KQs 3

[ST. JOHN]

Post your KQs and RLSs here.  

ERIKA, ANDREA, ANDY, LAIKEN, ELIJAH: REPLY DIRECTLY TO *THIS* POST

ALL OTHERS: CHOOSE A KQ TO ANSWER, THEN REPLY DIRECTLY TO THAT PERSON'S POST

[LaikenBaumgartner8]

A Christian stand-up comic, and an atheist comedy writer, debate the issue of whether religion is an impediment to humor. As part of the Perspectives series, BBC Religion and Ethics asked two contributors to develop some of the issues concerning the parody of the Christian faith, and whether or not it is more acceptable to make fun of the Christian faith more than any other religion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/0/22337834

To what extent is it possible for those without faith to empathize with those with faith?

[ErikaPadierna5]

Lately, there have been various comments online about SJWs and political correctness. Many people say that these social justice warriors are taking things way too far and that political correctness is getting rid of freedom of speech. However, others argue that by lessening the harsh things people say and talk about, society will be better.

How can we know what to consider good and bad? What are the ethical implications of what we say or do?

[AndreaTully5]

Recently, Targets removal of gender labels on toys created a widespread debate on the extent of liberal motives in today's society. Some argue that target made the right decision in removing gender labels since it supports efforts towards equality. On the other hand, others argue that liberals have gone too far and that removing of gender labels is unnecessary because individuals have the choice to purchase what they want, whether it is gender specific or not.
http://www.snopes.com/2015/08/10/target-removing-gender-labels/

To what extent are gender biases justified? How might they limit perspectives?

[AndyAustin8]

Race relations have been a debated issue in the United States for decades. Recently, the issue of racial profiling has come to the center focus of the ongoing debate. In a recent event, the app GroupMe was used by businesses in Georgetown to combat a growing rate in theft by having a giant group message with police and other businesses. The suspects of various thefts reported into the message were overwhelmingly black.

Is it possible to separate stereotypes from the individual?

Are biases against groups (ethnic/racial) inherently bad?

http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/operation-groupme-was-meant-to-fight-shoplifting-enables-racial-profiling-instead/

[MaverickBeaudreau5]

I think it is harder for someone who has never had faith in any sort of deity to empathize with someone who has faith, since they have never shared the aspect of faith with that religious person. In other words, an atheist who has always been an atheist cannot see things from the same point of view as a Christian, Muslim, or even an atheist who was once a Christian. In this example, atheists who have never been religious might think there is no harm in joking about another religion, but an atheist who was once a Christian would see how a Christian would not like to have their religion mocked. If a Christian saw an atheist make a joke about Muslims, or vice versa, I think they would empathize with the other religion's people in that they understand what it is like to have their faith made fun of, even if it's a totally different belief. 

[CarlosBeasley5]

I believe gender biases can be justified to the extent that it maintains a normal and healthy society. Otherwise why do girls and boys sill have separate restrooms? That's a gender biases that is fully justified, since both genders have different anatomy. I do also believe that gender biases in the sense of different coloring of toys is also justified. The chemical make up of our brains is different for both genders. So gender biases can be justified on a scientific basis. I do feel however that these biases are taken too literally by some groups, and they feel targeted, but that is not the case. The gender biases are simply in place to maintain a healthy and normal society that is moralistic and understands that the genders are different. Otherwise without these gender biases who are we as a people and what would it say about us?

[Chris Kauffman8]

In terms of comedy especially satire comedy, the comics religion does not matter. this is because in comedy anybody can use anything as a punchline for a joke weather that be religion or race, as long as it is used for the joke and not as a form of hate speech it is fine.when it comes to real life situations I feel that it should be necessary to talk to some one that does not have if you are dealing with a issue that pertains to your faith.This is necessary because if you want to form a legitimate opinion on faith you should talk to people with out faith along with people that have faith so you can look compare the pros and the cons of each side.

