For hundreds of years people have put some message in the type of clothing they wore. Long ago people started wanting to stand out from the “crowd” and be different from other people by means of changing their clothing. Some examples of these “standing out” became very popular and were followed by more people. This was the moment when fashion appeared. Nowadays, fashion is sometimes defined as a “constantly changing trend, favored for frivolous rather than practical, logical, or intellectual reasons”. Nevertheless, it is necessary to say that at the present moment fashion has a deeper influence on the life of people and possess more than just frivolous reasons for its existance. Clothing has become an integral part of self-realization of every person. It is no longer just an “external shield” and a frivolous attitude towards it may cause loosing a very important physical, psychological and social aspect of a person’s life. The harmony attained by the combination of the inner world of a person and his “exterior” makes it very hard to say not even being a professional in this sphere that fashion is just about looks. Clothing is basically a covering designed to be worn on a person's body. This covering is a need, a necessity that is dictated by the norms of social conduct. This “necessity” brings a lot of variety into the lives of people and makes their image more complete. It is not about people serving fashion; it is about fashion being a slave of people.
The type of clothing completely depends on the person who is wearing it; therefore it becomes a reflection of his perception of himself, which leads us to the term – personal identity. Lately a lot is being heard about personal identity and its meaning in the life of every single person on the planet. The choice of clothing and accessories (clothing that is worn or carried, but not part of a person’s main clothing) is as important as identification through the color of hair, height, skin and gender. Clothing nowadays is a media of information about the person wearing it [Barnard 21]. It is a cipher; a code that needs a decryption in order to understand what kind of person is underneath it. The present time offers a great variety of these “ciphers” and therefore gives people a large number of opportunities to reveal their identity. As every cloth carries a strong message about its owner, every owner “nests” a certain value in it depending on his temperament, mindset or today’s mood. Therefore, the clothing of a person is a mean of communication with the outside world. It is the way of telling people about the “state” and the ”status” of it owner [Barnes& Eicher 125].
Communication by its definition is supposed to be bilateral. So if a person carries a strong personal message to the people outside what is the response from their side? The response is the reaction on the clothes the person it wearing. It can be acceptance or complete outcast and a misunderstanding. This especially touches extraordinarity in clothing (a very expressive personal identity) or an obvious lack of taste and vulgarity. Malcolm Barnard in his book “Fashion as communication” makes a great work by outlining cultural roles, rules, rituals, and responsibilities that are maintained and constructed by fashion [Barnard 13,34]. Fashion is compared to art. It is like an architector that gives his creation any shape he desires and at the same time is the reflection of the architector’s belonging to a certain social level, a certain psychological condition and so on. One of the questions concerning the communication through fashion is whether the message possessed by fashion is the reflection of the internal or external identity. There are arguments that support each of the sides; therefore it goes without saying that fashion is a “polyhedral being” that intersects numerous internal and external aspects of any personality. The message that clothing contains is basically a way of nonverbal communication with gender, ethical and power aspects.
Clothes have an immense impact on the perception of people around and on the perception of the person wearing them, too. A suit can make a person feel more confident and organized, which would eventually change even the gestures and the manner of talking of the person or for instance wearing jeans after a suit may change the conduct of a person to a very liberal and feeble one [Hollander 58]. The perception of people around can be very predictable in terms of their reaction on a person wearing this or that style of clothing. Fashion is one of the most powerful means of communication, which sometimes may play a vital role in the life of a person; it especially concerns the cases of getting a desired job. Therefore fashion may not only carry a message, it can also create a “pseudo-message” that is required by a situation the person finds himself in. This can be simply proved by analyzing the reaction of the people on the street on people wearing different types of clothing. The preference is always given to people dressed in “business style”, personifying their dignity and seriousness in everything. This is one of the primary reasons that even the smallest companies make wearing a suit one of their requirements for their employees. The customers feel more confident in such “consultants”. So, fashion is a very keen tool of manipulation while communicating besides its importance in social class, culture, sex and gender relations of people.
Clothing is a fundamental part in the image of a contemporary man or a woman [Crane 47]. The image is constructed for various reasons and has various manifestations. Dressing has become a way to create, to reveal and to conceal information from the external observers. Fashion has always been considered to have more of a women based orientation. As soon as women realized that experimenting with their clothing might bring them the results they need they became the most interested consumers and the demand on women’s production increased greatly.
In spite of all arguments fashion remains possessing an ambivalent entity. Women, have a great impact on the development of fashion worldwide. Of course one of the primary messages clothes carry is the social message. Women throughout the time have tried to make the clothing look more luxurious. Historically the social message has wildly transformed. It is very easily trace in Diana Crane’s book “Fashion and it social agendas”. Nowadays clothing is not an attribute of belonging to a clan, or to a restrained social level though it still can tell a lot about the financial status of a person. A person, especially a women is always greeted according to the way is dressed up. Therefore women may cause desirable reaction by knowing the expectations of the “opponent”. Historically, women wore traditional dresses, which signified their cultural and social status [Guy& Green 76]. As for now, traditional clothing has been completely subdued by “fashionable clothing”. Women clothing in the past had a lot to do with emphasizing femininity, neglecting man-like forms of dressing. Analyzing the way of dressing today it is necessary to say that ”fashionable clothing” has made a great “kick” to femininity. Women become less ladylike but more aggressive and businesslike. A woman is opposed to a man; it is no longer an “addenda” to a male, but a force able to contradict him and to compete with him. Women have accepted a lot of clothing styles that propagandize masculinity. Of course there still are women that are the embodiments of tenderness and femininity preserving women’s sexuality but nevertheless the general tendency of feminization in today’s society has done its work. Equality at work, business and politics has transformed the image of a woman greatly.
Throughout the history starting with the middle ages men’s fashion has changed a lot. If the era of Renaissance was characterized by increased femininity in men’s clothes, the end of the twentieth century became the moment of maximal revealing of masculinity for men. Nowadays, identity has brought a lot of specific changes in the perception of a contemporary man. An open manifestation of sexual orientation has brought the image of a feminine man into fashion. The adaptation of feminine tendencies into men’s fashion is transparent. Men tend to choose practical clothes as casual clothing and suits as their “working uniform”[Hollander 43]. The whole image of a man is not brusque and rough anymore. It has become more flexible and soft. The construction of a man’s wardrobe starts with choosing from the variety of images offered by culture and class today. The gender boundary is gradually “wiped” off. Nevertheless, clothing remains the primary criterion of the evaluation of the opposite sex. While being very liberate towards the type of clothing of other men, they demonstrate especial criticism towards women’s clothing. This happens due to the variety and abundance of women around. Analyzing men’s fashion is like dealing with a complexity. This complexity is constantly changing and adjusting to the surrounding of tendencies.
It is no surprise to any of the people who at least know what fashion is that the clothes that people wear are usually very symbolic. The symbolism of clothing is another part of delivering the message that a person tries to put into it. The symbolism may touch any sphere. For instance: music, sexual orientation, some kind of club and so on [Barnard 62]. Originally, a symbol is a facility that is used to express feelings or belonging to some group of class often dealing with power and wealth. Every observable symbol may carry a deeper meaning than it is visually understandable. Expression of symbols through clothing is a very popular tendency nowadays. Symbolism in clothing may point to the profession the person is dedicated to, supporting the “cipher” theory. The perception of symbols is not the same as the perception of the whole clothing image of an individual, because people may interpret the same symbol differently and therefore the understanding of the carrier of the symbol will be completely different. For instance, a man with a tiger on this T-shit may seem aggressive to one person and a Green Peace member for another one. A bird may be a symbol of freedom and somebody can view it a symbol of light-mindedness. Every person has to be very careful with the symbol while visiting a foreign country, due to the double meaning of the symbols that may be offending to the culture the person is in. Though the goal of every symbol is to share information, nevertheless some symbols may be inappropriate. Particular articles of clothing also contain messages with give information about the person possessing them. For example a veil interpreted as mourning or an extreme aloofness. A walking stick may be necessary to the health condition but may also be a “sign of luxury”.
