2) Central argument
Linton Weeks argued in his article that respect and manners are important but the way to show these things change over time. I completely agree with this statement because; words which were used before are not used today, I personally also feel this way but I also think words such as thank you and please should not be outdated but be used on a more daily basis.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries words such as sir and madam were considered normal. One would say these words to each other on a daily basis. But if someone was to say these words to me at present day I would be in a state of shock and most probably make fun of them. Instead of feeling gratitude towards the person who showed me respect I just laugh and walk off. But in the 18th and 19th century people would most probably return the courtesy. If someone came along and said “good job” I would feel really good and appreciated and hopefully return the courtesy to the person who says it to me. This is a simple way to see that times have changed we just need to accept people evolve and cultures change with time. But words which were used 50 years ago such as please and thank you should still be used.
Since I was a kid my parents always told me to use the words such as “please” and “thank you”. Even though I don’t use them all the time I still consider these words to be important and one should show their manners by using these words. It’s a simple way to show gratitude towards other people. Culture does change but we should hold on to a bit of the past, because the past is what makes the present. Especially when in it comes to the question of etiquette these things are very important. Even though our school does not teach these things I consider it important.
If people stop showing respect and etiquette then civilization will crumble. Just like in Woodstock School there is no respect system for the Seniors. This comes to a shock to many new students as in Indian schools it’s drilled into you that respect is very important. This school considers everything to be bullying and in my ten years in Woodstock no one has actually taken time to teach manners. The problem is not “that this generation has forgotten manners” the problem is we never learnt them.
Friday, March 30, 2012
=D
1) Central Argument:
One should not blame a community or a group of people for the faults of few individuals.
Akar Patel talks about how one should not blame a community or a group of people for the faults of few individuals in his article. I agree with this statement because; I have learnt from personal experience, from history and current situations that it’s wrong to judge a community by the actions of a few individuals.
When we were in middle school a few individuals broke the trust of the teachers and soon the teachers were giving the whole class a speech on trust. Soon it was understood by the students that, the act of a few students had caused a broken relation between all the students in grade seven. It was very un-fair for the teachers to assume that all the students of seventh grade were the same as the individuals. It was wrong for the teachers to start assuming that the entire student body of seventh grade would start breaking the trust of them. But this is not it we can learn from the holocaust how this theory is completely wrong.
The cause of the holocaust was due to anti-Semitism. This hate towards the Jewish people came because; the Europeans used to think dealing with money is a dirty job and the Europeans would naturally blame the Jews for stealing their money and being very greedy. This situation can be proved for some people but not the entire community. But the other Europeans were convinced everything was the fault of the Jews and Hitler just had bit of convincing to do next thing we know thousands of Jews are dead. This is one of the saddest moments in history. This is one of the reasons building up to the holocaust because many individual Europeans opted to blame the whole Jewish society. This got us no where therefore it is not correct to blame the whole society. It seems as if current situations are leading towards the same thing.
In my country the word “Muslim” or “Hindu” can start a war instantly. Muslims blame the Hindu’s to be terrorists and vice versa for the Hindu’s. This blame game has caused war in great cities such as Ahmadabad and small towns or villages like Bhadohi. The major blame game has caused death of Hindus and Muslims. Whenever a Hindu hears the word Muslim he calls them terrorist and same for the other. This thing got serious in the Mumbai blasts because the majority of the population is Hindu and it blamed the Muslim. Ever since that there has been unrest and it seems there is going to be another civil-war.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Morales and surveillance
Central argument: If somebody does the right thing under scrutiny doesn’t mean it’s being morally correct.
Emrys Westacott believes that the technology of surveillance is rapidly increasing. This means that someone or the other is constantly watching our actions, our actions which may be good or bad. Westacott believes that if somebody does the right thing under scrutiny doesn’t mean they are being morally correct. Morales usually help a person decide what is right and what is wrong. Surveillance helps people make the correct decision or puts people under pressure to make correct decisions but that does not morally justified say Westacott, and i agree with him because personal situations and other stories prove this to me.
One day my dad I were riding in our car. At first there was as red light without any cops around and my dad broke the light kept on driving. On the second red light some policemen could be spotted and my dad did not break a red light this time. Well clearly the surveillance of the police stopped him from breaking the law. What he did was correct on the second red light but he did not do it because his conscious told him to or because he was morally correct he did because he knew someone was watching him. That someone was the law, and the law could get him into a lot of trouble for breaking a red-light. It was only because he was under pressure or scrutiny did he stop and obey the law. Yes it is a good thing that he did follow the rule, but it wasn’t on moral grounds. Not only my dad but I have also done the same things.