[LoganSweeney5]

I believe that it is the implications of our actions and speech that determine if something is good or bad. Words can be just as effective as our actions on other knowers in society, and they can cause harm if knowers are not careful. For instance last year, a girl by the name of Megan was bullied online through hateful remarks that made fun of her lifestyle, and after a few months of this behavior Megan felt that the only way out was to take her own life. The fact that someone would commit suicide over what another says or does to us shows how our actions and speech mean more than what we think. Knowers can be careful by using reason to evaluate what could happen because of what the actions or words they are planning to implement in any sort of means of communication. This evaluation allows the knower to recognize if what they are doing is actually good or bad, when we acknowledge and avoid inflicting harm on others.

http://nobullying.com/cyber-bullying-stories/

[LianaHa5]

Gender biases, and biases of all sorts, have been around since the beginning of mankind and will continue to be present until the end of mankind. It is almost impossible to take the bias out of any sort of label. With that said, labels or biases do not have to be inherently bad. Gender biases or "labels" can be justified in certain situations as long as they are not restricting to any party. In this example, it seems as if Target took the gender labels off of the toys so that any child can play with any toy he/she may please. They felt compelled to remove these labels so that the children would not feel pressured or restricted to play with certain toys based on their gender. The bias, or assumption, that children are required to play with certain toys based on their gender is restrictive on a child's creativity and joy. This may limit the perspective of an impressionable, young child who will grow up assuming certain things are right or wrong based on gender. This goes against a child who has the possibility of growing up with an open mind, more focused on their role in society as a person, and not just as a man or woman. 

[SalmaHuque5]

There has always been a friction between people of different races. Racial profiling has largely become the central focus or the debate because people are beginning to speak out about the everyday occurrences in their lives on social media such as GroupMe. It is impossible to separate the stereotypes surrounding people based on race, age, gender, and ethnicity from the individual because that is the basic way humans categorize information. In order to survive we must learn from previous experiences, even if those experiences were not a true reflection of the majority of people. This is not to say that stereotyping is a good thing. It hinders our ability to connect with people based on their appearance rather than their personality or beliefs. Though it is impossible to separate the stereotype from the individual entirely, we should try our best to remain open and give an unknown person the benefit of doubt.

[JaymieBromfield5]

While gender characteristics are inevitable and dynamic, gender biases are limiting and static. We are justified in our categorization of masculine vs. feminine products and attributes, because they are usually based off years of societal observations. However, because society is forever evolving, we cannot allow these "statistics" to limit our understanding of the differences between genders. We must take this data and these correlations at face value. They are probabilities and numbers, not concrete fact. They provide us an opportunity to label and organize, such as the way toys are organized by gender, but they do not define what the future labels and categories should be. We should not allow them to limit what is to come. We become narrow-minded and judgmental when we do not allow for a change in society to modify our mindsets. There is a push in society for gender equality and impartiality. This can be seen through Target's decision to open up and advertise every toy as being made for all children. The minute we allow ourselves partiality towards children's toys, for instance, is the minute we hinder the development of mankind. Target chose to remove gender labels on their toys because they chose to accept that nowadays, there's many young girls who play with action figures, and many young boys who enjoy toy baking ovens. They're proving that young individuals should be allowed to play as they please, and grow up how they would like to grow, instead of growing up as a young boy or girl. 

[SrinidhiDupaguntla8]

Conveying our opinions ha been relatively easy, especially with social media and technology. I believe that it is this freedom that has forced people to promoting their opinions without any obstructions. It is hard to characterize and define what good and bad is in modern society, however many assume that what they believe is good or bad, without regards to other's feelings or beliefs. Personally, I don't think that many people consider these ethical implications of what they say, but they are definitely open to voicing their opinions when aske

[SrinidhiDupaguntla8]

I believe that gender biases are never justified, both roles have varied throughout the years. Personally, I think what Target has done by removing gender labels can be justified as a valid notion, and that people are against it just for the sake of saying the opposite of everyone else. If Target had not removed these labels then the same people would have confronted the wholesaler as to why they have not taken the action yet, calling them out for "discrimination". I think that gender biases should not be justified, and for those that do partake in it they just want to voice their "opinion".

