Your job is to create an argument using logic. In this link, you will find examples of how to turn a syllogism into a good, developed argument. Choose whatever topic you wish, but no repeats please.
Majority rules, right? Well, while this method would work for voting for what to name the class fish in 3rd grade, presidential elections are far more important than a goldfish named Bubblie. Imagine if we split the 3rd grade class into 2 groups, 10 girls and 15 boys. Now, if you wanted them to name their fish Chester, there would be an undeniable tendency to simply target the boys. They all think alike (they’re third grade boys, remember), and they have a majority. It doesn’t matter if all of the girls vote against the name Chester, if you win over the boys, you win. While a president is a little different than a class fish, the problem of candidates targeting the cities or states with the highest population, and forgetting the rest of us, is illuminated here.
The Electoral College was instituted in the Constitution of the United States. It’s purpose is to level the playing field for our presidential election. Representative(Electors) from each State receive the votes from their appointed state, and they then choose the candidate with the highest vote for that state(Although they are not legally bound to do so, but cases of a representative choosing a candidate who hasn’t won the vote for that state is extremely rare). The chosen candidate then receives the electors’ votes for that state. This ensures that States like Wyoming are just as represented as California. There are more Red or Blue states than swing states. Why? Because similar ideas pool together. It is vital to our country that these pools of ideas are equally represented,.
The Electoral College has been around for 100s of years, and has maintained a balance between the states. We know that one group with similar mindsets should not control the rest of the country simply because they have more people, and more importantly, we must make sure that our presidential candidates don’t lose focus on those of us who don’t live in highly populated areas. The Electoral College solves this issue by giving every state a face value vote that determines the final vote. With urban areas growing and rural areas shrinking, the importance of this system is more important than ever.
John, first of all, I was definitely impressed with your understanding of our voting system, and I thought your conclusion flowed really well logically from your first two premises. I also really liked how you used the simple and easy to understand example of a third grade classroom voting on the name of a class fish to illustrate the importance of the Electoral College.
This blog is very well written. For someone like me, who doesn't know very much about how the electoral college works, your explanations were very easy to understand. The example of the third grade class fish was very easy to understand, and in turn made the voting concepts much easier to understand. This blog does a great job of supporting the Electoral College's importance.
This was very easy to understand even though I did not know much about the electoral college. You used a great example that made what you were trying to explain very clear.
E-cigarettes first came out in the mid 2000s, but became more mainstream in the last few years. For decades, the world was plagued with nearly everyone smoking cigarettes. It was such a casual thing that even celebrities endorsed, and appeared in cigarette commercials. Eventually, after far too many years, people realized the intense, damaging effect of smoking cigarettes. E-cigarettes were developed in China and eventually came to the US. Their purpose was for smokers to use them and work their way out of the habit of needing nicotine.
E-cigarettes, as of today, have become a widespread, scary epidemic. Teens are obviously much more impressionable and vaping looks like a very “cool” thing. That, factored with how e-cigarettes marketing is so encapsulating, makes using e-cigarettes a very popular trend. What a lot of teens have failed to realize is what the artificial fluid is doing to their bodies. The juice used in popular e-cigarettes, like Juul and Njoy, have toxins and even metal in the fluids. There have been over 800 confirmed cases of lung illness and 13 deaths associated with vaping. The CDC even labeled this trend as a widespread epidemic, rightfully so.
All of the frightening events related to vaping recently really shows the shocking severity of using them. Thought to be a safe alternative, e-cigarettes are terrible for your health. One case even showed that a normal teenager had the lungs of a 70 year old because of his vaping addiction. E-cigarettes were well-intentioned at first, but they have turned into a worldwide nightmare. These devices have produced a completely adverse affect. A lot of smokers today that have been smoking cigarettes are not switching to vaping, this leaves huge e-cigarette companies with teenager clientele. E-cigarettes are a product designed to help smokers, but ended up causing far more damage than any good.
Alex, I understood the logic that you presented in your blog very well. I think you did a good job getting your point across, and showed a good understanding on the topic. Well done.
I’m really glad you brought up this issue, Alex. Your comparisons and facts created a very clear and concise argument. This is an issue that cannot be avoided or ignored, and you brought attention to it effectively without condemning anyone. Good work, Alex!
We live in a society faced with a plethora of obstacles to overcome. One such is crime, criminals, and how they should be dealt with. A crime that results in capital punishment must involve the death of someone, and criminals are sentenced to death on various grounds at a horrifying rate. The people who carry out these acts are sick, and absolutely should be locked up - perhaps for the rest of their life. Everyone calls these people mosters, rightly so, but have they really been given a chance to be anything different? Think about a math class. It is common for teachers to assign work that they know students will struggle with, or even fail at. Why? Isn’t the point of school to get smart? To get the right answers? No. The goal is to succeed, yes, but to succeed via struggle, failure, and growth as a result. The truth is, our flaws and mistakes are the most efficient means of our progression. Programs within prisons, along with counseling and the power of time, absolutely have the power to help people convicted of crimes that court says they should die for. They could completely turn themselves around, perhaps even become a force for good, but they can’t do that if they don’t have the chance.
The court, however, has the power to decide if a certain person has the right to live or not, based on their actions. This idea is so flawed, and truly a tragedy. What certificate, class, or college degree gives someone the right to legally terminate the life of another? If murder is so incredibly offensive, which it is, why do we condone it so easily? Such destructive actions deserve harsh punishment, but nothing that anyone does gives anyone else the right to take away their chance to start again.
In conclusion, the death penalty hurts more than it helps. Some say we are creating a “safer world”, but are we? Perhaps ridding the world of a person who made a mistake could help a few people sleep a little better at night, or make the law enforcement feel like they’ve done something to make a difference. On the other hand, the world is being rid of a human mind, body, and soul who was never given that second chance. The ability to learn from mistakes, not without consequence, but move forward with a new mindset is completely stripped from these people. Life in prison is tough, as it should be, but it is life. It gives these people at least an opportunity to show the good that we all have inside. Taking away that hope via capital punishment, therefore, is absolutely diabolical.
Kara, this blog is very well written. You did a very good job demonstrating why capital punishment is wrong without tearing apart those involved in it. I found the way you brought up what qualifies someone to decide to end a life to be a very effective way to prove your point. You are very right in saying that the death penalty is a tragically flawed concept.
Kara, this was a well written piece of work. However, this topic holds much uncertainty and struggle. As humans, we are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, when someone, say murders another human, are not they giving up their right to live? Although, I do have to say, you made very strong points, and I am just asking this question, in a sense, to help you think more in depth. Good job!
From the very earliest of human history, people have been purposefully harming other living things. This is primarily for their own good. As we transitioned from hunter gatherers to a more agriculture based society, the violence towards living things, such as animals, continued. Does this mean hunting for food purposes is wrong? No. Not necessarily, if it is done properly. But, can one truly say that torturing and abusing animals for purposes such as testing of products is just? Think about this. Murder, obviously, is frowned upon. So much so that it is illegal. Even the Bible states, “thou shall not kill.” So is there truly any way to justify killing, abusing, torturing or harming living things of any sort?
