burger King and McDonald's. Psychoanalytic theory tells us that the id, or the unconsciousness, formed by memories of childhood we don't fully remember, makes a person choose or do things. Behavior psychologists believe we were learned to act at a certain way. Social psychology tells us people are easily influenced by authority and other people. Diffusion of responsibility is a good example. Here is a link to a video about diffusion of responsibility, the Bystander Effect, and the infamous case of murder of Genovese.


(The uploader disabled embed html....  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mI_ear1Pf0&ytsession=N1SbuuyGsCLWDdO550fkjZesvJN3Au9ZPtvc9hlrSCMHUSfVxBJxdVhKmSMyBP5MUJ068ubFHWPTMxY3km-ZMBJeQ-kbdY0iCXsF6Gw9AOBctDzKAxUzDTxdkw5Nof372l6kCqUaguY_Ca0tkFeJGazhBK60Rl4O7M0QKqA6zpwhZxmWRkS1PNSqOjMjRiaXEmDthuLdmrwsmWOMhZwFFT4QA-PaDCCnEKdn9JoQoVRoarQOYAULHC8wxfpTT6V7q8J1GpY5UHQonOiDJKVjmRh3JY_XBy04)




This is a video clip made by EBS.





Then why am I talking about psychology all the sudden? Although cognitive psychologists disagree, it is commonly known that men are extremely easy to predict. If we exaggerate this point, "all men are the same." Shortly summarized, all men are selfish. We may be learned to be polite and just, but we are not good at hiding instincts in certain situations as many psychology theory tells us.


Of course, I do not believe everyone is cruel and irresponsible, nor do extreme social psychologists. A small percentage of people is responsible and unaffected by circumstances that discourage them to do the right things. But when it becomes a group, those people are of a minority.


Then how can a whole country become moral? Impossible. "Kicking the ladder." I believe it was a title of some book about economics. It explains why USA likes FTA so much. Free Trade Agreement. No tariffs for imports and exports between two countries. Economically developing countries need tariffs so their yet not fully developed industries could be protected and grow, since they are not ready to compete with the best companies in the world. This is how US grew to the most economically powerful nation. But now, USA is asking other countries no tariffs, because US product is better than others, and they want to export their stuff as much as possible. Kicking the ladder. They climbed up the ladder, but they don't want anyone to climb it up anymore, so they're kicking it. Many US economics experts come out and state the merits of FTA, but all USA want to do is stay competitive and earn money. I'm not blaming USA. That's what a country is. Selfish. Selfish enough to be called cruel.


What is diplomacy? It's calculation. We know USA is strong, so everybody teams up and send soldiers to Iraq. When Korea sent soldiers to Iraq, it really has nothing to gain. But we know we'll be in big trouble when we disobey America. We don't actually team up with US because we are culturally similar or anything else. Relationship between countries cannot be compared with relationship between people. If countries were really friends, they would try to give each other things, not negotiate. Negotiating is the art of cunningness, to take the most and to give the least.


Kwonsok said America is a country that does anything to protect the rights and freedom of its citizens. If America was doing the best they can, they would have used the money that they used to the military who were trained to kill Bin Laden to the poverty. In the movie "V for Vendetta," V says "A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people behind it, blowing up a building can change the world." when he explained about blowing up the parliament. Bin Laden was a symbol. The act of killing Bin Laden was also a symbol. Many terrorists are still alive and ready to terrorize - actually killing Bin Laden angered them. It actually endangered the lives, freedom and rights of US citizens. But US could not give up killing Bin Laden. He was a symbol of terrorism and US had to bring him down.


V for Vendetta video

US isn't really concerned about democracy and human rights in other countries. People in the US might be. But not the country. No country is actually quite interested in giving out their resources for no good. For every action the country is making, there is something the country can gain from that action. The country might miscalculate, but it was never for good intent.


And to answer Kwonsok's question, every country is selfish. I would rather like a world where everyone is trying to help each other, but mankind is too simple to develop that way. Prisoner's Dilemma just don't allow a country to be selfless. In this cold war, we should lower our levels to being selfish. Yes, sadly we should be selfish.


Whether it is justifiable is another question. The answer depends on the definition of "justifiable." But if we were to be strict, being selfish would be never justifiable.






Debate Motion


1. THB UN has the right to interfere other countries' policies.
2. THB we should send soldiers to war where our allies engage. (US, Europe, etc...)
3. THS the enforcement of international law in every country.