With reference to the recent Virginia Tech rampage shootings, it is evident that America does not limit the usage of weapons like guns. The absence of such official sanctions creates an environment where anybody can own firearms, reason being the American government believes in a liberal society. One would be able to own these weapons which are deemed as a means of self-defence.
Guns are not necessarily harmful weapons. They act as a means of self-defence in cases of threat. Imagine if you are at risk of being harmed by another party, having a gun would put you at an advantage as you can now practise self-defence. You would not feel as vulnerable, but instead relieved that you have a weapon to rely on.
Afterall, it is up to the individual to decide his intepretation of guns. If he has morals, he would not utilize the gun in the wrong way, which is to harm others. In the case of the Virginia Tech rampage, Cho the killer decides to use the gun on wiping out people. This unprecedented incident, which has never occured in American history proves that most do not misuse guns as weapons for attacks.
However, some might think otherwise. They would percieve it as a destructive weapon and see it as an imminent threat to their lives. Guns are only destructive in the wrong hands; in people who have lost their sense of moral and start misusing guns.
I feel that guns should not be permitted on a large scale, but rather with stringent qualifications to own one. For example, people who wish to purchase guns would have to fill in their particulars and history records, which are to be verified by the authorities. The authorities would then decide whether or not to approve his purchase.
If guns were not permissible, would people be able to save themselves from an impending rape or assault? I believe on the whole that guns are still beneficial to a great extent, for it protects the well-being of oneself.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Nowadays, the mass media do not report the news; they make the news. Discuss this with references to recent events.
'Recent events' refer to happenings that have just occured, or is still occuring at this point in time. It describes a string of particular happenings. I have based my essay on the mass killings in a University in the United States, the killings in Afghanistan through a blast, and the launching of Afghan attacks by Taliban. As these incidents have just happened, I consider them as 'Recent events'.
Judging by the headlines, these events are attention-grabbing. Crude words like 'shootings', 'killer' and 'launch' instantly saps one's attention, bringing a great deal of focus to it. In the article of the launching of attacks by Taliban on Afghanistan, the headline is titled with descriptors like 'launch'. Instead of using words like 'Taliban carries out attacks on Afghanistan', the journalist chooses the word 'launch'. By doing so, the media is exaggerating the extent of the news by playing around with words.
In the other article of the mass killings in the Virginia University in the United States, the killings is emphasised by a numerical value. The journalist opts to put in the number '33', to portray a significant number who perished in the killings. Imagine, if the number did not appear in the headlines, but rather the headline reads ' Details of Killer emerged' , would you be as awed?
As for the article on the Taliban killings, it is put forth as ' the heaviest fighting in an area so close to the capital since 2001' in the first paragraph. Of course, the extent to 'heavy fighting' differs from one to another. As such, this extent is subject to the journalist alone; where he might use these words in an attempt to attract the reader's attention. The University kilings have inputs like 'rocked with grief' in the report as well. All these are done in the hope of making these news impactful.
Furthermore, the media puts more efforts in publishing such news. From the link of the website of world news, the category of news reporting killings outweighs those of other genres. Does this mean that the world is saturated with violence? There are other 'minor' news like the Nigerian VP's particiapation in the general election, but the media displays it as 'secondary news'.
If you notice, covers on tabloids are mostly news of such content. Even news programmes on the television airs such news in priority.
Perhaps it is because the reader's interest lies mainly in tangible news like these that have resulted in this unpredecented way of reporting news. In addition, happenings like killings of this sort certainly do not happen in our day-to-day lives. They inject a sense of amazement and regret in us. For example, I tend to read articles of such content in detail, whereas I would just scan through news related to politics or of other genres.
Thus, the mass media make the news only to cater to the audiences' taste and preferences.
Website of World News
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/world/index.html
University Massacre Killings in the United States
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vx0.html
Bombing of a UN Car in Afghanistan
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vus.html
Launching of attacks by Taliban on Afghanistan
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/3/47vxu.html
Judging by the headlines, these events are attention-grabbing. Crude words like 'shootings', 'killer' and 'launch' instantly saps one's attention, bringing a great deal of focus to it. In the article of the launching of attacks by Taliban on Afghanistan, the headline is titled with descriptors like 'launch'. Instead of using words like 'Taliban carries out attacks on Afghanistan', the journalist chooses the word 'launch'. By doing so, the media is exaggerating the extent of the news by playing around with words.