Animal testing specifically is a topic of controversy that, naturally, has many people disagreeing. Many would assume that since, said testing, is done by large corporations that they must be performing it in a gentle, humane way. This, however, is not the case. The Humane Society International has found that animal subjects are often force-fed, deprived of basic necessities, held in restraints for long periods of time, and forced to submit to countless other tactics that harm them. For example, rabbits are held in captivity with clamps holding their eyes open while researchers drop their product in their eyes in what is called The Draize Eye test. This, undoubtedly, is harming the rabbit in many, many ways. The numbers themselves are astounding, as it was found that 71,370 animals are subjected to harmful experimentation without any medication/anesthesia for pain relief —stated by the USDA.
As anyone can plainly see, animal testing is inhumane. New testing techniques involving grafts of human cells are shedding light on the situation, posing the question of whether or not animal testing is even necessary. Other cruelty-free companies test their products using in-vitro, or in glass, methods using human cells, so why should large corporations continuing to test on live animals be any exception? Inflicting pain upon animals in a merciless and selfish way is still a common practice among companies such as Maybelline, Victoria’s Secret, Benefit Cosmetics, Elizabeth Arden and thousands more. So when new sustainable, cruelty free methods of testing are developed and countless large companies continue to use harmful and frankly, out dated techniques to test their products, how can this be considered “okay?” If these multi-million dollar corporations have the means to convert to harmless methods of testing and still choose not to, that in and of itself is inhumane. Therefore, the continuation of harsh and agonizing animal testing by companies both large and small is and always will be inhumane.
A lot of lives are lost to animal testing every year—over 100 million dogs, cats, rabbits, rats, mice, you name it. That number is out-of-the-ball park-ridiculous. You definitely made good use of logic in this argument, Liv. I appreciate how you brought up the Sixth Commandment and suggested that killing in general— without proper justification— is wrong. Why does that apply to only humans? The good news is that technology is changing, and some forms of animal testing, such as exploratory surgery, is being replaced with better alternatives. Using realistic and synthetic animal cadavers instead of live animals are already being put to us by prominent institutions like Cornell University. Anyways, this was a lovely read for me!
Liv, I was very impressed with how well you developed your argument and how you included lots of examples to back up your logic. Animal cruelty truly is a problem all over the world, and there are so many alternatives which are much more human. However, I’m not sure I would agree that growing humans cells in labs and tossing them out like it’s no big deal is entirely ethical either, and if it’s not directly unethical in itself, it definitely blurs the line that declares in-vitro fertilization of entirely new humans unethical.
The pay received from labor that has been enacted upon a certain task should be based upon the accomplishment and thoroughness of a job, rather than than a wage set by a government. In basic terms, if one is willing to put the complete effort into a job to do it right, and with heart, then they should be payed more than their co worker who is “punching the clock.” This seems controversial and unfair to the American worker, but, when broken down, it presents the logic capable of being a strong point to help ensure productivity, help boost the economy, and in total, help every individual live to their potential. Pay received from working should come because of hard work and be scaled to match the difficulty of a job. This fits as a major premise because it points out the obvious; why should someone, who is cleaning up the slack from someone who is not working hard, get payed the same amount of money when it’s pay day? Almost everyone knows that one person who goes to work, complains how much they hate their job, want to quit, and yet are still receiving money. Let’s take, for example, two waiters at the same restaurant. Waiter “X” loves his job, comes to work with a purpose, to serve those who have come to eat. He has a smile on his face when he asked for the customers order, and works as diligently as he possibly can to ensure their orders are in quickly, and works until his shift is over. Now, waiter “Y”, on another note, cannot bear walking into the same restaurant to work. He mopes around, has a negative attitude towards where he is, never smiles to the customers, and he constantly watches the clock go by, waiting for that final minute, so he can burst out the doors to go on with his life. On occasion, he also speaks poorly of the company, says how they do not know how to manage their business. Overall, the majority would say waiter “X” definitely meets the requirements to receive the money he worked hard for, than waiter “Y” who hardly cared about his job. This would just allow for the waiters to step up their work, ensuring productivity, in order to receive money suitable to their efforts. If waiter “Y” wanted to get more money for himself, then he simply could work for a different meaning, such as for service of other. Now, a classic argument against this could be, ‘What about if that is the waiters only source of income or money?’ In a 2010 analysis by Michael J. Hicks, who is a respected and distinguished professor of Economics at Ball State University, found the latest minimum wage increase accounted for 550,000 fewer part time jobs. So, if we decide to raise the minimum wage for effortless jobs, we, as a nation, would be taking more than half a million jobs from workers, some of which would actually be working hard for that money to survive off of. So that would be hurting the people it’s said to help Instead, those people who need this job, could ultimately gain more money if they persistently work for it.
(Continued) The minor premise involves that of which, you do or do not work hard for your paycheck. This was explained already in the previous paragraph, but how can this idea of “I work hard for my money, therefore I deserve more than someone unwilling to work hard for it” seriously help the economical world of the United States? Pieter Smith, who is a Senior Research Scientist publisher in 2018, stated in one of his publications that having no minimum wage would decrease unemployment greatly. On the other hand, increasing minimum wage actually takes the jobs out of the American people’s lives. The minimum wage increase idea that politicians strive for brings forth no logic of where the money would come from. What the American people sometimes forget is that the money coming in for people to make $15.00 an hour is not coming from the government’s pocket, but actually that of the American working class. One person cannot speak for the nation, but it seems clear that anyone with common sense would agree they do not want to be taxed more to pay people who really do not deserve the money they make. This also seems to be that if a socialistic economy, where for the United States, it does not run on those types of boundaries. In conclusion, “you receive more money, or you receive less money.” The idea seems rather bold to start with a zero dollar amount, however, we could institute maybe, $5.50 per hour. Then, businesses and companies work to decide on how much a worker can receive based on productivity, and, overall, maybe that worker ends up making $8.75 an hour for his dedication, and his care for his job in a couple months time. Obviously not all companies could be paying their employees a huge amount, but they certainly could be paying their top workers and those they believe deserve to earn cash from hard work. And in time, the minimum wage could completely drop off. This is not a new idea, too. A few nations,such as Iceland, Austria, and Denmark, all have no minimum wage, and in 2013, five of all nine of the zero minimum wage nations saw a unemployment rate of a median, 5.5%. It is simply impossible for a free market economy to run off of $15.00 an hour. This hurts the lower class and the upper class workers, thus giving government more power with higher taxes. If the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods and services go up, and in total, the cost of living goes up. This is not the answer to help the lower class citizens, this is a way for government to take more control of the economy, and it hurts the nation as a whole.
Mark! This is a very well constructed blog. You had incredibly interesting point to strengthen your point. Your logic was very strong and very well developed. I had not really thought about your topic very much, as it never really crossed my mind. However, I enjoyed reading this. Even the points I did not so much agree with, I understood your side, as you presented your opinions and facts in a graceful manner. Way to go!
Minor: guns are a source of many school shooting around the United States
Major: America has one of the least strict gun laws out of all the counties
Conclusion: America needs stricter gun laws to keep our schools and public spaces safe.
Recently, America’s record of public shooting has sky rocketed. For example, in 2017, America death rate by gun jumped to almost 40,000 deaths. In 2018, there was a massive 23 recorded incidents of school shootings where people got hurt. That doesn’t even include the incidents were there were no casualties. This level of gun related crime in America is not okay. How can we as a county turn a blind eye to this? Now as a catholic, I certainly encourage thoughts and prayers. However, this cannot be our only source of problem solving when issues become this severe.
