I feel that there are two types of homosexuals. One are born the way they are, while the other is the result of influence from their surroundings. I believe that one group are able to switch back to be monosexuals, but they hope and wish to be a homosexual, thus might be due to their tastes and preferences, or even because of seeking attention. However, the other group of them are unable to do so, it is their nature to like or even love the same sex, even though they know that this behavior of theirs is not being condoned in certain society, like that in Singapore. No one enjoys the feeling of being ostracized, being left alone, and what’s worse is that they behaviour are commented and “gossip” about by others, they become like monsters, or even like animals in the zoo, where people watch their every action and gloat at them. For example a pair of gays kissing might have appeared in the headlines of Singapore’s newspapers, but this would never happen to a couple kissing.
Moreover, similar to animals in the zoo, their movements are being restricted, using Singapore as an example; some restaurants refuse to allow the admittance of homosexuals. In a developed and globalised country like Singapore, shouldn’t we respect human rights? As the name suggests ‘human rights’ are for all humans, even though they are homosexuals they still live a life similar to other humans, just that they love a partner of the same sex, they still need to eat, to enjoy entertainment, to buy groceries and clothes etc. How can we remove this right from them just because we do not really accept them? As a Chinese saying goes, “one must not mix personal and working matters.” If one detests homosexuals they could express it in their daily lives, but not in their jobs.
As the numbers of homosexuals around the world is increasing, as research show that one in ten are homosexuals, does this mean that in the past there isn’t any homosexual, is it because of globalisation that causes people to become homosexuals, people start to wonder. As I have stated my belief above, on a group of homosexuals that are born like that and unable to change themselves, I believe that the increasing numbers might be because of the improvements in technology and communication that allows one to be able expressed what on really wants. It might be due to the very first couple being Adam and Eve that people get the perception that a male should love a female and not same sex marriages. The increasing numbers might just be here to tell us that a normal human might be the homosexual since the majorities are usually taken as the norm, and different sex marriages are the exceptions. If this really is the truth, we would then be begging the homosexuals to accept us, therefore why shouldn’t we just live in harmony and make peace with one another. We respecting them and they would be grateful and respect us in return.
Since the numbers are increasing, these homosexuals should not just sit there and let the world gossip about them, they should stand up for their own rights, they should form a union, since a homosexual would understand the pains of a homosexual better, and help one another in their problems. Also as a union, they could stand up for themselves and do something about how this world just keeps them in the closet. Even keeping a non-living thing in the closet for a long period of time would cause it to turn moldy; what’s more it is a living thing that needs to take a breather. I seriously think that these homosexuals should have a voice, only when so many of them speak together, will those stubborn heterosexuals wake up. How is it fair that one consigns others to a life of hiding? Also, if homosexuals are always in hiding it goes to show that they do not like being classified as the name homosexuals, thus why would one choose something which he or she doesn’t like, it just show that they have no control over it, it is just no choice that they are homosexuals. Humans remain as humans, and not play god. As a Chinese saying implies, “do not do something more than your abilities.” If one does not have the ability (intellectual or not) one should not be given the right to label the homosexuals as a wrong behaviour. Thus, since we are in no place to judge them we should give them the love and respect that they deserve.
Moreover, as Singapore globalize, industrialized and move forward as other developed countries do, it is inevitable that we accept homosexuals. Homosexuals provide a huge market for the economy as statistics shows that homosexuals are usually the ones who are more creativity, like designers, hairstylist, artist, dancers etc. neglecting them would mean that Singapore would suffer a lost as compared to other countries economy. Also with the talk about being globalised, Singapore would have to strictly respect human rights. Having prejudices about homosexuals would mean that we do not respect their right as a human, and it is bound to stir a big hoo-ha as more and more countries are accepting homosexuals. Thus, as coded by MM Mr. Lee Kuan Yew, it is just a matter of time before we accept them. However, he put the blame of the delay of the acceptance of homosexuals on the people, the older Chinese and Indian population, and the conservative part of Muslim population. “Is it just because of the unhappiness that it might cause this group of citizens or is it just because he himself, or maybe even the whole government do not accept the homosexuals?” I suspect. Many policies implemented by the government have been for our own good but has caused a certain amount of unhappiness in the people. However, didn’t the government just proceed and implement these policies, explaining them only after these policies have been put to practice. Why can’t the government do the same for that on the homosexual policy? Is it really the people’s interest or is it own perceptions that come first.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Sunday, September 9, 2007
self directed research
argument on globalisation: http://www.ssn.flinders.edu.au/global/glob1002/2002book/globalisation%20website/converted/cultureclub.html
Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization:
http://www.darkseptemberrain.com/ideas/advantages.htm
globalisation in S'pore:
http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/soc-culture-singapore/msg39717.html
Advantages and Disadvantages of Globalization:
http://www.darkseptemberrain.com/ideas/advantages.htm
globalisation in S'pore:
http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/soc-culture-singapore/msg39717.html
Monday, August 13, 2007
"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle) Do YOu Agree?