As every person belongs to a definite culture and has the right to reveal it, personal identity may sometimes be replaced by cultural identity. Cultural identity is the type of identity that is related to a certain culture or a separate group. It brings people belonging to a culture definite highlighting differences with other people. Clothing in terms of culture is to reveal either the historical roots of a person or the roots the group he belongs to. The oriental-followers are easily defined from the crowd by the specific collars and style of dressing they hold on to. Demonstrating a belonging to a certain cultural community is the free right of every person like people that freely declare who they are going to vote for. Talking about culture it is possible to mention that nowadays exists ”material culture” that dictates its own ways and code of dressing [Crane 51]. The liberation of culture off the borders made the cultural fashion developments increase dramatically. The “freedom of word” has found a place in every single cultural attribute nowadays. Wearing a cowboy hat may not be a sign of being from Texas, but a sign of political preference.
For instance it is very easy to distinguish a European from a Hindu by the style of dressing or an Indian woman from an oriental woman by the distinctive spot on the forehead of an Indian woman and a veil worn by Moslem woman. Fashion has taken the best part of the traditional costumes of every culture and sometimes this leads to propagandizing a definite cultural group. For instance, the brightest example is the increasing interest towards the Moslems and oriental culture nowadays.
Fashion and identity are inseparable companions. Fashion with all its symbolism and attributes form an outstanding base for personal and cultural identification. Identity is a necessary process of a healthy personality as it is a part of self-realization of a person that is so much required for finding a place in life of every person. Fashion has become a tool for achieving harmony with the inner world and a way of revealing or concealing peculiarities. Fashion possesses a specific meaning and the more diverse is the society around us the more fashion-trend will appear and surprise us. As long as it does not hurt people around fashion symbols are acceptable, nevertheless while thinking about fashion and identity it is necessary to remember the ethical side of the issue. Fashion and identity through it still remains a twofold issue but there are a lot of positive aspects one can enjoy and share with other people.
Showing posts with label argumentative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label argumentative. Show all posts
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Argumentative Text : Death Punishment for Children
The death penalty issue has always been one of the most important issues of the contemporary system of justice. Years ago the majority of the criminals were male over 20, but nowadays the situation has quite changed. Not only grown-ups but also by children who are under 18 years old nowadays commit murders and other terrible crimes. Ordinarily, a young criminal is not applied the same restrictions for his crime as a grown criminal is, nevertheless if it especially goes about capital crimes people start talking about the death penalty for such juveniles.
A child always remains a child and if he commits a crime it is not because he has had a good life. It is not the guilt of the children, but their big misfortune. It is a misfortune of not having anybody to love and truly support them and lead them in the correct direction. Along with that it is common knowledge that the period of 11 through 17 is a period of an especially intensive changes both in the organism and the mind of a child. That is why it is not fair to put a child in the same line with a grown up that can be completely responsible for his actions. A child is not mentally capable of comprehending the crime he or she commits. The system of values in the age under 18 is not built yet, other people can easily influence children and the psychic process are not stable yet. Under these conditions a child should never be sentences to death or a life sentence for they still have a chance to change and re-evaluate their life. If the aim of the prison is to change criminals for better then children under 18 should become the “material for changes” of the highest priority.
The year of 1988 was an extremely important year of the United States of America in terms of the death penalty for adolescent criminals. Before that time even a fifteen year old could be a subject to a death penalty for capital crimes. The Supreme Court in 1988 refused to use death penalty over those criminals that were under the age of sixteen. Nevertheless the 1988 decision did not influence many states and for instance, the state of Texas conducted its last death penalty over a juvenile in 2002. The U.S. Supreme Court has always called the execution of children a violation of the Constitution, where a child is every person under the age of eighteen years old. Nowadays 19 out of 51 state allow the conduction of the death penalty over children who are sixteen and seventeen years old. The death penalty of children fewer than eighteen years old is immoral, for killing a child implies killing a weaker human being that simply required supervision and attention from the side of his parents. As each society tends to be more humanistic, the probability of the fact that an eighteen-year-old is as guilty as a grown-up criminal starts being completely neglected. One of the main cases of the modernity was the case of 2004 of Roper v. Simmons. This was a fight between two completely opposite opinions – one was that death penalty for juveniles is completely normal, as the capital crimes they commit are sometimes even worse then those committed by the grown criminals; and the other side was that death penalty for juveniles is completely unconstitutional and absolutely immoral as they are only children and not mature grown ups able to be fully responsible for their actions.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychiatric Association have claimed that facts against the death penalty for children under the age of eighteen.
The main reason of such statement is the fact that the researchers reveals: the prefrontal cortex, situated in the frontal lobe of a human being whish is responsible for the formation of the most important functions of the brain finished its completely formation after everything else, so is the part that forms the longest amount of time. According to the Wall Street Journal the prefrontal cortex is the management center of the human brain as it is the part responsible for the most important function – planning, anticipation of the consequences, controlling the impulses and is responsible for abstract thinking. And the most important fact is that this part of the brain is a subject to continuing formation until a human being is twenty-years-old. The second vital piece of information is that the decision –making process in adulthood is controlled by amygdala, known as the most primitive part of the human brain and therefore is the center of impulses and emotions.
These facts emphasize the notion that the change of the brain during the period of adolescence is immense and this is the reason young people reveal a big deal of the irrational behavior of the humanity. Children should not be sentences to death as the development and therefore the functioning of the brain is not the same for teenagers and adults. The line for death penalty should be drawn at age 18 because at these age the majority of the processes stabilize and rich the state of full brain formation. Even if a child knows what is not right to do, but he or she may still perform a behavior that would not be socially appropriate and may even damage the lives of other people because of the their mental incapability to evaluate their behavior properly.
So, according to the age peculiarities a teenager under the age of eighteen by no means should become a subject of death penalty. Some congressmen still tried to apply death penalty through lethal injection to guilty juveniles sixteen years of age. Such proposed legislations are truly inhumane and break all the moral laws and the rights that every child possesses. In case the Congress approved such legislation as a reaction the protests would have been tremendous, as killing people that have not even reached their mental and physical development potential means killing a person that is not able to take full responsibility for his or her actions.
There is not secret that the United Nations Organization has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and especially its Article 37 whish states that a child should never be a subject to cruel, treatment and punishment. According to this very article the offenders that are below eighteen years of age cannot be sentenced to life in prison or become subjects to death penalty [5]. This convention also states that a child that has committed a crime and is under 18 needs to go through rehabilitation. The possibility for the child being rehabilitated is recognizes a child being a human being and provides that possibility for the child to start his or her life for new. Such rehabilitation gives the second chance for the child and his family, because a child can change due to the fact that the development of the functions in his brain has not stopped yet.
Each human being is born innocent and it is important not to forget that 2/3 of the negative manifestations are acquired from the way parent bring their child up and the child’s social environment. If the child has only aggressive and violent examples in his social environment, is not accepted and guided by his parents, not supported by his teachers then the child’s personality deforms. For instance it is obvious that if a child is abusive he has a deficit of tactile contact and gentleness. These deformations may have the harshest forms: emotional instability of the child, aggression, and violence against other people. A juvenile is NOT an adult criminal and should never be treated alike, and especially be a subject to death penalty. The death penalty is meant to make criminals scared of committing serious crimes, but in reality this does not work this exact way. It is more important to prevent children from committing crimes and to remember that children do not commit crimes on the basis whether the crime in accordance with the punishment for it put simply reflect what the family and the society have put into his “head”.