The United States has guns as a fundamental fight, in fact it’s the second amendment. However, with the set right to have guns, one would think the amount would be limited. That is not the case. In America people can own guns that are basically meant for war without a strong and lengthy background check. No wonder we have so many shootings. Now, in places such as Canada, they require Authorization to transport permits, background checks, and prohibits open carry of weapons. In Canada, their 2018 statistic of gun deaths was 208. While that is still a big number, ranging from the 40,000 deaths in America, the gun laws in Canada are obviously making an impact.
In conclusion, America definitely has some changes that need to be implemented with our gun laws. Whether that’s following Canada’s exact laws, which have seemed to work, or making up our own, we must act quickly. It doesn’t have to be an extreme change, like the buy back law some 2020 presidential candidates are interested. However we must make some changes to limit the amount of shooting we have in America. Even a slightly smaller number would benefit the nation. Any laws, as small as a deeper background check, could effect the statistics. Therefore, if they work in Canada and other countries, they should work in America. The U.S must enact stricter gun laws to keep our schools and public spaces safe.
Megan I really really enjoyed your blog. One of the many reasons is because this is definitely one issue that is near and dear to my heart as well. I have continued to ponder on ways these issues could be helped or fixed. Your writing also displayed your syllogism very clearly. I also love how you hit both left sided and right sided arguments. It was a very unbiased way to discuss such a heavy and controversial topic. Very, very good writing. Very, very good logic.
Megan, I really liked this blog. I think you focus on this issue was very strong and I’m impressed at how well this is written. Your logic was easy to understand and you got your point across well. I also think you picked a very strong topic for this specific blog, and you did a fantastic job putting it into words.
I, myself, do enjoy going to a shooting range every once in a while, but I wholeheartedly agree that our gun laws need reformed. Semi-automatic artillery can be easily converted into full automatic, many cults in America that had to face SWAT teams have done this. I also believe that we must “blacklist” the shooters. Media coverage on the shooters may influence those who are a tad disturbed, and they may attempt to gain fame and glory and cause their own shooting. It’s an odd thing to think about, but blacklisting the shooters could be a good attempt to help prevent anymore shootings.
Changing concealed carry laws would only affect the law-abiding citizens. Criminals are not law-abiding citizens. Criminals would not be affected.
The only thing worse than a country that has to defend itself from crime is one that can’t. That’s why all 50 states in the US allow CCW (concealed carry weapons); they know that the normal, everyday citizens following the rules, carefully applying for permits, and spending their hard-earned money on a handgun just to give themselves some peace of mind in this warped and crooked world are not going to throw on ski masks and gun down strangers for pocket change as soon as the sun sets. The purpose of concealed carry is to provide defense to the defenseless, and that’s exactly what it does. If these laws where changed, it would only affect the citizens who actually follow those laws, leaving them hung out to dry in our dangerous world.
Rather, the actual criminals using guns for muggings, armed robbery, murder, etc. are getting these guns from illegal suppliers and manufacturers. Legally buying a gun means that your gun will be listed under your name, and if that gun is found at a crime scene for example, it can sometimes be traced back to the owner. This, of course, is not something that anyone who is getting ready to gun down a convenient store is going to add to their checklist. Instead, they buy their guns from private, illegal manufacturers, or they acquire their guns from private transactions, which are actually legal assuming you have a concealed carry permit as well (they don’t).
What this means is that they can dodge the law and never even need to get a concealed carry permit in the first place, rendering the repeal of CCW pointless. In the end, the only ones losing their weapons would be the law-abiding citizens, which would increase crimes because criminals would not be worried that about their victims having weapons. All throughout human history, any time a set of rules are put in place, whether it be the prohibition of alcohol, taking away games on ECC iPads, or the possible removal of concealed carry laws, people have always, and will always find ways to get around these rules. Where there is a demand... someone is always supplying.
Joe, well written. I agree with your stance on CCW. If we make laws about having no guns, it's just going to increase the sale of illegal guns and weaponry. Anyone who wants to commit a shooting to harm others does not first look at the law to be sure if they can or can't do such an act. Good work.
Both of our blogs considered similar topics, but we both took a different approach. While I don’t necessarily agree with your argument, your logic helped me see where you were coming from. You were able to make me see valid points on the other side of the argument. Great job!
The First Amendment of our Constitution establishes many freedoms that we have as American citizens, including but not limited to freedom of speech, religion, and to gather. Another one of our rights protected by the First Amendment is freedom of the press. This includes the right to publish and receive information, allowing us to put forth our opinions and creative content as well as obtaining others’ materials. This prevents our government from controlling what we observe and therefore protects our ability to form our own opinions. The rights given to us by the First Amendment allow us to post these blogs each week without fear of consequences from the government.
One very obvious form of the press is books. Thousands of books are published each year, each one containing intellectual content and hard work. People are constantly reading books for various reasons. Many books have impacts on the readers beyond what the author could imagine. Other books are written for the exact purpose of changing lives, like self-help books. Personally, I read a lot of books in my childhood, which helped to shape my interests and values. The influence of literature is an essential part of not only education but also the formation of opinions.
All over the country, certain books are disappearing from school libraries and curricula, as well as establishments such as public libraries. “To Kill A Mockingbird” by Harper Lee, “The Catcher in The Rye” by J.D. Salinger, “1984” by George Orwell, and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain are just a few of the most commonly banned books. These books are removed from access for containing different forms of controversial material, therefore restricting their remaining influential contents. The reasoning behind the bannings is usually that the establishment does not agree with parts of the content, or that the establishment is trying to prevent its members from encountering parts of the content. But where do we draw the line? Should an atheist in charge of a school be able to remove all books with religious content from the school library or curriculum? Should a public library in a predominantly republican area be able to remove a book that strongly encourages the democratic party, or vice versa? Though the instances seen so far may not have been quite so extreme, they are still depriving people of educational content. This is clearly goes against our constitution as a violation of our First Amendment rights. Banning books at any level should not be allowed.
This is very well written, Viv! Your initial explanation was clear and easy to understand, which was helpful. That made the rest of the argument very clear. You have a lot of great points in here, and I loved how you brought it all back to the amendments. Well done!
I really enjoyed how you did this vlog, Viv! I thought the syllogism and logic you used was very clear. For example, I liked how you started off with a simple explanation of our rights and then in your major and conclusion went more into depth about the issues of book banning. You doing that made the logic used very clear!
Minor: All human beings are equal and should have rights that protect and improve their lives Major: People of different race, gender, and religions are human beings Conclusion: People of different race, gender, and religions are all equals and should have rights that protect and improve their lives.
The Fourteenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that all citizens of the United States have the right and privilege to life, liberty, property, and are allowed equal protection of the laws. This means that in our country, everyone human being has these rights equally, and are able to peruse what ever makes them happy as long it does not infringe upon another individuals rights. Other things that should be equal among people are equal pay, freedom to marry whom they please, and freedom of religion. It is very important that every person whom these rights effect has the ability to use them freely. It also states in the Bible that God made every person equally, all of them He made in his image and likeness. Therefor, making every person an equal and important part in his kingdom. It does not matter what the color of a persons skin is, where they are born, what their gender or sexual orientation is, or what religion they identify with, they are still all human beings and should be open to the same rights and opportunities as all other people in the United States. It is important that all human beings are treated as equals and are granted the same opportunities to pursue their own happiness in their own ways as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another. Although most people of different race, gender, and religion all have the same major rights as all other Unites States citizens, there are still small things that make it seem as though they are not fully equal. For example, in 2019, a woman earns only 79 cents for every dollar a man made. This pay gap shows that not all women are payed equally to men. Also in the Unites States, black women are typically paid about 61 cents to every dollar a white male makes. People of different race, gender orientation, or religions are also more subject to hate crimes in the Unites States, even though they have the same rights as every other US citizen. In fact, in 2017, Sexual Orientation made up 15.9% of hate crimes, religion 22%, and race 58.1%. It is important that all US citizens have equal opportunities of things such as pay and safety, and are protected by the rights to which they obtain as US citizens.
It is a shame that hate crimes and crimes against women still occur in the world today. However, it is important to remember the people that are actively working to change our judgmental world. Where there are spiteful people, there are also compassionate people. Overall, this was a splendid blog and I could tell you put a lot of consideration and research into your argument. I commend you for that!
The world is bestowed with a superfluity of gifts. One such gift is the ability to create art. However, this endowment is subjected to crimes conducted against it. A huge issue found in the pond of art is the big “fish” known as copyright infringement. This legal term is defined as the production or use of [art] works protected by [copyright] law lacking the go-ahead needed for usage where permission is required by the [copyright] holder. The holder’s rights are essentially being breached by a third party. It is an offense punishable by hefty fines that range from two hundred dollars to over a hundred fifty thousand dollars for each infringed piece of work and with the very real possibility of time in jail.
Art theft is relatively easy now with technology so readily available to make it happen. It didn’t use to be like that when hoards of bandits would break into an art museum or gallery and rob the place of all their valuable van Gogh or da Vinci paintings. Take the 1992 court case of Rodgers V.S. Koons for instance. Art Rodgers—a professional photographer— copyrighted his photo of an elderly couple holding the eight purebred German Shepard puppies whom were born to their dog. Jeff Koons—an amateur sculptor— depicted a nearly exact image of the couple and puppies in his sculpture presumable after he was “inspired” by Rodger’s photo. Koons defended himself by saying that his work was to mimic a paradox of Rodger’s photo. Now, the issue with this case is that if the defendant’s work of copying the photograph for a parador year fell under fair use. The ruling was in favor of Rodgers, and the significance of the case still stands today: using other individuals’ work to help make your own without providing credit to the original artist is unjust and unfair. In the modern world, it is not so much that people are selfish for money like those previously mentioned bandits, but it is more along the lines of creativity and originality is dying. Some would rather steal or “base” their work off of someone else’s canvas as than create their own concept or idea.
A huge motive for creating art is to express one’s emotions or point of view. A painter overlooking a mountain landscape will stroke a paintbrush across his blank canvas in order to capture his take on the crevices that make up the scene. A troubled girl working with graphite pencils will sketch the ugly monster that plagues her dreams, so she can cope with and then conquer her fear. Each of these people have their own unique perspectives and, thus, their own skills in art. Their talent cannot be duplicated by anyone. Artists should always be aware of what they are creating and make certain they portray their image with their own sense of creativity, style, and originality as to avoid being charged with copyright infringement.
As of January 2019 there were one hundred and thirteen thousand people waiting to receive an organ donation. There are many reasons that would cause someone to be placed on the waiting list. Most people on the list end up dying before ever coming close to getting their needed organ. Through the years the number of people in need remains larger than the amount of organs available. Only three in one thousand people die in a way that allows them to donate their organs. However only a small percentage of those able to donate go through with the process. There are several reasons why people choose not to donate their organs, such as, distrust for the medical field and helping undeserving people.
Sadly, the number of registered donors is far less than the number of people in need of a transplant. The ability to transplant a new organ into someone's body is one of the greatest medical advances in history. When one person decides to donate their organs he or she can save or help up to fifty people. However, many don’t seize the opportunity to use this advancement in saving lives. This decision results in a large waste of resources that could help others.
Everyone has the choice to give the gift of life after they have passed on. If donating viable organs was mandatory for everyone, it would greatly decrease the number of deaths of the people on waiting lists. By making that one decision, others can gain their life back. Rather than the current ‘opt-in’ program, maybe we should try an ‘opt-out’ program. Instead of signing up to be an organ donor, people should be required to sign up not to be a donor. Why not presume everyone is willing to donate unless proof is shown they are unwilling.
I agree with your essay, Sophie. Organ donors are so vital to the healthcare system and the people in need for the organs. I, myself, am an organ donor. Even while still living, it is possible to donate portions of organs. Bone marrow, kidneys, liver enzymes, blood, and plasma are all able to be donated by a live donor. Those who are unhealthy, due to medical issues, are understandably exempt from becoming donors. If you’re able to help someone when you’re not present in your own body, why not allow the usage of your organs to keep another person from meeting mortality?
Self expression is good for the American culture and allows diversity. Religious freedom is a form of self expression. Religious freedom is good for the American culture and allows diversity.
Self-expression is defined as the expression of your personality, feelings, or opinions. The First Amendment of The United States of America protects self expression, stating; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The protection of self expression allows individuals to worship, dress, speak, and publish in any way they desire, within reason of course. Conduction of oneself brings a confidence into the American people, it allows them to express themselves in a way of self. The American culture is very diverse in regards to demographics, cultures, and styles. Diversity allows creativity and innovation to flourish. Religions can influence people in many ways, and the way a person expresses themself is unique to them. The ability to choose your beliefs, worship how you desire, dress abidingly to your religion or not, and conduct your spiritual life, among other things, make religious freedom a form of self expression. Examples of dress include: a Muslim woman wear a hijab, a Christian man wearing a cross on a necklace, a Mormon girl dressing in a modest, plain fashion, a Native American chief wearing a headdress during a ritual, a Catholic Franciscan nun wearing her habit, or a Sikh man wearing a turban. Following the beliefs of a religion on the basis of dress and a choice. Choosing how to dress and conduct oneself is a form of self expression. Attending religious services or gatherings is, once again, preferred by most organizations of faith but not mandatory. The ability to choose the faith you follow and what you do within the constraints of the faith are freedoms. These freedoms are self expressing. Churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and all other places of worship are sacrosanct across the board. All of these holy places can be found in multiples in the United States of America. Why are these places so prominent? They are prominent to the millions of Americans practicing a variety of religions and spiritual ideology. A single religious community may have a very diverse group of individuals from different backgrounds, races, and cultures. Each person adds a little bit of individuality to their community through the ability to express themselves freely. In a single city, there could be thousands of religious people all practicing different ideologies. Though disagreements on some religious ideals may spark war internationally, the compliments and contrasts of theologies bring a country together to make a a beautiful, diverse culture.
