Recently an American psychologist Tara Raines, has attacked the bra industry stating that they only carry bras in “white, black and nude, and I wanted one in BROWN” Even though she knows that there are some out there, she feels that they should be carried much more readily at stores who also carry the “nude” ones.
Her new campaign entitled What’s Your Nude? is asking that men and women of all ethnicities follow her on Twitter and Facebook as a collective effort to demand that bra manufacturers and retailers expand their range of natural shades.
“It’s my hope that this campaign will drive not only awareness, but swift action by bra makers.”
Do you think she has a valid point? Looking online there are far fewer choices for women of color. I would assume that although not being able to find what you need at the major chain stores, the online marker is better. But, in saying that, there should be more choices readily available, as in makeup and other lines that have started carrying lines for women of color.
What do you think?
DEBATE IT HERE:
“Are racists dumb? Do conservatives tend to be less intelligent than liberals? A provocative new study from Brock University in Ontario suggests the answer to both questions may be a qualified yes.
The study, published in Psychological Science, showed that people who score low on I.Q. tests in childhood are more likely to develop prejudiced beliefsand socially conservative politics in adulthood.
I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologists.
Dr. Gordon Hodson, a professor of psychology at the university and the study’s lead author, said the finding represented evidence of a vicious cycle: People of low intelligence gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, which stress resistance to change and, in turn, prejudice, he told LiveScience.
Why might less intelligent people be drawn to conservative ideologies? Because such ideologies feature “structure and order” that make it easier to comprehend a complicated world, Dodson said. “Unfortunately, many of these features can also contribute to prejudice,” he added.”
Debate it here:
I have to say I was given inspiration for this post from @Daddysincharge, whom I found by attending @blogdangerously #wineparty last night on Twitter. It was fun, and I realized that I am quite normal in the spectrum of the twitterverse, but I digress. So, upon reading his article, I decided to create a debate and bring back to life the debate that is truly never over.
Boobs, milk and babies vs. Public places
I was, and I mean “was”, never plan to be EVER again, I breastfeeding Mom.
I whipped them out in public. Yes I did.
I probably pissed off, grossed out and flashed quite a few unsuspecting onlookers. Oh well, the baby’s gotta eat.
So, in my humble opinion as long as you don’t flaunt it, you can do it, an occasional slip of the nipple is taken for granted.
A woman’s gotta do what a woman’s gotta do, no matter how many people they may make throw up in their mouth a little bit in the process.
You need to read this blog article, very funny, and then PLEASE go to our debate page and let us know what you think. It would be much appreciated.
and then DEBATE IT HERE:
Western culture, at one time, believed that humaness was the essential characteristic of humans and that essence crossed all differences of culture, belief, behavior, ethnic, gender, socioeconomic status, etc. Today, our society is splintered by postmodern, multiculturalism groupings that consider their essential characteristics to be defined by the groups or cultures they happen to belong to such as gender, ethnicity, race, sexual identity, socio economic status and so forth. Postmodern asserts that communication and understanding between such groupings is almost impossible because one’s particular “reality” is defined by the group(s) he or she belongs to.
If this is true, perhaps it is time to separate legally into tribes and be “tribal independent” in all aspects of life, including commerce, family style, education, welfare, protection and defense, justice, etc.
I am being a bit sarcastic here, but this is the logical outcome of the postmodern tribalistic worldview.
bethnewyork We are one big melting pot. Those that try and define themselves based on ethnicity, race, heritage or the other multitudes of facets of us as humans are the minority. I agree, that some groups try and separate themselves from the masses in a very extreme way. Those groups are already “tribalized” based on their beliefs and actions. Take the Mormon religion, one good example, they have been living that assertion since the beginning. Has it’s own religion, followers, belief/moral code and even special places to live. If we were to say there is a good example of tribalism it would be them. Mitt for President…LOL
If this is not a product of evolution ensuring the survival of the species, well at least the male of the species, then what is it?
The orb web spider female, after mating, tries to eat it’s mate. Yikes. Well, this ingenious male has figured out a way around it, at least once, maybe twice, b/c after that no more snuggling for him.
His species has learned a way to “break off’ his penis while mating to ensure a safe escape, the female spider being none the wiser.
I guess some men would say I would rather die than have my penis broken off, well this spider tends to differ with you.
It manages to continue mating even after it has so stealthily escaped the woman. Yes, it works without being attached to the brain…or the male for that matter.
So, my question is were they made this way? Or was it a male doing it’s best to make sure he lives another day. With or without his manhood.
Did the spider evolve to gain this behavior or did God make him this way.
DEBATE IT HERE:
“Planned Parenthood refers “women to screening centers, pays for screening for women who cannot afford them, and then follows up with continued care in helping women interpret the tests and take appropriate actions based on their results.”
“The loss of funding from Komen may disproportionately hurt those who need cancer screening the most. Some Planned Parenthood affiliates use the money to fund outreach programs to minority groups or to those who normally don’t have access to health care. Those programs now risk being terminated, if Planned Parenthood is not able to find additional funding to continue them.