Lionel Tate’s case may without any doubt be called the most well known criminal case of the beginning of the XXI century. Lionel Tate, a teenager was born 1987. At the age of fourteen he was accused of a murder he committed when he was twelve years old, for which he obtained a life-long sentence. The details of the case are the following: at the age of twelve Lionel Tate killed Tiffany Eunick who was six years old. The girl was Tate’s playmate. The details of the murder are awful – the body of the girl has numerous signs of brutality such as injuries one of which is the skull fracture. Lionel Tate was only twelve years old when he committed this murder. It has been announced that the boy was only copying the wrestling moves, but no matter what it was the boy was imitating something that he has seen before either on TV or in real life. The Court found the boy guilty and accused him of a first-degree murder. The punishment for that is a life in prison.
The fact of giving a life sentence to a fourteen-year old shocked the society because everybody understood that a child in his twelve years couldn’t be judged as a mentally developed adult. It was for the panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal that a new trial was set in order to identify if Tate comprehended the proceedings held against him. The competency of a fourteen-year-old child to stand the trial was very questionable. The reveled the understanding that such a child cannot be mentally capable of taking responsibility for his own actions. It is obvious that Lionel Tate has committed a serious crime and the consequences of his actions are simply terrible because the life of another child was taken away. None says that the boy should not be punished, but not with death penalty or life in prison. The decision of home arrest and probation is right for Lionel Tate. Lionel Tate deserves being punished but not made to spend his whole lifetime in a prison for a crime he committed when he was twelve years old and could not take full responsibility for his actions and completely realize the consequences of his actions for the little girl and himself. That is the reason this example should always be kept in mind by congressmen before they make another juvenile lethal injection suggestion.
One of the most terrifying cases concerning the issue of juvenile death penalty is the case of Christopher Simmons, a seventeen-year-old teenager who in 1993, when he was seventeen years old broke into the house of his neighbor. The moment he got in the house he met face to face with the owner of the house whose name is Shirley Ann Crook, who was forty-six years old at the moment of the crime. To make sure that Shirley Ann Crook will not recognize him the boy bound her with an electrical cord and a duct tape, transported her in a car and threw her into the river of Meramec. Shirley Ann Crook died from drowning. Mr. Simmons committed the whole crime with a fifteen-year-old friend Charles Benjamin. As a consequence, Charles Benjamin was sentences to life in prison, as he was not old enough for death penalty. Correspondingly, Christopher Simmons was convicted and set for death penalty. Lately the Supreme Court of Missouri brought up the Eights Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that is against cruel and unusual punishments and another statement was that Christopher Simmons was not old enough when he was 17 to take full responsibility for his own actions. The majority of people would say that a seventeen-year-old boy must take full responsibility for his terrible crime, but people do forget one essential thing. This boy truly was a CHILD when he committed a crime. A child and no more than that. It is the problem of the contemporary society to start considering children to be grown ups. The modern society creates the need for little children to become mature faster, but the psychological and physiological cannot go faster than the nature has set them. This issue is often forgotten. When a child is in need of anything starting with attention and ending with a child having a stress because of financial troubles he may step on the wrong path but is still not able to be completely responsible for his actions. The artificial acceleration of the process of growing up results in the growing number of juveniles all over the world, so killing will not solve the problem, but only cover its consequences.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center 72 juveniles on death rows were under 18 when they committed the crime they were accused for. It is twenty-nine for Texas, fourteen for Alabama, five for Mississippi, four for Arizona, Louisiana and North Carolina, three for Florida and South Caroline, two for Georgia and Pennsylvania and one for Nevada and Virginia. Such states as Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Delaware and New Hampshire do allow juvenile execution but at the moment do not have any juveniles on death row at the moment
All these “criminals” were children under eighteen when their crimes were committed. Being under eighteen great changes were happening in the brains and bodies making this people emotionally instable. Other factors gave them the example of how the crime can be committed but their inability to evaluate the consequences and the lack of functionality of the decision-making process lead to a sad end. They all should be punished, in order to firmly understand that committing crimes against other human beings is immoral but their death is not best way out of the problem. Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing!
A child always remains a child and if he commits a crime it is not because he has had a good life. It is not the guilt of the children, but their big misfortune. It is a misfortune of not having anybody to love and truly support them and lead them in the correct direction. Along with that it is common knowledge that the period of 11 through 17 is a period of an especially intensive changes both in the organism and the mind of a child. That is why it is not fair to put a child in the same line with a grown up that can be completely responsible for his actions. A child is not mentally capable of comprehending the crime he or she commits. The system of values in the age under 18 is not built yet, other people can easily influence children and the psychic process are not stable yet. Under these conditions a child should never be sentences to death or a life sentence for they still have a chance to change and re-evaluate their life. If the aim of the prison is to change criminals for better then children under 18 should become the “material for changes” of the highest priority.
The year of 1988 was an extremely important year of the United States of America in terms of the death penalty for adolescent criminals. Before that time even a fifteen year old could be a subject to a death penalty for capital crimes. The Supreme Court in 1988 refused to use death penalty over those criminals that were under the age of sixteen. Nevertheless the 1988 decision did not influence many states and for instance, the state of Texas conducted its last death penalty over a juvenile in 2002. The U.S. Supreme Court has always called the execution of children a violation of the Constitution, where a child is every person under the age of eighteen years old. Nowadays 19 out of 51 state allow the conduction of the death penalty over children who are sixteen and seventeen years old. The death penalty of children fewer than eighteen years old is immoral, for killing a child implies killing a weaker human being that simply required supervision and attention from the side of his parents. As each society tends to be more humanistic, the probability of the fact that an eighteen-year-old is as guilty as a grown-up criminal starts being completely neglected. One of the main cases of the modernity was the case of 2004 of Roper v. Simmons. This was a fight between two completely opposite opinions – one was that death penalty for juveniles is completely normal, as the capital crimes they commit are sometimes even worse then those committed by the grown criminals; and the other side was that death penalty for juveniles is completely unconstitutional and absolutely immoral as they are only children and not mature grown ups able to be fully responsible for their actions.
The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Society for Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Psychiatric Association have claimed that facts against the death penalty for children under the age of eighteen.
The main reason of such statement is the fact that the researchers reveals: the prefrontal cortex, situated in the frontal lobe of a human being whish is responsible for the formation of the most important functions of the brain finished its completely formation after everything else, so is the part that forms the longest amount of time. According to the Wall Street Journal the prefrontal cortex is the management center of the human brain as it is the part responsible for the most important function – planning, anticipation of the consequences, controlling the impulses and is responsible for abstract thinking. And the most important fact is that this part of the brain is a subject to continuing formation until a human being is twenty-years-old. The second vital piece of information is that the decision –making process in adulthood is controlled by amygdala, known as the most primitive part of the human brain and therefore is the center of impulses and emotions.
These facts emphasize the notion that the change of the brain during the period of adolescence is immense and this is the reason young people reveal a big deal of the irrational behavior of the humanity. Children should not be sentences to death as the development and therefore the functioning of the brain is not the same for teenagers and adults. The line for death penalty should be drawn at age 18 because at these age the majority of the processes stabilize and rich the state of full brain formation. Even if a child knows what is not right to do, but he or she may still perform a behavior that would not be socially appropriate and may even damage the lives of other people because of the their mental incapability to evaluate their behavior properly.