[SierraGray5]

The whole situation with the social justice warriors is, frankly, made out to be a lot more complicated than it actually is. I feel as though some of the young Tumblr-dwelling men-hating cultural-appropriation-defending feminists are viewed as radical because their emotions (their anger and discontent) shows through their arguments. Of course they have a reason to be mad: the inequality they're referring to is real. Be it gender disparity, sexual discrimination, slut-shaming, fat-shaming, or race discrimination these problems are real. But, at what point do our emotions influence the accuracy of the knowledge we have to communicate? Yes there is a pay gap and yes there are places that don't hire transsexuals but are there numbers, figures, and percentages inflated to prove their point? Is the evidence slightly skewed to lean in the direction it should? These are questions we should be asking. There is a problem, but are we going about it the right way?

[JovanyDorsainvil8]

Biases against ethnic or racial groups are inherently bad; though not all biases are. It has been proven several times in society and in history that the bias and stereotypes that surround ethnic and racial groups are wrong; for example, Frederick Douglass had an abundance of knowledge and intelligence though he was a slave (which contrasts the idea that all African American slaves were stupid). These biases are founded inductively, not deductively. Society, parents, or even people from their personal experience cultivate an understanding of a full group of people based off of a singular or several experiences. This induction leads to the bias, which leads to stereotypes. As this particular bias is founded in invalid inductive reasoning, it is inherently bad, morally, and logically. Not all people fit the characteristics of a single person, or a small group of those types of people. Biases towards ethnic and racial groups, as opposed to biases on actual malicious human characteristics, are bad in that they are unfounded, illogical, and overall detrimental to the cohesiveness of society as a whole.

[KiranLakhani8]

There has and I think there always will be an issue with racial profiling and stereotyping because of how  integrated it in our society.The topic of racial profiling is becoming more popular because more and more people are starting to speak up on it and the experiences of their daily lives through social media. In some areas there is a discrimination or idea that someone or a group of people are superior/ inferior because of color of skin whereas in South Asia it's based on language and dialect. This is because we all have different backgrounds, look different, etc. We may be different but we are all human and sometimes with stereotyping and racial profiling we see others as less than human. It's pretty impossible to separate stereotypes whether it be from race, language, culture, gender, or age from an individual because we are so used to it and stereotype without much thought. Although it's near impossible to separate stereotyping and biases from people it's important to learn that these stereotypes are not always true and are not always bad if you don't allow it to cloud your judgement or make a judgement based heavily on those biases and stereotypes. 

[CamilaVizcarraGuevara8]

Gender equality has sparked up a various amount of debate and conversation throughout the years. How justified the arguments make out to be depends on the perspective of each individual. In something as insignificant as toy labels, there shouldn't be a difference between what the costumer ends up buying or not for their child. Usually, what the child wants and begs for is what the child gets, and if something looks too girly or manly for an opposite sex, the label or lack thereof shouldn't affect the following actions to be taken by the parent or guardian. It is when we start talking about the respect or compassion for the opposite sex when we start getting into the important part of what gender equality should mean. Essentially, we know we are all human and thus we should all be treated with the same respect and be held to the same expectations to a certain extent. Labels are words and pictures on a sticker; the behavior and attitude set towards it is what should be the center of focus. 

[SpencerCaro8]

The idea of biases at all is not inherently bad, or good. That being said, unwarranted bias as seen in racism is certainly bad; however, bias in the case of affirmative action can be quite good. Generally with bias, we try to minimize it and make very clear what is left. I think this is because it is very easy for bias to used in deceptive and misleading ways, so colloquially "bias=bad", but not necessarily: it's just inescapable. With stereotypes, it is usually very easy to find exceptions and "counters". So, yes, it is is possible to separate stereotypes from individuals. However, stereotypes tend to exist for a reason. That being said, that reason is usually flawed inductive reasoning that ends up being conducive to social acceptance. If there are a lot of black criminals in an area, one can fallaciously induce that all black people are criminals. But this bias would not survive unless the society in which it is believed has same biases. So, stereotypes are only taken seriously in a society that is racist through their biases.   

[AbbyLhoste5]

In my opinion gender biases are not something that is justified or not justified. Gender biased are concepts created out of habit. I do feel that we should be moving away from these gender biases so that we can truly accept everyone for who they are. It is extremely important not to categorize people into stereotypes. When we do this we limit individuals in achieving their full potential and being able to express themselves for who they are. Therefore, although I feel gender biases are a product of our history and are evolving, I think that they they need to be dissolved all together.

