source- http://listverse.com/2007/10/21/top-10-moral-dilemmas/
You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?
This is a very hard decision to make, and I hope to never be in a situation similar.
I know that I would be heart broken in either way i choose, but i would have to pull out the chair underneath him. Although I am not making this decision in reality, i do find it hard to write, because its so sad and painful. Either way I would choose, my son would die. But i would have to choose to allow an innocent inmate live, I would not know the inmate, but I would know there are people who love he or she, perhaps as much as i love my own son. He is innocent and though my son is as well, an unlikely chance is not worth taking, its not worth it to put another's life in jeopardy.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Reinstating literacy for voters
Tom Tancredo this weekend was the keynote speaker at the Tea Party convention. He suggested that we should reinstate literacy for voters, especially for voters who "cannot spell the word vote or say it in English" and who elected "Barack Hussein Obama." Do you believe that Tancredo seriously wanted to return to the voter literacy
tests that many states in the South used to discriminate against black voters and prevent them from voting. Should there be literacy tests for the right to vote in America? Or does democracy mean "one person, one vote"?
Lets look at all sides of this. If we did go with Tancredo's plan, and reinstated a literacy test, it could be a good thing, because people who vote should know what they're voting for, right? But, if you look at the literacy tests through out history, you will see how difficult they are, as if they were made for people who are insanely superior. So in a way, if we had it his way, it would seem like the test would just be a way for people like Tancredo have more control over us. America will not be a true democracy, if we do not pursue the democratic choice, which would be to not reinstate it. To let the people decide their futures. (although it doesn't work that way very much now either) It sounds to me, that Tancredo is a racist ass hole who really just has an obsessive need for control.
Please comment on my post! I would love to know how you feel. What you think is important to me. Thanks!
tests that many states in the South used to discriminate against black voters and prevent them from voting. Should there be literacy tests for the right to vote in America? Or does democracy mean "one person, one vote"?
Lets look at all sides of this. If we did go with Tancredo's plan, and reinstated a literacy test, it could be a good thing, because people who vote should know what they're voting for, right? But, if you look at the literacy tests through out history, you will see how difficult they are, as if they were made for people who are insanely superior. So in a way, if we had it his way, it would seem like the test would just be a way for people like Tancredo have more control over us. America will not be a true democracy, if we do not pursue the democratic choice, which would be to not reinstate it. To let the people decide their futures. (although it doesn't work that way very much now either) It sounds to me, that Tancredo is a racist ass hole who really just has an obsessive need for control.
Please comment on my post! I would love to know how you feel. What you think is important to me. Thanks!
Monday, February 8, 2010
"Our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts."
In 2001 The American Scholar published an excerpt from a talk given by English author Margaret Drabble. In the talk, Drabble claimed that "Our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts." Using evidence from your reading, history, observation, personal experience, politics, etc., respond to this claim in your blog.
I agree with Drabble's claim. It is fact that, "our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts."
When people believe in something, something they have been brought up to believe their whole life, they are loyal to it, they have an attachment to it. Take Christan believers for example. Their is no absolute proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or that the whole bible in fact, is anything more than a story. We have proof in other creation stories, yet Christan's are indifferent to them. This does not make them wrong, it makes them faithful, and it does not make them weak, it makes them active in something they believe. It is Love.
People also use conforming as ways to identify themselves, to find an image, And in teen years people find it vital. I think that in order to find who you are, you must define it, people define it by conforming.
It is also one of my own theories, that people are naturally afraid. Afraid of loneliness or being alone. When they find something that fits their taste, They want to be apart of it, and they like the feeling of being apart of something.
When they find conformity, it is usually with something they love, and regardless of all the objective facts, these people, ignorant or not, will fight tooth and nail for the thing they love, the thing that is apart of them.
Please comment or respond to my post! I really want to know what you think. So I can learn from you. or Just make your own blog post. Thanks!!
I agree with Drabble's claim. It is fact that, "our desire to conform is greater than our respect for objective facts."
When people believe in something, something they have been brought up to believe their whole life, they are loyal to it, they have an attachment to it. Take Christan believers for example. Their is no absolute proof that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or that the whole bible in fact, is anything more than a story. We have proof in other creation stories, yet Christan's are indifferent to them. This does not make them wrong, it makes them faithful, and it does not make them weak, it makes them active in something they believe. It is Love.
People also use conforming as ways to identify themselves, to find an image, And in teen years people find it vital. I think that in order to find who you are, you must define it, people define it by conforming.
It is also one of my own theories, that people are naturally afraid. Afraid of loneliness or being alone. When they find something that fits their taste, They want to be apart of it, and they like the feeling of being apart of something.
When they find conformity, it is usually with something they love, and regardless of all the objective facts, these people, ignorant or not, will fight tooth and nail for the thing they love, the thing that is apart of them.
Please comment or respond to my post! I really want to know what you think. So I can learn from you. or Just make your own blog post. Thanks!!
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Using the "R" word
a popular subject in the news, has been the situation of Democrat Rahm Emanuel using the phrase "Fucking Retarded" referring to a plan made by fellow democrats. Sarah Palin considered it very offensive, as others might, and took it personally because of her own child's mental health. Palin is stressing the reason for him to resign. Some people think that it was out of hand for him to use the words, but others might think that perhaps she is taking it to far.
As a high school student, I fortunately or unfortunately do not see the big deal in the words.I have gotten used to it. It does not come as much of a shock. I hear one, if not both numerous times a day in the halls, or when friends describe other things, for example "dude that test was fucking retarded." They use the word Retarded in a negative way to describe things they do not agree with. This also reminds me of the saying "that's so gay." That is another one I hear. But I bet if instead of saying "Fucking retarded." Rahm Emanuel had said "fucking gay." I have to say, I don't think Sarah Palin would have as much a problem. In my own opinion she is taking it to far, an apology would be what I would think more appropriate. Sure it was disrespectful, but I seriously think she is exaggerating it because she misses the spot light she got during the campaign. So what do you think about it? comment on this. Especially if you disagree with how I feel, I want a broader view. your opinion matters!
As a high school student, I fortunately or unfortunately do not see the big deal in the words.I have gotten used to it. It does not come as much of a shock. I hear one, if not both numerous times a day in the halls, or when friends describe other things, for example "dude that test was fucking retarded." They use the word Retarded in a negative way to describe things they do not agree with. This also reminds me of the saying "that's so gay." That is another one I hear. But I bet if instead of saying "Fucking retarded." Rahm Emanuel had said "fucking gay." I have to say, I don't think Sarah Palin would have as much a problem. In my own opinion she is taking it to far, an apology would be what I would think more appropriate. Sure it was disrespectful, but I seriously think she is exaggerating it because she misses the spot light she got during the campaign. So what do you think about it? comment on this. Especially if you disagree with how I feel, I want a broader view. your opinion matters!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)