Buy essay online cheap lord of the flies chapters 10-12

Sunday, October 29, 2017 3:12:12 PM






Writing about the law Taboo subjects are topics of conversation which are considered too offensive and inappropriate to be voiced in public. As such, they are usually relegated to a world of euphemism with the general consensus being that discussions involving them should remain private. A few hundred years ago, sex, marital affairs and criticism of the church would all have been considered taboo; in the 21st Century however, under the pretence of progression and liberty, that list has grown exponentially. With so many subjects deemed inappropriate, some have commented that the notion of taboo resembles an unwritten form of censorship. Others argue that all civilised cultures should have these ‘forbidden’ topics as a method to teach its citizens right and wrong. So how does a society concerned with avoiding taboos function? And how beneficial is the existence of this unspoken rule in the long run? This essay will seek to answer both of these questions. First, it is necessary to understand why taboo subjects exist at all. It is true that they have been developed from a desire to promote freedom and equality in a society. For example, a politician making an unfounded racial comment will be subject to criticism. Theoretically, this policing should put an end to racism in politics. Also, a scholar who comments that women are less intelligent than men will likely be asked to resign. This is done to lessen sexism. Both these cases are evidence of a progressive society which aims to reduce discrimination, and this is good. The inevitable outcome from this policing however, is the notion of the taboo. Criticised enough, the politician will stop making any racially specific comments irrespective of their validity. Afraid to lose their jobs, professors will refrain from speaking out on gender differences, no matter how statistically accurate they are. The danger behind this is censorship, a term frequently associated with very non liberal cultures. Censorship is strongly linked with the taboo because both concern disallowed content. The only difference is that the former is known by the law while the latter is known by the people. In the UK, censorship is looked upon unfavourably because it contravenes most people’s ideas about their right to access information. It is a common belief that the government and parliament do not have the right to decide what is offensive and especially what is too offensive for public consumption. Nevertheless, this is exactly what the existence of the taboos does; the censorship is simply unwritten. There is no legislation, for example, which specifies that people can’t talk about racially specific crimes such as honour killings and forced marriage. Yet people don’t talk about it because it’s considered socially unacceptable and they fear the consequences. A government which avoids important topics for fear of offending the public endangers the public. This is what makes the concept of the taboo so retrogressive. For a society which claims to value freedom of speech and expression, the unfounded attacks on discussions involving taboo subjects contradict these beliefs. Incidents such as those involving the sex trafficking gang in Rochdale continued, in part, because the officials in charge of the case were reluctant to speak out against certain communities, despite their high risk classification as shown through statistical data. The sexual exploitation of the 47 girls involved in the case continued from 2008 to 2009, a length of time which could have been cut short if the police handling the case had not been fearful of being labelled racist. This is the danger of having taboos. What must be recognised is the distinction between discriminatory language and valid argument. As with any opinion, there will be those who agree and those who don’t. While it is important to respect individuals’ and communities’ dignity, there is no benefit to society if that respect manifests itself as fear. What this means is speech can be modified when necessary, but entire topics should not – and must not, be edited out completely. It is necessary to remember that freedom of information as a concept means freedom of all information; not only that which is considered socially acceptable. Internships are a form of employment, often one to three months in length, where an employer trains an inexperienced and, usually, young individual; gives them skills, credentials and a reference to go out into the world of work. Internships are also unpaid labour, where inexperienced, usually young individuals are utilised by companies to do administrative work, photocopying, and small inconsequential errands for free. Both help writing my paper the edo period: a era of peace definitions – albeit biased, are true, and summarise a recent debate about the legality of this model. The dispute highlights opposing views where some vehemently support the deconstruction of the ‘unpaid internship’ while others vote for its upkeep. So what is the purpose of an internship? It is important to remember that help writing my paper the edo period: a era of peace an increasingly competitive help writing my paper the edo period: a era of peace market, where employers have their pick of high-end qualifications, experience is what makes candidates stand out. The vicious cycle however, means that many young people don’t have the experience to find employment, but need employment to gain experience. The existence of internships solve this problem. The model centres itself around the idea that a firm will provide training and some work for an individual which they can then put on their CV to Learning to adapt, medicine studies - Strengths and Weaknesses essay -- Penn State them a better chance of finding employment in the long term. Some firms even look to employ their interns and consider internships as ‘trial periods’ for potential employees. There are few who can deny the benefits of these ‘trials’. What sparks disapproval from many is the notion of unpaid internships, which are often looked upon as ways for companies to take advantage of students or the unemployed. Many, particularly large firms, host a number of interns each year and the argument stands that they could easily afford to pay them at least the minimum wage for their time at the company. Labour rights are key to a country’s stability and making unpaid employment legal seems a retrogressive law. Nonetheless, opposers of this argument state that it’s a burden on the corporations themselves who spend time and energy on training and designing courses for the interns. This is why smaller businesses rarely provide internships; they don’t have the capacity to do so. Those who support unpaid internships assert that forcing corporations to assign salaries to their interns would have a negative effect on the demographics currently searching for this sort of employment. When companies begin to lose assets, not in the form of time but money, they will begin to reconsider how many internships they can afford. This could result in a decrease in the number of positions available. As most of those seeking internships are looking for experience and skills, not payment, it should be a priority to encourage firms to provide placements instead of forcing them to devise salaries. The current problem is that the definition of internship has become confused. Somewhere between volunteer work and traditional employment, this