[PatrickMurphy5]

Good and bad actions are decided by the "happiness" they produce. This means that the action that produces a more positive outcome for the people affected by it is good. Happiness is measured by what people admit. This can be illogical and difficult to understand for anyone but oneself. Therefore good and bad are not determined logically, but emotionally. What we say and do have an effect on other people's happiness. Good or bad actions are relative to the people they involve. Political correctness is not universally good or bad. Whether actions or speech  are good or bad is determined on an individual basis, so universal rules can only represent the defense of a majority of people's happiness

[Joe Caldwell8]

It is possible, to a large extent, for people to empathize with each other regardless of religious preference. For example, there are plenty of people that you may know now or may have known that were atheist and you didn't even realize. There are fairly universal opinions on certain topics, specifically topics that have ethical aspects. A few examples of these are  people's opinions on rape, murder, domestic abuse, etc. These acts are typically frowned upon whether a person believes that God created the earth or a giant explosion or aliens sent us here. If you and a friend agree that a certain politician should be voted into an office, and you later realize that this friend has been an atheist his whole life, does that change your opinion of the politician? Of your friend? Do you now regret everything that you have ever done with them? Maybe you do, but the fact that you could agree on something does show that you can empathize with someone without faith.

[DeviDayal8]

Gender bias is something that can be found justifiable and non-justifiable. I think that it has a lot to do with your background. These people believe that girls should play with dolls and boys should play with legos because that's how it has always been. But with all the changes of society that have been taking place, gender labels should not be something that plays a role in choosing which toy your kid can play with. By placing labels on aisles, I feel like it's impossible for a child to feel comfortable shopping outside of what is expected of them. 

[RebeccaFarley8]

Gender biases in the sense that we are biased as to who can go into which bathroom or which dressing rooms are justified because they prevent potential harm to people. However, when it comes to gender biases with toys I believe that this is something that we fabricated due to stereotypes and as far as I know these were not created with the intention of limiting who is allowed to play with it rather they were created with the intentions of being able to store and display the items by similar consumers.The stereotypes were created by society and societies are constantly channging throughtout time. So, recently there have been movements for gender equality and this is Target's way of following society's lead by removing the gender labels. In this case, the gender biases are not justified because the labels are limiting the creativity and expression of the children. The children will then grow up based off of old societal stereotypes instead of the changing society's move for equality. In contrary to some parental concerns this is not Target forcing the children to play with what oppposing gender kids would normally play with but merely illiminating the limitation that comes from the labels. Gender biases are limiting to children because they are highly impressionable. If children learn that they are not supposed to do something based solely because of their gender they will make a mental note of that and become judgmental to people who do not follow this social norm. So gender biases are justified when the bias is preventing human harm but if gender biases are used anyway they can limit perspectives and cause children to be more judgemental of people who go against the terms of the gender bias.

[ChristineJones8]

It is very possible to separate stereotypes from the individual. When we associate with stereotypes we generally assign them to groups  or types of people. However, in general, we view individuals as people beyond a stereotype. From that we may recognize characteristics of the individual similar to stereotypical characteristics. Despite this connection we still see the person and an individual that just has similar traits and a stereotype.

I think this is possible only depending on the degree  of affiliation with the individuals. I believe if the individual is a complete stranger in the grocery store, it would be much more difficult to remove stereotype ideas from you assessment.

[CarolLin8]

I think that those without religion may not be able to empathize that much with those with faith. Those without faith do not follow a religion because they choose not to believe in one, whereas those with faith put their hope and faith into their religion. Many atheists choose not to follow a religion because they don't understand why other people are willing to go certain extents for a religion, in which might just be a bunch of made-up stories someone wrote. Those without faith might not empathize that much with those with faith may also be that people with faith tend to think more emotionally, rather than people who are atheists, who tend to have a more rational mindset. Atheists, I think, believe more in the science in which things work, rather than the miracle works of God. However, there are always exceptions. There may be atheists who empathize a lot with those who believe in religion. It all really comes down to the individual and his/her mindset.

