Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Goodness
I believe that there is a plethora of reasons for human altruism. It does seem probable that Darwin’s explanation of altruism in animals, citing that the “gene” for altruism has been passed on from generation to generation, and that bees are willing to be altruistic in knowledge of the fact that their fastidious lives have been given up for their relatives. However, I do not agree that this is the only way that altruism is shown and expressed. In fact, Hamilton’s theory of evolutionary biology being related to altruism is completely contradictory to my belief. I believe that it is paradoxical that Darwin postulated his theory of animalistic altruism, recalling his ground-breaking and radical idea of Natural Selection and “survival of the fittest”, as they contradict one another. All in all, I believe that altruism may be hereditary, but the natural intrinsic ability of humans to do good to one another is also entirely plausible.
Gun control- should civilians be allowed to own guns or not?
SUMMARY
The issue of gun control is complicating. Guns are the main cause of some of the calamities that have taken place. It has been proven from the Virginia Tech shooting that a man with a mental illness was able to procure guns and bullets. This can have disastrous implications, as seen from the bloodbath in Virginia. It also shows that some individuals who have the access to guns can cause devastation to a large extent.
COMMENTARY
Since 1996, there have been 11 school massacres across Europe, which has left 70 students dead and about 80 injured. Across the Atlantic, in the superpower of the world known as the USA, 2 high-profile massacres have occurred, with the latest one resulting in the death of 32 people. Does it mean that because someone lost his temper and handled it in a bad way or that someone had a psychological issue of incontrollable rage, that so many innocent civilians died? Clearly, without a gun, such pain and devastation would not have been experienced. The issue of gun control is a controversial one, though in my opinion, it is clear that civilians should not have the power to own guns. This question of whether citizens can own guns or not can be divided into 2 sub-questions: 1. Whether the government has the right to ban gun ownership? and 2.Whether the act of banning gun ownership would make the country safer? In this essay, I will prove that the government does have the power to ban gun ownership and that banning guns would improve public safety.
Many people think it is their right to decide whether they want to own a gun. They have a qualified reason for this: the LAW. According to the 2nd amendment to the American constitution which says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As such, the American citizens defend their right to own guns.
However, just as this is true, it is also true that the government elected into office by the people of America as supposed to act in way to ensure the safety of that population. Hence, in the interest of public safety, surely the government has the right to ban guns? If the government deems something to be dangerous to the public, the government has the right to ban gun ownership.
However, just because the government has a right to ban gun ownership does not necessarily mean that gun control will actually increase public safety. Some advocates of gun ownership say that a gun is a tool of self-defence. Imagine being confronted by a robber, it does seem entirely plausible that the robber might be deterred by the fact that you own a gun. Also, people might feel a sense of self-assurance if they own a gun. BUT, just as the people who are defending themselves have guns, allowing gun ownership also means that criminals and other unlawful citizens might have access to these means of “self-defense”. This may enable them to carry out their sinister intentions with less difficulty. Hence, the argument that guns will act as tools of self-defense does not stand.
Now, let us examine facts. Guns were invented as a means to cause harm to another person. Its main function is to kill, not to give a back massage to someone. In order to ensure public safety, the government should try to weed out as many “killing-machines”, or devices that threaten to cause harm to members of that society. Thus, banning gun ownership will improve public safety.
Also, some people argue that it is not a gun that kills a person; it is a person that kills a person. This makes that gun not a killer, but a means to kill. At the end of the day, a finger has to pull the trigger. Yet, when the facts are examined, it would be impossible for an angry student to go and murder 37 people with his hands. Such disasters such as the Virginia Tech and Columbine High shooting would have been avoided, or at least reduced in impact, if the offender did not have a gun. Even if guns were allowed, seeing that a man with a mental illness was allowed to buy 2 guns and bucket loads of bullets shows that if guns do get into the wrong hands, which IS POSSIBLE, there will be severe destruction. Thus, even though the finger must pull the trigger, it is the use of a gun that caused the devastating tragedy. Hence, banning gun ownership will make public safer.
IT must be said, by banning guns, it does not mean that all robberies will be prevented. It does not mean that crime rate will become 0%. It also does not mean that we as the public will be safe for ever. But, it is an empirical fact, based on past events and facts, the use of the gun in such massacres are key. The gun made such violent actions possible, and to prevent such acts, gun ownership should be banned. In the end, guns have been proven to cause great harm to the public, and so civilians should not be allowed to own guns. IF you are still not convinced, consider this: Your kid/ you are in school when an angry person kills your kid/you and others in cold blood. Remember, that without his gun, he would not be able to do such harm.
The issue of gun control is complicating. Guns are the main cause of some of the calamities that have taken place. It has been proven from the Virginia Tech shooting that a man with a mental illness was able to procure guns and bullets. This can have disastrous implications, as seen from the bloodbath in Virginia. It also shows that some individuals who have the access to guns can cause devastation to a large extent.
