Smokers Get a Raw Deal by Stanley S. Scott addresses the issue of whether there is discrimination against smokers in the United States. Scott believes that there is negative discrimination in the U.S. that infringes the rights of the citizens. One can find that although the writer believes he presents a secure case, he fails to understand the definition of “discrimination.” In the article, Scott essentially asks the readers to heed the ways in which laws, especially antismoking laws, are established. This could have been a good argument were it not for the bombardment of fallacies and incidents taken out of context. He only presents one premise, that laws facilitate the segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, and consequently allow organized crimes harassing smokers to occur.
However, in Fahrenheit 451 Beatty describes conformity as a positive aspect of society – he argues that conformity in behavior prevents violence and jealousy by restricting the gifted and talented people from their ability to excel, which is good in a way because then the others won‘t feel bad. However, the real problem in the situation Beatty describes is not the exceptionally bright child (when he is trying to show Montag the uselessness of books) but the group of people of those who submit to it. Unfortunately, this very situation occurs repeatedly in our society today. People who choose not to conform may be persecuted by the groups of people who submit into censorship, and through that act of persecution the people reinforce conformity of
Harassment, after all, rarely goes on in front of those who would take steps to stop it. Other chiefs may be reluctant to deal with sexual harassment at all, believing that writing policies or providing training will increase the number of harassment complaints. But a head-in-the-sand approach is counterproductive: it will only make things worse, and it ignores management's legal responsibility for providing a harassment-free
Severe laws against marijuana do not discourage use of marijuana, but rather breed this contempt not only for drug laws, but for laws in general. Therefore sever laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” (p.45). The first premiss would have to be “Encouragement of contempt for laws is more dangerous to society than occasional use of marijuana. “ This certain premiss is important because it makes one of the claims for the argument. Another premiss is “Severe laws against marijuana do not discourage use of marijuana, but rather breed this contempt not only for drug laws but for laws in general.” This ties in with the first premiss, but can stand alone as its’ own as well.
Critical Analysis on “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate.” Dan Gardner’s publish, “The Missing Piece to the Gang-Violence Debate”, is strongly controversial in his position against increasing enforcement of drug laws, and boosting penalties for violators. He believes that you should actually limit enforcement and hardship of sentencing when it comes to drugs. Was his argument persuasive enough in the essay to actually influence his wishes into society? Personally, I don’t think so. Gardner’s ideas are too drastic and I believe he didn’t have enough support in his argument that his plans would actually decrease the murders in gang violence.
He dismisses this argument by listing other activities that could be harmful to an individual such as smoking tobacco, riding motorcycles, and having unprotected sex. This comparison makes the idea of prohibiting these activities because they are harmful to the individual participating in them seem rather ridiculous. Basically, illegal drugs CAN be harmful to a user; at the same time, smoking tobacco IS harmful to a user, yet smoking cigarettes is perfectly legal. I think Huemer’s argument effectively defeats the prohibitionists’ standpoint that drugs should be outlawed because they are harmful to the user. Second, the author addresses the prohibitionist argument that illegal drugs cause harm to people around the user as well.
It is produced from a feeling of indignation and intolerance for the conduct that takes place in prostitution. That feeling brings the opponents to believe that the society finds itself in a vulnerable position. In this vulnerable state, the community becomes threatened by immorality, but how can they determine whether or not sex for money is immoral? Perhaps, one would consider a profession in taking people’s homes that have been affected by the Recession more criminal than prostitution, but that occupation by no means criminalized. This brings one to the conclusion that it is impossible to assume there is one shared morality because different opinions exist.
Doug Barnett English 99 Essay 1 17 May 2014 A Different Look at Graffiti When you hear the word graffiti, the first thing that usually comes to mind is gang affiliation. Even though gangs use graffiti to show power and claim possession, it is also used as a form of expression. In the writings of “Creepin’ While You’re Sleepin” by Stephen Lemons, graffiti comes across as a problematic situation; however that is not his intention. He follows a young girl, Tribe, who believes graffiti is an expressive art form. Even though Tribe is considered a bomber-tagger she shows there is more to spray painted walls than meets-the-eye.
“ There is even an underlying element of self-hatred here, as individuals try to deal with their problems by doing violence to themselves.” A hole through the skin or a tattoo cannot erase the grief behind it, increase creativity, or redefine self-identity. Moreover, extreme body modification is considered obnoxious within the society. People tend to become uncomfortable around someone who has unappealing piercing all over their face or body. They are considered extremely censored and because of this “The US Navy has banned ‘tattoos/body art that are excessive, obscene, sexually explicit or symbolize discrimination.” Body piercing expresses the crisis of social identity but extreme body modification can also be harmful to oneself. People push themselves to do more and more of body modification because they believe that it is a symbol of self- respect for other people to notice.
Capital punishment does not deter crime; instead it increases the murder rate and there is a chance of error. Therefore, capital punishment should not exist in today’s society because it is an unconstitutional punishment. Capital punishment it’s not necessary and it is also unfair. There is a chance of error, you can execute the wrong person and later on find them innocent. Even though some may argue that death penalty deters crime, studies have shown that it does not.