[BradleyHutchinson5]

The connotation of the words good and bad are all subjective to the society we have created. Whether we all share the same opinions on a given topic, there are standards that must be reached. Even if the actions or responses given fall out of line with our beliefs, they all have to meet under the standards we as a society have made to govern ourselves. As far as political correctness goes, i think people use this is a way to always meet the standard we have set but its also restricting us from fully voicing the opinions that we have. Even if others don't agree with our perspective on something, shouldn't it be our responsibility to come together and discuss the different views so we understand others better? Overall, if the implications behind SJW's is to make a "better" society, then we should begin by finding ways to meet social standards through different means, rather than hindering someone's opinions. From there, we can develop ways to voice our opinions in a better manner and i think that will form the society we all have in mind.

[PaulaTorres-Wilcken8]

Gender biases have always been around, and at some point throughout all of human history, these stereotypes that we associate with each sex were (most likely) founded in an observation from that time. For instance, in medieval times, men were seen as more brutish and belligerent since they, unlike women, were the soldiers in war, which led to the belief that men are tougher and more likely to be violent. The effect of this is seen today in the plethora of action and shooting games more heavily targeted to males. However, a majority of these biases are now outdated or not specific to the one gender, but seem to stay popular due to tradition. It seems to me that one of the main arguments against the removal of these labels in Target is founded in the belief what we should continue gender-labeling because "we always have". As we learned last year, this is a fallacious justification known as the "Is-Ought" fallacy, where the belief is that something ought to stay same because it has always been that way. Because we have been raised in a more gender specific society, it is harder for some to break away from these biases, and they may not accept a boy that wants to dress like a Disney princess or a girl who wants to play with Nerf guns. These innate biases we've been trained to have make it hard accept change or understand how gender biases are just stereotypes, and because of it, they can easily limit our perspectives on the role of each sex in society. Like stated in the prompt, "others argue that liberals have gone too far and that removing of gender labels is unnecessary because individuals have the choice to purchase what they want, whether it is gender specific or not". The first thing that comes to my mind when I read this line is that by that logic (saying that people will by what they want regardless of gender labels), why do we need to have the gender labels to begin with? If the end result is that people will buy what they want, then why do we need to further endorse gender stereotypes during the purchasing process if it ultimately has no impact? 

[SydneyPalmer5]

Although people do have freedom of speech, they should still be careful to not offend people when speaking. Social Justice Warriors do often take things farther than people are willing to go, but people should definitely know when something should be considered a bad thing to say. For example, people typically do not refer to women as bitches because there would be extreme backlash and women would be offended. However, if someone makes an honest mistake and they legitimately know that something they said was not politically correct, it should only be considered bad after they realize they offended someone. People should respect the wishes of others when it comes to political correctness. It's not that difficult to speak without offending people.

[KalifaPearce8]

Gender biases are ultimately decided by the society. When women and men are not being portrayed equally due to gender biases, it is the cause of the amount of comfort from the society. These biases impair our understanding of both male and female genders. Target's removal of gender labels created a more open opportunity for childhood growth and societal change. Future generations will have a better understanding of the opposite/ other gender(s) due to these sorts of small changes.

[SymonneMartin8]

For most people, I do not think that a person's faith greatly alters their ability to empathize with another person. On an every day basis, we interact with one another, without regard to each person's faith, or lack thereof. If we are able to empathize with another person without knowledge of their faith, knowing what they believe should not change that. I think that the only time that a person's faith becomes a deciding factor is when there are already preconceived bias against their religion or beliefs. The more biased or prejudiced a person is, the more likely it is that they would allow a person's faith to dictate how they treat them.

[KathleenScherer5]

Although the bias of gender has been a problem for a while, it was created by society. Gender biases are justified by what the society thinks. We label clothing, toys, restrooms, and even colors by associating them with a different gender. With these labels already made for us it limits our perspectives by only allowing certain relations to be allowed such as racecars to be a "boy" toy and Barbie's to only be a "girls" toy to be acceptable in society. It stops some people from expressing their real selves and personality.