So, according to the age peculiarities a teenager under the age of eighteen by no means should become a subject of death penalty. Some congressmen still tried to apply death penalty through lethal injection to guilty juveniles sixteen years of age. Such proposed legislations are truly inhumane and break all the moral laws and the rights that every child possesses. In case the Congress approved such legislation as a reaction the protests would have been tremendous, as killing people that have not even reached their mental and physical development potential means killing a person that is not able to take full responsibility for his or her actions.
There is not secret that the United Nations Organization has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and especially its Article 37 whish states that a child should never be a subject to cruel, treatment and punishment. According to this very article the offenders that are below eighteen years of age cannot be sentenced to life in prison or become subjects to death penalty [5]. This convention also states that a child that has committed a crime and is under 18 needs to go through rehabilitation. The possibility for the child being rehabilitated is recognizes a child being a human being and provides that possibility for the child to start his or her life for new. Such rehabilitation gives the second chance for the child and his family, because a child can change due to the fact that the development of the functions in his brain has not stopped yet.
Each human being is born innocent and it is important not to forget that 2/3 of the negative manifestations are acquired from the way parent bring their child up and the child’s social environment. If the child has only aggressive and violent examples in his social environment, is not accepted and guided by his parents, not supported by his teachers then the child’s personality deforms. For instance it is obvious that if a child is abusive he has a deficit of tactile contact and gentleness. These deformations may have the harshest forms: emotional instability of the child, aggression, and violence against other people. A juvenile is NOT an adult criminal and should never be treated alike, and especially be a subject to death penalty. The death penalty is meant to make criminals scared of committing serious crimes, but in reality this does not work this exact way. It is more important to prevent children from committing crimes and to remember that children do not commit crimes on the basis whether the crime in accordance with the punishment for it put simply reflect what the family and the society have put into his “head”.
Lionel Tate’s case may without any doubt be called the most well known criminal case of the beginning of the XXI century. Lionel Tate, a teenager was born 1987. At the age of fourteen he was accused of a murder he committed when he was twelve years old, for which he obtained a life-long sentence. The details of the case are the following: at the age of twelve Lionel Tate killed Tiffany Eunick who was six years old. The girl was Tate’s playmate. The details of the murder are awful – the body of the girl has numerous signs of brutality such as injuries one of which is the skull fracture. Lionel Tate was only twelve years old when he committed this murder. It has been announced that the boy was only copying the wrestling moves, but no matter what it was the boy was imitating something that he has seen before either on TV or in real life. The Court found the boy guilty and accused him of a first-degree murder. The punishment for that is a life in prison.
The fact of giving a life sentence to a fourteen-year old shocked the society because everybody understood that a child in his twelve years couldn’t be judged as a mentally developed adult. It was for the panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal that a new trial was set in order to identify if Tate comprehended the proceedings held against him. The competency of a fourteen-year-old child to stand the trial was very questionable. The reveled the understanding that such a child cannot be mentally capable of taking responsibility for his own actions. It is obvious that Lionel Tate has committed a serious crime and the consequences of his actions are simply terrible because the life of another child was taken away. None says that the boy should not be punished, but not with death penalty or life in prison. The decision of home arrest and probation is right for Lionel Tate. Lionel Tate deserves being punished but not made to spend his whole lifetime in a prison for a crime he committed when he was twelve years old and could not take full responsibility for his actions and completely realize the consequences of his actions for the little girl and himself. That is the reason this example should always be kept in mind by congressmen before they make another juvenile lethal injection suggestion.
One of the most terrifying cases concerning the issue of juvenile death penalty is the case of Christopher Simmons, a seventeen-year-old teenager who in 1993, when he was seventeen years old broke into the house of his neighbor. The moment he got in the house he met face to face with the owner of the house whose name is Shirley Ann Crook, who was forty-six years old at the moment of the crime. To make sure that Shirley Ann Crook will not recognize him the boy bound her with an electrical cord and a duct tape, transported her in a car and threw her into the river of Meramec. Shirley Ann Crook died from drowning. Mr. Simmons committed the whole crime with a fifteen-year-old friend Charles Benjamin. As a consequence, Charles Benjamin was sentences to life in prison, as he was not old enough for death penalty. Correspondingly, Christopher Simmons was convicted and set for death penalty. Lately the Supreme Court of Missouri brought up the Eights Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that is against cruel and unusual punishments and another statement was that Christopher Simmons was not old enough when he was 17 to take full responsibility for his own actions. The majority of people would say that a seventeen-year-old boy must take full responsibility for his terrible crime, but people do forget one essential thing. This boy truly was a CHILD when he committed a crime. A child and no more than that. It is the problem of the contemporary society to start considering children to be grown ups. The modern society creates the need for little children to become mature faster, but the psychological and physiological cannot go faster than the nature has set them. This issue is often forgotten. When a child is in need of anything starting with attention and ending with a child having a stress because of financial troubles he may step on the wrong path but is still not able to be completely responsible for his actions. The artificial acceleration of the process of growing up results in the growing number of juveniles all over the world, so killing will not solve the problem, but only cover its consequences.
According to the Death Penalty Information Center 72 juveniles on death rows were under 18 when they committed the crime they were accused for. It is twenty-nine for Texas, fourteen for Alabama, five for Mississippi, four for Arizona, Louisiana and North Carolina, three for Florida and South Caroline, two for Georgia and Pennsylvania and one for Nevada and Virginia. Such states as Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, Delaware and New Hampshire do allow juvenile execution but at the moment do not have any juveniles on death row at the moment
All these “criminals” were children under eighteen when their crimes were committed. Being under eighteen great changes were happening in the brains and bodies making this people emotionally instable. Other factors gave them the example of how the crime can be committed but their inability to evaluate the consequences and the lack of functionality of the decision-making process lead to a sad end. They all should be punished, in order to firmly understand that committing crimes against other human beings is immoral but their death is not best way out of the problem. Forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing!
Sunday, August 26, 2018
Makes a Good Argumentative
To wirte a good argumentative you have to several points :
- Define the problem that forms your subject. You may define it by means of dscription, narration, classification, analogy anylysis or cuase and effect. Most probably you will need a combination of some of these, perhaps of all.
- Analyze the nature of your problem . Be sure to include specific examples. Choose only the best. A few good example will be more effective than a superficial description of large number. For the analysis you will probably need to summarize, compare, contrast and classify parts of your material. To make your presentation of the material logical you will need introduction and deduction.
- Include a full recognition of the opposing of view and analyze them to show their strength and weaknesses.
- Resist the attemption to oversimplify the problem or the opinion of the opposition, an oversimplification may make your posisition seem stronger for the moment, but as soon as your readers have bad tie to think about I, they will realize that you are slanting the evidence.
- Give your solution to he problem. If you have a solution, but admit it frankly if you have none.
- End with your most convincing material suchas a brief restatement of your solution that you can remember easily.
- Support your argument throughout the main body of your essay.
- Appeal to your readers interest and symphathies. An argument based entirely on logic may convince your readers that your opinion is correct, but it may not move them to action. The most effective argument is also a persuasion.
Wednesday, July 18, 2018
Argumentative Text : Women's Sports are Treated Unfairly
Edson women athletes are not treated as equal to the edson men athletes. The administration claims that the men recruit more, have larger teams, and use more equipment; therefore they need more money. The administration seems toneglect the fact that if womenn had more money they would recruit more have larger teams, and need more equipments.