Revolution is a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving. Crime is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. While poverty is a state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence. Aristotle states that poverty exercise control and influence to both revolution and crime. Poverty causes a great impact on the society. Poverty has shown its effect in terms of employment, living standards and even housing. However there are other factors of revolution and crime.
Studies have shown that the poor are caught in a cycle of poverty due to income stagnation in their jobs. In Singapore this situation is still valid. An article reports that Madam Aishah Mohamed Yunos, 30, due to a poverty left school at primary 6, and because of her lack of education in today’s meritocracy system, she is assigned to blue collared jobs or manual labour. She keeps the neighbourhood spick and span, but paid only a very small sum of $400, without any pay rise in two years of job. However she feels that people who are illiterate should be satisfied with what they have, thus they do not ask for more. Also with the influx of foreign workers people like madam aishah will receive tougher competition, which just results in her having an even lower pay. Therefore someone who is poor is unable to afford good education, causing one to be doing the blue collared jobs with miserable pays. Thus one will always remain in the cycle of poverty. As Singapore globalize, there would always be this group of people which remains in the cycle of income stagnation. This would only result in the poor always thinking that just because of their lack in education, they should be happy with what they have and have no right to disagree to this situation.
As these people living in poverty just have to accept their fate with a job that pay crumbs, they have to live with these small sum that only allows them just enough to eat. In an expanding economy in Singapore, all starting salaries of all occupational groups rose except one – the cleaners and labourers. With lower living standards as the society improves it would cause these poor people to desire to be like the rich or sometimes they just have insufficient money to afford living in this economy, thus it results in people turning to crime. Thus poverty also leads to crime because research has shown a mother who is a cleaner earns only about $500 per month, which is hardly enough to feed herself not mentioning the family.
As a result of the economic upswing recently, prices of housing have rose significantly.
With a rise in housing prices, it makes it harder for the poor to maintain their house, or even buying one that is of better condition. With income stagnation, this group of people would always live in poverty, causing housing to be a problem. When house prices rise to a really unaffordable range, these people will just have to live in slums or sleep in gardens. Therefore as the country aims to prosper and globalize, the majority will improve their standards of living together with the country, but there would still be this group of minority that are seen without proper housing. This problem could be solved with help from the government as they give subsidies to the needy in terms of the housing development board (HDB). However, as the economy continues to improve the government cannot continue to provide help in monetary terms, thus it is crucial to solve the root of the problem: helping these needy to get a good education, which allows them a better life.
However, there are other factors that lead to revolution and crime. For example, race, gender or religion discrimination. All these might cause a revolution, as seen from Hitler’s acts back then. Also, from a long time ago till a few years back, china wasn’t a very developed country because of mild xenophobia. They did not open up their market to foreigners. Today’s china is no longer like the past; it is becoming more and more similar to Singapore, especially the cities like Shanghai. All these just prove that discrimination or getting rid of discrimination can also cause a revolution.
Moreover, studies have shown that some people who rob do not do it because they cannot afford it. On the contrary, they are quite well off. The mother of crime is not only poverty that might be one of the factors but definitely not the only one. People sometimes turn to crime due to peer pressure, where bad influence of friends encourage them to rob or steal. Sometimes they just want to enjoy the trill of doing something against the law and escaping punishment. The idea of resorting to unscrupulous means to achieve one’s goal is due to greed. Therefore, I agree that poverty are one of the sources of crime but its mother is definitely greed instead.
On a whole, poverty could cause revolution and crime, but poverty is definitely not the only ‘mother’ and neither the main one. Revolution and crime are both the cause of men actions, thus the mindsets of men definitely play a very crucial role.
