Diploid cells in humans can be considered organism. Many types of cells in the human body can continue to grow and exhibit properties of life even when they are removed from surrounding cells. So why aren't they called human beings?
Also, it's pretty clear that there's a much greater biological difference between an embryo and a child than there is between a toddler and an infant. Once again, if embryos are human beings, why is it not a concern when almost 80% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted? If you consider embryos human beings, then that's 3 human beings dead for every human being that is born. Wouldn't a spontaneous abortion be the same as your 4 year old kid dying? Would you not try to save your 4 year old if he were dying of natural causes?
I believe that the reproductive cycle begins at conception, and life begins long before that. A gamte is a living cell. It's one biological stage of life. Just as embryos are another biologically distinct stage of life. And medically speaking, a fetus that has yet begun exhibiting brain activities is about as sentient as a gamete. So it doesn't make sense medically to consider killing an embryo the same as killing a human being. It doesn't make sense to say that "life" begins when an egg is fertilized because gametes are living tissue too. So saying that once an egg is fertilized that it becomes unethical to kill it is based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
There are logical reasons why certain axioms don't need to be proven within a logical system. No one requires that you have faith in geometry. If you want to use geometry to solve a math problem, then you use the axioms that define the system, but in no way is it ever assumed that postulates/axioms are true in an absolute manner. It is well understood that outside of a particular mathematical/theoretical model the axioms governing it have no truth value one way or another.
I'll infer that you consider the existence of God to be the primary illogical or unfounded assumption. After all, a "rational" person should never believe in anything until it is proven, right? Except rational people believe in plenty of things that are not proven, foremost being Reason itself. Another example would be the existence of the universe. Oh, does that sound silly? Let me rephrase it, then: the belief that we are not living in the Matrix. These beliefs cannot be proven. They are axioms. You can accept or reject an axiom, but not through pure reasoning.
Axioms, ofcourse, cannot be proven to be true in themselves, they can only be proven to be consistent with other axioms within the same theoretical model/system. Generally, mathematical axioms are true by definition so that it's not necessary to prove them to be true. Also, empirical science doesn't assert that any knowledge is absolute, and it's still accepted that cause and effect relationships cannot be proven to be absolutely true simply through emperical observations (you may see B happen after A 100 times in a row, but that still doesn't prove that on the 101st time B won't happen before A). Nonetheless, I'll give you that contemporary math/science/philosophy are still based on fundamental assumptions. However, science/math/philosophy try to minimize the number of assumptions you have to make, and basic assumptions are recognized as assumptions and areas of uncertainty. Scientific knowledge is provided as the most plausible explaination.
But the reason I consider religious beliefs to be irrational is because they are not founded on logic and reasoning, they are presupposed to be true based on religious faith. If you're a Christian, this includes the belief that there is a God, as portrayed by the bible, and that everything else written in the Bible is also true. Well, why do you believe in God? Because the Bible says I should. Why do you adhere to the Bible? Because it was written by God. You would not be able to get away with that kind of circular reasoning in science or philosophy or math. It's illogical to create such meaningless and arbitrary tautologies.
Lastly, Christianity is not responsible for the scientific method. Christian scientists have certainly contributed to the method (partly because in the past almost every European had to be a Christian due to cultural factors), but nothing in Christian religious doctrines was used to provide the basis for the scientific method. The scientific method actually originates from Greece.
I said religion is mostly static, as in very little change occurs in religious teachings compared to other aspects of human culture. Often as culture progresses, religion struggles to keep up. And often when serious reforms are made to religious institutions, it is only caused by factioning, not by internal reforms. I use popular religion as an example because that's the most pertinent case (because it's popular). And I don't really know where you're going with your last two statements.
So you're saying that you believe that God created the earth through evolution? But the biblical creation story claims it was all created in 6 days. In any case, that has little to do with what is being argued. My point was that science and religion are fundamentally different cultural/social forces. The arguments against each are also fundamentally different. Scientists don't argue that religion is wrong because the bible doesn't explain how bees are able to fly. They argue that religious explainations for natural phenomena are false because they go against logic and observed evidence. That isn't the same as when religious fanatics say "you can't explain how the big bang happened so all knowledge based on science is wrong." The problem is the kind of attitude/thinking that religion imposes on people. When you teach people that to be good (in god's eyes) you have to suppress reason and rational thought and discourage skepticism and free thought, you end up with a following which is incapable of critical thinking. That's why there's no comparison when you put religious arguments against scientific ones.
I'm disappointed with the spelling/grammar of the article. Kobe Tia? Ages of Empires? C'mon...
Other than that, this Doodi guy just isn't all that interesting. They might as well just interview some random kid on a CS server or something. This article doesn't deserve to be on the front page of Slashdot.
The medical community makes the distinction between gamtes, embryos, fetuses, and infants, for a reason. The reason I bring up the religious right is because they are the main proponents of such erroneous beliefs as embryos being humans beings, and abortion being murder. These beliefs are in direct contradiction with the beliefs of the medical community, which are based on medically meaningful distinctions rather than making equivocations that evoke strong emotions in favor of a particular political agenda.
If you want to argue that killing an embryo is murder, then 25% of all women are doomed to be murderers in their lifetime. Secondly, by your definition of what's a human being, then any diploid cell in a human being is also a human beng in itself--after all, it's living (biologically), and it's human (genetically) right? Is it wrong to take tissue samples from people? Are you committing mass murder when you scratch yourself and inevitably kill hundreds or thousands of skin cells? The "ethical" arguments against stem-cell research or abortion always seem contrived because they're made by people with very little understanding of biology and use subjective/non-medical definitions to base their arguments upon.
If you want to know why it's ok to allow an embryo to die, but not a human being, just do a little research. Pick up a few biology texts. Talk to some medical professionals. Find out what the distinction is between various stages of reproductive development. Why is it that, while it's known that 78% of all conceptions will likely fail due to sponatenous abortions, the medical community does nothing about this tragedy. It's certainly not acceptable to have a 22% survival rate for 4-year olds, right? Is our society turning a blind eye to a medical epidemic? If an embryo is a human, then aren't we killing more than 3 human beings for every pregancy that is actually fully carried out? Well, then I guess the only way to avoid murder is to not ever have sex right?
Who is killed when embryonic stem-cell research is conducted? An embryo is not a person. Taking emergency contraception pills isn't murder. Spontaneous abortion is not involuntary manslaughter. Your argument is based on false premises. An embryo is not a function human being no matter how many times the religious right decries abortion as murder.
I agree with einstein. I think the religion of the future (today) is philosophy. Spirituality doesn't have to involve any set of mythology. Nor does it have to involve blind-faith. Many fields of philosophy do attempt to address issues about existence, the human condition, or the nature of consciousness and the human experience, etc. The fundamental difference is how this knowledge is derived. With buddhism, there is more of a blend of theology and philosophy than other religions. Descartes, also tried to reconcile his philosophical beliefs with his religion. But the more religion (dogma, mythology) you try to fuse into philosophy, the more confounded the philosophy becomes (Descartes' proof of the existence of god is a good example of this). So in a way, philosophy is what religion aims to be in its purest & truest form.
Religion is mostly static though. It's a reactionary force. People aren't encouraged to re-write the bible, or even question widely held Christian beliefs. That's the fundamental flaw of relious doctrines. Nothing new will be added to the bible in a hundred years, and, likewise, nothing new will be added to the body of knowledge in any other religion. Also, religion requires you to accept things to be true without any explaination. Most arguments against creationism are based on its conflicts with observable reality. This is different from the argument that because we don't know how bees fly, that evolution must be false. The first is proof by contradiction, the second is a non-sequitur.
But hasn't the purpose of religion always been to fill in the gaps in human understanding (albeit with unfounded/illogical assumptions)? When you can't explain something with reason (backed by empirical observations when appropriate), then you turn to theological explanations which rely on mythos rather than logos. But with the advent of science and philosophy, religion has become an antiquated relic of the past.
Uh, no. Like many others have stated, Hwang was a lead researcher in his field. His career did not consist of this single study. The panel was formed to review his past work and to determine what was fraudulant, and what was not. As it turned out, not all of it was made-up. They saved a lot of legitimate research that other researchers have worked with Hwang on, which would have otherwise likely been tossed out. This is also important since many other researchers may have based their work on some of his research. Without this panel, a lot of work by other researchers would have been wasted.
Shouldn't we also get rid of space exploration because other fields of research are producing more immediately useful advancements and don't cost as much? And if embryonic stem-cell research is cannibalism, then so are the practices of organ donation and blood transfusion.
Somehow, impassioned religious rhetoric seems to make irrational beliefs appear legitimate--until those arguments come under closer scrutiny. Money certainly has a way of distorting people's sense of morality, but such is not the case here. If you want to protest fertility clinics for "murdering babies," then go ahead, but embryonic stem-cell research is only making use of the waste material they produce.
But one's IQ isn't the same thing as one's intelligence. IQ may be a good indicator of certain types of thinking skills, but intelligence isn't something that you can easily quantify.
I think that racism and intolerence perpetuates more racism and intolerance, but that is not the case with every individual who experiences racism, and the specific behavior mentioned in this case doesn't qualify as racism. Just violence perpetuates more violence, you can't exactly accuse someone who's constantly afraid of being violently attacked of actually being violent(although some people may be more predisposed towards violence after living in an environment where violence is abound).
I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying. But I think the status of victimhood in this case does involve internalizing racist sentiments, and is the direct result of racism in a society, but the actions manifested by it are not racist actions in itself. Seeing racism where there is none simply doesn't fit the definition of race based prejudices.
You're right. There's certainly a difference between racial stereotypes and giving merit to a specific culture's accomplishments. But broad generalizations based on race like "asians are smarter than other ethic groups" would be largely inaccurate, hard to prove empirically, and is likely based on cultural stereotypes.
I was referring to society in general, not "white" society, though whites happen to be the dominate social group in our society, and thus are often the target of much criticism for societal issues. And I agree with you that racism has nothing to do with minority or majority status. It's called "reverse" racism when prejudices are directed towards the dominant social group, but it's racism nonetheless. And beliefs such as "asians are smarter," or "blacks are more athletic," etc. suggest that certain races are innately superior--thus others are innately inferior. Those are still prejudices based on race, so yes, they are racist sentiments.
But seeing racism where there isn't any doesn't fit the definition of racism. Going around shouting "kill whitey" may be an instance of reverse-racism (racism against the dominant social group), but misconstruing other people's actions as racist is not. It might be oversensitivity, or paranoia, but it's certainly not racist unless it implies an innate inferiority of certain races, or if it is a prejudice based on race. Being overly suspicious and untrusting of society because of your past experiences can hardly be called racism.
Clearly you have no experience in recording music. These days you can get software and equipment to record out of your basement for $2000-3000 and make it sound better than many of the professional recording studios out there that cost hundreds of dollars an hour. Even mastering can be done for cheap out of a home studio.
And perhaps you don't realize this, but a lot of great literature, music, paintings, etc. have all been done by artists who were never paid for their art. Certain people simply have to write, have to make music, have to paint--it's in their nature. Besides having the wrong motivations, why would anyone give up the right to express themselves creatively to the world just because no one will pay them for it? Are you going to stop seeing that girl you like because no one will pay you to see her? Are you going to stop eating because no one will pay you to eat? Here's a tip, most musicians don't get paid diddley-squat for their music--same as any other art--yet they still manage to feed themselves by holding other jobs.
That's a pretty strenuous connection since Walmart's recommendations are manually chosen and not done with a computer algorithm like Amazon's. In any case, King Kong isn't amongst the recommendations given. Since the recommendations are created manually, it's not unlikely that someone would link a sci-fi movie about specieism (used as an analogy for racism) with a film about an influential figure in the civil rights movement, and another about a legendary boxer whose parents were both former slaves.
How is that second attitude a manifestation of racism? By that argument, almost any member of an oppressed minority is likely to be a "racist" since oppressive social conditions often lead to that kind of thinking/behavior. It's part internalization of racist attitudes, and part a defense mechanism.
The human psyche is quite vulnerable, just like that of most animals with higher level cognitive abilities. For instance, dogs are usually very friendly animals and good house pets, but if that dog is abused by its owner, especially from it was young, it'll develop a lot of antisocial behavior, may become extremely aggressive, and may even seem psychotic sometimes when interacting with people. The human psyche has arguably even more emotional needs than a dog's, and is far more fragile. So you can't really blame oppressed people to see oppression where it is not. It's simply how they've been conditioned to think and feel.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The government aren't the only ones capable of effecting changes in our society. In this case, the public needs to speak out against these kinds of actions by our academic institutions. The public can do this by petitioning against the school's actions, alerting the media (as has clearly already been done), or if the school is recieving federal subsidies, then petition to have those subsidies taken away in the best interest of the public (tax payers should have a say in where their tax money goes, afterall).
This is the same as protesting corporate irresponsibility, or unethical business practices though they may not be illegal. Freedom of expression is one thing, but the school is abusing their position of power. They have been entrusted with certain powers and privileges by our society, and so society has the right to hold them accountable when they express this power inappropriately.
Clearly, the student is at a disadvantage in this situation and cannot fight the actions of the school by himself, so it's up to the general public to do something about it since it's something which may affect all of us. I know that I wouldn't want to be kicked out of school one day just because I expressed a negative opinion about one of my professors online. And if I had kids who went to that school I wouldn't want them thinking that the school abusing its power like that to censor student expression is alright.
How has peer review failed? Has the body of scientific knowledge been forever corrupted by this single scientist's act of fraud? Has the peer reviewing process of his research already ended without finding any problems with his data? I don't think you fully understand how the scientific peer review process works. 1000 years from now someone may show that newtonian physics is largely incorrectly, and that still wouldn't show how the peer review process has failed.
Slashdot Mirror
Diploid cells in humans can be considered organism. Many types of cells in the human body can continue to grow and exhibit properties of life even when they are removed from surrounding cells. So why aren't they called human beings?
Also, it's pretty clear that there's a much greater biological difference between an embryo and a child than there is between a toddler and an infant. Once again, if embryos are human beings, why is it not a concern when almost 80% of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted? If you consider embryos human beings, then that's 3 human beings dead for every human being that is born. Wouldn't a spontaneous abortion be the same as your 4 year old kid dying? Would you not try to save your 4 year old if he were dying of natural causes?
I believe that the reproductive cycle begins at conception, and life begins long before that. A gamte is a living cell. It's one biological stage of life. Just as embryos are another biologically distinct stage of life. And medically speaking, a fetus that has yet begun exhibiting brain activities is about as sentient as a gamete. So it doesn't make sense medically to consider killing an embryo the same as killing a human being. It doesn't make sense to say that "life" begins when an egg is fertilized because gametes are living tissue too. So saying that once an egg is fertilized that it becomes unethical to kill it is based on arbitrary religious beliefs.
There are logical reasons why certain axioms don't need to be proven within a logical system. No one requires that you have faith in geometry. If you want to use geometry to solve a math problem, then you use the axioms that define the system, but in no way is it ever assumed that postulates/axioms are true in an absolute manner. It is well understood that outside of a particular mathematical/theoretical model the axioms governing it have no truth value one way or another.
I'll infer that you consider the existence of God to be the primary illogical or unfounded assumption. After all, a "rational" person should never believe in anything until it is proven, right? Except rational people believe in plenty of things that are not proven, foremost being Reason itself. Another example would be the existence of the universe. Oh, does that sound silly? Let me rephrase it, then: the belief that we are not living in the Matrix. These beliefs cannot be proven. They are axioms. You can accept or reject an axiom, but not through pure reasoning.
Axioms, ofcourse, cannot be proven to be true in themselves, they can only be proven to be consistent with other axioms within the same theoretical model/system. Generally, mathematical axioms are true by definition so that it's not necessary to prove them to be true. Also, empirical science doesn't assert that any knowledge is absolute, and it's still accepted that cause and effect relationships cannot be proven to be absolutely true simply through emperical observations (you may see B happen after A 100 times in a row, but that still doesn't prove that on the 101st time B won't happen before A). Nonetheless, I'll give you that contemporary math/science/philosophy are still based on fundamental assumptions. However, science/math/philosophy try to minimize the number of assumptions you have to make, and basic assumptions are recognized as assumptions and areas of uncertainty. Scientific knowledge is provided as the most plausible explaination.
But the reason I consider religious beliefs to be irrational is because they are not founded on logic and reasoning, they are presupposed to be true based on religious faith. If you're a Christian, this includes the belief that there is a God, as portrayed by the bible, and that everything else written in the Bible is also true. Well, why do you believe in God? Because the Bible says I should. Why do you adhere to the Bible? Because it was written by God. You would not be able to get away with that kind of circular reasoning in science or philosophy or math. It's illogical to create such meaningless and arbitrary tautologies.
Lastly, Christianity is not responsible for the scientific method. Christian scientists have certainly contributed to the method (partly because in the past almost every European had to be a Christian due to cultural factors), but nothing in Christian religious doctrines was used to provide the basis for the scientific method. The scientific method actually originates from Greece.
Overgeneralizations are mostly static too.
Que?
I said religion is mostly static, as in very little change occurs in religious teachings compared to other aspects of human culture. Often as culture progresses, religion struggles to keep up. And often when serious reforms are made to religious institutions, it is only caused by factioning, not by internal reforms. I use popular religion as an example because that's the most pertinent case (because it's popular). And I don't really know where you're going with your last two statements.
So you're saying that you believe that God created the earth through evolution? But the biblical creation story claims it was all created in 6 days. In any case, that has little to do with what is being argued. My point was that science and religion are fundamentally different cultural/social forces. The arguments against each are also fundamentally different. Scientists don't argue that religion is wrong because the bible doesn't explain how bees are able to fly. They argue that religious explainations for natural phenomena are false because they go against logic and observed evidence. That isn't the same as when religious fanatics say "you can't explain how the big bang happened so all knowledge based on science is wrong." The problem is the kind of attitude/thinking that religion imposes on people. When you teach people that to be good (in god's eyes) you have to suppress reason and rational thought and discourage skepticism and free thought, you end up with a following which is incapable of critical thinking. That's why there's no comparison when you put religious arguments against scientific ones.
I'm disappointed with the spelling/grammar of the article. Kobe Tia? Ages of Empires? C'mon...
Other than that, this Doodi guy just isn't all that interesting. They might as well just interview some random kid on a CS server or something. This article doesn't deserve to be on the front page of Slashdot.
The medical community makes the distinction between gamtes, embryos, fetuses, and infants, for a reason. The reason I bring up the religious right is because they are the main proponents of such erroneous beliefs as embryos being humans beings, and abortion being murder. These beliefs are in direct contradiction with the beliefs of the medical community, which are based on medically meaningful distinctions rather than making equivocations that evoke strong emotions in favor of a particular political agenda.
If you want to argue that killing an embryo is murder, then 25% of all women are doomed to be murderers in their lifetime. Secondly, by your definition of what's a human being, then any diploid cell in a human being is also a human beng in itself--after all, it's living (biologically), and it's human (genetically) right? Is it wrong to take tissue samples from people? Are you committing mass murder when you scratch yourself and inevitably kill hundreds or thousands of skin cells? The "ethical" arguments against stem-cell research or abortion always seem contrived because they're made by people with very little understanding of biology and use subjective/non-medical definitions to base their arguments upon.
If you want to know why it's ok to allow an embryo to die, but not a human being, just do a little research. Pick up a few biology texts. Talk to some medical professionals. Find out what the distinction is between various stages of reproductive development. Why is it that, while it's known that 78% of all conceptions will likely fail due to sponatenous abortions, the medical community does nothing about this tragedy. It's certainly not acceptable to have a 22% survival rate for 4-year olds, right? Is our society turning a blind eye to a medical epidemic? If an embryo is a human, then aren't we killing more than 3 human beings for every pregancy that is actually fully carried out? Well, then I guess the only way to avoid murder is to not ever have sex right?
Who is killed when embryonic stem-cell research is conducted? An embryo is not a person. Taking emergency contraception pills isn't murder. Spontaneous abortion is not involuntary manslaughter. Your argument is based on false premises. An embryo is not a function human being no matter how many times the religious right decries abortion as murder.
I agree with einstein. I think the religion of the future (today) is philosophy. Spirituality doesn't have to involve any set of mythology. Nor does it have to involve blind-faith. Many fields of philosophy do attempt to address issues about existence, the human condition, or the nature of consciousness and the human experience, etc. The fundamental difference is how this knowledge is derived. With buddhism, there is more of a blend of theology and philosophy than other religions. Descartes, also tried to reconcile his philosophical beliefs with his religion. But the more religion (dogma, mythology) you try to fuse into philosophy, the more confounded the philosophy becomes (Descartes' proof of the existence of god is a good example of this). So in a way, philosophy is what religion aims to be in its purest & truest form.
Religion is mostly static though. It's a reactionary force. People aren't encouraged to re-write the bible, or even question widely held Christian beliefs. That's the fundamental flaw of relious doctrines. Nothing new will be added to the bible in a hundred years, and, likewise, nothing new will be added to the body of knowledge in any other religion. Also, religion requires you to accept things to be true without any explaination. Most arguments against creationism are based on its conflicts with observable reality. This is different from the argument that because we don't know how bees fly, that evolution must be false. The first is proof by contradiction, the second is a non-sequitur.
But hasn't the purpose of religion always been to fill in the gaps in human understanding (albeit with unfounded/illogical assumptions)? When you can't explain something with reason (backed by empirical observations when appropriate), then you turn to theological explanations which rely on mythos rather than logos. But with the advent of science and philosophy, religion has become an antiquated relic of the past.
Uh, no. Like many others have stated, Hwang was a lead researcher in his field. His career did not consist of this single study. The panel was formed to review his past work and to determine what was fraudulant, and what was not. As it turned out, not all of it was made-up. They saved a lot of legitimate research that other researchers have worked with Hwang on, which would have otherwise likely been tossed out. This is also important since many other researchers may have based their work on some of his research. Without this panel, a lot of work by other researchers would have been wasted.
Shouldn't we also get rid of space exploration because other fields of research are producing more immediately useful advancements and don't cost as much? And if embryonic stem-cell research is cannibalism, then so are the practices of organ donation and blood transfusion.
Somehow, impassioned religious rhetoric seems to make irrational beliefs appear legitimate--until those arguments come under closer scrutiny. Money certainly has a way of distorting people's sense of morality, but such is not the case here. If you want to protest fertility clinics for "murdering babies," then go ahead, but embryonic stem-cell research is only making use of the waste material they produce.
But one's IQ isn't the same thing as one's intelligence. IQ may be a good indicator of certain types of thinking skills, but intelligence isn't something that you can easily quantify.
I think that racism and intolerence perpetuates more racism and intolerance, but that is not the case with every individual who experiences racism, and the specific behavior mentioned in this case doesn't qualify as racism. Just violence perpetuates more violence, you can't exactly accuse someone who's constantly afraid of being violently attacked of actually being violent(although some people may be more predisposed towards violence after living in an environment where violence is abound).
I'm not quite sure I understand what you are saying. But I think the status of victimhood in this case does involve internalizing racist sentiments, and is the direct result of racism in a society, but the actions manifested by it are not racist actions in itself. Seeing racism where there is none simply doesn't fit the definition of race based prejudices.
You're right. There's certainly a difference between racial stereotypes and giving merit to a specific culture's accomplishments. But broad generalizations based on race like "asians are smarter than other ethic groups" would be largely inaccurate, hard to prove empirically, and is likely based on cultural stereotypes.
I was referring to society in general, not "white" society, though whites happen to be the dominate social group in our society, and thus are often the target of much criticism for societal issues. And I agree with you that racism has nothing to do with minority or majority status. It's called "reverse" racism when prejudices are directed towards the dominant social group, but it's racism nonetheless. And beliefs such as "asians are smarter," or "blacks are more athletic," etc. suggest that certain races are innately superior--thus others are innately inferior. Those are still prejudices based on race, so yes, they are racist sentiments.
But seeing racism where there isn't any doesn't fit the definition of racism. Going around shouting "kill whitey" may be an instance of reverse-racism (racism against the dominant social group), but misconstruing other people's actions as racist is not. It might be oversensitivity, or paranoia, but it's certainly not racist unless it implies an innate inferiority of certain races, or if it is a prejudice based on race. Being overly suspicious and untrusting of society because of your past experiences can hardly be called racism.
Clearly you have no experience in recording music. These days you can get software and equipment to record out of your basement for $2000-3000 and make it sound better than many of the professional recording studios out there that cost hundreds of dollars an hour. Even mastering can be done for cheap out of a home studio.
And perhaps you don't realize this, but a lot of great literature, music, paintings, etc. have all been done by artists who were never paid for their art. Certain people simply have to write, have to make music, have to paint--it's in their nature. Besides having the wrong motivations, why would anyone give up the right to express themselves creatively to the world just because no one will pay them for it? Are you going to stop seeing that girl you like because no one will pay you to see her? Are you going to stop eating because no one will pay you to eat? Here's a tip, most musicians don't get paid diddley-squat for their music--same as any other art--yet they still manage to feed themselves by holding other jobs.
That's a pretty strenuous connection since Walmart's recommendations are manually chosen and not done with a computer algorithm like Amazon's. In any case, King Kong isn't amongst the recommendations given. Since the recommendations are created manually, it's not unlikely that someone would link a sci-fi movie about specieism (used as an analogy for racism) with a film about an influential figure in the civil rights movement, and another about a legendary boxer whose parents were both former slaves.
How is that second attitude a manifestation of racism? By that argument, almost any member of an oppressed minority is likely to be a "racist" since oppressive social conditions often lead to that kind of thinking/behavior. It's part internalization of racist attitudes, and part a defense mechanism.
The human psyche is quite vulnerable, just like that of most animals with higher level cognitive abilities. For instance, dogs are usually very friendly animals and good house pets, but if that dog is abused by its owner, especially from it was young, it'll develop a lot of antisocial behavior, may become extremely aggressive, and may even seem psychotic sometimes when interacting with people. The human psyche has arguably even more emotional needs than a dog's, and is far more fragile. So you can't really blame oppressed people to see oppression where it is not. It's simply how they've been conditioned to think and feel.
oops, i thought the parent was replying to my post.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. The government aren't the only ones capable of effecting changes in our society. In this case, the public needs to speak out against these kinds of actions by our academic institutions. The public can do this by petitioning against the school's actions, alerting the media (as has clearly already been done), or if the school is recieving federal subsidies, then petition to have those subsidies taken away in the best interest of the public (tax payers should have a say in where their tax money goes, afterall).
This is the same as protesting corporate irresponsibility, or unethical business practices though they may not be illegal. Freedom of expression is one thing, but the school is abusing their position of power. They have been entrusted with certain powers and privileges by our society, and so society has the right to hold them accountable when they express this power inappropriately.
Clearly, the student is at a disadvantage in this situation and cannot fight the actions of the school by himself, so it's up to the general public to do something about it since it's something which may affect all of us. I know that I wouldn't want to be kicked out of school one day just because I expressed a negative opinion about one of my professors online. And if I had kids who went to that school I wouldn't want them thinking that the school abusing its power like that to censor student expression is alright.
How has peer review failed? Has the body of scientific knowledge been forever corrupted by this single scientist's act of fraud? Has the peer reviewing process of his research already ended without finding any problems with his data? I don't think you fully understand how the scientific peer review process works. 1000 years from now someone may show that newtonian physics is largely incorrectly, and that still wouldn't show how the peer review process has failed.