When I am on my own or with my friends, I love to break the rules or use abuse words. But at home or in class rooms I try not to do such absurd things. Because someone is watching me, even though it’s not such a advanced way of surveillance it is still people watching you and pressurising you to make decisions. But the thing is the technology is improving. People are watching us in our day to day things. How we do laundry or how we eat. Everything is being seen. Our freedom of choice is being taken away.
it's awesome..!
Central argument: The word “awesome” is just one way to show us that things have changed from the past.
Robert Lane Greene explains to us in his article how we have evolved from the past. How things are not the same as they are anymore. He uses the word “awesome” to prove to his audience things are different. I agree with Greene because this is evident in the way we talk, dress and evidence from history all points towards this.
Back in the day of my parents ‘hell’ was considered to be a bad word. Since it was related to Satan and everything related to the evil power is just a bad word to say. Even in seventh grade one of teachers shouted at me for saying ‘hell’ and gave me a long lecture on what it means. I understand in their times it meant something bad but what they failed to understand is that times had changed. Today I use the word hell all the time and it offends no one. Even most of my teachers joke around and use the word ‘hell’. This is because times have changed we have evolved from feeling bad about the hell and now use it in daily terms. It’s one of the ways we can see how times have changed. What use to be considered bad in the past has no meaning to it today. Not only does the way we talk prove that times have changed even the way we dress is proof of how times have changed.
One would be surprised to know that the heel was invented by a man. Yes, the French king Louie invented the heel. Heels were the best sort of fashion for men in the 1400’s. Not only that they use to wear something that we would call skirts. Men use to wear velvet to show how wealthy they are. Well obviously if today a man wore heels he would be made fun of. If a man wore heels hopefully he would we would do it just as a joke to make fun of girls. Any man wore skirts that would just be a catastrophe. People who wear the manly clothes of the 15 century in the 21st century are women. The men who wear those clothes are called transvestites. This all because times have changed, and with time opinions have too. Even back in the day things changed, from the medieval period to the renaissance we can see how the people evolved.
In the medieval period people believed they lived for the glory of god and the glorification of human beings was bad. But this idea soon changed, as Mirandola a humanist philosopher’s idea got famous that humans are good and have the potential to be perfect. Soon the idea of human’s being bad dissepeared and human’s being the dominant race became famous. Just like that things had changed. And with time opinions and views had too. With time the people’s thoughts had evolved.
What Greene says is true. With time people evolve and change their opinions change. What my dad might have thought be “awesome” I don’t. One can never say if they evolve in a positive or negative way. But one thing is for sure that people do change as time passes by.Friday, March 16, 2012
march blog 4
Central argument:
1) Studies help an individual to gain an intellectual side to life because it teaches you how to have an opinion.
Sir francis bacon was one of the great philosophers in the time of the renaissance. Bacon is known as the father on inductive reasoning. But today I would like to agree with his argument about studies. Bacon said Studies help an individual to gain an intellectual side to life because it teaches you how to have an opinion. I agree with bacon because an educated person knows what is correct and what is wrong in the hard situations, you can come to good conclusions with educated men and in today’s society without education one get’s nowhere.
What I mean by “an educated person knows what is right and wrong” is that he can come quick and swift conclusions in difficult times. For example in an earthquake an educated person would know not to burst out running instead hide in the corner of the room and block your head. A non educated would just panic and run. This would most probably cause his death. Education will save his life and people would think that he saved himself he is a smart man. But the uneducated man would be looked upon as idiotic and people would pity him.
One can debate with educated men. If the situation is in the United Nations, a non educated man would most probably deceived by the educated men. It happened in the scramble for Africa. The educated Europeans fooled the tribal leaders into selling their own men for slavery. An educated man would never sell their own man. But an uneducated person can be fooled into such foolish things. As bacon said one would look at the Europeans as evil but really smart. The Africans would be pitied but the tribal’s did get fooled and are viewed on as idiots for selling there own men.
In the 21st century without education people make it nowhere. That’s why in most nations education has become mandatory for a certain age. Without education people cannot survive. As without education people won’t know if they are being cheated by a shop keeper or not. Without education one won’t be able to plan a stable future and survive. Instead of survival of the fittest it would be survival of the most educated.bacon on marriage and single life
Essay on Marriage and single life
Central argument: In a single life man has fewer responsibilities towards people, therefore they can do great but sometimes it causes them to become selfish.
