charty Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked- Education makes everyone equal. To be educated is to be knowledgeable. This statement is often what people equate education to mean. Currently, most education formally occurs in classrooms with all members of the class learning the same material. In such an environment, all members of the learning group will theoretically have the same knowledge once they have completed their period of learning. If this year’s class at McMaster University’s nursing school entered at the same period of time, provided they all passed their required courses, they would all obtain the same designation and degree upon graduation and as such would all be made equals. In this sense, education can often make a group of people equal. However, education may sometimes introduce an inequality between a group of people. If a group of people enters a certificate program for fish harvesting in British Columbia, and another group of people enter Harvard Medical School, these groups would both become increasingly educated over the course of their programs. The difference is that the qualifications they receive would be astonishingly different. The differences go on to include salary and lifestyle differences. Therefore, from all the observed differences between these two groups of people who each received education, education does not make everyone equal. To elaborate, there are some circumstances where education may lead to an increased equality among a group of people and others times where they lead to diversity and inequality. Education leads to equality when learners are in the same learning group, are likeminded and are learning the same things and education will lead to inequality when a group of learners differs by either learning group, or learning topics. Thanks Pasta! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zchadha Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked- The best politician is the one most removed from politics. The term 'politics' has many connotations associated with it. Some are good, but most conjure images of scheming and plotting behind closed doors, much to the chagrin of the the general public. This negative association brings about the idea that good politicians ought to be the most removed from politics. But what really defines a good politician? Some might argue that a good politician resembles that of King Leonidas of Sparta. Defying the squabbling of councilmen in the Spartan legislature, he took a small force of 300 men to defend his people against the invading Persian armies. He must have known that the mission was suicidal, yet he believed that the sacrifice was worth it and he gave the politicians time to get their act together and send the whole army. His actions arguably changed the history of the world and definitely changed the fate of his people. Despite the heroics of Leonidas, there are also instances in which politicians must be engaged in politics to derive results for their people. One group of politicians that demonstrates this is the Tea Party of America. While the majority of people may not agree with the Tea Party's values - and many people still can not figure out what those are - their political resilience is to be admired. In spite of the relatively small proportion of the American public that they represent, the Tea Party has managed to block or hinder almost every social reform on the Democrats agenda. The Tea Party manages to garner immense public support despite a relatively undefined platform, and their political clout has become a huge force in American politics. Even the less-ultra-conservative members of the Republican Party have had to give way to some very inspired Tea Party enthusiasts during the current debt-crisis. Tea Party maneuvering has effectively blocked all "revenue increases" - tax hikes - to alleviate debt, despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party and even some Republicans who conceded that taxes may need to be increased to deal with the worst deficit in world history. Whether on the battlefield or in Congress, politicians can be an unstoppable force. The separation between when political involvement or lack thereof makes a good politician can be reduced to a matter of survival. When the safety of his people was endangered, Leonidas was the best politician he could be by avoiding politics. He acted as a strong commander-in-chief should, and saved his homelands from destruction. However, when survival is not an imminent concern, and politicians must advance the views of their minority followers, than the most effective ones are those who can politically out-maneuver their competition, like the Tea Party recently did during the debt-crisis. Thanks Pasta! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pacemaker Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 Deleted. Sorry, posted in the wrong thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey's Anatomy Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked- In politics, the correct course of action is the one that will win the most votes. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which the political course of action that will win the most votes might not be the correct course of action. Discuss what you think determines when the course of action that will win the most votes will be correct. In a democratic society, the citizens are granted the right to vote and voice their opinions in order to implement change and support their ideologies. For an idea or course of action to win the most votes, it must receive a favorable response and support from the citizens. Politicians often posit certain proposals, and the one that receives the most support is generally deemed the "correct" course of action. The word "correct" in this context means that the idea or action on the government's part will serve in the best interests of society as well as protect the welfare of the populace. Often, the idea that receives the most support and votes will be considered the correct course of action. For example, During the October Crisis of 1970, members of the Front de Liberation du Quebec (FLQ) party took extreme measures in order to separate Quebec from Canada, including abduction and murder of several authority figures. Pierre Trudeau, who was the Prime Minister at the time, took drastic measures to suppress the violent revolt, such as granting police extended powers to detain individuals without trial. This course of action, although extreme, was favored by the majority of citizens as it sought to protect the security and unity of the nation as a whole. As a result, Prime Minister Trudeau's course of action was deemed correct as it won the most support as well as served in the best interests of society. Conversely, there are circumstances in which the political course of action that gains the most votes and support might not in fact be the correct policy or strategy. For instance, in 2010, many individuals, including Zach Wahls, an engineering student at the University of Iowa, stood in front of the State of Iowa House of Representatives to oppose a resolution, which, if passed, would end civil unions in the state. Despite some opposition from the citizens, the majority of individuals on the House of Representatives voted in favor of the resolution, thereby revoking the rights of same-sex marriage from individuals of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. This resolution, although received the most votes, may arguably not be the correct course of action, as it violates the fundamental rights of individuals by revoking rights and freedoms that had been granted in the past. As a result, this may not be the correct course of action as it discriminates against a minority group of individuals and does not serve the best interests of society. Consequently, what determines whether a course of action that receives the most votes is correct or incorrect? A political action that receives the support of the general population will generally be correct as it would serve in the best interests of society in terms of security and welfare, while a course of action that receives the most votes only from a small number of individuals who may represent the society may not in fact be the correct course of action. In the case of Pierre Trudeau's drastic measures against the FLQ separatists, the support of the general population suggests that the course of action was correct, as it favored the interests and well-being of members of society. Conversely, the resolution to end civil unions in the State of Iowa, as voted favorably by the House of Representatives, may not be the correct course of action, as it discriminates against a minority group, and is only supported by a small number of representatives, as opposed to the general population. Hence, a political action that is supported by the populace will generally be correct, while an action that is supported only by a small number of representatives may not be the correct course of action. Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tangy Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -Clicked!- The primary goal of every business should be to maximize profits. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which maximizing profits might not be the primary goal of a business. Discuss what you think determines whether or not the primary goal of a business should be to maximize profits. A business is any company that produces and sells goods for public use at a price set by the executives of the company. An example would be Ford automobile company. Ford manufactures automobiles, which the public use for transportation, and sells them at a price set by headquarters. At the end of the day, a business will have made revenue, from which it will subtract the amount of money used to manufacture or produce the goods. The resultant is called profit. It is often the case that a business would maximize its profits. This follows particularly in privately owned business. For example, Kraft is a business company that sells a wide variety of goods to the public, including Krafts cheese. During economic stability, the primary goal of Kraft would be to maximize profits. The reason behind this is that consumer spending is high during this time. The company will take into consideration the needs of the public and how much they are willing to offer for their goods. This will allow the company to come up with a reasonable price that will result in maximum profits. Since there are few limiting factors due to the economic stability of the nation, the primary goal of a company would be to maximize its profits. Accordingly, when the economy of the nation is not stable - there is inflation, some companies are already going bankrupt, and consumer spending is much less than what it normally would be - the primary goal of a company is to ensure that they do not go bankrupt, rather than maximizing profits. To illustrate, during the debt crisis in the US and Europe in 2011, many people began to purchase gold and Swiss franc. These are considered a safe haven for consumers to save their money without having to worry about the economic instability of the nation. Along with inflation, this results in lower consumer spending. This is particularly the case in the gas industry for automobiles. Now the amount of money per barrel of gas has decreased. This tactic is to ensure that consumers are still willing to pay for gas instead of using government transport or the conventional bicycle. In this case, the goal of the gas company, such as Exxon mobile, is to ensure that consumers are still buying gas, regardless of maximizing profits or not. In turn, this will allow them to stay in market, rather than slowly and eventually going bankrupt like other businesses during economic instability. As a result, depending on the economic stability of the nation, the primary goal of every business would fluctuate between maximizing profits and simply staying in the market without going bankrupt. During economic stability, there are few limiting factors in play, and consumer spending is quite high. Accordingly, the primary goal of the business would be to maximize its profits, as was exemplified by Krafts Company. However, during economic instability, there are more limiting factors, such as lower consumer spending, inflation, and possibly higher taxes on the business. As a result, the business' primary goal would shift from maximizing profits, to ensuring their survival. Thank you so much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked- Art should not challenge our perception of the world Artistic forms of expression such as music, paintings, and theatre can be used to depict an aspect of life. Often these depictions are shallow and do not offer a broad picture of the world we live in. Of course art works can only express a limited number of ideas, but a great piece of art should seek to demonstrate broad ideas about life. Art can also affect the way it’s viewers percieve the world by helping them to realize how the complexity and variety of emotions and problems that exist. Yet too often the art forms we are commonly exposed to do not provoke deep thought about the world we live in, nor do they challenge our ideas about the way the world is. We should not look to these artists in hopes of having our worldview challenged and refined. For example, popular music by artists such as Rihanna is mostly focused on themes of love, dance, and sex. In her song “Please Don’t Stop the Music”, the thrill of dancing in a club is represented as the only things that matters for the time being. Although dancing can be a important part of many cultures and is an enjoyable part of reality, consumers should seek deeper art forms if they want to have their perception of the world be challeneged. In fact, art which focuses on only the ideas of love and fun compltelely neglects the hard realitys that are faced by those in poverty. However, some artisits do create works which have cause shifts in the worldviews of nations. Frida Kahlo was a Latin American painter in the nineteenth century who depicted the political struggles of Nicaragua. Many of her fellow citizens identified with her paintings which stand as a symbol and reminder of the struggles faced by citizens who have lived through a political revolution. Her paintings helped to challenge Nicaraguan ideas about Communism and poverty, as well as victory and defeat. Painting by artists such as Frida Kahlo should challenge our perception of the world because they depict a broader perspective of the world as well as the hard and the beautiful issues that are faced. What determines whether or not a peice of art should challenged our perception of the world depends on how close that artwork is to depicting a broad veiw of the positive and negative aspects of reality. Often art which is created for commercial profits such as popular music, does not offer a broad depiction of reality which could serve to widen our understanding of the world. Art made by those who are involved in difficult realities such as the political strife faced by the Nicaraguans, will often offer a wider view of the world and provide insightful ideas about reality which should challenge our perception of the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robio Posted August 9, 2011 Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked- Thank you so much ! The historical significance of an event cannot be detrained without the perspective afforded by the passage of time Often when a historical event occurs, no one can be sure of its true significance on the world until time passes and we are able to analyze it. In this case, significance must be understood to mean the actual consequences the event has on the world. Even an artificially triggered event rather than a spontaneous event, can go as far as having an opposite effect to that predicted. This is conclusively demonstrated by the establishment of the Treaty of Versailles after the First World War in 1919. At the time of signing, it was created ultimately to impose restrictions on the defeated Germany to weaken its economic and military power sufficiently enough, so that it could not start another war. Moreover, the League of Nations was created concomitantly in part to enforce the restrictions. While the Treaty seemed to be functioning as planned, it eventually fostered animosity within the Germans towards the rest of Europe and predicated the rise of Hitler’s nationalistic Nazi regime. Only following the end of the Second World War, triggered in part by Hitler’s Nazi Germany, did we realize that the Treaty had actually aggravated, not suppressed, Germany into war. However, the true significance of a historical event are at times predictable right away. For instance, the fatal bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 to end the Second World War had killed more than 200,000 civilians and had immediately announced the grim further repercussions of nuclear bombs to the world. Accordingly, the bombing generated the Three Non-Nuclear Principles in Japan in the 1960s, which forswore Japan from ever manufacturing or possessing nuclear weapons, and sparked a heated debate on the ethical justifications for the use of the bomb to end the war in the United States. Here, we see that the event immediately signified the magnitude of danger associated with nuclear bombs and promptly lead to predictable courses of action by the United States and Japan in opposing them. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing hence conclusively demonstrates that the implications of a historical event can be immediately realized. Interestingly, the Treaty of Versailles’ had unpredictable implications which were realized only after passage of time and analysis, whereas the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing had implications which were realized immediately following the event. This seeming inconsistency is resolved by the universal understanding of the event at the time by the different nations involved. When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, the rest of Europe less Germany saw it as a justified and necessary restriction in preventing another war while the Germans themselves saw it as an unfair and unjust treatment; hence, tension was created, which was resolved only after an unpredictable outcome, another world war, had occurred. On the other hand, the nuclear bombing, after it had occurred, was perceived as a horrific and unnecessary event by both the United States and Japan, which lead to both sides condemning nuclear bombs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked-Thank you! In a free society, laws must be subject to change. We live in an ever changing society, where new realizations and discoveries occur constantly. Human beings have evolved as a people over thousands of years, and with that evolution there must sometimes come change in the laws that govern us as a people. An example of this is with regards to laws controlling gay marriage. We live in a time where we can look back in history and see how intolerance of others wreaks havoc and promotes violence within society. Therefore, there is no reason to be intolerant of gay marriage and it is a law that must evolve with the times. People cannot be denied fundamental rights just because they are a little bit different than the majority of the population, which is why in many places such as Canada, laws regarding gay marriage are evolving. However, there are times when laws should not be changed. Laws are made in order to protect people within society and some laws, such as those regarding safety should not be altered. For example, traffic laws, such as stopping at a red light, serve a fundamental purpose, to protect people on the road. These laws must stay in place so that chaos is not created on the streets. As well, laws protecting fundamental human rights must be upheld. For example, laws governing abortion should not be changed. Having an abortion is a woman's fundamental right of freedom to choose what happens to her body. Denying a woman this right, would be denying her her personal freedom. Therefore the question is, what determines if a law in a free society should be subject to change. Some laws are put in place to protect the people, in terms of safety as well as fundamental human rights, such as the examples above regarding traffic safety and abortion. In this sense laws should not be changed. However, we must recognize that we live in an evolving society and there are outdated laws that do deny groups of people fundamental rights. These laws, such as those controlling gay marriage, must change. You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Demonstrates proficiency in responding to the tasks. Ideas are somewhat developed. You could explain in more detail the full issue regarding gay marriages, and the state of the law in Canada, particularly that gay marriages are presently legalized, but were once outlawed. There were two examples for task#2. I would advise against too many examples unless you are able to explore them in sufficient depth. Still, it was well done. I would also advise against using abortion laws as an example as well since that is often a topic for debate. You want your arguments to come off as strong and self-evident. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 - clicked -Thanks again PastaInhaler. Most advertising encourages conformity to social norms. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which advertising might not encourage conformity to social norms. Discuss what you think determines whether or not advertising encourages conformity to social norms. Advertising has always played a large and important part in forming the beliefs of society. The actions that result because of these beliefs determine whether or not an advertising party was successful in its endeavours. Most advertising, that is a message that a party is trying to convince its listeners of or a product that it is trying to sell, encourages conformity to what is commonly believed as acceptable and popular in society. These social norms can be beliefs that the party is trying to alter, or contrastingly, trying to promote into action. Since the technological advancements of television and the Internet, advertising has been used greatly by industries that use celebrity icons to promote their products. For example, Nike Sports, prior to 2010, endorsed Tiger Woods, arguably the greatest golfer in professional history, to promote their apparel. Under his multimillion-dollar contract with Nike, Woods was the face of Nike advertisements ranging from hats to golf gear. He also promoted products by wearing the apparel during play. ESPN even tagged him as “Best Male Athlete” recently. Such recognition is sufficient for individuals who aspire to be like Tiger Woods to believe that his endorsements have a part in his success. Nike feeds on this belief and encourages consumers in their advertisements to buy Nike apparel so that they can taste similar success. The company enhances a social belief and encourages individuals to put into action. On the contrary, some advertising does not encourage individuals to conform to social norms. In other words, this form of advertising tries to alter a belief among individuals and/or discourage common practices. Such is the case in many public service announcements. For example, in the middle of the twentieth century, the Laskerites—a self-proclaimed group of high class influential lobbyists for medical research—turned their efforts towards a cure for cancer through research and political funding. They published advertisements in newspapers and magazines, and eventually created the Jimmy Fund, a charity organization that was funded by influential associations such as The Boston Red Sox. However, despite a large fund, the Laskerites believed that to really ignite the war on cancer they would need the backing of the United States congress. They appealed to President Nixon in December, 1969, in such a horrific yet powerful manner that made it sound as if Congress was not providing the support it needed to find an oh-so-close cure for cancer. This newspaper advertisement also resulted in the attention of the general public, and Congress eventually passed the Cancer Act allocating a large portion to cancer research. Endorsements to celebrities like Tiger Woods illustrate that when advertising is to enhance and promote action as a result of beliefs that are already present and common in the public, then companies such as Nike use advertisements to encourage these social norms. Individuals with an aspiration to become great golfers or athletes like Tiger Woods for example, have an incentive to buy Nike apparel under the valid impression that the products play a part in the athlete’s success. However, when advertising is in the form of public service announcements that are trying to persuade and convince the target audience of a belief not completely of their own, then parties such as the Laskerites use advertisements for this purpose rather than to encourage conformity to social norms. The swaying of public belief in favour of the Laskerites was done to lobby support to bring to Congress in order to increase funding for cancer research. You're welcome, Chickentalk. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. The first task was sufficiently completed. There were some issues with coherence and integration regarding the second task. It is unclear how the actions of the Laskerites promoted non-comformity to social norms. You will have to elaborate more on what the social norm was and how advertising was telling people to rebel against it in some way. It seems that supporting cancer research was a social norm and the Laskerites were trying to get Congress to conform, which they succeeded in. This would be in support of task#1. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked- In a free society' date=' laws must be subject to change. [/b'] Describe a specific situation in which a law should not be subject to change in a free society. Discuss what you think determines whether or not a law in a free society should be subject to change. In a free and democratic society, laws are established in order to ensure the well-being and security of the citizenry. Laws entail edicts that regulate the way in which society functions as well as rules and regulations which citizens must obey. However, as society progresses, certain laws that dictate the rights and freedoms of individuals are often challenged in hopes of bringing equality and ending violation of human rights. For example, in the United States of America, the 1960s was a period of Civil Rights Movement, during which diverse individuals - black, white, young, old, men and women - united as the Freedom Riders in order to challenge status quo and end segregation of Black Americans from society. These Freedom Riders practiced non-violent resistance in order to change de jure segregation of and discrimination of Black Americans. The Supreme Court ultimately declared the existing laws unconstitutional and in violation of human rights. As a result, these laws were amended in order to ensure equality among all citizens, regardless of race. This suggests the importance of changing laws in order to protect human rights and create a safer and equal society. Conversely, there are instances in which laws should not be subject to change in a free society. For example, the topic of gay marriage and civil unions has been debated for many years. Advocates hope to bring greater equality to the minority groups of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT). Although the USA is still far from ensuring equal rights and privileges and ending discrimination against LGBT people, some States have granted the right to civil unions. In 2010, Zach Wahls, an engineering student from the University of Iowa, spoke at the Iowa House of Representatives to oppose a resolution, if passed, would end civil unions in the State of Iowa. In this context, a change of State law would affect how government treats the LGBT people as well as withdraw certain rights and freedoms granted to the heterosexual individuals in society. This change of law propagates further discrimination against the LGBT people. Consequently, laws that revoke certain rights and freedoms of a particular group of individuals, and thus, discriminates against them, should not be subjet to change. It is important to consider in which situations laws should be subject to change or permanent in a free society. Laws that are intended to ensure equality and protect the rights and freedoms of individuals indiscriminately should be strived for and established. This is exemplified by the Civil Rights Movement that occurred during the 1960s in order to end racial discrimination against Black Americans and bring equality to all citizens of the nation. This scenario suggests the importance of amending laws to ensure equality and to protect human rights. Conversely, laws that have already been established to protect members of all groups should be permanent in order to prevent repealing certain rights and freedoms that were once present. The change of law that would end civil unions in the State of Iowa would promulgate discrimination against the LGBT people and treat them differently from individuals of heterosexual orientation. As a result, laws must be subject to change in order to amend for greater equality and protection of rights and freedoms for all individuals, while they should be permanent once certain rights and freedoms are granted to individuals of all groups indiscriminately. Thank you! You're welcome. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of clarity and depth of thought. Responds to the tasks in a superior manner. Ideas are well developed. Good use of examples. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNOPQR/ST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked--clicked- -clicked- Thanks again Pasta! An understanding of the past is necessary to solve the problems of the present It is often said that history has a way of repeating itself. Many current world events are quite similar to historical examples. A comparison can be drawn between the current economic crisis and the Depression in the 1930's following the stock market crash. Both of these problems can be solved in a very similar manner by the government. As well, many revolutions and wars are caused by similar events. Often, the ruling class will oppress the working class, creating problems and frustrations. The working class will then rise up and overthrow the rulers to make their own lives better. The Communist revolutions in Russia and Cuba , the French Revolution, and the American Revolution are all examples of rulers oppressing the people, and the people taking the same action. Many can also argue a different opinion. The world today is changing rapidly and new technology and ways of thinking are coming about. Human nature is unpredictable and new situations will result from a person's reaction to an event. Consider the Industrial Revolution. With large industry becoming more prevalent, new problems were arising that had never been seen before. Pollution, and competition for jobs are two novel situations that resulted during this time. New ideas had to be thought of to solve these problems. Today we are still dealing with the pollution created by the Industrial Revolution. We are coming up with new approaches to clean up the environment and lessening the amount of waste from production. Thousands of people came from the farms to work in the city and flooded the job market. Since the demand for work was so high employers could treat employees however they felt because people were so desperate for work they would put up with inhumane conditions. Labor unions arose as a novel approach to deal with the horrible working conditions created by the competition for jobs in the city. Thus, an understanding of the past is beneficial to solving current problems, however innovation is often necessary. The situations that create the problem may imitate the past and can be fixed in a way that worked before. However many new problems occur today with all the advances in technology and thinking that require new solutions. We cannot respond to every problem the same way, and so must tailor the solution to fit. . You're welcome, Stainless0. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Only one essay per post please. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Adequate control of language. The first task was sufficient, but it would probably be best to leave out the example regarding the Great Depression since it doesn't fit well with the ideas presented in the paragraph. Tasks#2 and #3 were good. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOP/QRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2011 -clicked- Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated. Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life. Scientific inquiry is the pursuit of knowledge through controlled experiments and physical measruments. The basis of such a search for knowledge is the desire to discover new useful information which can often be used for the benefit of a great many people. The means to such knowledge, must however, be balanced with a regard for the safety of other human beings. Scientific studies are a result of a desire to discover, but no matter how useful that discovery might be, the safety of one human being should be valued more highly. For example, during World War 2 Nazi doctors performed many experiments on the prisoners who had been sent to concentration camps. One of the results of these experiments was the anti-inflammatory drug, Bayer. Although Bayer has relieved many headaches over the years it is not a life saving drug. The number of lives lost in the development of this drug and the search for this discovery cannot be justified because few, if any lives have been saved as a result of the drug. However, there have been scientific advances which were so valuable that it was justifiable to tolerate a threat to human life. The discovery of the polio vaccine was not found without threat to human safety. A young boy who was ill came to a doctor who was currently working on a vaccine for polio. It was not known whether the vaccine was safe for humans to use, but upon agreement between the boy, his family, and the doctor, it was decided that the vaccine would be used. It was a success and as a result polio has been almost completely exterminated. These results perserved many human lives from polio and saved many more. Thus it was justifiable to endanger one human life for the sake of preserving many more. What determines whether or not the pursuit of a scientific discovery is more important the the protection of human life depends on many lives might be preserved as a result of the discovery. Studies which seek a discovery which might provide benefits for people, but would not result in the preservation of human life, cannot justify any threat to human safety as a means to seeking that discovery. The sucess of Bayer is primarily a result of the research that was gathered by Nazi doctors who performed experiments on prisoners in the concentration camps of World War 2. The benefits of Bayer to us cannot justify such an atrocity because the benefits did not lead to a greater preservation of human life. On the other hand, the search for a discovery which could save many lives can justify a threat to human life. The efficacy of the polio vaccine needed to be verified with tests on human beings, but such a clinical trial put humans in danger. Even so, because a greater number of people could be saved as a result of the trial, it was permissible to risk a human life. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas somewhat developed. Adequate control of language. Examples are sufficient in supporting your arguments. Was Bayer meant to be the company, and aspirin as the drug? The second example was good. The third task was sufficient as well. I feel this essay will be scored a: JKLMNOPQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaInhaler Posted August 10, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 -clicked- The public's right to know must sometimes take precedence over an individual's right to privacy. The right to privacy has emerged as a big issue since the paparazzis have come onto the scene. The media has become increasingly intrusive of the late, which has become a big concern for today’s politicians, businessmen and, especially, the celebrities. Each and every individual is entitled to privacy in free society. However, in some cases public’s right to know takes precedence over an individual’s right to privacy. A politician or any other public official who is accountable to the citizens of the country should be ready to disclose his private matters when needed. The citizenry votes and puts the officials in the office to make decisions in their interest. So, they have the every right to know about their activities, which directly or indirectly will affect the society. There have been many instances when a corrupt politician uses some tax money for personal use or transfers them to the Swiss Banks so that no one could track it. But, lately there has been movement in countries around the world that requires the government officials to disclose all of their bank accounts when asked to. However, it is also true that public is not entitled to know about private life of other citizens. A celebrity is just like any other citizen and is not accountable to the society for any of their private activities. Some sections of media are specially based on the private life the celebrities. And, these programs are highly popular among the general public. But, celebrities have the right to hold their privacy as much as they want. Whether public’s right to know is more important than an individual’s privacy is mainly determined by the status of the individual. If the individual is a public servant, like a politician, who is accountable to the public, then his right to privacy is essentially secondary to the right of people to be informed about his activities. On the other hand, if individuals like celebrities, who are public figures but not a public servants, then the public has no right to intrude into their private life. Thanks for clicking. Appreciated. Evidence of some clarity of thought. Ideas presented in a coherent manner. Some issues with depth. Adequate control of language. For the first example, it may be best to go into a little more detail about the transparency policy regarding a politician's bank account. How does it work? When does is it invoked? Who can do so? Which country is being affected? Is there a specific case regarding a particular politician? What are the consequences if a politician were found to be abusing his power? The second task would benefit from a specific example. Do you know of any celebrities who may have had their right to privacy violated? Using paparazzis is a good platform for your argument, but you can improve your score by developing this argument more. The third task was sufficient. I feel this essay will be scored an: JKLMNO/PQRST Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alchemist11 Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 -clicked- Thanks PastaInhaler! ---- Almost every great fortune is made at the expense of other people. Describe a specific situation in which a fortune might be made without harm to other people. Discuss the principles you think determine whether or not fortunes are made at the expense of other people. In order to determine the meaning of the above statement, the phrase "great fortune" and the keyword "expense" must be analyzed. A great fortune involves the acquisition of something, whether it be a physical discovery or simply a piece of knowledge. It often involves luck and is quite rare and significant. By "expense" the statement is saying that in order to obtain a great fortune someone else has to suffer. Perhaps this suffering is direct through physical pain, or indirect by manipulating or using someone in order to help ones self obtain that fortune. In either case, the statement overall is asserting that it's almost impossible to obtain a fortune without someone else suffering. For example, consider the lottery such as LottoMax. This is a lottery where people buy a card with numbers, and at the end of that week the numbers are called out with only one true winner. Although