COMMENTARY
Since 1996, there have been 11 school massacres across Europe, which has left 70 students dead and about 80 injured. Across the Atlantic, in the superpower of the world known as the USA, 2 high-profile massacres have occurred, with the latest one resulting in the death of 32 people. Does it mean that because someone lost his temper and handled it in a bad way or that someone had a psychological issue of incontrollable rage, that so many innocent civilians died? Clearly, without a gun, such pain and devastation would not have been experienced. The issue of gun control is a controversial one, though in my opinion, it is clear that civilians should not have the power to own guns. This question of whether citizens can own guns or not can be divided into 2 sub-questions: 1. Whether the government has the right to ban gun ownership? and 2.Whether the act of banning gun ownership would make the country safer? In this essay, I will prove that the government does have the power to ban gun ownership and that banning guns would improve public safety.
Many people think it is their right to decide whether they want to own a gun. They have a qualified reason for this: the LAW. According to the 2nd amendment to the American constitution which says “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” As such, the American citizens defend their right to own guns.
However, just as this is true, it is also true that the government elected into office by the people of America as supposed to act in way to ensure the safety of that population. Hence, in the interest of public safety, surely the government has the right to ban guns? If the government deems something to be dangerous to the public, the government has the right to ban gun ownership.
However, just because the government has a right to ban gun ownership does not necessarily mean that gun control will actually increase public safety. Some advocates of gun ownership say that a gun is a tool of self-defence. Imagine being confronted by a robber, it does seem entirely plausible that the robber might be deterred by the fact that you own a gun. Also, people might feel a sense of self-assurance if they own a gun. BUT, just as the people who are defending themselves have guns, allowing gun ownership also means that criminals and other unlawful citizens might have access to these means of “self-defense”. This may enable them to carry out their sinister intentions with less difficulty. Hence, the argument that guns will act as tools of self-defense does not stand.
Now, let us examine facts. Guns were invented as a means to cause harm to another person. Its main function is to kill, not to give a back massage to someone. In order to ensure public safety, the government should try to weed out as many “killing-machines”, or devices that threaten to cause harm to members of that society. Thus, banning gun ownership will improve public safety.
Also, some people argue that it is not a gun that kills a person; it is a person that kills a person. This makes that gun not a killer, but a means to kill. At the end of the day, a finger has to pull the trigger. Yet, when the facts are examined, it would be impossible for an angry student to go and murder 37 people with his hands. Such disasters such as the Virginia Tech and Columbine High shooting would have been avoided, or at least reduced in impact, if the offender did not have a gun. Even if guns were allowed, seeing that a man with a mental illness was allowed to buy 2 guns and bucket loads of bullets shows that if guns do get into the wrong hands, which IS POSSIBLE, there will be severe destruction. Thus, even though the finger must pull the trigger, it is the use of a gun that caused the devastating tragedy. Hence, banning gun ownership will make public safer.
IT must be said, by banning guns, it does not mean that all robberies will be prevented. It does not mean that crime rate will become 0%. It also does not mean that we as the public will be safe for ever. But, it is an empirical fact, based on past events and facts, the use of the gun in such massacres are key. The gun made such violent actions possible, and to prevent such acts, gun ownership should be banned. In the end, guns have been proven to cause great harm to the public, and so civilians should not be allowed to own guns. IF you are still not convinced, consider this: Your kid/ you are in school when an angry person kills your kid/you and others in cold blood. Remember, that without his gun, he would not be able to do such harm.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Orchard Road facelift- was is really worth it?
The statistics have shown that the recently proposed and completed have not been well-received by the public of Singapore. Furthermore, the purpose of the orchard road facelift was not throughly achieved and for $40,ooo,ooo, it's really something not to be condoned. In this essay, I will attempt to convice and eventually prove that the Orchard Road facelift was not really worth it, because many businessman are doubting its results and that the Singapore public has not been aware of the recent improvements to Orchard road.
However, there is conclusive evidence that significant improvements have been made to Orchard Road. The Singapore Tourism Board has released statements detailing the upgrade to orchard Road. STB's renovation includes: introducing new street lamps, co-ordinating the street furniture, adding decorative glass panels and potted flower totems. These are indisputible facts which state that STB did make improvements to Orchard Road. When interviewed, the director for shopping and dining said of the works as " ...covers the cost of the works which included starte-of-the-art lighting, power upgrading,landscaping,repaving ,works and consultation. "This again tells us that significant improvements were made to the infrastructure of Orchard Road. This improvements were made to beautify the surroundings and improve the standard of living in Singapore, and as Orchard Road is the main shopping area of Singapore, this attractiveness of the surroundings might give Singapore an edge in influencing the future tourists to choose Singapore as their new holiday destination.