Being on the women's soccer team, I know that women's soccer is not given mush support as the men's soccer team is. We have one playing field, which is also used for intramural sports. The men have a practice field and playing field. Anyone who dares to step foot on either of these fields will probably be sorry. Another thing men have that women's soccer is deprived of its transportation. The administration will give the women's team gas money, but they are hestitant about lending the vehicles to ys. One woman soccer player bought a van so more team members could go to the games. It is not fair when one has to tell a team member that she cannot go tothe game because she does not play enough and there is not enough room. Some people argue that because woen's soccer is relatively small, the transportation is fair. However if other extracurricular activities like trips to Cleveland or a park receive the vehicles, there is no reason why the women's soccer team should not be able to use them. Why did the school buy them, if not for the students use?
The one thing that would really help develop a strong women's soccer team would be good coach. Since the women are ready at a disadvantage by coming into sports later than the men. I think the administration should hire a good, qualified coach. If the team receives nothing else they prove themselves, that is fine. It is hard to get a team started without a coach. There are women who do not know how to play the game and want to learn. How can the women who know the sport teach the women who want to learn when they are trying to get organized enough to work together as a team. I have been out on the field where it gets very frustatting because half the team does not understand the concept of the game. It makes me want to hrow in the towel right then and there. I know I cannot because I must support my own sex and all the other women athletes struggling to be equally recognized. Is there was a coach, she could help organize and help everyone improve. As a result it would take the team a shorter time to show their interest and enthusiasm. AFter they have shown this, then the administration can finance equipment, uniforms, and approriate slaying fields. The professional coach five years ago ; If the women's soccer team got similar help, we would improve jus as much.
Other women's team are treated just as unfairly. The men's team get everything they want, but the women's team get practically nothing. The women's intramural program is also small compared to the men's program. The administration is very sexist and obviously thinks women's sport are not important. I am surprised that they do not tall us to organize sewing circles instead of athletic teams. What they should realize is that women's sport are as important to Edson as men's sport are because women's sport make an equal contribution to the school. It is not fair that we are treated so unequally by administrators who do not know anything about sports and probably never play so much as a game of Ping-Pong themselves.
The only way this enquality can be ended is for women athletes to become involved, to make people aware to fight the injustice. First the women need the administration to recognize us so that we can get the proper coaches to help us develop our skills. We also need to get the support of other students, who don't seem to care about women's sport at all, and the men athletes, who are very smug and superior. Once we prove that women are just as good at sports as men are, if not better, then we can fight for more money, which will lead to more recruiting, larger teams and more equipment.
Being on the women's soccer team, I know that women's soccer is not given mush support as the men's soccer team is. We have one playing field, which is also used for intramural sports. The men have a practice field and playing field. Anyone who dares to step foot on either of these fields will probably be sorry. Another thing men have that women's soccer is deprived of its transportation. The administration will give the women's team gas money, but they are hestitant about lending the vehicles to ys. One woman soccer player bought a van so more team members could go to the games. It is not fair when one has to tell a team member that she cannot go tothe game because she does not play enough and there is not enough room. Some people argue that because woen's soccer is relatively small, the transportation is fair. However if other extracurricular activities like trips to Cleveland or a park receive the vehicles, there is no reason why the women's soccer team should not be able to use them. Why did the school buy them, if not for the students use?
The one thing that would really help develop a strong women's soccer team would be good coach. Since the women are ready at a disadvantage by coming into sports later than the men. I think the administration should hire a good, qualified coach. If the team receives nothing else they prove themselves, that is fine. It is hard to get a team started without a coach. There are women who do not know how to play the game and want to learn. How can the women who know the sport teach the women who want to learn when they are trying to get organized enough to work together as a team. I have been out on the field where it gets very frustatting because half the team does not understand the concept of the game. It makes me want to hrow in the towel right then and there. I know I cannot because I must support my own sex and all the other women athletes struggling to be equally recognized. Is there was a coach, she could help organize and help everyone improve. As a result it would take the team a shorter time to show their interest and enthusiasm. AFter they have shown this, then the administration can finance equipment, uniforms, and approriate slaying fields. The professional coach five years ago ; If the women's soccer team got similar help, we would improve jus as much.
Other women's team are treated just as unfairly. The men's team get everything they want, but the women's team get practically nothing. The women's intramural program is also small compared to the men's program. The administration is very sexist and obviously thinks women's sport are not important. I am surprised that they do not tall us to organize sewing circles instead of athletic teams. What they should realize is that women's sport are as important to Edson as men's sport are because women's sport make an equal contribution to the school. It is not fair that we are treated so unequally by administrators who do not know anything about sports and probably never play so much as a game of Ping-Pong themselves.
The only way this enquality can be ended is for women athletes to become involved, to make people aware to fight the injustice. First the women need the administration to recognize us so that we can get the proper coaches to help us develop our skills. We also need to get the support of other students, who don't seem to care about women's sport at all, and the men athletes, who are very smug and superior. Once we prove that women are just as good at sports as men are, if not better, then we can fight for more money, which will lead to more recruiting, larger teams and more equipment.
Thursday, July 5, 2018
Argumentative Text : " Increase Asphalt Prices"
State oil and Gas Company pertamina should increase asphalt prices. Pertamina is Indonesia' major oil refiner and producer of asphalt, which is mainly used for road building and maintenance. These road projects are paid for by the government and are often in turn funded by foreign aid.
Pertamina ashpalt production is not enough to meet the demand and Indonesia has to import ashpalt every year at much higher international prices. If pertamina were to increase itsa ashpaltprices to world market levels. it could the extra income to help subsidize low fuel prices for the poor. I am sure the International donors and project financiers would have no objections.
This ashpalt price increase wouldnot impact direcly on the general public and may also encourage investment in the petrochemical sector.
Pertamina ashpalt production is not enough to meet the demand and Indonesia has to import ashpalt every year at much higher international prices. If pertamina were to increase itsa ashpaltprices to world market levels. it could the extra income to help subsidize low fuel prices for the poor. I am sure the International donors and project financiers would have no objections.
This ashpalt price increase wouldnot impact direcly on the general public and may also encourage investment in the petrochemical sector.
Saturday, May 12, 2018
Argumentative Text : Good and Bad Teacher in Teaching Students
Usually the term education is used meaning the great impact that parent have on the future personality of their child. But this also includes school education, because nowadays, when parents are very busy they are the people, who teach children what is beautiful and what is ugly, what is right and what is wrong. Through them children learn to perceive the inner world. And the way they perceive it depends on the teacher’s personal particularities that are transmitted to children through interaction and the knowledge that the teacher offers them. Therefore there is much more to a teacher than high professionalism. What makes kids hardly wait until the lesson starts in one cases and hating the subject in others? Of course high professionalism in the field of the taught subject is very important, but when it comes to being a bad or a good teacher this is not the weightiest factor. A good teacher is a person who not just reproduces the knowledge he got. Not a person that only brings up the interest to the subject. It is a person who finds individual approach to every pupil, taking care about the child’s adaptation in class, increasing one’s social status in class and making sure the children learn to take into account and respect the thoughts of other people. It is a man or a woman that can not “play” the teacher’s role but he in the first place “ a feeling human being” in front of the students, a person that can show emotional response.
For example, if the teacher is professionally good enough but does not take critics from the pupils constructively or does not explain why he thinks he is right this makes a huge gap between the students and the teacher. And when there is no emotional contact the learning cannot be called successful, for the students are not completely involved. When the teacher does not treat students as people that obey him, treats them like they are equal to him and explains equally to everybody it can really be a pointer of a “good” teacher. And one other very important thing is creativity. One of the indicators of a “good” teacher it is his desire to teach in a new, original form, adding something new and personal to make the learning process as exciting as it can possibly be.
A bad teacher is a person that focuses only on the information he provides not taking into account the children or anything. It is a person that is doing its job. Such a person can be very good in the theoretical part of his subject but he will never have students being emotionally attached to him. It is a teacher that lets his personal mood influence on the way he treats his students, ect. That cannot reduce awkward situations with humor either it is him in the situation or his student. Being a good teacher is about loving children and wanting to give them only the best the teacher has inside of him.
