998 characters mini-essay

I personally support lights-out at 2AM policy in KMLA.

When it becomes 2AM, all the electricity is cut off in dormitories except for the bathroom. But this policy should be abolished or at least modified, as it is neither helpful nor practical. Often there are so much to do that students need to stay up the night. Bright lights are very helpful when one is trying to stay up all night studying. Students should have the right to choose. I believe schools should not just tell us when to sleep. Sometimes students can sleep early, sometimes that can stay up all night. A school not granting students the right to study should not exist.

And the lights-out policy does not really make students sleep, only more painful. Students study in bathrooms, where the lights are always on, and many have light bulbs that run on battery, so students can stay awake if they want to. If they are going to stay awake anyway, the school should help students study by providing proper light and internet connection.

Time Travel: UChicago

Prompt #5: In the spirit of adventurous inquiry, pose a question of your own. If your prompt is original and thoughtful, then you should have little trouble writing a great essay. Draw on your best qualities as a writer, thinker, visionary, social critic, sage, citizen of the world, or future citizen of the University of Chicago; take a little risk, and have fun.

Time Travel

                Is it possible to travel through time? Time travel has been one of the most popular themes in Science Fiction. Going to the future is easy; we are all doing that just now, in the rate of one second per one second. All we need to do is making the rate faster. According to Einstein’s theory of relativity, we can do exactly that by approaching the speed of light, and we would be able to travel to the future. Going to the past is a little bit trickier. Hopefully, Einstein’s field equations do not explicitly forbid time travel to the past: there are situations in which time travel to the past is possible. But that leads us to think what would happen if we had time travel. Such as the famous grandfather paradox: what would happen if I killed my past self (or my ancestor)? Will I be able to even perform the act?

                The most convenient solution to this paradox is the parallel universe hypothesis. This hypothesis states that as I travel back to the past, I move into not only a different era but also a different universe that would have different consequences. But because the definition of parallel universes is that they are exactly the same with the current universe before the moment of time travel, the parallel universe me is ready to time travel into another parallel universe as I get ready to travel into the parallel universe. This means whatever I will have done in the parallel universe, the outcome must be the same with my original universe and the two universes must be undistinguishable. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that another me had traveled from another parallel universe to the past of my original universe, and therefore this hypothesis does not really solve any paradoxes. If I killed past me in a parallel universe, someone should have killed me in the past-that someone being me from another parallel universe.

                Another solution is to accept the deterministic nature of time travel. If I go back to the past and attempt to kill myself, I will fail, as I am a living proof of it. I have survived attempted murders from myself in the past, or I will not even exist. This is interesting considering that I know every move the past me will make, but still fail to kill myself. But this hypothesis also has a serious problem: quantum mechanics. Although in the macroscopic world the universe seems to be governed by Newtonian, deterministic laws, actually we live in a quantum world where one can only predict the probabilities of something happening, and never the actual event. But consider this situation: I conduct a quantum mechanics experiment, and the future me gives me the data to the experiment even before I start the experiment. If my experiment runs exactly as the data, quantum mechanics, not deterministic by nature, will be proven deterministic, which would mean the collapse of physics as we know it. But if the data and my experiment do not match, this hypothesis about time travel is wrong.

                I have not been able to conclude what would happen if time travel to the past existed. It is surprising to see a phenomenon predicted by the equation that most accurately depicts space and time in the history of mankind has so many paradoxes that cannot be easily solved.

Emotion and Logic - Earthlings essay rewritten

                    The documentary video <Earthlings> is about how we humans abuse animals and how our wants and needs for animals should be seriously reconsidered. The video contains footage of animals being hit, whipped, slit in the throat, skinned alive, and confined in small places. Along with uncensored cruelty of humans against other animals, the intense music magnifies the emotional effects. My opinion, however, is that the video focused too much on the emotional and psychological effects compared to its lack of logic and consistency.

According to the film, all earthlings are equal. Then what about the bacteria and viruses that infect us? Is it "species-discriminatory" to kill them just that we could live?

                   The video begins with defining the term “earthling.” It says the term is not species-discriminatory, and that the term contrasts with the fact that humans are greatly abusing other species on this planet. However, <Earthlings> uses species-discriminatory methods throughout the film. In the video, it is mentioned many times that animals have the same mechanism for receiving pain as that of humans’, and that is why we should sympathize with them. This shows both the inconsistency in logic the video commits and the excessive focus on the mere psychological effects. The video deliberately chose animals that have similarity with humans because that way it could easily arouse dramatic emotions. We would not feel as compassionate for insects being crushed or trees being burned than we would for dolphins and pigs being slaughtered ruthlessly. The video sometimes depicts rather acceptable treatment as abominable. For example, the video shows the footage of pigs being slit in the throat, which I believe is extremely natural way to kill. A lion does not use anesthesia when it hunts deer, so why should we? Slitting the throat is not exactly what one would call prolonging the animal’s pain unnecessarily.