Just because something was done and was expensive, does not at all costs mean that it was useful and worth it. This suits the Orchard Road upgrading very well, as even though $40m was spent to improve the state or Orchard road does not make it money well and wisely spent. When you hear that $40m was spent to upgrade one stretch of road, you would logically be expecting to be wowed when you step on to that road. However, this was not the case with the Orchard Road renovation. Even the local Singaporeans failed to notice the improvements before their very eyes. Clearly, if the government was attempting to entice other tourists and people to shop and experience Singapore and when tourists hear about the $40m spent, they will have sky-scraping expectations. From the looks and responses of the locals, this does not seem possible. Thus, I can say that the renovation was not worth $40m, as something that costs that much should be expected to amaze and enthrall an audience. Hence, the money spent on the upgrading was not worth it.
Moreover, the upgrading was also not useful. Some people argue that a few of the upgrades made have done more harm than good, while others say that it could have been put to better use. People who argue that harm was a product of the renovation refer to the narrowing of Paterson road.In order to accomodate more space for passing pedestrians, Paterson road has been narrowed by a lane. This perpetuates the already present bottleneck of human and vehicle traffic along this road every evening. The narrowing only makes it harder enter the area. Compounding this, because the details, have not been released to some mall owners, they argue that not knowiing the details might have adverse effects on their business and revenue. Due to this, the government must realise or take into account that their upgrading could jeopardize its Singapore's reputation as a premier tourist destination and to attract more Singaporeans to shop at Orchard.
Hence, I can say that due to the fact that the money was not worth it and not well spent, I have not other choice but to conclude that the $40m rejuvination of Orchard Road was not worth it.
However, there is conclusive evidence that significant improvements have been made to Orchard Road. The Singapore Tourism Board has released statements detailing the upgrade to orchard Road. STB's renovation includes: introducing new street lamps, co-ordinating the street furniture, adding decorative glass panels and potted flower totems. These are indisputible facts which state that STB did make improvements to Orchard Road. When interviewed, the director for shopping and dining said of the works as " ...covers the cost of the works which included starte-of-the-art lighting, power upgrading,landscaping,repaving ,works and consultation. "This again tells us that significant improvements were made to the infrastructure of Orchard Road. This improvements were made to beautify the surroundings and improve the standard of living in Singapore, and as Orchard Road is the main shopping area of Singapore, this attractiveness of the surroundings might give Singapore an edge in influencing the future tourists to choose Singapore as their new holiday destination.
Just because something was done and was expensive, does not at all costs mean that it was useful and worth it. This suits the Orchard Road upgrading very well, as even though $40m was spent to improve the state or Orchard road does not make it money well and wisely spent. When you hear that $40m was spent to upgrade one stretch of road, you would logically be expecting to be wowed when you step on to that road. However, this was not the case with the Orchard Road renovation. Even the local Singaporeans failed to notice the improvements before their very eyes. Clearly, if the government was attempting to entice other tourists and people to shop and experience Singapore and when tourists hear about the $40m spent, they will have sky-scraping expectations. From the looks and responses of the locals, this does not seem possible. Thus, I can say that the renovation was not worth $40m, as something that costs that much should be expected to amaze and enthrall an audience. Hence, the money spent on the upgrading was not worth it.
Moreover, the upgrading was also not useful. Some people argue that a few of the upgrades made have done more harm than good, while others say that it could have been put to better use. People who argue that harm was a product of the renovation refer to the narrowing of Paterson road.In order to accomodate more space for passing pedestrians, Paterson road has been narrowed by a lane. This perpetuates the already present bottleneck of human and vehicle traffic along this road every evening. The narrowing only makes it harder enter the area. Compounding this, because the details, have not been released to some mall owners, they argue that not knowiing the details might have adverse effects on their business and revenue. Due to this, the government must realise or take into account that their upgrading could jeopardize its Singapore's reputation as a premier tourist destination and to attract more Singaporeans to shop at Orchard.
Hence, I can say that due to the fact that the money was not worth it and not well spent, I have not other choice but to conclude that the $40m rejuvination of Orchard Road was not worth it.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Students should be allowed to set their own rules.
In the interest of promoting responsibility and independence of next-generation youth, students should be allowed to set their own rules. As the schools and even government is trying their hearts out to implement new systems and school practises to increase self-dependence and responsibility among youth, surely allowing students to set their own rules is the ultimate form of independence and responsibility. Moreover, by allowing students to set their own rules, it creates a safer and more conducive environment to learning. This is because even if the students make a mistake, it will not be so costly as in the real world, as the school environment is more conducive to learning. This early exposure to rule-making and decision-making will be indescribably beneficial to the future of Singapore. Hence, students should ballowed to set their own rules.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
An exposition is a type of writing. Its purpose is to explain & describe, or define the subject that the author is writing about to the reader. In general, expositions are non-fiction, and come in almost all forms, from coking recipes to argumentitve essays. Also, some expositions are written regarding literary texts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