Studies have shown that the poor are caught in a cycle of poverty due to income stagnation in their jobs. In Singapore this situation is still valid. An article reports that Madam Aishah Mohamed Yunos, 30, due to a poverty left school at primary 6, and because of her lack of education in today’s meritocracy system, she is assigned to blue collared jobs or manual labour. She keeps the neighbourhood spick and span, but paid only a very small sum of $400, without any pay rise in two years of job. However she feels that people who are illiterate should be satisfied with what they have, thus they do not ask for more. Also with the influx of foreign workers people like madam aishah will receive tougher competition, which just results in her having an even lower pay. Therefore someone who is poor is unable to afford good education, causing one to be doing the blue collared jobs with miserable pays. Thus one will always remain in the cycle of poverty. As Singapore globalize, there would always be this group of people which remains in the cycle of income stagnation. This would only result in the poor always thinking that just because of their lack in education, they should be happy with what they have and have no right to disagree to this situation.
As these people living in poverty just have to accept their fate with a job that pay crumbs, they have to live with these small sum that only allows them just enough to eat. In an expanding economy in Singapore, all starting salaries of all occupational groups rose except one – the cleaners and labourers. With lower living standards as the society improves it would cause these poor people to desire to be like the rich or sometimes they just have insufficient money to afford living in this economy, thus it results in people turning to crime. Thus poverty also leads to crime because research has shown a mother who is a cleaner earns only about $500 per month, which is hardly enough to feed herself not mentioning the family.
As a result of the economic upswing recently, prices of housing have rose significantly.
With a rise in housing prices, it makes it harder for the poor to maintain their house, or even buying one that is of better condition. With income stagnation, this group of people would always live in poverty, causing housing to be a problem. When house prices rise to a really unaffordable range, these people will just have to live in slums or sleep in gardens. Therefore as the country aims to prosper and globalize, the majority will improve their standards of living together with the country, but there would still be this group of minority that are seen without proper housing. This problem could be solved with help from the government as they give subsidies to the needy in terms of the housing development board (HDB). However, as the economy continues to improve the government cannot continue to provide help in monetary terms, thus it is crucial to solve the root of the problem: helping these needy to get a good education, which allows them a better life.
However, there are other factors that lead to revolution and crime. For example, race, gender or religion discrimination. All these might cause a revolution, as seen from Hitler’s acts back then. Also, from a long time ago till a few years back, china wasn’t a very developed country because of mild xenophobia. They did not open up their market to foreigners. Today’s china is no longer like the past; it is becoming more and more similar to Singapore, especially the cities like Shanghai. All these just prove that discrimination or getting rid of discrimination can also cause a revolution.
Moreover, studies have shown that some people who rob do not do it because they cannot afford it. On the contrary, they are quite well off. The mother of crime is not only poverty that might be one of the factors but definitely not the only one. People sometimes turn to crime due to peer pressure, where bad influence of friends encourage them to rob or steal. Sometimes they just want to enjoy the trill of doing something against the law and escaping punishment. The idea of resorting to unscrupulous means to achieve one’s goal is due to greed. Therefore, I agree that poverty are one of the sources of crime but its mother is definitely greed instead.
On a whole, poverty could cause revolution and crime, but poverty is definitely not the only ‘mother’ and neither the main one. Revolution and crime are both the cause of men actions, thus the mindsets of men definitely play a very crucial role.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
but u look so natural and lifelike. your eyesight is gone.
article on xenophobia: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/xenophobia_a_brief_analysis/0014385
article on disablism:
article on ageism: (look under 'high price of age discrimination' & 'age discrimination cases')
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Singapore, multi-racial society.
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
In Singapore’s context, none of these views should be adopted singly as it would cause unnecessary problems. In fact, both views should be adopted to a certain extent.
Singer’s view on freedom of speech should be adopted to some extent, because Singapore deemed herself as a democratic country and freedom of expression is crucial. Democracy is defined by dictionary.com as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Therefore for the government to be one where the decision is that of the choice of the people, the people must be allowed to voice their views, and that could only be possible with the freedom of speech.