For example, if the teacher is professionally good enough but does not take critics from the pupils constructively or does not explain why he thinks he is right this makes a huge gap between the students and the teacher. And when there is no emotional contact the learning cannot be called successful, for the students are not completely involved. When the teacher does not treat students as people that obey him, treats them like they are equal to him and explains equally to everybody it can really be a pointer of a “good” teacher. And one other very important thing is creativity. One of the indicators of a “good” teacher it is his desire to teach in a new, original form, adding something new and personal to make the learning process as exciting as it can possibly be.
A bad teacher is a person that focuses only on the information he provides not taking into account the children or anything. It is a person that is doing its job. Such a person can be very good in the theoretical part of his subject but he will never have students being emotionally attached to him. It is a teacher that lets his personal mood influence on the way he treats his students, ect. That cannot reduce awkward situations with humor either it is him in the situation or his student. Being a good teacher is about loving children and wanting to give them only the best the teacher has inside of him.
Tuesday, April 3, 2018
Argumentative Text : The Violence In Games
It is already common knowledge that violent games cause violence in people. This fact is not even doubted by the majority of people. Every other person says that the reason lies in games being too close to reality. The opinion that games make violent actions normal for the player and therefore make the player pitiless can be often heard. In this case the game is the cause of violence and the act of violence by itself is a consequence. And can real-life violence exist in the reality of a game? Is the transfer of the definition of “violence” with all its peculiarities from one world to another justified only according to the external similarity of these two worlds?
Games originally are entertainment. Contemporary games are very realistic and for this reason they are a source of great experience for the player and develop the imagination. Games are entertainment and even more then that. In addition, the statistics of the New York University lead by Green and Bavelier claim that the player preferring active games get an improvement of some types of brain activity, related to processing of visual information. In particular, game players cope with problems of simultaneously tracking several moving objects at the average level of 30% better then people who do not play active computer video games. The “gaming” violent experience may not be the cause of violent behavior in reality. None of the playing experience will become the priority in making important decisions concerning problems in real life. A game is an abstraction. A player gets abstract tasks and acts according to abstract rules. Games are also the possibility to be however a person wants to be and to rest from the outside world for some time. But what if a person gets so much excited with the game scenes that he becomes violent in reality? Then, it proves that the games cause people to become violent. Let us stop for a moment right at this point. Those who do not participate in this type of activity usually make the conclusion of presence of violence in the game-world. Nobody will ever hear this kind of statement from those who play, from those who know the rules of the game and understand that it is just a virtual world. A psychologically healthy person will never confuse or connect these two different worlds. A game is a virtual world with visual images very similar to human. These images represent by themselves nothing but simple playing obstacles. A game may potentially give the opportunity to “destroy the obstacles” that may not be destroyed according to the rules but it is more about personal choice whether to do it or not. This leads us to the conclusion that violence is not a consequence but the cause. People who are originally prone to violence may get irritated by games and perform violence in the “real world”. But in this case violence in games is a simple justification of the violent nature of the player.
Games originally are entertainment. Contemporary games are very realistic and for this reason they are a source of great experience for the player and develop the imagination. Games are entertainment and even more then that. In addition, the statistics of the New York University lead by Green and Bavelier claim that the player preferring active games get an improvement of some types of brain activity, related to processing of visual information. In particular, game players cope with problems of simultaneously tracking several moving objects at the average level of 30% better then people who do not play active computer video games. The “gaming” violent experience may not be the cause of violent behavior in reality. None of the playing experience will become the priority in making important decisions concerning problems in real life. A game is an abstraction. A player gets abstract tasks and acts according to abstract rules. Games are also the possibility to be however a person wants to be and to rest from the outside world for some time. But what if a person gets so much excited with the game scenes that he becomes violent in reality? Then, it proves that the games cause people to become violent. Let us stop for a moment right at this point. Those who do not participate in this type of activity usually make the conclusion of presence of violence in the game-world. Nobody will ever hear this kind of statement from those who play, from those who know the rules of the game and understand that it is just a virtual world. A psychologically healthy person will never confuse or connect these two different worlds. A game is a virtual world with visual images very similar to human. These images represent by themselves nothing but simple playing obstacles. A game may potentially give the opportunity to “destroy the obstacles” that may not be destroyed according to the rules but it is more about personal choice whether to do it or not. This leads us to the conclusion that violence is not a consequence but the cause. People who are originally prone to violence may get irritated by games and perform violence in the “real world”. But in this case violence in games is a simple justification of the violent nature of the player.
Monday, February 19, 2018
Argumentative Text : Identity And Fashion
For hundreds of years people have put some message in the type of clothing they wore. Long ago people started wanting to stand out from the “crowd” and be different from other people by means of changing their clothing. Some examples of these “standing out” became very popular and were followed by more people. This was the moment when fashion appeared. Nowadays, fashion is sometimes defined as a “constantly changing trend, favored for frivolous rather than practical, logical, or intellectual reasons”. Nevertheless, it is necessary to say that at the present moment fashion has a deeper influence on the life of people and possess more than just frivolous reasons for its existance. Clothing has become an integral part of self-realization of every person. It is no longer just an “external shield” and a frivolous attitude towards it may cause loosing a very important physical, psychological and social aspect of a person’s life. The harmony attained by the combination of the inner world of a person and his “exterior” makes it very hard to say not even being a professional in this sphere that fashion is just about looks. Clothing is basically a covering designed to be worn on a person's body. This covering is a need, a necessity that is dictated by the norms of social conduct. This “necessity” brings a lot of variety into the lives of people and makes their image more complete. It is not about people serving fashion; it is about fashion being a slave of people.The type of clothing completely depends on the person who is wearing it; therefore it becomes a reflection of his perception of himself, which leads us to the term – personal identity. Lately a lot is being heard about personal identity and its meaning in the life of every single person on the planet. The choice of clothing and accessories (clothing that is worn or carried, but not part of a person’s main clothing) is as important as identification through the color of hair, height, skin and gender. Clothing nowadays is a media of information about the person wearing it [Barnard 21]. It is a cipher; a code that needs a decryption in order to understand what kind of person is underneath it. The present time offers a great variety of these “ciphers” and therefore gives people a large number of opportunities to reveal their identity. As every cloth carries a strong message about its owner, every owner “nests” a certain value in it depending on his temperament, mindset or today’s mood. Therefore, the clothing of a person is a mean of communication with the outside world. It is the way of telling people about the “state” and the ”status” of it owner
Communication by its definition is supposed to be bilateral. So if a person carries a strong personal message to the people outside what is the response from their side? The response is the reaction on the clothes the person it wearing. It can be acceptance or complete outcast and a misunderstanding. This especially touches extraordinarity in clothing (a very expressive personal identity) or an obvious lack of taste and vulgarity. Malcolm Barnard in his book “Fashion as communication” makes a great work by outlining cultural roles, rules, rituals, and responsibilities that are maintained and constructed by fashion [Barnard 13,34]. Fashion is compared to art. It is like an architector that gives his creation any shape he desires and at the same time is the reflection of the architector’s belonging to a certain social level, a certain psychological condition and so on. One of the questions concerning the communication through fashion is whether the message possessed by fashion is the reflection of the internal or external identity. There are arguments that support each of the sides; therefore it goes without saying that fashion is a “polyhedral being” that intersects numerous internal and external aspects of any personality. The message that clothing contains is basically a way of nonverbal communication with gender, ethical and power aspects and organized, which would eventually change even the gestures and the manner of talking of the person or for instance wearing jeans after a suit may change the conduct of a person to a very liberal and feeble one [Hollander 58]. The perception of people around can be very predictable in terms of their reaction on a person wearing this or that style of clothing. Fashion is one of the most powerful means of communication, which sometimes may play a vital role in the life of a person; it especially concerns the cases of getting a desired job. Therefore fashion may not only carry a message, it can also create a “pseudo-message” that is required by a situation the person finds himself in. This can be simply proved by analyzing the reaction of the people on the street on people wearing different types of clothing. The preference is always given to people dressed in “business style”, personifying their dignity and seriousness in everything. This is one of the primary reasons that even the smallest companies make wearing a suit one of their requirements for their employees. The customers feel more confident in such “consultants”. So, fashion is a very keen tool of manipulation while communicating besides its importance in social class, culture, sex and gender relations of people. Clothing is a fundamental part in the image of a contemporary man or a woman the
production increased greatly.