Majority rules, right? Well, while this method would work for voting for what to name the class fish in 3rd grade, presidential elections are far more important than a goldfish named Bubblie. Imagine if we split the 3rd grade class into 2 groups, 10 girls and 15 boys. Now, if you wanted them to name their fish Chester, there would be an undeniable tendency to simply target the boys. They all think alike (they’re third grade boys, remember), and they have a majority. It doesn’t matter if all of the girls vote against the name Chester, if you win over the boys, you win. While a president is a little different than a class fish, the problem of candidates targeting the cities or states with the highest population, and forgetting the rest of us, is illuminated here.
ReplyDeleteThe Electoral College was instituted in the Constitution of the United States. It’s purpose is to level the playing field for our presidential election. Representative(Electors) from each State receive the votes from their appointed state, and they then choose the candidate with the highest vote for that state(Although they are not legally bound to do so, but cases of a representative choosing a candidate who hasn’t won the vote for that state is extremely rare). The chosen candidate then receives the electors’ votes for that state. This ensures that States like Wyoming are just as represented as California. There are more Red or Blue states than swing states. Why? Because similar ideas pool together. It is vital to our country that these pools of ideas are equally represented,.
The Electoral College has been around for 100s of years, and has maintained a balance between the states. We know that one group with similar mindsets should not control the rest of the country simply because they have more people, and more importantly, we must make sure that our presidential candidates don’t lose focus on those of us who don’t live in highly populated areas. The Electoral College solves this issue by giving every state a face value vote that determines the final vote. With urban areas growing and rural areas shrinking, the importance of this system is more important than ever.
John, first of all, I was definitely impressed with your understanding of our voting system, and I thought your conclusion flowed really well logically from your first two premises. I also really liked how you used the simple and easy to understand example of a third grade classroom voting on the name of a class fish to illustrate the importance of the Electoral College.
DeleteThis blog is very well written. For someone like me, who doesn't know very much about how the electoral college works, your explanations were very easy to understand. The example of the third grade class fish was very easy to understand, and in turn made the voting concepts much easier to understand. This blog does a great job of supporting the Electoral College's importance.
DeleteThis was very easy to understand even though I did not know much about the electoral college. You used a great example that made what you were trying to explain very clear.
DeleteE-cigarettes first came out in the mid 2000s, but became more mainstream in the last few years. For decades, the world was plagued with nearly everyone smoking cigarettes. It was such a casual thing that even celebrities endorsed, and appeared in cigarette commercials. Eventually, after far too many years, people realized the intense, damaging effect of smoking cigarettes. E-cigarettes were developed in China and eventually came to the US. Their purpose was for smokers to use them and work their way out of the habit of needing nicotine.
ReplyDeleteE-cigarettes, as of today, have become a widespread, scary epidemic. Teens are obviously much more impressionable and vaping looks like a very “cool” thing. That, factored with how e-cigarettes marketing is so encapsulating, makes using e-cigarettes a very popular trend. What a lot of teens have failed to realize is what the artificial fluid is doing to their bodies. The juice used in popular e-cigarettes, like Juul and Njoy, have toxins and even metal in the fluids. There have been over 800 confirmed cases of lung illness and 13 deaths associated with vaping. The CDC even labeled this trend as a widespread epidemic, rightfully so.
All of the frightening events related to vaping recently really shows the shocking severity of using them. Thought to be a safe alternative, e-cigarettes are terrible for your health. One case even showed that a normal teenager had the lungs of a 70 year old because of his vaping addiction. E-cigarettes were well-intentioned at first, but they have turned into a worldwide nightmare. These devices have produced a completely adverse affect. A lot of smokers today that have been smoking cigarettes are not switching to vaping, this leaves huge e-cigarette companies with teenager clientele. E-cigarettes are a product designed to help smokers, but ended up causing far more damage than any good.
Alex, I understood the logic that you presented in your blog very well. I think you did a good job getting your point across, and showed a good understanding on the topic. Well done.
DeleteI’m really glad you brought up this issue, Alex. Your comparisons and facts created a very clear and concise argument. This is an issue that cannot be avoided or ignored, and you brought attention to it effectively without condemning anyone. Good work, Alex!
DeleteThe Death Penalty
ReplyDeleteWe live in a society faced with a plethora of obstacles to overcome. One such is crime, criminals, and how they should be dealt with. A crime that results in capital punishment must involve the death of someone, and criminals are sentenced to death on various grounds at a horrifying rate. The people who carry out these acts are sick, and absolutely should be locked up - perhaps for the rest of their life. Everyone calls these people mosters, rightly so, but have they really been given a chance to be anything different? Think about a math class. It is common for teachers to assign work that they know students will struggle with, or even fail at. Why? Isn’t the point of school to get smart? To get the right answers? No. The goal is to succeed, yes, but to succeed via struggle, failure, and growth as a result. The truth is, our flaws and mistakes are the most efficient means of our progression. Programs within prisons, along with counseling and the power of time, absolutely have the power to help people convicted of crimes that court says they should die for. They could completely turn themselves around, perhaps even become a force for good, but they can’t do that if they don’t have the chance.
The court, however, has the power to decide if a certain person has the right to live or not, based on their actions. This idea is so flawed, and truly a tragedy. What certificate, class, or college degree gives someone the right to legally terminate the life of another? If murder is so incredibly offensive, which it is, why do we condone it so easily? Such destructive actions deserve harsh punishment, but nothing that anyone does gives anyone else the right to take away their chance to start again.
In conclusion, the death penalty hurts more than it helps. Some say we are creating a “safer world”, but are we? Perhaps ridding the world of a person who made a mistake could help a few people sleep a little better at night, or make the law enforcement feel like they’ve done something to make a difference. On the other hand, the world is being rid of a human mind, body, and soul who was never given that second chance. The ability to learn from mistakes, not without consequence, but move forward with a new mindset is completely stripped from these people. Life in prison is tough, as it should be, but it is life. It gives these people at least an opportunity to show the good that we all have inside. Taking away that hope via capital punishment, therefore, is absolutely diabolical.
Kara, this blog is very well written. You did a very good job demonstrating why capital punishment is wrong without tearing apart those involved in it. I found the way you brought up what qualifies someone to decide to end a life to be a very effective way to prove your point. You are very right in saying that the death penalty is a tragically flawed concept.
DeleteKara, this was a well written piece of work. However, this topic holds much uncertainty and struggle. As humans, we are guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But, when someone, say murders another human, are not they giving up their right to live? Although, I do have to say, you made very strong points, and I am just asking this question, in a sense, to help you think more in depth. Good job!
DeleteAnimal Testing
ReplyDeleteFrom the very earliest of human history, people have been purposefully harming other living things. This is primarily for their own good. As we transitioned from hunter gatherers to a more agriculture based society, the violence towards living things, such as animals, continued. Does this mean hunting for food purposes is wrong? No. Not necessarily, if it is done properly. But, can one truly say that torturing and abusing animals for purposes such as testing of products is just? Think about this. Murder, obviously, is frowned upon. So much so that it is illegal. Even the Bible states, “thou shall not kill.” So is there truly any way to justify killing, abusing, torturing or harming living things of any sort?
Animal testing specifically is a topic of controversy that, naturally, has many people disagreeing. Many would assume that since, said testing, is done by large corporations that they must be performing it in a gentle, humane way. This, however, is not the case. The Humane Society International has found that animal subjects are often force-fed, deprived of basic necessities, held in restraints for long periods of time, and forced to submit to countless other tactics that harm them. For example, rabbits are held in captivity with clamps holding their eyes open while researchers drop their product in their eyes in what is called The Draize Eye test. This, undoubtedly, is harming the rabbit in many, many ways. The numbers themselves are astounding, as it was found that 71,370 animals are subjected to harmful experimentation without any medication/anesthesia for pain relief —stated by the USDA.