However, everything in this world has rules and regulations to follow. From the simple board games that we play as a child to our behaviour and conduct in school, our whole life are restricted by rules and regulations. Thus freedom of expression is no exception. For freedom of speech that is applied to Singapore, due to our multi-racial society, freedom of speech should not be total ‘freedom’; it should have its boundaries. Singaporeans who wish to voice their views should be considerate and treat others like how they would like others to treat them (Chinese saying), in aspects like religion, race or other sensitive issues.
On the other hand, living in a multi-racial society, we as individuals should be more understanding and gracious towards others. This is because we cannot expect everyone to believe in what we believe and to view things like how we do, when everyone has a mind of their own. It is difficult and almost impossible to prevent the clash of ideas. Thus to implement the freedom of expression in Singapore, there should be some sort of mild censorship to sensitive issues that might cause riots but still have room for the public to voice their views. Also, since Singapore is a democratic country and the people wish to have freedom of expression, they take into consideration the consequences, and be gracious and forgiving about comments made.
Next, is Szilagyi’s view on placing more focus on social responsibility. Social responsibility is especially important for a multi-racial country like Singapore. If we did things without social responsibility, it would result in unhappiness between different groups of people, which causes tension to arise and thus riots. By then the country would not be able to enjoy the luxury of living in peace and harmony.
Social responsibility as defined by dictionary.com as the accountability of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community. We should not be overly social responsible because this would mean that before every sentence, every action, every move that we make, we have to consider, re-consider ad further consider before we set foot upon it. Other than the much amount of thinking and analyzing skills that we would require, this would also mean – we have many things to consider. Which in turn implies that our boundary for ‘freedom’ of speech decreases till somewhat the standard is no longer called freedom. Also, being overly social responsibility might mean that in order to be accountable to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community, we might twist and turn the truth. Therefore, resulting in the distortions of facts.
To enable us to live like a highly democratic yet peaceful and harmonious multi-racial nation, we should adopt both views of freedom of expression and social responsibility. However, both are not adopted totally but partially, till the extend where we are able to voice what we want and how we feel about some issues without causing any form of encumbrance to any other groups of people in the society. This state of perfection might not be reached easily, but may be after years and years of changes. It is not easily achievable as people are always selfish and usually put themselves before others, causing them to hope for their own ability of freedom of expression yet unable to be gracious enough to let others criticize self. Thus with a group wanting freedom of speech, there will sure to be a group that opposes it due to social responsibility, this might even be the same group. Therefore, the plan above might not be able to work out very well in practice.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
In Singapore’s context, none of these views should be adopted singly as it would cause unnecessary problems. In fact, both views should be adopted to a certain extent.
Singer’s view on freedom of speech should be adopted to some extent, because Singapore deemed herself as a democratic country and freedom of expression is crucial. Democracy is defined by dictionary.com as government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. Therefore for the government to be one where the decision is that of the choice of the people, the people must be allowed to voice their views, and that could only be possible with the freedom of speech.
However, everything in this world has rules and regulations to follow. From the simple board games that we play as a child to our behaviour and conduct in school, our whole life are restricted by rules and regulations. Thus freedom of expression is no exception. For freedom of speech that is applied to Singapore, due to our multi-racial society, freedom of speech should not be total ‘freedom’; it should have its boundaries. Singaporeans who wish to voice their views should be considerate and treat others like how they would like others to treat them (Chinese saying), in aspects like religion, race or other sensitive issues.
On the other hand, living in a multi-racial society, we as individuals should be more understanding and gracious towards others. This is because we cannot expect everyone to believe in what we believe and to view things like how we do, when everyone has a mind of their own. It is difficult and almost impossible to prevent the clash of ideas. Thus to implement the freedom of expression in Singapore, there should be some sort of mild censorship to sensitive issues that might cause riots but still have room for the public to voice their views. Also, since Singapore is a democratic country and the people wish to have freedom of expression, they take into consideration the consequences, and be gracious and forgiving about comments made.
Next, is Szilagyi’s view on placing more focus on social responsibility. Social responsibility is especially important for a multi-racial country like Singapore. If we did things without social responsibility, it would result in unhappiness between different groups of people, which causes tension to arise and thus riots. By then the country would not be able to enjoy the luxury of living in peace and harmony.