In spite of all arguments fashion remains possessing an ambivalent entity. Women, have a great impact on the development of fashion worldwide. Of course one of the primary messages clothes carry is the social message. Women throughout the time have tried to make the clothing look more luxurious. Historically the social message has wildly transformed. It is very easily trace in Diana Crane’s book “Fashion and it social agendas”. Nowadays clothing is not an attribute of belonging to a clan, or to a restrained social level though it still can tell a lot about the financial status of a person. A person, especially a women is always greeted according to the way is dressed up. Therefore women may cause desirable reaction by knowing the expectations of the “opponent”. Historically, women wore traditional dresses, which signified their cultural and social status . As for now, traditional clothing has been completely subdued by “fashionable clothing”. Women clothing in the past had a lot to do with emphasizing femininity, neglecting man-like forms of dressing. Analyzing the way of dressing today it is necessary to say that ”fashionable clothing” has made a great “kick” to femininity. Women become less ladylike but more aggressive and businesslike. A woman is opposed to a man; it is no longer an “addenda” to a male, but a force able to contradict him and to compete with him. Women have accepted a lot of clothing styles that propagandize masculinity. Of course there still are women that are the embodiments of tenderness and femininity preserving women’s sexuality but nevertheless the general tendency of feminization in today’s society has done its work. Equality at work, business and politics has transformed the image of a woman greatly.
Throughout the history starting with the middle ages men’s fashion has changed a lot. If the era of Renaissance was characterized by increased femininity in men’s clothes, the end of the twentieth century became the moment of maximal revealing of masculinity for men. Nowadays, identity has brought a lot of specific changes in the perception of a contemporary man. An open manifestation of sexual orientation has brought the image of a feminine man into fashion. The adaptation of feminine tendencies into men’s fashion is transparent. Men tend to choose practical clothes as casual clothing and suits as their “working uniform”[Hollander 43]. The whole image of a man is not brusque and rough anymore. It has become more flexible and soft. The construction of a man’s wardrobe starts with choosing from the variety of images offered by culture and class today. The gender boundary is gradually “wiped” off. Nevertheless, clothing remains the primary criterion of the evaluation of the opposite sex. While being very liberate towards the type of clothing of other men, they demonstrate especial criticism towards women’s clothing. This happens due to the variety and abundance of women around. Analyzing men’s fashion is like dealing with a complexity. This complexity is constantly changing and adjusting to the surrounding of tendencies.
It is no surprise to any of the people who at least know what fashion is that the clothes that people wear are usually very symbolic. The symbolism of clothing is another part of delivering the message that a person tries to put into it. The symbolism may touch any sphere. For instance: music, sexual orientation, some kind of club and so on. Originally, a symbol is a facility that is used to express feelings or belonging to some group of class often dealing with power and wealth. Every observable symbol may carry a deeper meaning than it is visually understandable. Expression of symbols through clothing is a very popular tendency nowadays. Symbolism in clothing mstyle of dressing or an Indian woman from an oriental woman by the distinctive spot on the forehead of an Indian woman and a veil worn by Moslem woman. Fashion has taken the best part of the traditional costumes of every culture and sometimes this leads to propagandizing a definite cultural group. For instance, the brightest example is the increasing interest towards the Moslems and oriental culture nowadays.
Fashion and identity are inseparable companions. Fashion with all its symbolism and attributes form an outstanding base for personal and cultural identification. Identity is a necessary process of a healthy personality as it is a part of self-realization of a person that is so much required for finding a place in life of every person. Fashion has become a tool for achieving harmony with the inner world and a way of revealing or concealing peculiarities. Fashion possesses a specific meaning and the more diverse is the society around us the more fashion-trend will appear and surprise us. As long as it does not hurt people around fashion symbols are acceptable, nevertheless while thinking about fashion and identity it is necessary to remember the ethical side of the issue. Fashion and identity through it still remains a twofold issue but there are a lot of positive aspects one can enjoy and share with other people.
Communication by its definition is supposed to be bilateral. So if a person carries a strong personal message to the people outside what is the response from their side? The response is the reaction on the clothes the person it wearing. It can be acceptance or complete outcast and a misunderstanding. This especially touches extraordinarity in clothing (a very expressive personal identity) or an obvious lack of taste and vulgarity. Malcolm Barnard in his book “Fashion as communication” makes a great work by outlining cultural roles, rules, rituals, and responsibilities that are maintained and constructed by fashion [Barnard 13,34]. Fashion is compared to art. It is like an architector that gives his creation any shape he desires and at the same time is the reflection of the architector’s belonging to a certain social level, a certain psychological condition and so on. One of the questions concerning the communication through fashion is whether the message possessed by fashion is the reflection of the internal or external identity. There are arguments that support each of the sides; therefore it goes without saying that fashion is a “polyhedral being” that intersects numerous internal and external aspects of any personality. The message that clothing contains is basically a way of nonverbal communication with gender, ethical and power aspects and organized, which would eventually change even the gestures and the manner of talking of the person or for instance wearing jeans after a suit may change the conduct of a person to a very liberal and feeble one [Hollander 58]. The perception of people around can be very predictable in terms of their reaction on a person wearing this or that style of clothing. Fashion is one of the most powerful means of communication, which sometimes may play a vital role in the life of a person; it especially concerns the cases of getting a desired job. Therefore fashion may not only carry a message, it can also create a “pseudo-message” that is required by a situation the person finds himself in. This can be simply proved by analyzing the reaction of the people on the street on people wearing different types of clothing. The preference is always given to people dressed in “business style”, personifying their dignity and seriousness in everything. This is one of the primary reasons that even the smallest companies make wearing a suit one of their requirements for their employees. The customers feel more confident in such “consultants”. So, fashion is a very keen tool of manipulation while communicating besides its importance in social class, culture, sex and gender relations of people. Clothing is a fundamental part in the image of a contemporary man or a woman the
production increased greatly.
In spite of all arguments fashion remains possessing an ambivalent entity. Women, have a great impact on the development of fashion worldwide. Of course one of the primary messages clothes carry is the social message. Women throughout the time have tried to make the clothing look more luxurious. Historically the social message has wildly transformed. It is very easily trace in Diana Crane’s book “Fashion and it social agendas”. Nowadays clothing is not an attribute of belonging to a clan, or to a restrained social level though it still can tell a lot about the financial status of a person. A person, especially a women is always greeted according to the way is dressed up. Therefore women may cause desirable reaction by knowing the expectations of the “opponent”. Historically, women wore traditional dresses, which signified their cultural and social status . As for now, traditional clothing has been completely subdued by “fashionable clothing”. Women clothing in the past had a lot to do with emphasizing femininity, neglecting man-like forms of dressing. Analyzing the way of dressing today it is necessary to say that ”fashionable clothing” has made a great “kick” to femininity. Women become less ladylike but more aggressive and businesslike. A woman is opposed to a man; it is no longer an “addenda” to a male, but a force able to contradict him and to compete with him. Women have accepted a lot of clothing styles that propagandize masculinity. Of course there still are women that are the embodiments of tenderness and femininity preserving women’s sexuality but nevertheless the general tendency of feminization in today’s society has done its work. Equality at work, business and politics has transformed the image of a woman greatly.
