By legalizing same-sex marriages would undeniably increase the number of people being infected with HIV positive. This leads to a large society problem which is extremely difficult to salvage since there is no cure for HIV positive.
In conclusion, undoubtedly the need for freedom of choice is highly important, however, the extent of freedom being given to the public should be considered carefully, and before legalizing a certain issue one should always first take into consideration what unthinkable consequences it might bring about and think through whether it is really a practical solution, before making a decision. In the case of same-sex marriage, one should consider weighing the advantages and disadvantages that same-sex marriage brings about before having a conclusion whether it is a practical consideration. According to the various points I have stated, by considering the fact that there are several significant negative impacts same-sex marriage may bring about to the society, I feel that same-sex marriage is not a practical consideration in this age of globalisation.
There is no doubt that poverty which is defined as the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support, stimulates certain crimes such as robbing, stealing etc. This happens when the people living in poverty have no other way out hence, they have no choice but to turn to extreme measures in order to survive and to support their family as well. However, I agree to this statement to a smaller extent as I feel that these people having to resort to crimes in order to fill their stomachs is something that they are “forced” to do due to the environment they are in and the lifestyle they are living that leads then with no choice. It may also be due to the fact that those living in poverty are unable to afford education, hence resulting in not knowing the importance of morality.
On the other hand, I disagree with the statement to a larger extent. Crime is defined as an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. Hence it can be of any offense or serious wrongdoing that not necessarily mean just robbing or stealing. And in many other cases, the crimes committed by the rich are much more serious than just merely robbing or stealing. This would include corruption, drug trafficking, rape, murder etc. that are not aroused due to poverty. The website http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri-crime-total-crimes has clearly shown us that the top few countries with the highest crime rates are actually the economically more developed countries. This is obvious that the rich are even more prone to committing crimes in order to satisfy a higher level of their “complicated” needs than just merely the innocent thought of wanting to survive. If that’s the case, how can poverty be the mother of crime?
The reason why the people living in poverty may want to resort to crimes may also be due to the corruption of the government that results in the situation. This would mean that the poverty-stricken situation the people are experiencing is caused by corruption, a crime in which its root is that of wanting personal satisfaction which is not resulted based on poverty.
Hence it is very clear that it is inaccurate to say that poverty is the mother of crime.
However, I agree to a larger extent that the mother of revolution defined as an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established or political system by the people governed, is poverty. I believe that it is because the people are unsatisfied by their current way of life in a way or other, that leads to discontent against their ruler and a demand for a much better leadership.
I disagree to it to a smaller extent as people may be unsatisfied with the government based on other rights and policies that has got nothing to do with poverty. But I feel that poverty is one the most important aspects that affects the population as they have to settle the problem of survival before being able to talk about rights and privileges.
I disagree with death penalty to a certain extent as the criminal is being killed for committing a capital crime without given a chance to repent and turn over a new leaf. This is inhumane and humans do not have the right to take the lives of others hence they shouldn't play God by determining when the life of the criminal should end. Furthermore, two wrongs do not make a right and especially if the forms of execution are cruel and brutal, it is definitely an extremely terrible way of punishing a criminal. Not only is it merciless to conduct death penalty, it does not act as a deterrent as death penalty may encourage copycat crimes if the convict is seen as a martyr.
On the other hand, I disagree that death penalty is not a deterrent as the criminal acts as a precedent and his/her death serves as a warning to others who intend to commit a similar crime and shows clearly the consequence which can prevent repeated offences. Death penalty is necessary as it assures the public that the felon no longer poses a threat to the society which ensures a safer environment to stay in and also gives the public a peace of mind. It is also justice done for the victim and his/her family members and can be considered a form of mental reimbursement to them. Moreover, it is more economically sound to execute a prisoner rather than to keep him in life incarceration and living off taxpayer’s dollars which doesn’t sound right at all particularly since the victim and family are also paying the tax. This in turn means that they are paying for the living expenses of the criminal which is an absurd irony.
In conclusion, I feel that death penalty should definitely be conducted for certain serious offences such as terrorism, murder, rape etc. as the offender should be punished for the extremely serious offence he/she has conducted and execution also reinforces the seriousness of the crime as well as to advise others to think twice before committing similar crimes.
Censorship is important and necessary such that it is protects the general audience by not allowing them to be exposed to negative influences such as violence, sex, racial/religious discrimination etc. This enables the public to be exposed only to healthy content and would hence be more innocent and less corrupted by negative thoughts. Censorship is also important as it prevents children/teenagers to be exposed to negative images/content as young children tend to imitate what they see and they would also be immune to violence/sex scenes if they get exposed to too much of all these. These may instill negative values in children since young and pollute their innocent minds as they are not of the right age to be exposed to such things yet. Censorship on sensitive issues such as political, racial and religious issues etc is significant as it prevents the comments on such issues to stir-up the feelings of the people and to prevent conflicts, chaos and protect national security.
However, censorship can have its demerits as well. Without censorship, we would then be exposed to more things that improve learning and broaden horizons. Censorship also disallows transparency, openness and restricts what one is exposed to. This would also mean that censorship sort of control the freedom of the people and their rights to know the truth. With censorship, many people would be even more curious to find out what are the things that are actually censored and this would lead to the censored content attracting interest of more people instead of people just ignoring it if it wasn’t even censored in the first place. This means that censorship ends up catching the attention of more people to watch what they shouldn’t be watching instead of limiting the number of people exposed to the censored content. Censorship also leads to ignorance which creates negative effects as people would tend to be more sheltered and protected from unhealthy content which means that they would be very easily affected by such issues when they grow up and may not be able to accept the openness of the society. Hence, it is crucial not to protect the public to such an extent that they may have lack of early exposure to media and lack of education in such areas.
Censorship has its own pros and cons as we can see from above. I feel that whether there is a need for censorship will still have to depend on the content itself whether it will cause harm to the society by instilling the wrong moral values and harmful purpose or if it is just harmless.
This article shows how unreliable the media can be. The fact that even Taiwan’s leading TV news channel TVBS reported news that are untrue reminded viewers that even news programme which are assumed to be reliable by most people, can actually be inaccurate as well. The lack of professionalism by news journalists due to the aggressive competition between news channels is getting more common and the reporting standards are decreasing greatly as the news station cares more about hitting sky-high ratings rather than having quality news which defeats the real purpose of broadcasting news. I feel that this incident has portrayed not only the lack of professionalism but also the lack of social responsibility by betraying the trust of the viewers and making them believe in something that is made up which could have affected some of the locals. Even the police force has wasted time, effort and resources in investigating the video. This shows that it is extremely irresponsible of the journalist to ignore these consequences and still go on with the filming of the video.
It is really sad to know that news reports which are supposedly known to be reliable are becoming more and more doubtful. It becomes difficult to decide whether to believe what is reported on the news.
Stricter laws and legislations should be made to prevent news stations from reporting fake “stories” and to start regaining the trust of viewers. However, I feel that even if it is so, it is never impossible to ensure that ALL the news stations broadcasts the most accurate news, hence the doubt on the accuracy on news reports will stay for long.