Social responsibility as defined by dictionary.com as the accountability of or pertaining to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community. We should not be overly social responsible because this would mean that before every sentence, every action, every move that we make, we have to consider, re-consider ad further consider before we set foot upon it. Other than the much amount of thinking and analyzing skills that we would require, this would also mean – we have many things to consider. Which in turn implies that our boundary for ‘freedom’ of speech decreases till somewhat the standard is no longer called freedom. Also, being overly social responsibility might mean that in order to be accountable to the life, welfare, and relations of human beings in a community, we might twist and turn the truth. Therefore, resulting in the distortions of facts.
To enable us to live like a highly democratic yet peaceful and harmonious multi-racial nation, we should adopt both views of freedom of expression and social responsibility. However, both are not adopted totally but partially, till the extend where we are able to voice what we want and how we feel about some issues without causing any form of encumbrance to any other groups of people in the society. This state of perfection might not be reached easily, but may be after years and years of changes. It is not easily achievable as people are always selfish and usually put themselves before others, causing them to hope for their own ability of freedom of expression yet unable to be gracious enough to let others criticize self. Thus with a group wanting freedom of speech, there will sure to be a group that opposes it due to social responsibility, this might even be the same group. Therefore, the plan above might not be able to work out very well in practice.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
"the death penalty is not deterrent, it is murder."DYA?
Death penalty is the punishment done to any murderer or any criminal who does serious crimes. However, is it right that the death penalty should be done to the criminal? Is it right for anyone to kill another human being? Life has been given by god and no human have the right to remove someone else’s life. Then people would argue,” but these people did something wrong we need to punish them.” However, does punishing someone mean that one wants to make sure the criminal does not repeat his fault? Does death penalty really helps to deter others? If the criminal was allowed to live again after being hanged, will he still dare to repeat the crime? If yes, then is the death penalty still considered a deterrent?
The death penalty has always received support from people. Putting ourselves in the point of the victim’s family, any normal person would want revenge or in their words “justice done”. As the saying goes, ”an eye for an eye”, people will want revenge done for those who are innocently killed.
However, if the murderer is one who did not kill the victim on purpose, or was not in a right state of mind to think rationally, or felt that he was actually doing a service to the victim in saving him from his sufferings, would the reason of punishment still be valid? Not just any other punishment, but the death penalty. The punishment that gives the criminal no second chance. For a murderer who cannot think with the proper state of mind, is it better to help him “become normal” or just sentence him to death since he is abnormal and did something “seriously wrong” like murder.
As seen from the response of the public towards the term ’death penalty’, how much they are against it, we could conclude that people are frightened by the word “death penalty” and do not wish to die in such a way. Therefore issuing a death penalty to hard core criminals or those who have committed serious acts as a deterrent to others who might have the intention to err. People who are tempted to kill might think of the consequences of having a death penalty, which might scare their wits out of them or do not wish to die in such a horrible manner, such that they are able to kick the intention of killing out of their mind.
Only to a certain extent could this death penalty be of deterrent effect. In the past, the hanging was done in public, such that everyone and anyone could see the consequences of taking the wrong step. So that they could see how painful and gross and horrible the death would be like. Causing the deterrent effect to really settle in. In today’s death penalty, it is done in a quiet corner in the prison and done in the middle of the night. Also, even if one is invited to watch no one would go. Therefore, who would know how the actual “scene of crime” looks like? And without seeing just by hear-say, is the impact still as great? The deterrent effect has greatly been reduced.
I believe hearing the following explanation, many would agree to the death penalty. Criminals of serious crimes if not subjected to the death penalty, would most probably be subjected to life imprisonment. These hard-core criminals when they live in the prison are provided with lodgings, food, drink and other necessities. And who provides these facilities to the hard-core criminals, who pay for them? If you do not know, it is us or maybe our parents, the tax-payers. We are so called supporting the criminals that we hate if we send them to life imprisonment, therefore, it is definitely more economically sound to sentenced them to death penalty.
Killing is said to be so serious a crime that the murderer is sentenced to the death penalty. However, what about the person conducting the death penalty? Is he also killing, if so, would the ultimately fair judge sentence him to death as well? So how can the death penalty be the right punishment, since it makes a person commit a very serious crime while carrying out this punishment? If we are such law abiding, the executor would also be sentenced to death penalty, and the cycle would then repeats itself. Therefore, to stop this cycle of people killing more people, we should say “NO!” to the death penalty.