there are additional prizes of one million dollars, in general, most people want the grand prize of many millions of dollars, which only one person can obtain. A person participating in this lottery is in direct competition with everyone else who buys a ticket, because each has a unique set of numbers and hoping that their number is called. In this case, a person who wins the lottery automatically causes every other person who wanted to win that prize to suffer. The individual obtained his great fortune, but was unable to do it without causing every other LottoMax participant to lose (at least for that week). However, not every great fortune causes harm to other people. For example, consider a scientific breakthrough such as identifying a mutation in Rb that causes a type of cancer. Due to the nature of the research, this study can now be cited in future research done by others and its results can be used to make assumptions and further research into this field. This great fortune of discovering the mutation may have been luck, but in either case it is a great fortune that does not harm anyone else. This holds especially true if the entire team of researchers is credited with the discovery (which usually occurs). Thus, it is possible to obtain a great fortune without it occurring at the expense of other people. In order to determine whether the fortune harms other people or not, it must be classified as competition or cooperation. In the example of the lottery, LottoMax classifies as direct competition with everyone else and therefore the person who ends up winning the great fortune harms others to get it. On the other hand, the example with the research breakthrough, due to its classification as cooperation, shows that someone's gain is not necessarily someone else's loss, since the research can be used for further studies. Competition inherently allows for a 'winner' who obtains the great fortune, and everyone else participating becomes a 'loser'. However cooperation simply allows everyone to work together to obtain a great fortune with no one losing if they were not the individual who obtained it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 -clicked- Thanks! Progress often complicates as much as it simplifies. Progress is the objective of most organized groups. Politicians seek to pass a bill which will create benefits for their consituents. Businesses seek to offer better services to their customers by designing new and more efficient products in an attempt to progress as a company. Businesses want to make their products simple and user-friendly, but progress is usually accomplished by developing a more complicated machine. The invention of the automatic transmission for the automobile has greatly simplified the driver's experience. There is now no need to focus on pressing the clutch while shifting gears nor a need to remember to shift gears when climbing a hill or slowing down. However, most automatic transmissions are now computerized and as a result it has become increasingly difficult for the typical mechanic to fix car transmissions. The mechanic who services my family recently had to take a course on new transmissions because many of his customers have switched to newer vehicles. The progress made in vehicle transmission technology has complicated the task of mechanics as much as it has simplified the task of drivers. However, some types of progress do not complicate an issue nearly as much as they simplify it. In July 2011, Canadains experienced a strike from the Candian postal services. Schools could not send out transcripts by the official method, wedding invitations were put on hold, and the simple system of sending and recieving mail was shutdown. The Canadian government quickly came together to discuss how to best meet the demands of the postal workers so that the lives of Canadians could get back on track. After a compromise was made between the postal workers and the government it serves, Canadians no longer had to find a new way to accomplish all of the tasks that postal services did for them. Here, political progress to restore a system simplified the tasks of everyone involved and removed the complications that were created by the strike. Whether or not progress complicates or simplifies an issue usually depends on the area that is making advances. As areas of science and technology progress, they become more complex because the product of their research is generally more complex. Advancements in car transmission technology have simplified the life of drivers but the responsibilities of mechanics have become more complex. Areas involving political advancements, such as the passing of a bill to restore the Canadian postal services, simplifies the lives of all those involved in the progress. There are bound to be exceptions to this criterion, but in general technological advances introduce complications while political progress does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kovah Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 -clicked- Laws cannot change social values. The laws of a society which are enforced by the police and established by the courts of justice are determined by the values that are held by the average member of that society. As the values of each citizen change, a nation's laws change to accomodate, not the other way around. At least in a democracy, the laws of a society cannot change social values because the people who make up that society are the ones who determine what the laws should be. For instance, gay marriage has been a topic of great debate in the United States as some states have legalized it. The right for gay couples to be wed was only brought about as a result of a shift in the values that are held by Americans. Yet it is also the case that not all members of a particular state agree with their state's decision to legalize gay marriage. The state of California legalized gay marriage for a period of time, but this did not cause voters to accept the notion. In fact, the social values of voters seemed to oppose the rights that they had previously voted for when gay marriage was again made illegal in California. However, in a nation where the laws are determined by the opinions of a dictator, citizens may be forced into conditions that they would not normally have put themselves into. For example, the country of North Korea is led by Kim Jong Il. He has cut off his nation from the outside world, decieved his society into believing that they are much more prosperous than the surrounding nations, and has made many religions illegal. Christians are often sentenced to a life in prison because of their faith. As a result there are very few Christians left in North Korea. Most have renounced their faith out of fear of the laws that oppose it. Because they have not been allowed to attend Christian services or mention the faith, it is very likely that even in their hearts they no longer value the religion. Whether or not a nation's laws change its social values depends on the system of government that rules a nation. In the democratic nation of America, the laws regarding gay marriage did not change the value that voter's placed on it because the nature of democracy allows each citizen to freely decide whether or not they agree with a certain ideal. However in North Korea, a country ruled by a dictator, citizens have no role in creating government laws. They are forced to live by the laws which promote values that they may not accept and eventually begin to have their values changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HPfanforever Posted August 10, 2011 Report Share Posted August 10, 2011 -clicked- Thanks for your time and feedback! Successful politicians are motivated more by practical considerations than by moral values. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which successful politicians might be motivated more by moral values than by practical considerations. Discuss what you think determines whether successful politicians are motivated by practical concerns or by moral values. Leaders of a democratic country are chosen through an electoral system, where all citizens hold equal votes and are able to choose competent people who are able to represent their values and ideals on the world stage. These politicians are considered successful when they are able to convince citizens to not only cast a ballot, but more importantly, to cast a ballot in their favour such that they eventually take office. Since the late 1990’s, Lai Chang Xing, a Chinese businessman and entrepreneur was implicated of countless smuggling and corruption charges, emigrated to Canada. In 1999, he was described by several media organizations as well as the Chinese government as “China’s most wanted fugitive”. The Canadian government allowed him to live in peace in Vancouver, and the lack of judicial action taken by the Canadian government caused a strain in Sino-Canadian relations. The Canadian Prime Minister then was worried of human rights violations should he be handed over to Chinese officials, as he would very likely be given the death sentence without a proper trial. Stephen Harper, the current Prime Minister of Canada, was elected in May 2011 for a second term with his Conservative Party forming a majority government. As of July 2011, the government of Canada, led by Harper, decided to extradite Lai to China despite original concerns. This proactive move as expressed by the Canadian government was beneficial in promoting stronger ties between both nations. In this case, a practical approach is more advantageous to the development of Canada than considering the basic rights of a widely-hunted criminal. On the other hand, there are other successful politicians who adopt a moral approach as opposed to one based on practicality. A rather controversial case is that of the burial of Osama Bin Laden, the Islamic terrorist and leader of Al-Qaeda, the jihadist organization responsible for the September 11 attacks. Barack Obama, the President of the United States was the one who had ordered the assassination of Bin Laden. Against all odds, Obama became the front-runner in the 2008 presidential