As anyone can plainly see, animal testing is inhumane. New testing techniques involving grafts of human cells are shedding light on the situation, posing the question of whether or not animal testing is even necessary. Other cruelty-free companies test their products using in-vitro, or in glass, methods using human cells, so why should large corporations continuing to test on live animals be any exception? Inflicting pain upon animals in a merciless and selfish way is still a common practice among companies such as Maybelline, Victoria’s Secret, Benefit Cosmetics, Elizabeth Arden and thousands more. So when new sustainable, cruelty free methods of testing are developed and countless large companies continue to use harmful and frankly, out dated techniques to test their products, how can this be considered “okay?” If these multi-million dollar corporations have the means to convert to harmless methods of testing and still choose not to, that in and of itself is inhumane. Therefore, the continuation of harsh and agonizing animal testing by companies both large and small is and always will be inhumane.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteA lot of lives are lost to animal testing every year—over 100 million dogs, cats, rabbits, rats, mice, you name it. That number is out-of-the-ball park-ridiculous. You definitely made good use of logic in this argument, Liv. I appreciate how you brought up the Sixth Commandment and suggested that killing in general— without proper justification— is wrong. Why does that apply to only humans? The good news is that technology is changing, and some forms of animal testing, such as exploratory surgery, is being replaced with better alternatives. Using realistic and synthetic animal cadavers instead of live animals are already being put to us by prominent institutions like Cornell University. Anyways, this was a lovely read for me!
DeleteLiv, I was very impressed with how well you developed your argument and how you included lots of examples to back up your logic. Animal cruelty truly is a problem all over the world, and there are so many alternatives which are much more human. However, I’m not sure I would agree that growing humans cells in labs and tossing them out like it’s no big deal is entirely ethical either, and if it’s not directly unethical in itself, it definitely blurs the line that declares in-vitro fertilization of entirely new humans unethical.
DeleteThe pay received from labor that has been enacted upon a certain task should be based upon the accomplishment and thoroughness of a job, rather than than a wage set by a government. In basic terms, if one is willing to put the complete effort into a job to do it right, and with heart, then they should be payed more than their co worker who is “punching the clock.” This seems controversial and unfair to the American worker, but, when broken down, it presents the logic capable of being a strong point to help ensure productivity, help boost the economy, and in total, help every individual live to their potential.
ReplyDeletePay received from working should come because of hard work and be scaled to match the difficulty of a job. This fits as a major premise because it points out the obvious; why should someone, who is cleaning up the slack from someone who is not working hard, get payed the same amount of money when it’s pay day? Almost everyone knows that one person who goes to work, complains how much they hate their job, want to quit, and yet are still receiving money. Let’s take, for example, two waiters at the same restaurant. Waiter “X” loves his job, comes to work with a purpose, to serve those who have come to eat. He has a smile on his face when he asked for the customers order, and works as diligently as he possibly can to ensure their orders are in quickly, and works until his shift is over. Now, waiter “Y”, on another note, cannot bear walking into the same restaurant to work. He mopes around, has a negative attitude towards where he is, never smiles to the customers, and he constantly watches the clock go by, waiting for that final minute, so he can burst out the doors to go on with his life. On occasion, he also speaks poorly of the company, says how they do not know how to manage their business. Overall, the majority would say waiter “X” definitely meets the requirements to receive the money he worked hard for, than waiter “Y” who hardly cared about his job. This would just allow for the waiters to step up their work, ensuring productivity, in order to receive money suitable to their efforts. If waiter “Y” wanted to get more money for himself, then he simply could work for a different meaning, such as for service of other. Now, a classic argument against this could be, ‘What about if that is the waiters only source of income or money?’ In a 2010 analysis by Michael J. Hicks, who is a respected and distinguished professor of Economics at Ball State University, found the latest minimum wage increase accounted for 550,000 fewer part time jobs. So, if we decide to raise the minimum wage for effortless jobs, we, as a nation, would be taking more than half a million jobs from workers, some of which would actually be working hard for that money to survive off of. So that would be hurting the people it’s said to help Instead, those people who need this job, could ultimately gain more money if they persistently work for it.
(Continued) The minor premise involves that of which, you do or do not work hard for your paycheck. This was explained already in the previous paragraph, but how can this idea of “I work hard for my money, therefore I deserve more than someone unwilling to work hard for it” seriously help the economical world of the United States? Pieter Smith, who is a Senior Research Scientist publisher in 2018, stated in one of his publications that having no minimum wage would decrease unemployment greatly. On the other hand, increasing minimum wage actually takes the jobs out of the American people’s lives. The minimum wage increase idea that politicians strive for brings forth no logic of where the money would come from. What the American people sometimes forget is that the money coming in for people to make $15.00 an hour is not coming from the government’s pocket, but actually that of the American working class. One person cannot speak for the nation, but it seems clear that anyone with common sense would agree they do not want to be taxed more to pay people who really do not deserve the money they make. This also seems to be that if a socialistic economy, where for the United States, it does not run on those types of boundaries.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, “you receive more money, or you receive less money.” The idea seems rather bold to start with a zero dollar amount, however, we could institute maybe, $5.50 per hour. Then, businesses and companies work to decide on how much a worker can receive based on productivity, and, overall, maybe that worker ends up making $8.75 an hour for his dedication, and his care for his job in a couple months time. Obviously not all companies could be paying their employees a huge amount, but they certainly could be paying their top workers and those they believe deserve to earn cash from hard work. And in time, the minimum wage could completely drop off. This is not a new idea, too. A few nations,such as Iceland, Austria, and Denmark, all have no minimum wage, and in 2013, five of all nine of the zero minimum wage nations saw a unemployment rate of a median, 5.5%. It is simply impossible for a free market economy to run off of $15.00 an hour. This hurts the lower class and the upper class workers, thus giving government more power with higher taxes. If the cost of labor goes up, the cost of goods and services go up, and in total, the cost of living goes up. This is not the answer to help the lower class citizens, this is a way for government to take more control of the economy, and it hurts the nation as a whole.
Mark! This is a very well constructed blog. You had incredibly interesting point to strengthen your point. Your logic was very strong and very well developed. I had not really thought about your topic very much, as it never really crossed my mind. However, I enjoyed reading this. Even the points I did not so much agree with, I understood your side, as you presented your opinions and facts in a graceful manner. Way to go!
DeleteMinor: guns are a source of many school shooting around the United States
ReplyDeleteMajor: America has one of the least strict gun laws out of all the counties
Conclusion: America needs stricter gun laws to keep our schools and public spaces safe.
Recently, America’s record of public shooting has sky rocketed. For example, in 2017, America death rate by gun jumped to almost 40,000 deaths. In 2018, there was a massive 23 recorded incidents of school shootings where people got hurt. That doesn’t even include the incidents were there were no casualties. This level of gun related crime in America is not okay. How can we as a county turn a blind eye to this? Now as a catholic, I certainly encourage thoughts and prayers. However, this cannot be our only source of problem solving when issues become this severe.