In the other article of the mass killings in the Virginia University in the United States, the killings is emphasised by a numerical value. The journalist opts to put in the number '33', to portray a significant number who perished in the killings. Imagine, if the number did not appear in the headlines, but rather the headline reads ' Details of Killer emerged' , would you be as awed?
As for the article on the Taliban killings, it is put forth as ' the heaviest fighting in an area so close to the capital since 2001' in the first paragraph. Of course, the extent to 'heavy fighting' differs from one to another. As such, this extent is subject to the journalist alone; where he might use these words in an attempt to attract the reader's attention. The University kilings have inputs like 'rocked with grief' in the report as well. All these are done in the hope of making these news impactful.
Furthermore, the media puts more efforts in publishing such news. From the link of the website of world news, the category of news reporting killings outweighs those of other genres. Does this mean that the world is saturated with violence? There are other 'minor' news like the Nigerian VP's particiapation in the general election, but the media displays it as 'secondary news'.
If you notice, covers on tabloids are mostly news of such content. Even news programmes on the television airs such news in priority.
Perhaps it is because the reader's interest lies mainly in tangible news like these that have resulted in this unpredecented way of reporting news. In addition, happenings like killings of this sort certainly do not happen in our day-to-day lives. They inject a sense of amazement and regret in us. For example, I tend to read articles of such content in detail, whereas I would just scan through news related to politics or of other genres.
Thus, the mass media make the news only to cater to the audiences' taste and preferences.
Website of World News
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/world/index.html
University Massacre Killings in the United States
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vx0.html
Bombing of a UN Car in Afghanistan
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/1/47vus.html
Launching of attacks by Taliban on Afghanistan
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/070417/3/47vxu.html
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
1. “YouTube has no ethics, it's been created for the sole purpose of entertainment and money.” Do you agree?
You Tube is a free-sharing online portal, accessible to all users, as long as they have internet access. It has facilitated in the sharing of videos, across boundaries and cultures.
It is of course inevitable that You Tube is created for the purpose of generating income. Would you not want recognition for an ingenious invention that you have come up with? Imagine that you put in your utmost, only to realise at the end of the day that you do not stand to gain any benefit from it. Every website or organisation would want to earn from their inventions.
If You Tube has no ethics, it would not be freely accessible to all users. Instead, the creator should just charge a minimal fee for viewing of the videos to generate more income for himself. However, he made it a free portal for all. By doing so, world-wide users are able to access videos freely as it bears no cost to view these videos.
Take for example the ban of You Tube in Thailand. A video depicting the Thai king's face filled with grafitti was openly showcased in the video. Was this an unethical act done by the creator of You Tube or many users using You Tube? This was a childish and imprudent act of a sole user. Maybe the creator of You Tube did not take into account on how to limit or filter unethical videos which might be posted, but does this neccessarily mean that You Tube has no morals at all?
You Tube is not merely created for the sole purpose of money and entertainment. In the hope of educating people, it also serves as an online platform for people to share their different perspectives on certain videos.
However, it is deficient in filtering out videos of explicit content or deemed as unethical. This would thus lead to the misconception of people, making people think of You Tube as an unethical mode of sharing videos. To put it in this manner, You Tube would seem as though it has no morals. Thus, You Tube should implement a system whereby certain videos would be banned automatically from being uploaded.
In all, You Tube is generally a website that means well for the public. Without it, would we have seen and gained new insights into videos we have never seen before? Being ethical would depend largely on the moral sense of the online community that uses You Tube.
It is of course inevitable that You Tube is created for the purpose of generating income. Would you not want recognition for an ingenious invention that you have come up with? Imagine that you put in your utmost, only to realise at the end of the day that you do not stand to gain any benefit from it. Every website or organisation would want to earn from their inventions.
If You Tube has no ethics, it would not be freely accessible to all users. Instead, the creator should just charge a minimal fee for viewing of the videos to generate more income for himself. However, he made it a free portal for all. By doing so, world-wide users are able to access videos freely as it bears no cost to view these videos.