[DionneWareham5]

Though religion does have a great impact, religion should not effect people's ability to emphasize with people who believe something different than them. For the most part, I believe that most religious and atheist people are tolerant of each other and able to emphasize with them. As a Christian, I interact with atheist everyday. I am friends with them and able to relate with them. Religion is one factor in a person's life. I believe that it should not affect the way we treat each other. However, there are some people who are so bias and caught up in stereotypes that it affects the way they treat a person of a different faith.I think it is important to be open to other people's ideas and faiths, because it gives you insight into other people's faiths and can also strengthen your own beliefs.

[TulsiPatel5]

I think that there should be a limit in using religions as a part of comedy. Those who do not believe in God may not be able to understand why people follow a religion because it is sometimes based on blind faith. The lives of most people are built around their religion, and their actions and social behavior are influenced by religion. Therefore, I believe that it would be hard for those who do not believe to emphasize with those who do.

[AnayaGibson8]

I believe that in order to empathize with those of a particular faith, you need to first have an understanding of that faith or some background about it, because people do not know what they have not been taught. Different types of faiths share similar qualities and morals that are somewhat similar to morals of everyday life, like treating others kindly and doing what is right. So, it can be easy to for people who do not have faith to somewhat empathize, however, when there are certain aspects of that faith in which you may lack knowledge or understanding, it can become a problem because you cannot really empathize as much, so it is easier to make judgements or criticisms. So, in conclusion, it is possible for those who do not have a particular faith to empathize with those who have a particular faith on a basic level, like sharing common morals, but it is not as possible to empathize when you do not have a full understanding of that faith. 

[DestinyOkpomo8]

To answer the question of how we consider things as good or bad, one may refer to the U.S. constitution and the infringement of ones' rights. I believe that an action or speech is considered bad when it infringes on ones' rights or is detrimental to the being. For example, in the movie, Cyberbully, Taylor Hillridge was being cyberbullied by an anonymous person online. The person would say and post things that would ruin her personal and social life. This was detrimental to her emotional health and hurt her as a character. This would be considered as bad. Another example is when someone threatens a person. In the judicial system, this is called assault which can result in charges against the offender. Because assault is harmful to the victim, it is considered bad. The implications of our actions is that we could potentially cause a life to end or hurt our oved ones if we say or do bad things. If we do good things, then it gives us the chance to uplift someone and save a life.

[JamesHood8]

I think that some gender biases are necessary like Carlos said in the differences of human anatomy. I also agree with the article in saying that there are some signs that are to gender specific such as girls and boys building sets, however there are some gender specific signs that need to be there so that others shopping for someone may have an idea of what to get a child. Overall the gender specific signs should be limited but still some should be kept so that others know about the types of clothing and or toys that they might want to look at when getting something for a younger child. I do not think though that these signs will limit perspective as people can still buy whatever they want and have obligation to follow a sign that recommends an age group and or perhaps gender for a specific set of toys.

[MarthinePaul5]

Gender bias is appropriate as long as we recognize boundaries. Taking them off labels for children toys is extreme. Children will still choose what they want. Gender bias can hinder opportunities if not used or justified appropriately. If talking labels off toys is necessary then they migh as well take them off bathrooms.

[MarnageeScott8]

As the years go on we see less and less gender bias and discrimination. I believe that in today's society gender biases are rarely justified. Our society and the we think and behave has a great impact on gender biases. With gay rights, feminism, and gender transformations becoming more accepted in our society, more people are now open to others being who they want to be and doing what they want without shaming them. Of course not everyone is like this, however when you compare now to 50 years ago more people are willing to accept people for who they are and their capabilities rather than what gender they are. Target taking down gender labels is something I think can be beneficial to society. When these children go to the store to pick out a toy they wont feel pressured or ashamed by the kind of toy they pick. These small changes can impact our society in a big way. People always say "Children are the leaders of tomorrow", with Target's change kids won't be introduced to gender biases at a young age and make them a social norm, as they become older their generation will be more likely to reject gender biases and aspire for equality in both sexes. Gender biases can only truly be justified if there is a potential that harm can be caused to one of the genders.