Throughout the history starting with the middle ages men’s fashion has changed a lot. If the era of Renaissance was characterized by increased femininity in men’s clothes, the end of the twentieth century became the moment of maximal revealing of masculinity for men. Nowadays, identity has brought a lot of specific changes in the perception of a contemporary man. An open manifestation of sexual orientation has brought the image of a feminine man into fashion. The adaptation of feminine tendencies into men’s fashion is transparent. Men tend to choose practical clothes as casual clothing and suits as their “working uniform”[Hollander 43]. The whole image of a man is not brusque and rough anymore. It has become more flexible and soft. The construction of a man’s wardrobe starts with choosing from the variety of images offered by culture and class today. The gender boundary is gradually “wiped” off. Nevertheless, clothing remains the primary criterion of the evaluation of the opposite sex. While being very liberate towards the type of clothing of other men, they demonstrate especial criticism towards women’s clothing. This happens due to the variety and abundance of women around. Analyzing men’s fashion is like dealing with a complexity. This complexity is constantly changing and adjusting to the surrounding of tendencies.
It is no surprise to any of the people who at least know what fashion is that the clothes that people wear are usually very symbolic. The symbolism of clothing is another part of delivering the message that a person tries to put into it. The symbolism may touch any sphere. For instance: music, sexual orientation, some kind of club and so on. Originally, a symbol is a facility that is used to express feelings or belonging to some group of class often dealing with power and wealth. Every observable symbol may carry a deeper meaning than it is visually understandable. Expression of symbols through clothing is a very popular tendency nowadays. Symbolism in clothing mstyle of dressing or an Indian woman from an oriental woman by the distinctive spot on the forehead of an Indian woman and a veil worn by Moslem woman. Fashion has taken the best part of the traditional costumes of every culture and sometimes this leads to propagandizing a definite cultural group. For instance, the brightest example is the increasing interest towards the Moslems and oriental culture nowadays.
Fashion and identity are inseparable companions. Fashion with all its symbolism and attributes form an outstanding base for personal and cultural identification. Identity is a necessary process of a healthy personality as it is a part of self-realization of a person that is so much required for finding a place in life of every person. Fashion has become a tool for achieving harmony with the inner world and a way of revealing or concealing peculiarities. Fashion possesses a specific meaning and the more diverse is the society around us the more fashion-trend will appear and surprise us. As long as it does not hurt people around fashion symbols are acceptable, nevertheless while thinking about fashion and identity it is necessary to remember the ethical side of the issue. Fashion and identity through it still remains a twofold issue but there are a lot of positive aspects one can enjoy and share with other people.
Friday, February 2, 2018
Argumentative Text : Is it better to live in the countryside or the city
Education English | Is it better to live in the countryside or the city | In this essay I'm going to write about whether it is better to live in the country or the city. In my opinion it's much better to live in the city, especially if you have a family. Firstly, most people like quiet areas like villages and the countryside but you always find the best facilities in the city. People who have children need to live near hospitals and schools and places like nurseries and shopping centres so they can be there in a short time. Although these places make cities busier they also make life much easier for most people. Secondly, most factories and offices are in the city and people who work in them need to travel. It's much easier for people if they live near where they work so they don't have to travel a long way. However, there are many people, especially in the UK, who love the
peace and quiet of the countryside and prefer to travel a long way to get to work.
Thirdly, I live in a very multicultural area where there are lots of people from many different countries. There are shops, restaurants and bars to visit as well as cinemas and theatres. Life is the city is much more active and vibrant than life in the country. In conclusion, it's much better to live in the city because there are
more facilities, more job opportunities and more entertainment. If I get permission to stay in the UK I will move to Lincoln.
peace and quiet of the countryside and prefer to travel a long way to get to work.
Thirdly, I live in a very multicultural area where there are lots of people from many different countries. There are shops, restaurants and bars to visit as well as cinemas and theatres. Life is the city is much more active and vibrant than life in the country. In conclusion, it's much better to live in the city because there are
more facilities, more job opportunities and more entertainment. If I get permission to stay in the UK I will move to Lincoln.
Saturday, January 27, 2018
Argumentative Text : Early Age Children Entered to the School
Education English | Argumentative Text : Early Age Children Entered to the School | Many parents today thinks that entered their children in the early age is good. Decided to enroll their children at a very early age that still today has become a trend among the people. With reasons for wanting early on to give a variety of science and skill to the child, the parents willing to spend-in for school fees that are not exactly cheap. Often do not even have a baby aged under one year are sent to school with international standards. When viewed from a psychological point of view of children, put them into the school at a very early age was deemed not necessary. Due to the still very early age, which required the child is an intense interaction with the closest people, such as mother, father, brother, etc.
Perhaps the reason for the limited time for working mothers so choose to use day care facilities as well as a school for their children. This is not to blame for granted. The most important thing to note is that, choose a day care that is "dear children" and pay attention to all the needs and the needs of children according to age. Ensure that caregivers can interact with both during the child was in day care. Note also the facilities provided, whether it meets the needs of gross motor and fine motor according to the age of our children.
Perhaps the reason for the limited time for working mothers so choose to use day care facilities as well as a school for their children. This is not to blame for granted. The most important thing to note is that, choose a day care that is "dear children" and pay attention to all the needs and the needs of children according to age. Ensure that caregivers can interact with both during the child was in day care. Note also the facilities provided, whether it meets the needs of gross motor and fine motor according to the age of our children.
To Get More "Argumentative Text" please Click Here
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Argumentative Text : "Delicacies"
Would you like some chicken's feet ? how about frog's leg ? Well you can not say no to a fifty-year-old egg. It is delicacy that people pay a lot of money for belive it or not. People all over the world eat just about everything from elephant's trunks to monkey's brains.
Snakes and eels are delicacies in most part of the world. In france and England fish shops sell eels that are alive. In Asta there are special restaurants for snakes. Everything on the menu is snake : snake soup, snake appetizers, snake main course, and snake desserts. When you go to the restaurant the snakes are alive. You choose the snakes you want eat. Then the wanter kills the snakes before your very eyes.
Insects like termits ants and bees are delicacies to many people. In Africa people fight over termite nests. They eat the termites alive and say they taste like pineaple. In India, people make the ants into a paste and eat them with curry. In borneo people mix the ants with rice. They say it gives the rice a special flavor. In australia, the native people drink ants. They mash them in water and say the drink tastes likes lemmonade and bees are delicious when you try them. you just can not stop eating them.
Snakes and eels are delicacies in most part of the world. In france and England fish shops sell eels that are alive. In Asta there are special restaurants for snakes. Everything on the menu is snake : snake soup, snake appetizers, snake main course, and snake desserts. When you go to the restaurant the snakes are alive. You choose the snakes you want eat. Then the wanter kills the snakes before your very eyes.
Insects like termits ants and bees are delicacies to many people. In Africa people fight over termite nests. They eat the termites alive and say they taste like pineaple. In India, people make the ants into a paste and eat them with curry. In borneo people mix the ants with rice. They say it gives the rice a special flavor. In australia, the native people drink ants. They mash them in water and say the drink tastes likes lemmonade and bees are delicious when you try them. you just can not stop eating them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)