The United States has guns as a fundamental fight, in fact it’s the second amendment. However, with the set right to have guns, one would think the amount would be limited. That is not the case. In America people can own guns that are basically meant for war without a strong and lengthy background check. No wonder we have so many shootings. Now, in places such as Canada, they require Authorization to transport permits, background checks, and prohibits open carry of weapons. In Canada, their 2018 statistic of gun deaths was 208. While that is still a big number, ranging from the 40,000 deaths in America, the gun laws in Canada are obviously making an impact.
In conclusion, America definitely has some changes that need to be implemented with our gun laws. Whether that’s following Canada’s exact laws, which have seemed to work, or making up our own, we must act quickly. It doesn’t have to be an extreme change, like the buy back law some 2020 presidential candidates are interested. However we must make some changes to limit the amount of shooting we have in America. Even a slightly smaller number would benefit the nation. Any laws, as small as a deeper background check, could effect the statistics. Therefore, if they work in Canada and other countries, they should work in America. The U.S must enact stricter gun laws to keep our schools and public spaces safe.
Megan I really really enjoyed your blog. One of the many reasons is because this is definitely one issue that is near and dear to my heart as well. I have continued to ponder on ways these issues could be helped or fixed. Your writing also displayed your syllogism very clearly. I also love how you hit both left sided and right sided arguments. It was a very unbiased way to discuss such a heavy and controversial topic. Very, very good writing. Very, very good logic.
DeleteMegan, I really liked this blog. I think you focus on this issue was very strong and I’m impressed at how well this is written. Your logic was easy to understand and you got your point across well. I also think you picked a very strong topic for this specific blog, and you did a fantastic job putting it into words.
DeleteI, myself, do enjoy going to a shooting range every once in a while, but I wholeheartedly agree that our gun laws need reformed. Semi-automatic artillery can be easily converted into full automatic, many cults in America that had to face SWAT teams have done this. I also believe that we must “blacklist” the shooters. Media coverage on the shooters may influence those who are a tad disturbed, and they may attempt to gain fame and glory and cause their own shooting. It’s an odd thing to think about, but blacklisting the shooters could be a good attempt to help prevent anymore shootings.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteConcealed Carry
ReplyDeleteChanging concealed carry laws would only affect the law-abiding citizens.
Criminals are not law-abiding citizens.
Criminals would not be affected.
The only thing worse than a country that has to defend itself from crime is one that can’t. That’s why all 50 states in the US allow CCW (concealed carry weapons); they know that the normal, everyday citizens following the rules, carefully applying for permits, and spending their hard-earned money on a handgun just to give themselves some peace of mind in this warped and crooked world are not going to throw on ski masks and gun down strangers for pocket change as soon as the sun sets. The purpose of concealed carry is to provide defense to the defenseless, and that’s exactly what it does. If these laws where changed, it would only affect the citizens who actually follow those laws, leaving them hung out to dry in our dangerous world.
Rather, the actual criminals using guns for muggings, armed robbery, murder, etc. are getting these guns from illegal suppliers and manufacturers. Legally buying a gun means that your gun will be listed under your name, and if that gun is found at a crime scene for example, it can sometimes be traced back to the owner. This, of course, is not something that anyone who is getting ready to gun down a convenient store is going to add to their checklist. Instead, they buy their guns from private, illegal manufacturers, or they acquire their guns from private transactions, which are actually legal assuming you have a concealed carry permit as well (they don’t).
What this means is that they can dodge the law and never even need to get a concealed carry permit in the first place, rendering the repeal of CCW pointless. In the end, the only ones losing their weapons would be the law-abiding citizens, which would increase crimes because criminals would not be worried that about their victims having weapons. All throughout human history, any time a set of rules are put in place, whether it be the prohibition of alcohol, taking away games on ECC iPads, or the possible removal of concealed carry laws, people have always, and will always find ways to get around these rules. Where there is a demand... someone is always supplying.
Joe, well written. I agree with your stance on CCW. If we make laws about having no guns, it's just going to increase the sale of illegal guns and weaponry. Anyone who wants to commit a shooting to harm others does not first look at the law to be sure if they can or can't do such an act. Good work.
DeleteBoth of our blogs considered similar topics, but we both took a different approach. While I don’t necessarily agree with your argument, your logic helped me see where you were coming from. You were able to make me see valid points on the other side of the argument. Great job!
DeleteThe First Amendment of our Constitution establishes many freedoms that we have as American citizens, including but not limited to freedom of speech, religion, and to gather. Another one of our rights protected by the First Amendment is freedom of the press. This includes the right to publish and receive information, allowing us to put forth our opinions and creative content as well as obtaining others’ materials. This prevents our government from controlling what we observe and therefore protects our ability to form our own opinions. The rights given to us by the First Amendment allow us to post these blogs each week without fear of consequences from the government.
ReplyDeleteOne very obvious form of the press is books. Thousands of books are published each year, each one containing intellectual content and hard work. People are constantly reading books for various reasons. Many books have impacts on the readers beyond what the author could imagine. Other books are written for the exact purpose of changing lives, like self-help books. Personally, I read a lot of books in my childhood, which helped to shape my interests and values. The influence of literature is an essential part of not only education but also the formation of opinions.
All over the country, certain books are disappearing from school libraries and curricula, as well as establishments such as public libraries. “To Kill A Mockingbird” by Harper Lee, “The Catcher in The Rye” by J.D. Salinger, “1984” by George Orwell, and “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn” by Mark Twain are just a few of the most commonly banned books. These books are removed from access for containing different forms of controversial material, therefore restricting their remaining influential contents. The reasoning behind the bannings is usually that the establishment does not agree with parts of the content, or that the establishment is trying to prevent its members from encountering parts of the content. But where do we draw the line? Should an atheist in charge of a school be able to remove all books with religious content from the school library or curriculum? Should a public library in a predominantly republican area be able to remove a book that strongly encourages the democratic party, or vice versa? Though the instances seen so far may not have been quite so extreme, they are still depriving people of educational content. This is clearly goes against our constitution as a violation of our First Amendment rights. Banning books at any level should not be allowed.
This is very well written, Viv! Your initial explanation was clear and easy to understand, which was helpful. That made the rest of the argument very clear. You have a lot of great points in here, and I loved how you brought it all back to the amendments. Well done!
DeleteThe structure of this is very well done. Its clear and very enjoyable to read. You stated all of your points then connected them nicely at the end.
DeleteI really enjoyed how you did this vlog, Viv! I thought the syllogism and logic you used was very clear. For example, I liked how you started off with a simple explanation of our rights and then in your major and conclusion went more into depth about the issues of book banning. You doing that made the logic used very clear!
ReplyDeleteMinor: All human beings are equal and should have rights that protect and improve their lives
ReplyDeleteMajor: People of different race, gender, and religions are human beings
Conclusion: People of different race, gender, and religions are all equals and should have rights that protect and improve their lives.
The Fourteenth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that all citizens of the United States have the right and privilege to life, liberty, property, and are allowed equal protection of the laws. This means that in our country, everyone human being has these rights equally, and are able to peruse what ever makes them happy as long it does not infringe upon another individuals rights. Other things that should be equal among people are equal pay, freedom to marry whom they please, and freedom of religion. It is very important that every person whom these rights effect has the ability to use them freely. It also states in the Bible that God made every person equally, all of them He made in his image and likeness. Therefor, making every person an equal and important part in his kingdom.