Take for example the ban of You Tube in Thailand. A video depicting the Thai king's face filled with grafitti was openly showcased in the video. Was this an unethical act done by the creator of You Tube or many users using You Tube? This was a childish and imprudent act of a sole user. Maybe the creator of You Tube did not take into account on how to limit or filter unethical videos which might be posted, but does this neccessarily mean that You Tube has no morals at all?
You Tube is not merely created for the sole purpose of money and entertainment. In the hope of educating people, it also serves as an online platform for people to share their different perspectives on certain videos.
However, it is deficient in filtering out videos of explicit content or deemed as unethical. This would thus lead to the misconception of people, making people think of You Tube as an unethical mode of sharing videos. To put it in this manner, You Tube would seem as though it has no morals. Thus, You Tube should implement a system whereby certain videos would be banned automatically from being uploaded.
In all, You Tube is generally a website that means well for the public. Without it, would we have seen and gained new insights into videos we have never seen before? Being ethical would depend largely on the moral sense of the online community that uses You Tube.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
‘The teenage years are the best years of one’s life.’ Would you agree with this view?
Teenage years is a transition period whereby adolescents go in search for their own identity, learning more about themselves in this process.
However turbulent this period may be, it is the most exhilirating phase in everyone's lives. The search for one's identity through experimenting with various fads inevitably spice up the teenage years. This once in a lifetime experience would no longer be existent after the teenage years, where one gradually develops his own stand and perspective. It is through these experiences that a teenager's life is enriched.
Take in the case of the 'emo' fad, would you not be eager to don dark T-shirts, sneakers and be adorned with multiple piercings or tattoos for once? After all, it will be almost impossible to dress in this fashion once you enter adulthood. Emotionally, teens also discover more about themselves, eventually looking back to realise that it is just part-and-parcel of the growing up process.
My parents trudge home drearily, burdened with worries not only from the workplace, but from the responsibilities that they hold as well. Looking at them, I somehow treasure the carefreeness I get to enjoy now. Being constantly engaged with thoughts of sustaining the household or figuring on how to communicate with my angst-filled teen is definitely something that I would want to avoid at all cost. Being a teen is good in a sense, as there is no need to be occupied with abundant woes.
On the other hand, teenage years are susceptible to influential friends and perhaps negative influences. It is a phase where teens view friends as top priority. Thus, if they hang out with the wrong crowd, they could be misleaded. As cited in the articles, teens cut themselves to follow the trend of being 'emo'. Self-destructive acts like these should not be tolerated as they threaten the emotional well-being of teenagers. This definitely does not make teenage years the best of one's life.
To sum it up, these years are filled with zeal. It is also the only period in our lives where we become independent and develop our own thinkings without having to worry about sustaining the household. This sensation will not be experienced once the teenage years have passed.
However turbulent this period may be, it is the most exhilirating phase in everyone's lives. The search for one's identity through experimenting with various fads inevitably spice up the teenage years. This once in a lifetime experience would no longer be existent after the teenage years, where one gradually develops his own stand and perspective. It is through these experiences that a teenager's life is enriched.
Take in the case of the 'emo' fad, would you not be eager to don dark T-shirts, sneakers and be adorned with multiple piercings or tattoos for once? After all, it will be almost impossible to dress in this fashion once you enter adulthood. Emotionally, teens also discover more about themselves, eventually looking back to realise that it is just part-and-parcel of the growing up process.
My parents trudge home drearily, burdened with worries not only from the workplace, but from the responsibilities that they hold as well. Looking at them, I somehow treasure the carefreeness I get to enjoy now. Being constantly engaged with thoughts of sustaining the household or figuring on how to communicate with my angst-filled teen is definitely something that I would want to avoid at all cost. Being a teen is good in a sense, as there is no need to be occupied with abundant woes.
On the other hand, teenage years are susceptible to influential friends and perhaps negative influences. It is a phase where teens view friends as top priority. Thus, if they hang out with the wrong crowd, they could be misleaded. As cited in the articles, teens cut themselves to follow the trend of being 'emo'. Self-destructive acts like these should not be tolerated as they threaten the emotional well-being of teenagers. This definitely does not make teenage years the best of one's life.
To sum it up, these years are filled with zeal. It is also the only period in our lives where we become independent and develop our own thinkings without having to worry about sustaining the household. This sensation will not be experienced once the teenage years have passed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)