I feel most strongly about question number 4. I think that it doesn't matter who you are, nobody should be tortured like that and for that reason. It sounds barbaric to me. There is something written somewhere that calls that cruel and unusual punishment, and what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This is morally wrong and I strongly feel that it should not be done. I am going to post this on the class blog also.Alex Hoyman
Let me start by saying that each of these statements could be accepted as good or bad statements in which case authority could be controlled or abused. “The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war.” I can agree with this statement in a majority of ways as well as disagree. To be in full accord with this statement might not just be a simple degree of “its good” or “its bad”, but perhaps an equality of each, therefore I can find examples in each case. A couple ways in which this may be positive are having a means of national defense which includes always being prepared for the worst. If for instance a country had no army or defense it may be cause for such a demotion resulting in a third world economic standing, thus making a means of defense an evident key in national economics. In the case of a surprise attack which could leave an unprepared country in devastation, this may prove to be a suitable solution which could reduce the severity of the final outcome. The irony in this statement is that, it is believed that good can come from bad; that peace can come from war. Sure, there may be a formal treaty which ends the war, but it remains a fact that each side will have unfinished undeclared bad feeling which will only fester and brake out into another war. This can be seen as an example looking at world war one transitioning into world war two. A more visual approach in which could use simple math as application to this situation, may be to set war as a negative number and peace as a positive number. When you add more war, a negative it will never reach positive, only a lower negative. If perhaps an accord was signed between two nations all that we can assume is the sum may stager zero but never proceed higher in lou of preceding facts and examples. This may inference that war may reach a neutral position but never peace, concluding a more realistic solution that bad may only breed more bad and war may only conclude more war.
People to whom the government think may be an immediate threat to the government should be held in prison with no charges but only up to a sertion amount of time. If that time runs out and you don't have any proof that he/she said or did something that may make you feel suspicious towardthere actions that they may be a treath. If we didn't hold people whom we thought were a threat to the government then we coudl loose everything in ablink of an eye because of the actions that he/she may have made or done and we were unable to hold them in prision because we had/have no proof. Theycould turn out to be the worlds biggest criminals or the biggest threat to our governement and be able to cause a lot of damage by the drop of a pin.People like that should be held in a state prison for no longer than a month or so while evidence is being collected and analized.This way by the end of the month if the government don't have any substantial proof that this is the person or people involved in a criminal action that may cause damagethey can be let go and be free again. I don't think it would be right to just keep anyone one person in jail for any long period of time without having substantial proof that would convict them of the charge facing them. If you don't have proof you can't just assume he/she did this or that because youdon't know for sure who may have done the crime.Such as the people whom we thought were the ones whom were the leaders of the 9-11 attack. We may nothave had 100% proof of whom had done this but we had an idea and even if we didn't know for sure the person whom we thought we should have been able tokeep in a prison until we had further proof, because if we didn't get the ones that were responsible for this action it could have happened again and killedmany innocient people just as it had done that day.Ashley Shannon
Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals. I feel strongly about this because it is 100% true. If there are cameras posted up and they do help catch criminals then the crime rates would go down because eventually the criminals would know they will get caught. And in result of that people could feel safer and know that if something does happen that it is caught on tape. I live near Youngstown Ohio it is considered one of the most dangerous cities in the U.S. it makes the top ten list. I feel they should put cameras up there so then there will not be so much crime going on. Everyday when you turn on the news you always hear of a murder or shooting and I am tired of it, innocent people are being severly hurt or killed because of criminals and it needs to stop and I think cameras will help it.
I absolutely object to the statement"Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die." In my opinion it's never okay to torture a human being no matter how terrible or dangerous they are. If they are such a threat to our country's freedom put them in prison. What good is it to hurt them. Will it make them less of a threat? No, it will not. I think it's always okay to interrogate someone as long as you never lay a hand on them. I believe this not only because of my religious background but because of my moral values as well.I believe in "turning the other cheek." When it comes to fighting because its never okay to hurt another human being. What gives people the right or the authority to torture someone? People should not take serious consequences into their own hands . I stand firmly on my beliefs.
I disagree with with the statement that the government should be able to spy on people for our freedom. I don't think that they should have that right. They can't do anything for us now so what makes it better when they can control what ever we do. I think that privacy is a lot to a person. If we aloud the government to watch us and spy on us we would be turning into comrades and we wouldn't be able to think for our self. I think that government is corrupt as it is."Kayla John"
Можно и по этому вопросу ведь только в споре может быть достигнута истина. :)
Prijatno chitat’ na russkom jazyke interesnye i umnye mysli. Uzhe pjat’ let v Anglii zhivu.
Post a Comment