[JordanBenedict8]

personally, I believe that with gender biases we create a wall between what is acceptable for boys verses girls. people commonly use the is ought fallacy when discussing this topic because it is something that our western society has had around since we can remember. growing up in a society that supports a separation in gender promotes "guidelines" to what each gender should enjoy/ have. as an example, when I was little my grandmother bought me an American girl doll (girl toy) for Christmas and my parents always made sure it went everywhere with me. My grandparents kept many toys for my brother and cousin in the house (ie. legos, toy cars ect...) and kept toys for my sister and me (ie. barbies) in the house but it was in a separate box. when I want over my grandparents house with my American girl doll I would always leave it on the couch and proceed to play with all of the "boy toys" often being told not to touch them because they weren't for me. even though it is not something my grandmother realized she was doing was creating a bias on what type of toy a girl was allowed to play with. some people may feel that gender bias and separation is justified because they feel that allowing their kid to play with "a different gender's" toys could lead to homosexuality. In my opinion, there is little extent to which you can justify gender bias within society.

[Ali Robinson8]

To empathize for a certain topic one must first understand that topic. For example if you had no previous knowledge of what the Holocaust was you would not have empathy for the people that died because you would not know about them. Once you have learned about the horrific crimes that were committed during the Holocaust you will empathize for the people that were in that situation. So yes it is possible for people of no faith to empathize with people of faith but they must first understand the faith.

[BenProtzman8]

Those without faith can emphasize with those with faith when there is a common ground or idea shared between those with and without faith. For example, an idea may be supported by those of a christian faith because they are christian, but the idea does not have to be rooted in the religion and may gather supporters from people who do not follow a faith. When a idea like this is shared it is possible for these groups to have a common ground and understand each other better even if only by a little.

[LindseyStanley8]

     Separating group stereotypes from individuals who belong to that group is possible but can be a very difficult task.  Because stereotypes are generalizations about groups of people that are used to develop characteristics for that group, they often precede the individuals of that group.  Even if the stereotype is built on false assumptions, which many stereotypes are, it usually remains unfixed because stereotypes spread rapidly through social interaction.  Thus, by the time one person encounters a member of the stereotyped group, he or she may be blinded by the stereotype and unable to see beyond their assumptions-- which further prevents the stereotype from being fixed.  It is only possible to overcome assigning group stereotypes to individuals through equal treatment.  When people deemphasize stereotypes and focus more on basing their opinions of others on the interactions and observations that they have themselves with those people, they can avoid the harm done to the individual by stereotypes.

     Biases against different groups are indeed inherently bad because they create negative assumptions about others that are not necessarily true.  These biases tend to lead to blanket statements about the groups of people which returns to the problem of stereotypes.

[Ryan Kelly 8]

I do not think it is possible to separate stereotypes from an individual without making contact with said individual. Stereotypes are can be good or bad, as stereotypes can stem from all aspects of life. My own stereotype may differ greatly from one that had had more or less opportunities than I have had. Stereotypes exist as a reminder to oneself as to what happened before. If a man was mugged by a Hispanic man, he'll assume that Hispanic men are criminals, while if he was helped by a Hispanic man, he may assume that Hispanic men are kind and helpful. Unfortunately, news today runs stories about the worst of humanity as opposed to the best, creating more negative stereotypes than positive. This further drives all races and ethnic groups apart with differences instead of bringing them together with similarities.

[Azrah Khan8]

Is it possible to separate a stereotype from an individual. Stereotypes do not define who we are and should not classify the way people look at certain people. Stereotypes are never a healthy thing for groups. I think of stereotypes as just merely rumors that are never true. It is easier to separate an individual from a stereotype if you know the person well and have a stable relationship with one another. A stereotype is equivalent to a hasty generalization. Just because one person may do something in a certain way ,does not mean that everyone does the same exact thing as that person.

[LaurenWheeler5]

The governing principles of our nation naturally give us the right to the freedom of speech, but consider other countries; women especially are considered minorities and have limited rights and powers. Because freedom of speech is a privilege granted to us by our government, it isn't surprising that this particular topic is so highly controversial. Being either politically correct or choosing ones own words is up to the individual. However, I believe that the lessening of the impact on society is highly dependent on the setting where the words are being said. The individuals choose meanings of words and assign their proper connotations . But perhaps by being politically correct, one can reduce the language barrier.