                Not only is the video focused excessively on psychological effects rather than logic and information, but it also is unclear in its motive. It seems the video is focused more on the pain animals suffer than the environmentally harmful effects or the outcome of the ecosystem. Concentrating on the pain of animals, the video seems to neglect the pain of humans caused by the system. For example, the video explains how cows are brutally treated in India. I believe the people who are moving the cows are in great poverty and pain too, not to mention that the inefficient and immoral system is the cause of this phenomenon. Then what is the motive for making this video? Does it just want us to feel the animals’ pain rather than to think about what is the cause of all this and suggest a solution? The problem with <Earthlings> is that it does not really have a “crux”: it is just a list of animals in pain.

Animal Rights?

                I would further like to counter directly logic of the <Earthlings>. As cruel it may sound, animal rights do not exist. It is natural for some species of animal to use other species of animal for its own purpose. For example, lions hunt deers and roundworms parasite people. It is generous of us to show mercy to animals, but it is not wrong to “mistreat” them, as the consensus that it is morally wrong to use them to our benefit was never established. I do not recommend people to kill animals for fun or to cause them excessive and unnecessary pain, but I do believe that meat-eating is not to blame. The film shows some gruesome events that take place in slaughterhouses, and I believe the government should intervene and provide some minimal standards; I do not, however, think we should view the slaughterhouses as moral decadence of the era.

                The film also attacks animal experimentation. The film says “Those who hope to find remedies for human ills by inflicting deliberate sufferings on animals commit two fundamental errors in understanding. The first is the assumption that results obtained on animals are applicable to mankind.” It is true that human beings are not equal to animals and therefore medical experiments on animals are sometimes misleading. However, the human body is also strikingly similar to other animals in many ways and medical experiments are conducted to detect errors that occur in those similarities. How can we conduct medical experiments without animal experimentation? The director of the film himself might have died before reaching adulthood if it were not the great amount of medical research scientists have accumulated via animal experimentation.

                I do believe <Earthlings> is very smartly made. It evokes sympathy for animals and appeals to emotion extremely well. But that is also the flaw of the documentary. It focuses excessively on psychological effects and not on logic and information. It also provides no solution or objective, and its logic is unreasonable. <Earthlings> succeeded in showing us how we treat animals, and we should change some parts of it, but the documentary is perhaps too one-sided and biased to tell us logically. Maybe its extreme bias makes us think about the matter, and in that aspect the film is meaningful.

The endgame: Ben X review

     I believe all of us thought about killing ourselves at least once in our lives. Not as a serious consideration, but as one of the countless notions that pass through our brains some time. Just to send a message to all the people who offended me, who neglected my pain, and who laughed at my tears. Just to make them feel guilty. But I know that is no good enough reason to give up my life, especially when my experience is not quite severe enough to be truly depressing. Ben succeeds in sending this message without actually taking his life, by faking his suicide. When the people realize how horrible the things Ben has gone through, Ben rises, showing himself. Now that was cool.

     I really liked the film <Ben X> because it is quite different from other films that it is more unpredictable and that it focuses on the individual. It is more like a drama rather than a documentary. It shows how an individual suffering from autism and bullying overcome those difficulties. One of the criticisms I have heard about the movie was that it focuses on too many issues that it loses its focus. I don't think this is true. Just that the independent issues can be discussed in a whole film does not mean every film has to do so. I believe the film does a very good job in describing how many social problems are actually connected. Not all bullied kids are autistic, nor do they all are addicted to computer games. But it shows why kids are addicted to computer games, like how kids who do not have a satisfying, socially respected status, such as being a bullied student, hope to find high levels in the cyber world. But the real focus is experiencing the world in Ben's perspective, trying to understand bullied and diffident people. 

     The narrating of Ben really helped in understanding Ben. When you just hear his narration, you think he is just a normal person, with no apparent flaw. I think this really helps to understand autism; Ben laughs at doctors who say "Ben is not retarded. He is special." as he knows the word "special" actually just means "retarded." But Ben is not retarded. He just developed a complex that anyone would develop if he was bullied that badly. I like this film because unlike other films that usually depict bullied kids as unchanging and helpless, <Ben X> describes how the mind of Ben is actually quite normal. Moreover, it depicts a story about how he overcomes his problems.