The split may trigger other moves to withdraw funding — from both groups. Many critics of Komen’s decision are long-time supporters of the group, who gave in small but important ways, by fundraising in the group’s annual race for breast cancer research, for example. “My first 5K ever was for Susan G. Komen. Never will I raise money for this org again,” said one commenter, Jenna Marino, on Twitter. Many others expressed their displeasure on the Komen website; others advised people to donate directly to Planned Parenthood instead.”
What do you think? Did the Suan G.Komen foundation make a bad decision?
Debate it here.
One hears all the time how evolution is the origin of human moral behavior. It is the standard jargon of morality is genetically determined in that it promotes the survival of the species, and so forth, blah, blah, blah. And therefore morality is all about evolution. End of explanation.
Evolution, however, is frightfully inadequate in explaining all the aspects of what we mean when we say, “morality.” Although this is way too brief, the reason for this is as follows:
- Evolution defined is: Genetically determined behavior that enhances an individual of a species to procreate i.e. get his or her genes into the next generation. That’s it, anything more said, is not about evolution. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, all behaviors are in the genes, so to speak. Therefore, behavior from an evolutionary perspective is “hard-wired.” Genetically determined behavior is like having brown eyes or blue eyes. There is no will or choice involved in having brown or blue eyes, and, therefore there is no free will or choice involved in morality if it is in the genes, either.
- But, Morality is all about behaviors and in the full meaning and sense of a “moral action” it incorporates things like choice, options, intentions, motivations and the act itself. It is all about choosing to act in a moral way or not.
- Therefore, if evolution is the origin of moral behavior it cannot explain the fullness or come even close to capturing the notions of moral behavior in regards to humans in the least, and, therefore, is frightfully inadequate as an explanation.
- If morality is simply in the genes, one cannot be responsible if he or she did not get the right moral gene. Thus, we cannot hold an individual morally accountable if moral thinking is in the genes, can we?
Yet, we do hold people accountable when he or she makes a good or a poor moral decisions, don’t we?
Charlee, debate creator, Ufeud member
DEBATE IT HERE!
“It seems both Republican and Democrat philosophies are a bit schizophrenic in their view of things. The Democrats want strong civil liberties such as pro-choice, personal social freedoms i.e. Lifestyle choices, but on the other hand are a bit short on who and how such freedoms and lifestyles are economically supported and, as a result, seem to encroach on other people’s freedoms, such as confiscating other folks money in the form of taxation.
The republicans, on the other hand,want economic freedom and the absolute right to property and in a sense, are totally “pro-choice” in those areas. Yet, they are heavy handed when it comes controlling others’ behaviors and private lifestyles, to some extent.
Libertarianism, on the other hand, advocates freedom in both spheres. And, as a corollary, therefore, libertarians seem to expect the logical association of individual responsibility if one advocates for individual freedoms in all spheres.”
Charlee, debate creator, Ufeud member
Debate it here: http://www.ufeud.com/debate.aspx?ID=638&page=h
The most disgusting, foul looking material, that before now was actually used in your hamburger is actually being discontinued. Not by federal regulations, but because of what chef Jamie Oliver, The Naked chef, made very clear.
The food activist was shocked when he learned that ammonium hydroxide was being used by McDonald’s to convert fatty beef off cuts into a beef filler for its burgers in the USA.
‘Basically, we’re taking a product that would be sold at the cheapest form for dogs and after this process we can give it to humans’ said the TV chef.”
Can you say. EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW.
Was there a disclaimer on the wrapper, stating they were using a chemical in our burgers to “kill bacteria” and what kind of bacteria would be in beef?
Adding another picture, because I am a giver.
Debate it here:
“Officials said Sunday that arrests from the Occupy Oakland protests the day before could reach 400 and vowed to seek restitution from those who vandalized City Hall.
Mayor Jean Quan said the city would seek monetary damages from protesters. In addition, the mayor said she would pursue “restorative justice” by asking that those deemed guilty be put to work picking up garbage and removing graffiti in East Oakland — a crime-ridden pocket where Quan has singled out 100 blocks for concentrated resources
Quan condemned the local movement’s tactics as “a constant provocation of the police with a lot of violence toward them” and said the demonstrations were draining scarce resources from an already strapped city. Damage to the City Hall plaza alone has cost $2 million since October, she said, about as much as police overtime and mutual aid.
Police had their hands full dealing with protesters, some of whom smashed display cases, cut electrical wires and burned an American flag at City Hall.
Oakland has logged five homicides since Friday, added Oakland Police Department spokeswoman Johnna Watson. “If we have to take our law enforcement officers to pay attention to Occupy Oakland, then we are not serving the city residents who need us most,” Watson said.
News reports said 200 calls for police service had not been promptly answered Saturday night while officers were engaged in a cat-and-mouse chase with demonstrators.”
Was this inevitable?
Debate it here: