Thursday, December 10, 2015

Doubting and Believing


Karim Adada
Prof. Dania Adra
English 203
October 21st, 2015


The hyperlink above will lead you to an article written by Ron S. Doyle posted on the website www.psychologytoday.com. In his text, Doyle gives a series of results from various researches in which the subjects were internet using students regarding their overall happiness. Results show that the percentage of happy students increased while that of unhappy students decreased over the course of three years. Doyle then immediately links this change to the use of social networks – facebook in particular – stating : “But consider for a moment, if you will, how modern social media may contribute to what David G. Myers, author of The Pursuit of Happiness: Who Is Happy—and Why, calls the four Secrets of Happiness:” and proceeds to list these four secrets and how facebook helps users to reach them. I for once disagree and believe that facebook causes more harm than good to users.
One argument Doyle gives, which stood out the most to me was the one related to Myers’ “Happy people are hope-filled” idea. In fact, Ron Doyle claims that “technology pushes far beyond what was once believed possible, it breaks apart the boundaries of our own imaginations and encourages each of us to think up new approaches to our own dilemmas. Social media increases one's ability to reach out to individuals of influence and power.” This may have some truth to it. What Doyle neglects however is the effect these powerful people have on passive facebook users. This effect is the result of a social phenomenon known as social comparison. In some cases, the social network allows us to observe our similar peers (by similar I mean like-minded, same socio-economic status) which makes the hit even harder. Through that learning process, passive facebook users can potentially grow to resent facebook and resent the image of themselves they expect to accomplish and preserve. Powerful and outgoing users plague passive facebook users with envy. We joined facebook looking to achieve happiness, only to end up making this pleasure a curse
Now, I could in fact agree with a solid point given by Doyle. The author of the text gives an argument related to Myers’ “Happy people are outgoing” happiness secret. Doyle states :
Because people feel closer to others, social media becomes a safe environment for practicing extroverted social behaviors—it's a lot easier to "type into a site full of strangers" than it is to walk into a room full of them. "Going through the motions can trigger the emotions," says Myers, "such is the value of social occasions—they impel us to behave as if we were happy, which in fact helps free us from our unhappiness."

I believe Doyle gave a very solid point. I can’t help but agree when I think of the difficulties of facing a large crowd of people. It’s never easy to persuade people let alone make them listen. Self-expression is not an issue. Feedback however is. Nobody would want to see negative feedback from a large group of people, up close and personal. Facebook drops the awkwardness and uneasiness of most social situations. That’s why typing into a site full of strangers is easier than walking into a room full of them. What I find rather irritating is that most people believe that shy individuals don’t know how to express themselves. I firmly disagree. Everybody knows how to express themselves. What makes some people more shy than others is their past experiences with negative feedback. I believe that is why some people engage in social activity through facebook’s virtual barrier.

Friday, October 23, 2015

Doubting and Believing

Zela Butchakjian

Prof. Dania Adra

English 203 , section 45

23 October 2015

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2003/09/28/execution_saves_innocents/
                                                                                                                                     Butchakjian 1

Before I start, I wanted to say that  I have changed my opinion many times about death penalty. But after many researches I am almost sure about my point of view.

When someone kills another person, doesn’t justice demand the killer’s life? It is argued that death penalty acts as a homicide. Also death penalty it self is a crime. Death penalty is murder, and two wrongs don’t make a right. There is no point in killing people who have committed murder because then no one has been thought a lesson. Another reason to ban death penalty is that taking an additional life does not resolve the problem. So why should society behave like it’s worst elements? The point of civilization and evolution is to rise above the worst in us. In addition to that a lot of innocents have been executed because of miscarriage of justice. These errors may come from the fact that naturally humans tend to commit mistakes or more commonly from the desire of powerful people to mask their fallacies by condemning inocents. Death penalty is in fact racist, poor people are more exposed to it than rich people who pay their way off. Furthermore, it has recently been proven that DNA determines a lot of our personalities. So people who commit murder are ill and genetically predetermined and we don’t have the right to kill them, as we don’t have the right to kill people who have Down syndrome. As human beings we are all equal, and thus have no right to weigh the value of other people’s life even if they committed a crime. Who are we to endorse God’s role (or any other supreme power depending on your belief)? Just one person in a 7 billion (population), with no right to judge and decide of someone’s destiny. Instead we could build rehabilitation centers to heal crime committers and reintroduce them in society.

Seeing things in another perspective (Jeff Jacoby’s and a lot off pro-capital punishment) we could note that for many criminals incarceration is not even punishment. In fact they are provided with a shelter, food, health care and more shockingly they can access the Internet and practice sports that hey like (which some innocent and disadvantaged people lac). We shouldn’t forget that we are paying (by the intermediate of taxes) for their comfort. So death penalty would help eliminate these charges and use this money to help innocent people. According to Jacoby the “68 percent error rate “ is wrong and “death penalty in America is probably the most accurately administered criminal sanction in the world”. He then adds that each execution saves the lies of many innocents. Which is not a bad argument after all because usually the sentenced to death penalty are serial killers. Jacoby then refers to a study that shows the relationship between execution and murder rates. According to that study at the University of Colorado: “each additional execution reduces homicides by five to six”. Additionally we shouldn’t see death penalty in a micro level but in a macro level and conclude that it is beneficial to the population (the mass) even though it is a disadvantage for others.

                                                       Work cited
   Jacoby, Jeff. “Execution saves innocents…” The Boston Globe. N.p., 28 Sep. 2003.   
         Web. 23 Oct. 2015.

Thursday, October 22, 2015

I'm coming out - I don't want children. Doubting and Believing



IM COMING OUT – I DON’T WANT CHILDREN!

     Having children is a very serious issue that one must take time discussing with their partners, and people’s opinions on whether married people should have kids or not vary widely. In the article above, Zorka argues that she simply doesn’t want children, and personally, I wouldn’t be able to back her up on this because mainly, she didn’t give much reasons that explain her opinion. Family is a sacred institution, and a family made up to a man and a woman is merely one, no matter how much the couple love each other and are happy together, like the case of Zoe Zorka and her husband. Families are supposed to be full of life, love, support, warmth and bonds! Families in which there are no children might be weak for the couple need something, like kids, that would serve as a bond or a common interest that is made up of their own genes. How could anyone refuse to have somebody that is considered a part of them, literally? Zorka says, “I don't feel that it is right to raise a child in a home full of stress.”, but children don’t really care about financial issues as long as love and care are regularly delivered to them. Moreover, children do change how parents perceive the world; they might even change their opinion regarding this issue. After having children, one would feel like the entire world lies in their hands, and THEY are in control. Also, children help people exercise patience, self-control, and understanding which are not only required by parenthood, but also by the working place and everyday life. Some people, like Zoe, might say that children need care that they can’t guarantee because of their jobs, but they don’t know that they can compromise. For example, not all parents have to sit with their kids all day long at home, they can send them to daycare and there’s nothing wrong with that as Zoe claims, “A child is not a cute accessory that you drop off at day care and pick up at night.”. So, children form the basic units of families and having them adds such incredible joys to the lives of parents, and when in doubt, Zoe and people with the same opinion as her should always look at this issue through a bright perspective.

     On the other hand, I totally get why some people might not want to have kids at all. People, like Zorka and I, love to be independent, free of commitments and responsibilities that they don’t wish to handle. When I get home, I want time for MYSELF to relax and cuddle with my husband. Don’t get me wrong, I, like most people who don’t want to have kids, love children as long as they are not mine. Also, people often say that couples who don’t want kids are selfish, but as Zorka says, “It would be far more selfish to have a child for the wrong reasons.” This means that people shouldn’t have children just for the sake of society and judgemental people; it should be their own choice and decision, because it would not be fair for the kids if it weren’t. Additionally, some people are not financially stable and would rather spend their money on their own amusement and luxury. For example, if the couple worked jobs that don’t pay a lot, having children would put them in trouble because they are obliged to supply their kids with basic needs like food, clothes, shelter, education and many others. We all know people who knew that they wouldn’t be able to support their kids if they had ones, but they eventually had children who are now suffering because of their parents’ irresponsible decision. This is unethical. Finally, the decision of whether to have kids or not should be taken only by the couple and no pressure of any kind, be it from the family, friends or society, should be put on them because they are free responsible adults.
Works Cited

Zorka, Zoe. "I'm Coming out -- I Don't Want Children." CNN. 2 Aug. 2013. Web. 22 Oct. 2015.


Wednesday, October 21, 2015

Arguments Against Abortion Vs HER BODY HER CHOICE.


The article I chose to discuss is in this link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/against_1.shtml

https://www.google.com.lb/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1242&bih=612&q=abortion&oq=abortion&gs_l=img.3..0l10.988.2796.0.3605.8.8.0.0.0.0.435.960.2-1j1j1.3.0....0...1.1.64.img..5.3.954.Mdc8S9dMz-0#imgrc=LhcDzT0QEBkB0M%3A

First, we will start by saying that this article states arguments that oppose giving women an automatic right to an abortion. And this is a fact that I completely disagree with, because a baby, in order to be well raised in a good family, should come when the parents-to-be are ready to welcome him and raise him well. We have examples of teenagers that get pregnant either by having sex willingly or by rape, and when their society doesn’t allow them to get an abortion, they are stuck with the fact that they will deliver this baby and raise it even though they are young, naïve, and not ready at all to fulfill their responsibilities. And while we’re still talking about the teenagers, unmarried of course, we know that the father of the child or the rapist won’t be present and won’t help with raising the child, that’s why this can lead to emotionally and mentally corrupted children with no fathers and little to no mother care. Besides, abortion is a good way to apply and improve family planning in overpopulated and also poor countries. If the parents can’t afford to have more children, they can make use of abortion. I really don’t see why some people think it should be illegal! In opposition to the common belief, we are NOT killing a baby when aborting, it’s just a fetus or some divided cells not fully shaped that we are getting rid of, and this is a fallacy that we find in the article when they say that abortion contradicts feminist principles which are the rights of GIRLS in their mom's bellies to live. When aborting, we don't even know if it was going to be a boy or a girl! This decision is not made by the society or the religion; abortion is a medical need, it can be similar to a normal infection extraction or whatever other medical procedure that should help us live in a better way. We can cite the example of a raped woman that got pregnant unwillingly, it is of course not her fault, so why can’t she just overcome this difficulty and abort? Do you think that a raped teenager carrying a baby is more accepted and welcomed in the society?

On the other hand, everything is not just black or white… I should admit that the anti-abortion groups also make some valid points. It is the case in the article when the author says that abortion” does not free women” (Arguments against abortion , BBC) , because women don’t need to have free access to abortion, instead they should have free access to life resources such as medications, education that can help us realize her responsibilities and be aware of the consequences of her acts (unsafe sex for example), a stable income and even safety that can prevent her from being raped or abused. Also sometimes, getting an abortion at a young age can lead to health problems in the future, and the young lady can’t have children when the time comes. And there’s one more very interesting point that is abortion sidesteps oppression for women, for example when a sexually abused woman gets pregnant, we focus on the pregnant-abortion side, instead of focusing on the “abused” side. I think that here, this doesn’t mean that abortion shouldn’t be done, but it means that we should focus more on the main causes that are leading women to get abortions. This is where we will find the real social and individual problems.

Work cited : Arguments against abortion, BBC-Ethics -archives.

Doubting/beleiving- Black people and Racism

Text : http://www.amren.com/features/2014/05/confessions-of-a-public-defender/

Nowadays, globalization has changed the face of the world. It is now completely different than it was just fifty years ago. Along with development, people’s mentality has evolved tremendously, and racism is now considered againt Humanity. Many Iconic man and women have fought against discrimination for Peace and Equality for Humankind.  However, people have different opinions, and some still think that there are “races” of humans, which some of them are superior or inferior to the other. One of the thirteen essays of “ Face to Face with race” presents  Michael Smith’s opinion about Black people. Shockingly, Smith wrote those essays in 2014. While Smith, public defender and writer, can be wrong about discriminating blacked-skin people, he makes a good argument in terms of social experiments .
            Michael Smith is a person working for Justice, but he is also racist, and uses hard arguments to convince his readers. First of all, the author is a public defender. Isn’t he supposed to defend people? In this essay, he appears to attack powerless people, even though Smith claims that he is professional about his job. From another perspective, we can think he is hiding behind his title to give an image of a good man, and still have thoughts againt a “race” of humans. In fact, he specifies many times “in my experience”, to prove his arguments “ blacks are different”, which is not valid.
Smith is racist, and his perception on the world is quite absurd to many. The author starts his essay with an opening, counting people by race… Why not by social status for example ?  He writes about how black people are narrow-minded, and different. “They cannot reason that well. They cannot communicate as well”. He also makes an over-genealizations. He almost lost his credibility, because a skin color can’t define how smart you are or even how you think. What about Nelson Mandela ? Frederick Douglas ? Nina Simine? And more recently, the USA President? They are all admired world-wide for their outstanding courage, achievements, kindness and talent. He also mentions that they are uneducated and violent. Ironically, I would like to mention that most of the top 10 criminals world-wide since 200, are white, such as Gavin Grant or Luis Posada Carrile.
The writer also cited media, news and sources, about informations such as “the media report that although blacks are 12 percent of the population they are 40 percent of the prison population”. He uses one of the most powerful source and tool to influence people. Mentionning the media is without a doubt the harshest, most disgraceful way to prove his point. He misinterprets those informations, and has clearly a mistaken belief of what it is to have a black skin color.
On another hand, Smith has strong arguments, beginning with his statistics, and lifetime experience with people. Black men are arrested and convicted over and over. It is typical for a black man to have five felony convictions before the age of 30. This kind of record is rare among whites and Hispanics, and probably even rarer among Asians”. While it could be true that more black people corrupt society, it doesn’t mean that blacked-skin colored people are violent. Black people have been discriminated , and were slaves just 100 years ago; they had their own culture and beliefs, but just like any other community. Black people are more considered uneducated than white people, it is a fact; so is it a matter of race and skin-color, or social status and culture?
Additionnaly, Smith is a lawyer, public defender, and professional about his work as said earlier. Which means he has lived experiences, that made him believe in concepts. “At the early stages of a case, I explain the process to my clients. I often do not yet have the information in the police reports”. The situation is that he met families who were white skin-colored or black, and compared the two behaviors. He has found common facts about people’s behavior, and they happen to all be black. This is how we understand his way of thinking. He may be right about that. At the end, he writes “we have a problem” . It is a challenge for him. “As for myself, I will continue do my duty to protect the rights of all who need me”. He believes in fulfilling his duties and protecting others, he thinks ‘for the better’. However, what if the ‘problem’ is not black people, but whites who marginalize blacks?

To conclude, Michael Smith has strong arguments, and has a point through his proofs and experience, but nowadays, it is totally unacceptable to still think of a physical characteristic,as an obstacle to being equally human to anyone else. The real problem here is that Smith is confusing an issue of social class with an issue of race, and that is all there is to it.

Doubting and Believing

 Manal Hamdon.                                                                                                                     Hamdon 1
Dania Adra
October 21, 2015
English 203, sec 45.                            
                                                                                                                                 
                    http://www.crchealth.com/youth-programs/advantages-single-sex-schools/

    In the article "The Many Advantages of Single-Sex Schools" written by the CRC Health Group, the topic of Single sex schools and how they have many benefits for girls was raised. It mentions how  girls are more confident when there aren't any males around in the classroom. I completely disagree with this, since the implied stereotype of girls being that they are shy and timid is very generalized and doesn't apply for all. On contrary, in co-ed sex schools it gives girls a crucial opportunity to interact with people of the other sex, which would enhance their social skills later on in life, and ready them for real world situations. Being confined in an all girls school is like living in some sort of fantasy world, and so once the girls move on from high school onto college, 'the real world' , encountering and working with males would be out of the norm, when it shouldn't be. The article rebuts this argument by saying " girls are more able to participate in class discussions since there aren't boys around to dominate as in co-ed schools". According to the text, "the lack of male favouritism,and the absence of the expectations for girls to be nice, quiet, non-athletic, and passive led to more successful academic career when girls began college". Again, irrelevant, since this being the twenty first century where people are coming to terms with gender equality and feminists are taking stands, the claim that  presence of males in the classroom intimidates girls is as if society has taken a giant leap backwards when in reality, as a developed and open society we like to think we have overcome such claims. The CRC Health Group states that "90% of girls in co-ed high schools are affected by some form of sexual harassment". Although it may be a statistic, it shouldn't imply that things would be different in single-sex schools. Since the implication in the article was made, we are led to believe that girls are more civil and less critical than males, however isn't that a form of sex discrimination? girl to girl insults cut deep, and can seriously dent a girls self confidence. Having to separate girls from men in order to consider themselves as more successful is self degrading and proves every stereotype made about the weakness of females. We will never be seen as equal if we don't act like we are.

        Same-sex schools, on the other hand, have many benefits, as shown in the text. Any parent would want the best for their child, and if being in a co-Ed high school is affecting your daughter negatively then by all means, do what you think best, in this case, an all female school is just that. However, I do believe that there are other factors that can cause a dent in a girls self confidence and isolating girls isn't the answer. Depending on the female, every girl at one of these institutions might have their reasons for being in one. Some girls have overbearing fathers who would not let them receive an education because of males being present in the school. Without these same-sex schools, a number of girls attending would not be educated. Another main reason for the establishment of single sex schools is, girls who have been abused emotionally, physically, or sexually may reach the point of unable to be around men. The very sight of them could cause a mental break down. With all girl schools, this isn't a problem in the slightest, allowing a safe, relaxing environment. When looking at this topic in the authors light, you must consider the different situations a girl might be in for her to benefi from a single sex school.

                                                           

                                                              Work cited

 The Many Advantages of Single-Sex Schools." CRC Health Group. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015. 


Blog 4: Doubting and Believing



Omar Za’tara
Miss Dania Adra
English 203 (Section 45)
October 21st, 2015



Homosexuality in Society

In the article “10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed” written by TFP student action. The author argues against homosexuality. He begins his argument by stating that “Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman” (TFP student action), which is true. Why? because society labeled marriage to be that way. Marriage was created as a promise, one which was between two people to protect, love and care for each other. Marriage was never specified to be between a man and woman, rather, society imposed it to be. TFP goes on by saying that “It violates natural laws”, that “any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality”(TFP student action), this is false. Homosexuality is part of nature. Not just in human beings, but in many species in the animal kingdom, this is verified by the article  “Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality?” by Arash Fereydooni, on Yale Scientific magazine. The magazine reads “Homosexual behavior has been documented in over 450 different animal species worldwide. For instance, observations indicate that Humboldt, King, Gentoo, and Adélie penguins of the same sex engage in mating rituals” (Arash Fereydooni). Also, homosexuality has been recorded through out history; ancient Greek and Roman cultures saw homosexuality as a norm, and part of everyday life. TFP also states that "The child will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex marriage ignores a child’s best interests” (TFP student action), How is it when a child is abused by his mother and father, it is better than having parents of the same sex? or, a child as an orphan living a miserable life, it is better than having parents of the same sex? Why are parents that love, care and nurture children are considered "ignoring a child's best interests" just because the couple consists of two men of two women. There are children in this horrifying/brutal world without guidance, love or nurturing. All because society decided that parents consisting of two men or two women are not fit to be parents. They are not good role models, so its a crime for them to have children. Thus according to society, the children are better off staying on the streets, in orphanages and in abusive families. I would like to conclude by saying, every person has the right to be treated as a person. He or she should have the right to love, live and be loved as any other person in this world.



In the article “10 Reasons Why Homosexual “Marriage” is Harmful and Must be Opposed” written by TFP student action. The author argues against homosexuality. He begins his argument by stating that “Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman” (TFP student action), which is true. Marriage has been a sacred ritual throughout all of history. A marriage between a man and a women celebrates the union between the two sexes, honoring the idea of their loyalty and love to each other. Also, marriage is an initiation to child bearing, the most amazing and magical part of reality, which homosexuals cannot experience. This brings us to TFP’s next point, he states “A child of a same-sex “marriage” will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father” (TFP student action). A growing child needs the nurturing qualities of a mother and the nurturing qualities a father to survive in this world. Obtaining the soft, nurturing love from the mother and the tough, disciplinary love from the father. Not to mention that motherhood and fatherhood are unique experiences. A homosexual mother will not feel the pain/beauty of child birth, just as a homosexual father will not feel the fear/glory of holding his child in his hands. The last point i want to discuss that TFP has mentioned is “It offends God”. TFP states “ Whenever one violates the natural moral order established by God, one sins and offends God. Same-sex “marriage” does just this”. God has created the complex biology of a man and a woman, in order for them to reproduce, and create life. This magnificent process of life is so sacred that, in almost all religion sex is forbidden before marriage. Because sex and reproduction should be shared with someone you truly want to share your life with. If marriage is seen that sacred, it’s rules should not broken. I would like to conclude by saying that homosexuality is not a natural/normal feature humans have. Society should forget homosexuality and should reinforce banning the idea of homosexuality in our modern day.



Works Cited:

"10 Reasons Why Homosexual." TFP Student Action. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.

"Do Animals Exhibit Homosexuality?" Yale Scientific Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.