campaign and went on to take office in the White House. After Bin Laden was shot and confirmed dead by US special forces, Obama decided to bury Bin Laden at sea, which as he understand, was an Islamic tradition. This was an act of religious thoughtfulness on Obama’s part, that even in dealing with a greatly-despised enemy, he was still able to take moral considerations into account. It is extremely difficult to be a politician, and even more so in being a successful one, one who is responsible for the protection of an entire nation. There are many complicated issues they need to deal with on a daily basis domestically or internationally, issues that would impact the prosperity and security of their country. With that said, there are also many approaches they can adopt in resolving such issues, they can take the pragmatic route or the ethical one, or both at the same time. What determines which route they take depends on how the situation affects their home country. In Harper’s case, being driven by moral values, of course, would serve to preserve the life of a criminal, but would not benefit Canada as a whole in any way. On the flip side, in Obama’s case, adopting a practical approach such as giving Bin Laden a land burial would cause more harm than good as his grave could potentially become a symbol or shrine for his fellow extremists. Ultimately, it is the ability of preserving their country in an effective manner that makes a politician successful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecobeco Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 -clicked- Lies are often less harmful than the truth. "You can't handle the truth!" The famous line from the Tom Cruise movie effectively outlines an action that seems almost instinctive to some humans. In many cases, when people are put on the spot, their first reaction is to lie. It is not known exactly why people have such an automatice tendency to lie, but one can hazard a guess and simply state that oftentimes, the truth causes more damage than good. Lying to other people is beneficial to the liar, as he/she can then exploit the victim. Through lies, one can convince others of various falsities; this enables the liar to manipulate others. Lies are told on a daily basis, and have often been the cause of horrific events. One need only think of the events surrounding the eruption of World War II and theunderlying cause of it - one very outspokenyet mentally unstable man - Hitler. Hitler single-handedly convinced the entire German nation that the cause of the poverty and economic situation at the time had been brought about by a single group of people - the Jews. Branching from this completely absurd mentality, he began preaching about the "perfect race" or the Aryan race. Gradually, he deceived the German people more and more, forcing them to believe that everyone without blond hair and blue eyes was an enemy and an obstacle to the development of the Aryan race. To the German people at that time, these lies were treated like the words spoken by God himself. Hitler presented a solution to the horrible lifestyle that had developed in many German cities and the people fell for it. To them, these lies were a sort of miracle and helped stregthen their facist state of mind and engulf Europe in War. Although humans seem to have an almost innate ability to lie, it is more often than not, beneficial to the person to tell the truth. In regards to telling people the truth, George W. Bush should have done so when he chose to invade Iraq at the beginning of the 21st century. Looking for "weapons of mass destruction", the American soldiers searchedfor years without finding a single explosive device. By lying to the American nation and the world, Bush painted a very deceitful picture of himself - it may have been to his benefit to tell the truth from the beginning. Lying not only raised people's hopes of apprehending the people responsible for the 9/11 attacks but it also drew doubt into the mind's of skeptics across the world. 10 odd years later, a single "WMD" has yet to be found and the U.S has got a new president. Had Bush been truthful and honest from day one, many thousands of lives would have been spared in search of these imaginary weapons. However, he lied, and many people paid the ultimate price. It is very tempting to lie when under pressure. For some people, it is very tempting to lie even when nothing will come out of the lie. What determines whether or not lies areless harmful than the truth is the severity of the lie and the consequences of finding out the truth. Pathological liars are known to lie pretty much about everythingand this is a special case in which the person does not realize that telling the truth will not harm them in any way. They think that they must lie to other people in order to receive some sort of recognition for their efforts. Small lies are usually not harmful and pose no threat to the liar whereas big lies can have severe repercussionsfor all involved in the lie. For example, lying about where somebody was may not seem harmful but it quickly becomes a serious issue when the whereabouts of that somebody arecrucial to solving a homicide. Under such circumstances, lying may not only get someone into trouble, but it may end up destroying an innocent person's life forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Que Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 - Clicked!!- Thanks The strength of a democracy depends upon each citizen's respect for the ideas of others. Describe a specific situation in which the strength of a democracy might not depend upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others. Discuss what you think determines when the strength of a democracy depends upon its citizens' respect for the ideas of others. The very foundation of a democracy rests on the mutual respect citizens have for each other. In a democratic society, the governing body consists of elected officials acting in the interest of its citizens. Oftentimes, the respective interests of the citizens are variable and diverse. As such, the representatives must factor everyone's opinion into consideration and come to a consensus that appeals to the majority with the protection of minority rights. A healthy democratic climate is one which nurtures a safe environment where people can freely voice their ideals and beliefs without fear of discrimination or condemnation. In Canada, a country that prides itself in multiculturalism and diversity, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, protects individuals of different faiths, sexual orientations, age, gender, and race from discrimination. It also ensures the protection of freedom of speech. Such a legislature was passed with the understanding that the strength of a democracy can only be maintained when people, who are undeniably different and hold different interests, can freely express their thoughts without fear of repercussions. There is, however, a difference between expressing one's opinion and spreading malicious hate messages that serves to undermine the very framework of democracy. The former facilitates a healthy environment of mutual understanding and respect, whereas the latter encourages bigotry and ethnocentrism. If such an ideal is respected by the general public, it send the wrong message to other citizens and can even initiate a drift towards hatred of minority groups or the alienation of people with different beliefs, undermining the very foundation of a democratic society. Salman Hossain was a student at University of Toronto who posted hate messages against the Jewish population calling for genocide on the Jewish population of North America and Europe. He has since been charged as Canada's hate crime law prohibits promotion of genocide or hatred against an identifiable group. Although Salman expressed his opinion on the existence of the Jewish population, the public cannot respect his opinion as his ideals serve to undermine the stability of a democratic society. Only by disregarding and even persecuting such outlandish perpetration against other groups can a democracy maintain its stability and foster a safe environment that encourages civil discourse and mutual respect. Democracy depends on citizens' respect for each other's ideas unless the very nature of the idea is destructive towards the existence of a democratic society. In most cases, people are entitled to different beliefs and should not be discriminated or persecuted for their opinions. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects people from such discrimination and fosters a respecting environment for people to freely express their ideas. However, in the case of Salman Hossain, viscious hate messages intended for the persecution of an identifiable group garners public outcry and legal action instead of respect. Such a reaction is necessary for the maintenance of an accepting society that values every member's opinion. Although it may seem counter-intuitive to censor radical opinions such as those of Mr. Hossain's when democracy encourages freedom of speech. Yet, the situation becomes sensible when the effect of the idea is examined. When citizens opinions serve to increase diversity and multiculturalism, it strengthens a democracy, while opinions that discriminate against specific groups serve to undermine the very stability of a free society. I know my antithesis was weak. Later on I thought about respecting others' ideas to ensure minority rights, while respect of others' opinions isn't necessary for majority rule/decisions. Essentially, the necessity of respect is to protect minority groups from having their rights infringed by the majority (e.g. respecting different beliefs/same sex marriage). However, majority rules the rest of the time as most people are satisfied with the result. Any suggestion is appreciated! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
