I can guess what a teacher would think if this idea was presented. Strictly for 'lazy readers' who can't be bothered. To some extent I agree with this, as I imagine this method expresses a similar idea as Movies vs. reading where imagination is redundant because it is being presented in front of your eyes and no thought is required.
This also goes again for those in later years (say high school and above) who need to study sentence structure for studies such as creative writing, where reading is essential and manga could do more harm than good.
However, this could be effective depending on age group and target audience. Like you pointed out above, statistically speaking boys are more visual learners and younger people are infamous for having very short attention spans. So if this was ever introduced it might have to be integrated into the syllabus delicately, maybe perhaps with the original text side-by-side?
Also teenagers who have trouble with Shakespeare in particular because of the language, so I can see this method working wonders in that respect. Although I think it'd be up to the teachers discretion and their knowledge of their class to decide if this method would be either a hindrance or a help.
Despite this, I think it is a good idea and a good option to have in the classroom.
Nicely done!
Hi Christina,
I think this topic is striking and I agree with most of what you are saying here. And your question on 'where to draw the line'.
I know in an ideal world, the one who takes lives, shouldn't have their own spared, but again as you point out "an eye for an eye" is only idealistic.
For those who take mass amount of lives, in my own opinion is the only reason this punishment should still exist, despite its barbaric nature. Sometimes life imprisonment isn't enough and the law system (mostly here) seems too lax when it comes to brutal murders (Such as the 18 year imprisonment case above)and people need to remember there are always serious consequences for their actions.
Very persuasive and clear. Nice work!
Hi Rachel, you bring up most of my thoughts on this issue.
I strongly believe there is a time and place for everything, and as an artist I can both appreciate and foresee the implications of Graffiti art.
Yes, I call it art because, like beauty, its in the eye of the beholder. Therefore presenting the two sides of "City Decay" (or eyesore) and "Artistic license" (creative imagery) but like you, I don't think it belongs on the walls without permission.
Also the 2 types of graffiti, Graffiti art and Graffiti vandalism. One shows or depicts a message or image using spray cans as a medium (Such as the new K-road graffiti art celebration that happened not so long ago) and the other is etched initials or spray canned bus stops for the sole purpose for damaging property.
Thus the latter causes the masses of tax payers to fork out like (as pointed out above) and would have more use elsewhere. Such as funding and running the programs you rightfully suggested!
I do support graffiti as an art form, but only if it has the permission to be there. Otherwise, beautiful or not, it's still vandalism.
Well written and clearly done. Nice work!
I must say your viewpoint is very persuasive.
You apply the facts of religious conductors who are corrupt in their actions in which I can honestly say I whole-hardheartedly agree with. The God portrayed in the bible cannot be heard in the words of these men, especially when asking for materialistic goods such as money or as an excuse to put forth their own agenda.
However this is not religion itself, it is in the name of religion. In a similar way a knight would fight for a mute king, everything is left in guesswork and we have trusted these people to interpret his will. I’ll admit some (if not the majority) have got it wrong so far.
I do agree with your point of God counting the money supposedly in his name is undoubtedly senseless, nonetheless, the script itself does try inspire people to try and help mankind but as a possible guide not as a rulebook. Please note I use the term ‘inspire’ loosely in this case as the above examples do show it can inspire people in the negative as well. As they say “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” right?
I do have one question though; in the last few statements you give statistics for belief religion. Where did they come from? Not that I totally discredit them I do find it hard to believe 84% is religious, perhaps only religious in name?
I digress, this was a convincing read and I do agree with your points. Nicely done!
What an unusual stance to take. It certainly is a controversial topic to say the least but in interested to see you argument.
I think the problem here is when to draw the line, the eye-for-an-eye approach is idealistic and doesn't work in this day and age, which I can agree with you. I think this would only be applicable and still only exists for those who manage mass-murder or mass-destruction.
However, you do point out that capital punishment is a denial of human rights, but so is murder. Although its true that capital punishment will not bring the people they killed back, that only applies if it is revenge they are seeking.
This teaches society that there are consequences to their actions, and sometimes a lifetime sentence isn't enough to counter how much damage they have done. Such as terrorist acts and so forth. Keeping them alive, gives them to opportunity to do it again, no matter where they are.
But I respect your stance on this and I can see the implications, thus making it still highly controversial today. Nice work!