The death penalty has already been a standard punishment across the board, making it impossible to abolish it with a significant shift in public opinion. Although the reasons to punish a person might be valid, but anyone who reacts in any way is influenced by his surroundings, his upbringing, the people around him and how people treat him. Thus, I believe anyone brought up in the same way as any hard-core criminal or murderer would act in the same way as them given the same situation, as it is just their ‘normal reaction’. Therefore, should these people be punished or should we punish the core of the problem which is the influence he gets from the surroundings and the people around him.
The death penalty has always received support from people. Putting ourselves in the point of the victim’s family, any normal person would want revenge or in their words “justice done”. As the saying goes, ”an eye for an eye”, people will want revenge done for those who are innocently killed.
However, if the murderer is one who did not kill the victim on purpose, or was not in a right state of mind to think rationally, or felt that he was actually doing a service to the victim in saving him from his sufferings, would the reason of punishment still be valid? Not just any other punishment, but the death penalty. The punishment that gives the criminal no second chance. For a murderer who cannot think with the proper state of mind, is it better to help him “become normal” or just sentence him to death since he is abnormal and did something “seriously wrong” like murder.
As seen from the response of the public towards the term ’death penalty’, how much they are against it, we could conclude that people are frightened by the word “death penalty” and do not wish to die in such a way. Therefore issuing a death penalty to hard core criminals or those who have committed serious acts as a deterrent to others who might have the intention to err. People who are tempted to kill might think of the consequences of having a death penalty, which might scare their wits out of them or do not wish to die in such a horrible manner, such that they are able to kick the intention of killing out of their mind.
Only to a certain extent could this death penalty be of deterrent effect. In the past, the hanging was done in public, such that everyone and anyone could see the consequences of taking the wrong step. So that they could see how painful and gross and horrible the death would be like. Causing the deterrent effect to really settle in. In today’s death penalty, it is done in a quiet corner in the prison and done in the middle of the night. Also, even if one is invited to watch no one would go. Therefore, who would know how the actual “scene of crime” looks like? And without seeing just by hear-say, is the impact still as great? The deterrent effect has greatly been reduced.
I believe hearing the following explanation, many would agree to the death penalty. Criminals of serious crimes if not subjected to the death penalty, would most probably be subjected to life imprisonment. These hard-core criminals when they live in the prison are provided with lodgings, food, drink and other necessities. And who provides these facilities to the hard-core criminals, who pay for them? If you do not know, it is us or maybe our parents, the tax-payers. We are so called supporting the criminals that we hate if we send them to life imprisonment, therefore, it is definitely more economically sound to sentenced them to death penalty.
Killing is said to be so serious a crime that the murderer is sentenced to the death penalty. However, what about the person conducting the death penalty? Is he also killing, if so, would the ultimately fair judge sentence him to death as well? So how can the death penalty be the right punishment, since it makes a person commit a very serious crime while carrying out this punishment? If we are such law abiding, the executor would also be sentenced to death penalty, and the cycle would then repeats itself. Therefore, to stop this cycle of people killing more people, we should say “NO!” to the death penalty.
The death penalty has already been a standard punishment across the board, making it impossible to abolish it with a significant shift in public opinion. Although the reasons to punish a person might be valid, but anyone who reacts in any way is influenced by his surroundings, his upbringing, the people around him and how people treat him. Thus, I believe anyone brought up in the same way as any hard-core criminal or murderer would act in the same way as them given the same situation, as it is just their ‘normal reaction’. Therefore, should these people be punished or should we punish the core of the problem which is the influence he gets from the surroundings and the people around him.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Censorship
Censorship exists in our everyday lives. On a large scale, censorship is used in the media and sometimes even by the government. On a small scale, we all use censorship in our lives, in the things we might have heard or seen. However, have we ever stumbled upon questions like: is this kind of censorship really necessary? Does this do more harm or good to us and our lives? Who will draw the lie for censorship?
To people like parents, teachers or others in the educational field, most of them would say, “censorship is necessary without it we will have terror.” To a certain extent, censorship do helps the society. Censorship in racial issues prevents riots and undesired misinterpretation of one another. In the political area, it helps to protect the government and national interests. It prevents sensitive issues from being raised, causing unnecessary tension. Therefore, censorship also decreases tension.