technicity Posted August 11, 2011 Report Share Posted August 11, 2011 -clicked- Thanks! Government regulation of scientific research can take many forms. For example, legislation may prohibit scientific research on a specific topic, or put restrictions on certain experimental procedures. Many argue that such regulation stifles scientific research, and that the government's role should not be to regulate scientific research. One area of research where government regulation of research has become a prominent issue is in stem cell research. Some researchers have claimed that American laws have placed restrictions on stem cell research that slow or halt American researchers' progress in the field, particularly in comparison to their contemporaries in countries like India, where there is less regulation in place. Being held back, researchers say, can hurt the competitiveness of the American economy, and result in American citizens not having access to the latest treatments. However, it is important to consider the original motivation behind these laws, which was primarily an ethical one. American lawmakers drafted and implemented regulation on stem cell research out of concern of the ethical implications. For example, one point of contention was (and still is) research on human embryos. On one hand, experiments involving human embryos would provide valuable insight into the development of stem cell tissues; but ethically, at what point do we decide that the embryo should be considered a "person" and cannot be experimented on? This question has spurred many passionate debates and has resulted in the current complex state of regulations regarding stem cell research. Overall, governments must take into account the nature of research in a field when determining whether to implement regulations or not. In the case of stem cell research, the potential moral and ethical implications of certain experiments certainly calls for government regulation. On the other hand, regulation also has the potential to impede scientific progress; thus, it should be applied sparingly, and regulations already in place should be reviewed periodically. Personally I'm not happy with this one, as I feel it's fairly shallow. Had trouble with this prompt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amalwa12 Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Clicked! Thanks so much for your amazing service. Governments have a responsibility for regulating companies that provide necessary services to citizens. Our world today is heavily service-sector oriented and there are times when the government must regulate these service-providing companies in order to ensure that the necessary services are properly provided to the citizens. Regulating a company, is in essence ensuring that they are fulfilling their duties to their clients appropriately, that is, they are providing the necessary services to the citizens in a proper fashion. Necessary services to citizens include those services which we, as citizens, cannot function daily without - such as food, healthcare, education, postal services, clothing, etc. Governments have a duty to regulate our food and drugs industries in order to ensure that they are providing food and drugs of utmost quality. For example, the Food and Drugs Administration in the United States is responsible for clearing any new pharmaceutical or nutritive product that is launched, in order to make sure that it is completely safe for use by the public population and to test it for any possible side effects or problems if the dosage is not correct. On the other hand, governments do not have to regulate retail businesses, even though certain commodities such as clothing are definitely necessary for functioning of a daily citizen. Stores such as Forever 21 and Aeropostale in North America are free to launch new products, change product pricing and conduct marketing for their products as they wish, without any governmental interference. It can thus be said that governments have a responsibility to regulate companies that provide necessary services to citizens, when any problems arising with the provision of that service could cause tangible harm to the citizens. For example, if our regular pharmacies were not regulated by governmental bodies, and they happened to provide their patients with overdoses of particular medication, the patient could suffer physical consequences that may even be life threatening. On the other hand, if Forever 21 sells a torn shirt to a consumer, it does not affect the consumer in any permanent, physical manner. Therefore, the government is responsible for regulating companies providing services that can impact the livelihood of their citizens (physically or mentally) but are not responsible for regulating companies that provide services which are essential but which, if mistakes happen, would not cause any kinds of permanent, physical or mental damage to the consumers, i.e. the citizens. Note: I don't think this is a great essay. I finished 10 minutes ahead of time. I should have used specific examples but couldn't think of any :S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amalwa12 Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Clicked! Thanks again =) Politicians must learn the art of compromise in order to achieve their political goals. Is the success of politicians reliant on how much they are willing to compromise? For a politician, being able to achieve their political goals is a measure of success, that is, whether they have managed to make a difference in their state in a manner that they consider ideal in their worldview. Compromise involves giving some and taking some, and in this particular case between politicians and their subjects (i.e. the citizens of the country), compromise means listening to the people and incorporating the people's views without sacrificing the politician's own premise. One example of a politician who has mastered the art of compromise is Sonia Gandhi, a member of the Indian National Congress. Sonia Gandhi was democratically elected by the people of India as the next Prime Minister of the country during the last decade. However, there was a general disgruntlement about her Italian ethnicity because a lot of the people did not want to have as the leader of India someone who is not even an Indian by descent. This was in spite of majority vote for the party which showed that the party's agenda was definitely favored. Sonia Gandhi chose to step down from her leadership, passing it onto Manmohan Singh, the second in line. She is still a major part of the party and has a say in the decision-making process. However, she is not the symbolic leader of India. Sonia Gandhi, despite months of hard work put into campaigning and her aspirations to lead India, stepped down from her role in order to make a compromise with the segment of the population that was dissatisfied with her heritage. In doing so, she gave some to the people of India and she took some, since she still has a say in party matters. In fact the Indian National Congress has been re-elected for the second time since then, showing that the party's political goals, which mirror hers, are being well achieved. An example of a politician who is achieving his political goals without compromising with his people is Mahmoud Ahmedijanab of Iran. His conservative rule of Iran is protested both nationally and internationally, however he is in power for the second time. Ahmedijanab is known to neglect human rights issues, has caused major economic lapses in Iran and has, in general, acted in ways detrimental to his people. Regardless of his role as a president who does not compromise, he has come to power again and is achieving his political goals. What determines whether or not compromise is a necessary factor for a politician to achieve his or her political goals? Compromise is necessary only to the point where the politician cares about their image and wants to provide at least a bare minimum satisfaction to their subjects. In Sonia Gandhi's case, she did not want to take the position of Prime Minister of India if it meant that a large part of the population was unhappy at the decision. Instead, by stepping down, she raised her image in the country and earned the respect of the people. By doing what she did, she was more of an Indian because she showed that she genuinely cared about the concerns of the people of India and that their concerns were her concerns too. On the other hand, Ahmedijanab is a very controversial figure not only in Irani politics but world politics in general. His people are clearly unhappy with him and he seems to be indifferent with his current image. Ahmedijanab has not bent to any of the calls for reform by the international community and has neglected the voices of his own people. Therefore, it is possible for a politician to achieve his or her goals without compromising, if he or she is willing to execute a tyrannical role, as Ahmedijanab has, without making their subjects satisfied. On the other hand, politicians who care about their self-image and want the majority support will compromise in order to keep the people satisfied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ubcMDhopeful Posted August 12, 2011 Report Share Posted August 12, 2011 Clicked. Politicians must learn the art of compromise in order to achieve their political goals. After the debacle over the debt ceiling crisis in the United States, politicians and their true intentions have come under increased public attention. One thing is still clear in regards to politics, politicians, or elected officials, must be able to compromise with the other viewpoint in order to achieve their political goals. These goals for all politicians is to get reelected, and to do so one must show progress and influence that voters look for. In a political atmosphere that is deeply divided, to have any progress or influence a politician must compromise with the other side. Politicians who fail to do so also fail to do anything while in office and this will be reflected in the ballots when it comes to election time. John McCain is an example of a politician who does compromise with the other side of the political isle. He can also be considered to be a successful politian amongst his party as he was able to gain some independent support during the 2008 presedential elections even when the field was heavily biased towards