     And I think the movie was able to give a rather unexpected conclusion with no unnatural stories. I think it was pretty obvious that the girl Scarlet was going to be important to Ben. It turned out later that she is imaginary after some point, but that was even better. It means Ben was able to overcome all his problems by himself in reality. He overcame his complex and he also made others feel sorry for him, in a believable way. As he saw people now understood him, he rose and showed his proud self. His endgame. (I think these game metaphors were nice. They were humorous in a way that Ben was extremely skilled in games but not in real life. We all laughed when Scarlet said, "Ben, you're level 80!")

     <Ben X> has a great effect on us not just thinking, but understanding what problems are society has. Through a fairy tale-like story of a hero rising from diffidence, <Ben X> gives us a happy ending story about dealing with autism. And you have to admit that the scene Ben rises is awesome.

10 Flash Fictions

Totally new 10 flash fictions.


1. Batman: Why didn't you just...... kill me?
Bane: Your punishment must be more severe: I have installed electricity in this isolated prison by building a power plant and cable so the television could have proper reception, instead of just giving you a radio set. Now you could watch TV and see your city die in HD!

2. "You don't want to live?"
"There is a subtle difference between people who want to die and those who don't want to live."

3. "The books we carry are heavy."
"They should be. They are weighted with responsibility."
(parody of <The Crucible>)

4. Caveman 1: Look guys! I've discovered something called fire-it should be the most important discovery of mankind!
Caveman 2: Oh, you're cute. Did you forget who invented language yesterday?

5. Hitler could not have been that bad. I mean, he killed Hitler. But he also killed the man who killed Hitler, so I guess he is actually just pure evil.

6. "The laws of physics tell me that cramming 30 people in the elevator might give us a first-hand experience of a free fall motion."
"The laws of physics tell me that my legs will hurt like hell if I walked up to the cafeteria. And I guess uncertain death is better than certain suffering."

7. There are things you cannot stop. A 5t-truck running towards you in 60km/h, for example.

8. Where is everyone? What time is i..... OH MY GOD.

9. "Prisoner number 4682, although you have been sentenced for life, if you volunteer for this experiment and survive you will be freed."
"What is the experiment?"
"You attempt to escape this well secured and fully armed prison. Hahahahaha!"

10. There wasn't any holes in the boat when I checked the last time, which was before I brought myself to the surface of the deepest part of the lake.

6 Flash Fictions

1-2 sentences flash fictions I wrote in class today.


1. What? You forgot your lightsaber?

2. "Doctor Brown, what would happen if I went to 1955 on the time machine and kill you?"
"Great Scott, Marty!"

3. "Am I dead?"
"Not yet."

4. Welcome to heaven: Christians not allowed.

5. Hello, earthlings. We do not come in peace.

6. You are now entering a NON-WI-FI ZONE.

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.

30 days without music

I love music. And many people do. Whether it is iPod or a walkman, many people listen to music, from The Beatles to Eminem, from idols to rock groups. I personally love hiphop music very much, and once my parents took my MP3 away from me, and told me to concentrate only on studying.

A quite reasonable argument and exactly why I would like to suggest 30 days without music. However, since I had my laptop, I was able to listen to music by youtube. Whether everyone instinctly likes music or my passion for hiphop was extraordinary, I don't know. But I was very painful, and I realized how important music was to me.

The purpose of this experiment is to learn to control one's desires. I am not sure that this would be effective to everyone. But I do believe listeners like me would undergo severe changes. Because I was somehow exposed to some music, I felt pain but didn't reform. If one experiences total separation from music, I believe they will be able to control their lifestyles more easily.

To students, music is a distraction from studies. Well, actually, listening to music is a distraction to everything. It is even proven by psychology by experimental means. If you study something listening to music, you will remember it well went you are listening to the music again. However, you remember best when you study sober and not listening to music.

I do believe this experiment is worth a try. Especially when midterm is coming up.

I know religion is a very sensitive issue, but I really want to talk about it. I used to be an atheist, but now I just don't believe any religion, and I have respect to every religion. I believe religion itself can do many things - inspiring people, changing them, leading them to good. However I dislike people who use the name to their own benefits. For example, in Korea, there are very many churches, and many rectors are more interested in fancy cars than their religion.