It does not matter what the color of a persons skin is, where they are born, what their gender or sexual orientation is, or what religion they identify with, they are still all human beings and should be open to the same rights and opportunities as all other people in the United States. It is important that all human beings are treated as equals and are granted the same opportunities to pursue their own happiness in their own ways as long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights of another.
Although most people of different race, gender, and religion all have the same major rights as all other Unites States citizens, there are still small things that make it seem as though they are not fully equal. For example, in 2019, a woman earns only 79 cents for every dollar a man made. This pay gap shows that not all women are payed equally to men. Also in the Unites States, black women are typically paid about 61 cents to every dollar a white male makes. People of different race, gender orientation, or religions are also more subject to hate crimes in the Unites States, even though they have the same rights as every other US citizen. In fact, in 2017, Sexual Orientation made up 15.9% of hate crimes, religion 22%, and race 58.1%. It is important that all US citizens have equal opportunities of things such as pay and safety, and are protected by the rights to which they obtain as US citizens.
It is a shame that hate crimes and crimes against women still occur in the world today. However, it is important to remember the people that are actively working to change our judgmental world. Where there are spiteful people, there are also compassionate people. Overall, this was a splendid blog and I could tell you put a lot of consideration and research into your argument. I commend you for that!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe world is bestowed with a superfluity of gifts. One such gift is the ability to create art. However, this endowment is subjected to crimes conducted against it. A huge issue found in the pond of art is the big “fish” known as copyright infringement. This legal term is defined as the production or use of [art] works protected by [copyright] law lacking the go-ahead needed for usage where permission is required by the [copyright] holder. The holder’s rights are essentially being breached by a third party. It is an offense punishable by hefty fines that range from two hundred dollars to over a hundred fifty thousand dollars for each infringed piece of work and with the very real possibility of time in jail.
ReplyDeleteArt theft is relatively easy now with technology so readily available to make it happen. It didn’t use to be like that when hoards of bandits would break into an art museum or gallery and rob the place of all their valuable van Gogh or da Vinci paintings. Take the 1992 court case of Rodgers V.S. Koons for instance. Art Rodgers—a professional photographer— copyrighted his photo of an elderly couple holding the eight purebred German Shepard puppies whom were born to their dog. Jeff Koons—an amateur sculptor— depicted a nearly exact image of the couple and puppies in his sculpture presumable after he was “inspired” by Rodger’s photo. Koons defended himself by saying that his work was to mimic a paradox of Rodger’s photo. Now, the issue with this case is that if the defendant’s work of copying the photograph for a parador year fell under fair use. The ruling was in favor of Rodgers, and the significance of the case still stands today: using other individuals’ work to help make your own without providing credit to the original artist is unjust and unfair. In the modern world, it is not so much that people are selfish for money like those previously mentioned bandits, but it is more along the lines of creativity and originality is dying. Some would rather steal or “base” their work off of someone else’s canvas as than create their own concept or idea.
A huge motive for creating art is to express one’s emotions or point of view. A painter overlooking a mountain landscape will stroke a paintbrush across his blank canvas in order to capture his take on the crevices that make up the scene. A troubled girl working with graphite pencils will sketch the ugly monster that plagues her dreams, so she can cope with and then conquer her fear. Each of these people have their own unique perspectives and, thus, their own skills in art. Their talent cannot be duplicated by anyone. Artists should always be aware of what they are creating and make certain they portray their image with their own sense of creativity, style, and originality as to avoid being charged with copyright infringement.
As of January 2019 there were one hundred and thirteen thousand people waiting to receive an organ donation. There are many reasons that would cause someone to be placed on the waiting list. Most people on the list end up dying before ever coming close to getting their needed organ. Through the years the number of people in need remains larger than the amount of organs available. Only three in one thousand people die in a way that allows them to donate their organs. However only a small percentage of those able to donate go through with the process. There are several reasons why people choose not to donate their organs, such as, distrust for the medical field and helping undeserving people.
ReplyDeleteSadly, the number of registered donors is far less than the number of people in need of a transplant. The ability to transplant a new organ into someone's body is one of the greatest medical advances in history. When one person decides to donate their organs he or she can save or help up to fifty people. However, many don’t seize the opportunity to use this advancement in saving lives. This decision results in a large waste of resources that could help others.
Everyone has the choice to give the gift of life after they have passed on. If donating viable organs was mandatory for everyone, it would greatly decrease the number of deaths of the people on waiting lists. By making that one decision, others can gain their life back. Rather than the current ‘opt-in’ program, maybe we should try an ‘opt-out’ program. Instead of signing up to be an organ donor, people should be required to sign up not to be a donor. Why not presume everyone is willing to donate unless proof is shown they are unwilling.
I agree with your essay, Sophie. Organ donors are so vital to the healthcare system and the people in need for the organs. I, myself, am an organ donor. Even while still living, it is possible to donate portions of organs. Bone marrow, kidneys, liver enzymes, blood, and plasma are all able to be donated by a live donor. Those who are unhealthy, due to medical issues, are understandably exempt from becoming donors. If you’re able to help someone when you’re not present in your own body, why not allow the usage of your organs to keep another person from meeting mortality?
DeleteSelf expression is good for the American culture and allows diversity.
ReplyDeleteReligious freedom is a form of self expression.
Religious freedom is good for the American culture and allows diversity.
Self-expression is defined as the expression of your personality, feelings, or opinions. The First Amendment of The United States of America protects self expression, stating; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The protection of self expression allows individuals to worship, dress, speak, and publish in any way they desire, within reason of course. Conduction of oneself brings a confidence into the American people, it allows them to express themselves in a way of self. The American culture is very diverse in regards to demographics, cultures, and styles. Diversity allows creativity and innovation to flourish.
Religions can influence people in many ways, and the way a person expresses themself is unique to them. The ability to choose your beliefs, worship how you desire, dress abidingly to your religion or not, and conduct your spiritual life, among other things, make religious freedom a form of self expression. Examples of dress include: a Muslim woman wear a hijab, a Christian man wearing a cross on a necklace, a Mormon girl dressing in a modest, plain fashion, a Native American chief wearing a headdress during a ritual, a Catholic Franciscan nun wearing her habit, or a Sikh man wearing a turban. Following the beliefs of a religion on the basis of dress and a choice. Choosing how to dress and conduct oneself is a form of self expression. Attending religious services or gatherings is, once again, preferred by most organizations of faith but not mandatory. The ability to choose the faith you follow and what you do within the constraints of the faith are freedoms. These freedoms are self expressing.
Churches, temples, synagogues, mosques, and all other places of worship are sacrosanct across the board. All of these holy places can be found in multiples in the United States of America. Why are these places so prominent? They are prominent to the millions of Americans practicing a variety of religions and spiritual ideology. A single religious community may have a very diverse group of individuals from different backgrounds, races, and cultures. Each person adds a little bit of individuality to their community through the ability to express themselves freely. In a single city, there could be thousands of religious people all practicing different ideologies. Though disagreements on some religious ideals may spark war internationally, the compliments and contrasts of theologies bring a country together to make a a beautiful, diverse culture.