The Amazing Spider Man 2 vs. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The Amazing Spider Man 2 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier, two of the most popular films recently released share many similarities. Both sport Marvel super heroes we are all familiar with, attractive women who radiate confidence and intelligence, and handsome and brooding villains who are really just misunderstood. Both, to the untrained eye, would pass as your average superhero movie, but one stands out amongst the rest. The Amazing Spider Man sets itself apart from the others on all fronts, including casting, acting, story line, adherence to the comic books, score, editing and directing. Captain America, on the other hand, will blend into the haze of a massive number of identical heroic story lines.

The star ridden cast of the sequel of the new interpretation of the Marvel classic Spider man (which surpassed the original trilogy, starring Tobey Maguire, in the first five minutes of the film), including Andrew Garfield (The Social Network), Emma Stone (The Help), and Jamie Foxx (Ray) all bring a variety characteristics that clash and coexist on screen in such a way to bring a dynamic array of interactions and emotions that are rarely seen in other Marvel Films. The director Marc Webb (oh the irony) gives each character a sense of humanity that we often miss out on in tragic tales such as this. Gwen Stacy sacrifices love in order to pursue a successful career, Aunt May hides that she is picking up extra shifts at work to support Peter so that he does not feel guilty, and Max Dillon simply wants to be noticed and loved, just like everyone else. This aren’t cold, distant, hardened warriors like those in Captain America. These are human beings, however extraordinary they may be, who must face the unfortunate situations they are forced into.

The casting and directing creates a sense of relatability that is not found in Captain America; a story of a soldier out of time, assassins, and outrageous and secretive military endeavours. There is no sense of connection between the characters themselves or those and the audience.

Also the fact that the score for Spider Man had specific songs that were stylistically geared towards characters in ways that have never been done before, is pretty awesome.

Debate final

There are many arguable topics in this world but two that I have chosen are legalization of marijuana and gun laws. The reasons I have chosen these two topics are because I have strong opinions of both and I disagree with both.  Both of these topics are very interesting and very popular topics that many people have and say their opinion on.

Legalization of marijuana has been and still is a very popular topic.  They say marijuana is a helpful medicine, they say it makes feel good. Many say that it isn't as dangerous or harmful as alcohol and other drugs. Those are some reasons why people want to legalize marijuana but I do not agree with those reasons. Marijuana can have many other effects on people such as Marijuana smoke contains 50% to 70% more cancer-causing substances than regular tobacco smoke. One study reported that a single joint could cause as much damage to the lungs as five cigarettes smoked one after another. If marijuana was legalized many think the crime rate will decrease because people won’t be sneaking and selling it. This isn't true because other drugs such as heroine, crack and others will just increase their drug selling because there is less marijuana being sold on the streets.  

My other topic that I chose is gun laws. This is a huge and popular topic that is only a year old. This is also a topic that I highly disagree with.  People who agree with these gun laws agreed because they believe it will reduce the number of deaths caused by mass shootings, reduce the number of accidental deaths, and help keep guns out of criminal’s hands. Although these are some solid points I do not fully agree with them. It’s just like the old saying guns don’t kill people, people kill people. I don’t believe all of these school shootings happen because people can somehow get their hands on gun I believe it is things like the video game call of duty and certain types of bulling that make these people mentally unstable. Many people who don’t agree with gun laws don’t because it makes it more difficult for people and families to protect their homes, gives too much power to the government over average citizens, and gun control measures will eventually lead to stricter laws which will take guns away for all citizens.

~ Matt Mills

Post 9- Debate Issues

As we gear up for our final--a researched in-class debate--I would like you to consider issues of interest for debates with classmates. For this week's blog post, find information on at least three debate issues. Remember that you must be able to either agree or disagree or disagree with an issue.

Write a blog post detailing the two issues you would like to debate. In other words, explain each issue, describe the argument for and against each issue, and provide your position. Provide detailed information and links to any sources you use.

Your blog post is to be at least 300 words and will be due by 3pm Friday, 5/30.

Arguments Are Stupid

Back a couple of years ago I watched some people I cared about have a stupid argument over seats at a wedding.  It was because someone felt that they were seated in the wrong place, while others were put where that person felt they should have been  in relation to the wedding.  The people that were a part of the altercation didn't talk to each other at the wedding, because they had begun to resent each other. 

Thatb issue started when I was fourteen, since then the parties involvedhave not said anything to each other, even though the instigator has tried to apologize for the actions that lead to the seperation in the first place.

I feel as though no one has ever had the upper hand in an argument, because I feel as those all arguments lead to anger, jealousy, and some sort of divition, allbeit teperary, or perminant in the form of seperation.  Yes there are debates, but in an argument a person could become heated, because a person could feel as though their beliefs, or morals are being challanged and become defensive.

That's exactly what happened at the wedding, the group of people who got the better seating ignored the person that wanted to sit with them making the person involved resent the other party, and send mean letters in return, 

In those four years the parties involved had not spoken once at all.

Post 8: Argument

The difference between argument and debate comes down to the issue of formality. As we have discussed, arguments have very little structure and often involve emotions, and as a result, often times feelings get hurt even if the two people involved are friends, family, etc. Debate is much more formal and should focus on objectivity (the facts) rather than subjectivity (the feelings).

For this week, I would like you to reflect on a time where you or someone you know were involved in an argument:

What was the argument about? Explain both sides. How did it make you feel? What happened as a result of the argument? Who had the upper hand? Why/How? In retrospect, how would you have approached the argument differently if given the chance? (Be respectful and leave names out of it unless you have the other person's permission). 

**If you can't think of a time where you were personally involved in an argument, or if you have never seen an argument unfold (or are just uncomfortable speaking of an argument you have witnessed), think of arguments on a macro-level. Where have you seen public figures (celebrities-athletes, movie stars, politicians, etc.) argue? Explain both sides of the issue being argued. Who formed a stronger argument? Why/How? If there is video or some link to the information you are providing, include it in your blog post.

Responses should be 300-500 words and are due by 3pm, Friday, 5/23/14.

Stanford Prison

The doctor in charge of the Stanford Prison Experiment was Philip G. Zimbardo.  Doctor Zimbardo’s experiment was to see if you put normal people in bad situation will they crumble to the pressure or react in a way to keep themselves sane.  From watching the documentary I believe the experiment was a success. It was a success because each person took on their roles and even added some twists that made it even better and more believable.

I believe there were many different examples of groupthink occurred in the documentary. One was Collective rationalization. This was shown because the prisoners felt like they were actually trapped and stuck there. This happened because when they kept asking to leave the guards kept saying that they couldn't. This then made the prisoners reconsider and they stopped asking.  Another example is belief in inherent morality. This occurred when after a while the prison guards thought what they were doing and how they were treating the prisoners was ok and the right thing to do. Next were self-appointed mind guards. This happened when one of the guards decided to become “John Wayne” the big tough guy and add a twist to the experiment.  He decided to then see how far he could push the prisoner’s limits before they freaked out.  He then became the lead guard and others followed what he did even though they didn’t agree with it or wanted to do it.

I believe the Stanford Prison Experiment to be a little too much. I feel this way because doctor Zimbardo wasn't fully in charge the whole time. For example the “John Wayne” guard decided to do what he wanted and to verbally abuse the prisoners and other kinds of abuse. To me the experiment just got out of hand towards the end and then became unethical.

The Stanford Prison Experament

The doctor in charge of the Stanford Prison experiment was Philip G. Zimbardo.  While doing the study he attempted to find out what would happen when you put good people in an awful place.  Basically what will win, the good of humanity, or evil.  It was the basis for the Group-think mentality.  The way the experiment played out I would say it was a success, because each person adapted to the roles that they were given, some of them even to the extreme.

The symptoms of Group-think that were evident were:

Collective Rationalization:  The “prisoners” felt like they couldn't escape after a while because they were repeatedly told they could not, thus they began to believe the “wardens” and didn’t reconsider their options.

Belief in Inherent Morality:  The “wardens” started to believe that what they were doing to the prisoners was the right thing to do because the prisoners who had done bad had to be punished for it.

Stereotypes of Outsiders: Prisoners are the outsiders in this experiment, thus there is conflict and that leads to more issues

Self Appointed Mind guards:  There was one “warden” that was the instigator of the whole experiment, and in the video he even states that he knew it was an experiment, and that he was posing one experiment of his own.  He wanted to know how far he could push the “prisoners.”

Illusion of Unanimity:  Some people in the video state that they didn't want to do what they were doing to the prisoners, but for fear of backlash from those who did they went along with the punishments.  On the other hand the other hand the prisoners formed a rebel group under the control of one so that they could try their best to get on the wardens nerves.

Self Censorship:  The prisoners learned to be quiet, and watch what they say in order to protect the collective group.

I think the prison experiment was very unethical, because it forced those involved to the extreme.  It even drove one prisoner to the point of madness