the democrats and Obama due the failures of the republicans in the Bush era. The ability of John McCain to win the Republican primary over his other collegues and his overwhelming support in his own state in Arizona is attributed to his ability to pass many laws which can only be done when he compromises with the opposing party. As a result, as exemplified by John McCain, compromising leads to progress which then leads to further support by citizens. However, some politicians who campaign on less compromise often do gain a lot of support amongst their base. The Tea Party and some of its candidates like Michelle Bachmann infact sign petetions during campaigns to promise not to have any compromise with the democrats when it comes to key issues like tax and defence reform. At the same time, these politicians are successfull in their districts and achieve their goals which is to get re elected. The reason for this is that these Tea Party politicians often represent areas where the political atmosphere is not variable and a strong constant support base exists for their parties. As a result, campaigning on policies that appeal to their base which go against compromise can be succesfful in their cases. In conclusion, in order for a politician to achieve their goal , compromise is a must as it results in progress which voters look for. Successful politicians like John McCain thrive on this quality and are able to get wide spread support even when everything else is against them as in the case of McCain in the 2008 elections. The same conclusion can also be made when looking at the politics of different countries such as Canada where the leader of the NDP Jack Layton won a significant amount of seats in the parliment by campaigning on compromise. At the same time, in regions where the political spectrum is lob sided towards a specific party, politicians who appeal to the base of their party and deny compromise can gain support as demonstrated by the Tea Party movement and Michelle Bachman as they were able to sign petetions preventing comprimise and still get elected. As a result, it can also be concluded that the demographics of the voters that the politician is representing is an important factor in deciding wether compromise is an essential aspect. This is demonstrated with the contrast between Michelle Bachman and John McCain who are both in the same party but differ substantially in their willingness to compromise due to the different regions that they represent. I did not have enough time to go over and check things over so there are alot of spelling + grammar mistakes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tsuki_123 Posted August 15, 2011 Report Share Posted August 15, 2011 -clicked- PastaInhaler, I had a difficult time thinking of the refuting statement. Please let me know which areas I should improve on (writing style, logical presentation, ideas) Thank you so much Businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumers' weaknesses. Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statement means. Describe a specific situation in which businesses succeed without taking advantage of the consumers' weaknesses. Discuss what you think determines whether or not businesses take advantage of consumes' weaknesses in order to succeed. Task 1: Advertisement is a phenomenal aspect of developed countries - we see them on the streets we walk, the Internet websites we surf, and the radio stations we regularly listen to. The frequency that we as consumers are exposed to marketing schemes is innumerable. The above statement urges the notion that businesses succeed by taking advantage of consumer weaknesses. To discuss this topic, defining "weakness" and "consumer" are necessary. A consumer is any entity who seeks materialistic or financial benefit through giving a business money. A weakness refers to the consumer's desire to purchase goods marketed by businesses. Certainly, it is evident that the statement is sometimes true. Consider the example of the brand Louis Vuitton. A single handbag may cost thousands of Canadian dollars, yet consumers still give in to the prestige of owning such a product. The business benefits generously from sales. The consumer's desire to conform towards a certain image propels the success of Louis Vuitton. Therefore, it is inherent in this example that in marketing situations where projecting self-image is crucial to the sale of goods, then businesses indeed can take advantage of a consumer's weaknesses by producing advertisements that further their desires. Task 2: The weaknesses of a consumer are not always the primary means through which businesses succeed. For example, consider investments in a company such as Google. The consumer can be designated as the person who invests money in this situation, because they are nonetheless putting in finances towards a benefit. Google is clearly not taking advantage of consumer weaknesses to conform, but rather Google is taking advantage of consumer strengths in this example. In most cases, consumers who invest in large companies tend to be successful themselves, and are looking for further financial profits. The strength of these consumers lies in their ability to decide upon the growth potential of companies they invest in. If a consumer is very confident about Google because they have researched all the possible factors to their potentiality, then it is inherent that both Google and the consumer will prosper because of consumer confidence in the company stocks. Task 3: Where the consumer money flow is directed to shall then determine whether businesses succeed through consumer weakness. In the case of Louis Vuitton, where the consumer's money is directed towards purchasing materialistic goods, then clearly the marketing schemes have succeeded in taking advantage of the consumer's desire to conform with a prestigious self-image. However, in cases where the consumer's money is invested into a prospering company such as Google, the consumer has done their homework before signing any cheques and so the consumer would be cautious not to be taken advantage of due to an impulse to buy. Regardless of a company's financial goals, trust is common in both situations. It is the propellant towards the action of purchasing goods or investing money. Success, then, is indefinitely dependent upon the ability of a business to establish consumer trust. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trying Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 In matters of conscience, the law of the majority is unimportant In the issued statement that In matters of conscience, the law of the majority is unimportant, the term conscience will herein refer to matters of morality and the law of the majority will be considered as the legislative rulings which are in place and have been decided upon by the majority in society. Thus, it is stated that when a moral dilemma is at hand, the decision taken by the rest of the society bears no weight as a moral dilemma is a personal matter. For example, during the Vancouver riots which took place after the Vancouver Canucks lost the Stanley Cup, many infuriated fans took it upon themselves to demonstrate their disgust in their home team by ferociously vandalizing downtown Vancouver. Many department stores were broken into and looted and many vehicles were set on fire. The day after the riot, it is understandable that many of the late-night activists (read anarchists) did not dare admit to their involvement in the horrendous destruction. However, some rioters did come forward and admit their participation in the acts of debauchery. When later interviewed and questioned by reporters as to why these select few individuals chose to come forward and admit their guilt while many hundreds of other individuals had upheld their anonymity, these rioters stated that they felt immense guilt for the destruction and pain they caused their city. In such an example, it is evident that this decision was based upon a consideration of conscience and that the “’law” of the majority meant nothing. In contrast, if those who are affected by a matter of conscience are unable to make a decision based on what they consider to be “morally right”, then the law of the majority must take precedence. For example, during the late 1700’s, France was ruled by King Louis XVI and his wife, Queen Marie Antoinette. These monarchs were in power at a time when France was attempting to rid itself of its sever bankruptcy. However, the monarchs were more interested in fulfilling their material needs and spent exhuberant amounts of money on lavish paintings, and parties, to entertain themselves and the aristocratic members of their court. To pay for these extravagances, Queen Marie Antoinette saw to it that her citizens were taxed ridiculously high amounts even though her constituents appealed to her to lower the government’s taxation. As such, the people of France felt severe hatred for their monarchs and undertook it themselves to fix the problem as it was evident that the Monarchs were incapable of comprehending the negative effects their lavish lifestyle was taking on their followers. As such, the citizens revolted and brought an end to their financial suffering. What decides whether or not the law of the majority plays an important role in matters of conscience depends on the upbringing of the individual. For example, the participants of the Vancouver riots who came forth and admitted their guilt understood that what they had done was wrongs because they saw the aftermath of their ignorance and thus they were able to ignore the idiocies of the majority of rioters and do the right thing. However, the French revolution was the result of the inability of the Monarchs to understand the suffering of their people due to the fact that they had been brought up with wealth not being an issue and thus their conscience couldn’t comprehend how having wealth was wrong when their people were lacking. Then, in that situation, the law of the majority, needed to come into effect to ensure that the citizens of France would no longer go to bed hungry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.