Sir Francis Bacon is known as the father of inductive reasoning. He is one of the philosophers from the renaissance period. Bacon said on the topic related to the issue of marriage that, in a single life man has fewer responsibilities towards people, therefore they can do great but sometimes it causes them to become selfish. I agree with him because: history has proven this, situations have prove that married men are kinder and I can look at my own dad as an example.
There have been many great men in history and I seem to see a pattern that the greatest are single. Napoleon Bonaparte is one of the greatest men to be known in history. Yes napoleon was single. Napoleon was a man of the army. He was a genral constantly risking his life for the nation. A man of this profession should not marry because he is most likely to widow his wife or miss out on his baby’s child hood. If a man like him does get married he would have too many worries in his day to day job. So a family and that sort of responsibilities would come in his way of being great. Napoleon got a bit too selfish towards the end of his career when he tries to go and take over Russia and gets defeated. Napoleon a single man did great things but a bit too carried away and selfish. Just as bacon suggested in his writing, single men do great things but can get selfish. But even if look at married men we can see how responsible they are and how they can’t take as many risks as single men.
In the movie the descendant George Clooney plays the role of a single father with two daughters and he is the owner of property which can most probably get him millions of dollars. George Clooney has to leave his work and has to see how his daughters are doing. So instead of doing something great his time gets consumed in nurturing his children. Then he has a chance to sell his land. But his youngest daughter has not experienced the land like her elder sister therefore he decides not to sell his land and let his daughters have a good experience. This shows us how George Clooney is a kind hearted man and a responsible human. It also shows us how he is being held from being great. Many would say raising two girls is a great thing on its own. But Clooney won’t be remembered in the future for that role as much as Napoleon will be remembered throughout his life. Personal experiences in my life have also convinced me in believing this man’s experience.
My Father got married very young, in fact he eloped with my mother. This did not bode well with his parents. My dad got kicked out of his house and ended up in some small town from Mumbai to start a business. Before this had happened my Dad had just gotten accepted into some university in America for engineering. Who knows he could have done great things. But he sacrificed his future for mine which just prove married men are just kinder.
Friday, March 9, 2012
March Blog 2
Central Argument: When it comes to abortion, women should have the choice of what to do.
When it comes to the choice of life one might say no one has the right to decide. But according to me, the woman who is carrying the baby inside has a choice whether the child inside her can live or not. Especially with the technology available today which can predict the outcome of how healthy the baby is going to be or which gender is going to be from. The problem of women being forced to conceive usually comes in teenage life or for a woman who is not married. A movie called Juno is a great example of a woman does have the right to decide what to do with her situation. The hindi T.V “aap paas” is a great example for a woman making her choice.
In the movie Juno a teenage girl has sex with her boyfriend and gets pregnant. Then she has a choice whether to conceive the baby or not. Her parents and boyfriend tell her to get an abortion but she decides to go through with it and give her child up for abortion. In the movie it showed her taking all sorts of tests to make sure the baby is healthy. The organizations have successfully set up a way for babies to up for adoption. So if a teenage girl does decide to conceive she can send her baby for adoption. Even if the mother goes for abortion it’s her choice. The daughter went against her parent’s choice but in the end they were all happy as the girl/mother was happy. But when the choice comes to actually having the baby what happens?
In the Hindi T.V show which is about a women who is pregnant without a husband. She decides to have a baby and most of her life is miserable but the baby makes her happy. She works hard and makes the baby has a normal childhood and everything is good. The important part is that she made a choice. A choice which wasn’t good for her? One cannot say, because in the end she was happy. On the other hand she could have just aborted and made her life easier kept her family connections and been even happier. She chose the hard way, but it was her choice. Every human being deserves the freedom of choice, every human which includes a woman or a man. The baby doesn’t have a say because it can’t speak but the mother can therefore she is heard and her decision should count.
I’m not saying abortion is right, I’m saying that a woman has a choice of what to do with her situation. Emily rap chose to have the baby and now she is living with it. She doesn’t regret having the baby just making other women realise that she is in a tough position and if she could have had another chance she would have aborted. All these women have made a choice which has affected their lives in positive or negative means. This does not make abortion right or wrong it just gives the power of choice to the woman who carries the baby. I mean I hate it when people tell me what to do with my things when i know what best for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)