And I dislike people so one-sided that they cannot blend with other religions. The purpose of religion is to achieve enlightment, not to follow every line it teaches. Chang Tzu said, "Word is like a net. We use net to catch the fish. After we catch the fish, we forget the net. Word is a mean to communicate meaning. If meaning is understood, word itself should be forgotten." The Bible is a good book. The Coran is a good book. Buddhism has great textbooks. However, believing every word, obeying every line is proposterous. As some character in some book stated(I cannot remember), the Bible on the next page completely contradicts the last. This is just a quote, and I do believe the Bible has great significance in it. However, if one wants to make something out of a religion, if one expects to live a meaningful life, one should not follow every line in it. The purpose of a religion is not to kill and slaughter everybody else who believes otherwise. If so, religion was used only a tool to war.

I'm sorry. It seems that I criticized Christianity so much. I like and respect Christians. Okay, and here's my CR. "What is your religion? And how can your belief be justified? What do you believe about other religions?" It simply means "state your opinion about religion."

I will introduce some videos. They are made by atheists and I found them quite interesting. I am not an atheist myself, by the way.

Judgement of debate today

MOTION:
Date:		GOVERNMENT		OPPOSITION
Introduction	Pts	Name 오승민 (Oh Seungmin)		Name 오권석 (Oh Gwonseok)
Delivery	7 /10	Achieved confidence during the debate. But still not powerful.	6 /10	Reading whether than debating.
Arguments	8 /10	Quite adequate considering that this debate wasn’t prepared properly. However there were some generalizations.	8.5 /10	Rebuttal was logical. His argument was acceptable. No flaws.
Notes	Tot 15 /20	1. Students need to speak well in English and EOP helps it.	Tot 14.5 /20	Rebuttal: Do not think English skills will be improved. People do not formally in their day-to-day speech. They only use informal and low level English in daily life. It can’t improve the skills of students. Arg: EOP destroys Korean pride and neglects Korean language for Korean students. It is right for people to learn their mother tongue. Korean skills will eventually decline. KMLA wants students to be fluent in Korean, too.
Rebuttal One	Pts	Name 정다은 (Jung Daeun)	Pts	Name
Delivery	8.5 /10	Unlike the previous two, there was emotion.	7.5 /10	Not dynamic but there was tone.
Arguments	9 /10	Rebutted the LOP very well. The point was clear.	7.5 /10	Interesting but not well elaborated.
Notes	Tot 17.5 /20	Rebutt Rebuttal: If we want to learn difficult English words, we can memorize word smart. It’s casual talking skills we want to improve. We want the fluent English ability. Rebuttal: Not appropriate for developing Korean identity?? EOP is not a forcing students every time. Time is limited. Freshmen are required to take Korean History class. Even international school students are not deprived of Korean identity. Argument: School image. Helpful. Distinguishes KMLA from other high school students. We don’t practice EOP-> we become liars. As our prime minister stated, EOP helps students, and enhances school image.	Tot 15 /20	Rebuttal: 9 hours -> more than half of day when we’re awake. Argument: EOP can deteriorate human relationship. EOP helpers -> catch students using Koreans. Messes friendship. Most of teachers don’t use English -> why catch EOP??? Policy-> relationship btw teachers and students are ruined.
Rebuttal Two	Pts	Name 고지연 (Koh Jiyeon)	Pts	Name 김승찬 (Kim Seungchan)
Delivery	9.5 /10	This is it.	9 /10	Exaggerated but still good.
Arguments	9.5 /10	Very well organized. Pointed out contradiction.	7.5 /10	Quite repetitive.
Notes	Tot 19 /20	Policy -> consider a lot of things. EOP!!! Advocates all three factors what I talked about. 1)      need, 2)justification, 3)efficiency opp did not analyze status quo whatsoever. KMLA has 2 factors. International and domestic leaders. Far from English academies->school should advocate English. EOP harms Korean ability? High school. High school students already formed good Korean ability. Abolishing EOP->better ability to speak Korean??? According to opp, we speak low level. So, we speak low level Korean. Our Korean skills will not increase. CONTRADICTION!! Friendship deterioration -> uncommon. Not even possible if you follow the rules.	Tot 16.5 /20	EOP is disastrous. EOP neglects mother nature. Atmosphere that makes student think that English is most important -> wrong! EOP is like an illusion. Gap between the reality and the ideal. English only policy cannot be established fully. The image. 2nd clash. Does eop increases English skills? Gov says we can learn English skils.
Conclusion	Pts	Name 현진관 (Hyun Jinkwan)	Pts	Name 이창우 (Lee Changwoo)
Delivery	8 /10	Strong emotion but stopped too many times.	8 /10	Better than last debate.
Arguments	8 /10	Layed out well but flow stopped.	? /10	Short.
Notes	Tot 16 /20	Did not prove Korean skills decline. 2nd arg. Human relationship would decline. Could be overcome by students who support EOP.	Tot 16? /20	…..