We can therefore deduce that setting should dictate what we say and do, as we must adapt to and behave in accordance to the environment around us. The terms "good" and "bad" are situational and may have different contexts depending on what experiences the knower goes through. Furthermore, the ethical implications of actions depend on what the knower considers ethical or unethical and will subconsciously act how he is supposed to to avoid breaking boundaries of the social norms.

[LeahHardigree5]

I think that it is hard for people who aren't religious to emphasize with those who are. Religion is often used as a way to cope emotionally or help one understand the world, so when it is mocked, it creates a sense of uncertainty and could lead to emotional stress. However, many atheists left a religion, so it is possible that they understand the teachings of them. In regards to the RLS, I think that it is generally considered more acceptable to mock Christians mainly because there is such a large population and they aren't necessarily oppressed in the US. I don't think it's okay to make fun of religion due to the impact it has on one's life, but when done appropriately in a satirical manner, I think it somewhat takes out the negativity.

[JeetenMistry8]

Gender biases are only justified if they are not exclusive. For example, it is safe to say that boys like cars and girls like dolls, but it is not justifiable to say that boys like cars but not dolls and girls the opposite; there are many boys who enjoy playing dolls and girls who enjoy playing with cars, but this is not known because those urges are suppressed by parents to fit gender stereotypes. This shows that gender biases can be extremely limiting to perspectives, as they cause gender stereotypes to become requirements. If this perspective is forced upon children at a young age, they will grow up within a "gender bubble", unable to enjoy things that are considered to be of the opposite gender. While the existence of gender roles is a product of the norms of society, it is important that these roles not be forced upon either gender, as it greatly limits human drive; someone is not going to do something if they have been trained to believe that they can not or should not do it.

[MayaJackson5]

Biases are have been around since the beginning of time and will continue to exist. I believe bias's are justified and necessary. Physical attributes as well as some religion enforce those. Men and women aren't equal and won't be. Men have different roles as do women in life. Certain characteristics have been unjustly attributed to the genders though. Gender biases are only justified to an extent. We should keep gender roles a part of thing, there are different genders for a reason. According to religion women should be supporters to men, and men should be the protectors.

[SavonteMcCuller8]

     In all actuality, to not have faith in the existence of religious deities is a faith in itself: atheism. Atheists believe (and therefore have faith) that they are correct about the nonexistence of these entities. They, just as followers of religions, have been persecuted for their worldviews. Even in the United States, the country of religious freedom, there are 7 states that have unenforceable laws that prohibit atheists from holding public office. Although these laws are unenforceable, their existence is still a form of persecution. Furthermore, the fact that 13 countries have laws that range from revoking the citizenship of atheists to killing them blatantly shows that atheists are oppressed. At the end of the day, people are their beliefs because their actions and emotions revolve around their views; therefore, being discriminated against for your worldviews can be extremely painful. Through their persecution and pain, atheists and follows of religion are connected and can empathize with each other.

[Jessica Miralda8]

The comics religion should not matter, in comedy comics can make a joke out of anything. Whether it be race, religion, etc. If it remains as a joke and only as a joke and does not convey hate towards the religion it should be fine. However, I do believe that there should be some boundaries, for example, the case in France "Je suis Charlie"  where the newspaper published drawings of the prophet Mohammad. That was taken too far, even though it was for entertainment purposes.

[JustinHendee5th]

This question opens up a world of different possibilities, and many more questions. To pick out one of them, how devout is a person of a religion? Someone who follows a religion, but not with gusto, may see a joke on their own religion as something funny, while someone who is more devout may take extreme offense to a joke, even if it is others of the same religion speaking. Also, someone who can tell the difference between what is right and wrong can also be able to empathize with someone who has faith.

So to make sense of what I just typed, I think it depends on someone's personal thoughts, and it is hard to describe to what extent it is possible for those to empathize with others. Some people are by nature empathetic, while others are not. Some people are able to see through what is said and understand it as a joke, while others quickly assume a statement to be serious, racist, or just take offense to it, not looking at the joking side.