It acts as a shield to protect the young and weak-minded. It ensures that the wrong messages are not passed across. For example, children or innocent teens might think that having many sex partners is nothing wrong as they mimic these actions and images that they see. With censorship, it would prevent these wrong ideas from being transmitted to the minds of the young and innocent.
However, as the saying goes, a coin has two sides. Other than the good of censorship, there is also the bad part. Censorship is not necessary as these images or actions are a form of exposure for growth of these kids or teens. These are the true images or scenes of reality. Even if there is censorship on books, television or even the movies, today’s accessibility of information would allow any one to find these kind of information from other sources like the internet.
With censorship, it would mean that objective reporting and freedom of speech is forsaken. In today’s world where everyone talks about freedom of speech, if our country have large amount of censorship, we would then be left behind in the fast developing society. Every human have a heart with conscious and a mind to think for themselves. Thus censorship is unnecessary as everyone could practice on viewing such images and videos and reading such materials.
I believe that parents sending enough quality time teaching the right and wrong to their children and educating them on the morals would be the best deterrent in preventing bad influence of the child. If the child really wants to see or read these censored stuff, they will have their means to find them still. Thus how a parent educates or teaches them is very important; sometimes these rated films could be used to teach too.
In today’s world,
What governs our mind?
What governs our action?
What governs the right and wrong?
Is it justice? or is it man’s need for control.
From the time that humans are able to think rationally, humans start to crave for wealth, power and control. With control it makes us feel safe and secure. Thus it is inevitable that human wants control over what is published and what is not.
Therefore, censorship, a form of control, will always exist in this world.
To people like parents, teachers or others in the educational field, most of them would say, “censorship is necessary without it we will have terror.” To a certain extent, censorship do helps the society. Censorship in racial issues prevents riots and undesired misinterpretation of one another. In the political area, it helps to protect the government and national interests. It prevents sensitive issues from being raised, causing unnecessary tension. Therefore, censorship also decreases tension.
It acts as a shield to protect the young and weak-minded. It ensures that the wrong messages are not passed across. For example, children or innocent teens might think that having many sex partners is nothing wrong as they mimic these actions and images that they see. With censorship, it would prevent these wrong ideas from being transmitted to the minds of the young and innocent.
However, as the saying goes, a coin has two sides. Other than the good of censorship, there is also the bad part. Censorship is not necessary as these images or actions are a form of exposure for growth of these kids or teens. These are the true images or scenes of reality. Even if there is censorship on books, television or even the movies, today’s accessibility of information would allow any one to find these kind of information from other sources like the internet.
With censorship, it would mean that objective reporting and freedom of speech is forsaken. In today’s world where everyone talks about freedom of speech, if our country have large amount of censorship, we would then be left behind in the fast developing society. Every human have a heart with conscious and a mind to think for themselves. Thus censorship is unnecessary as everyone could practice on viewing such images and videos and reading such materials.
I believe that parents sending enough quality time teaching the right and wrong to their children and educating them on the morals would be the best deterrent in preventing bad influence of the child. If the child really wants to see or read these censored stuff, they will have their means to find them still. Thus how a parent educates or teaches them is very important; sometimes these rated films could be used to teach too.
In today’s world,
What governs our mind?
What governs our action?
What governs the right and wrong?
Is it justice? or is it man’s need for control.
From the time that humans are able to think rationally, humans start to crave for wealth, power and control. With control it makes us feel safe and secure. Thus it is inevitable that human wants control over what is published and what is not.
Therefore, censorship, a form of control, will always exist in this world.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Spilling blood with oil in Iraq
What have u learnt from the report about the media in the way they present what is percieved over what is real?
i learnt that the media usually does not present what is real, but what the government wants the people to percieve as 'real'. in terms of the ways they present this 'false' infomation to people such that they would percieve them as 'the truth', they usually use people with standing powers or pictures that causes outrage or would stir strong feelings.
i feel that in any single news that is published by the media, it will definitely have people who will celebrate and others who will cry.therefore, the media has the power to choose who they want to cause happiness or anger in.in the process of choosing, the media would definitely consider their own benefits and also the consequences of the choice they make.
i feel that in any single news that is published by the media, it will definitely have people who will celebrate and others who will cry.therefore, the media has the power to choose who they want to cause happiness or anger in.in the process of choosing, the media would definitely consider their own benefits and also the consequences of the choice they make.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)