job combine elements of the two. Those opposing its existence consider it more similar to ‘traditional employment’ where payment would be need help do my essay was andrew jackson a good president, yet the reality is it’s more alike to volunteering. If the unpaid internship was eradicated, many people would once again be stuck between unemployment and being overqualified for the job they eventually found. What needs to be recognised is that internships are mutually beneficial relationships like any other form of employment. A salary might be a nice bonus but in this case it isn’t necessary. What is necessary is the continued existence of businesses offering experience to the inexperienced, something that will cease following a decision to make unpaid internships illegal. In Walter Block’s 2009 book “Defending the Undefendable”, the writer and professor likens marriage to prostitution. He claims that in marriage, sex becomes a voluntary transaction between two individuals – commonly where the husband “pays” in the form of material goods and the woman reciprocates with sexual favours. This definition broadly fits with that of prostitution, where the help me do my essay racial privilege in america past and present in exchange are monetary. The juxtaposition of the two terms forms a contentious argument, since marriage has been traditionally seen as a moral union between two individuals while prostitution has strong connotations of the immoral. If Block’s argument stands, it could call into doubt the illegal status of soliciting for sex, and perhaps even change the general perception on marriage. So what does Block say? Chapter one in his book, entitled “Sexual”, challenges help me do my essay where science is going power of government and law to prosecute prostitutes. As a third party and uninvolved in the ‘transaction’, he says, the legal system has little place in governing consensual acts order essay online cheap working women, the government, and politics two adults. This argument is not new, and is readily accepted by countries such as The Netherlands and Australia where prostitution is legal. In these cases, the lawmakers have analysed the socio-economic structures of their respective countries and made a choice that they believe will best benefit the population at large. This however is not Block’s main argument. He states that if trading ‘cash for sex’ is a legal transgression, so should be the act of sex in dating; in a relationship; and in marriage, because when cash is replaced with dinner, or flowers, or even attention, a transaction has taken place. He then uses reductio ad absurdum to declare that if married couples aren’t in violation of the law, prostitutes should be similarly exempt. Yet Block’s claim fails to take into account several fundamental differences between prostitution and committed relationships. First, the engagement between a prostitution and a client is, 99% of the time, purely sexual; this is not the case in marriage. When money has exchanged hands, an often unarticulated contract has taken place where the client is entitled to what they paid for, even if the sex worker subsequently regrets their decision to engage in the act. Prostitution is a service, a business and terms such as ‘owe’ can surface quite easily. On the other hand, in marriage, irrespective of sophisticated dinners, dates or other such luxuries, sex can be refused or withheld without the legal implications that a contract has been breached. No one ‘owes’ anyone. Indeed non-consensual or reluctant sexual activity can be considered marital rape, while the law does not afford prostitutes that same protection, because it is assumed that money exchange proves consent. Block assumes that by giving the same legal status to prostitution as marriage, women will become better protected, but this has also been shown by numerous studies to be untrue. An article in The Bristol Law Journal posits that decriminalising solicitation will actually increase violence against women and human trafficking; particularly in countries where the law does not have a sufficient handle on other areas of social policy such as women’s rights and protection for sex workers, including strippers and pole dancers. When compared to The Netherlands, where 5% of the national income is derived from the sex industry, Block’s model, which is centred in the United States, falls apart. The European country has a safer environment, and brothels are governed by a host of laws which protect those who work there. In the U.S. these laws do not exist and the social perception of sex workers mean they are often subject to harassment and alienation. Legalising prostitution cannot begin to combat these problems. The truth is any interaction between individuals can be thought of as a transaction. Even a conversation between friends can be considered as such, particularly if both parties derive pleasure from it. By the author’s argument, a dinner which is paid for by one party necessarily results in sex being given by the other party. If this is indeed the case, perhaps what needs to be addressed is not the legalisation of prostitution but rather the social perception that sex is a commodity that can be ‘owed’. If the relationship between husband and wife can be compared with that of a prostitute and their client, a societal problem has emerged with marriage, the solution of which does not reside in decriminalising prostitution. Essay: Voluntourism, like all tourism, benefits the rich and disadvantages the poor. Discuss. Voluntourism is a phenomena which has graced, in particular, the Western World in recent years. An amalgamation of volunteering and tourism, the term refers to trips undertaken by the relatively well off which usually last between 1 to 4 weeks – depending on how long holiday makers feel they can last under the “extreme” conditions. These conditions are often located in Sub-Saharan Africa, in poor nations (but not overtly poor) such as Kenya, where the savannah provides for scenic photography, (queue envy from Facebook friends), while the disadvantaged children at the local school provide a false sense of achievement. In this essay I will articulate exactly why this sense of achievement is misguided. First, like any form of tourism, voluntourism is a business, and like all businesses, profit is the main aim. Without looking, purposely or not, many people fail to see that the companies with which they book do not have the charity registration number. Even if they do, there is often little information help writing my paper the edo period: a era of peace to where those funds really go. An £1,000 fee paying for 3 weeks of accommodation; teaching at a local school; and an excursion or two may feel like a bargain, but without realising it many people have simply paid for another holiday, no different to any other they’ve been on, with the company’s CEO pocketing the change. So why is this a problem? Well, when something is advertised as being for the benefit of the poor but actually has the result of benefitting the rich, it’s false advertising. Not to be confused with volunteering, which is more often conducted and organised through charity organisations (some of which also have dubious monetary records, but that’s for another essay), voluntourism is rather a lucrative business proposition, and people often know this. Okay, you’ll argue, so money from the voluntourists don’t trickle down into the mouths of those they’re trying to help. No one suggested it would! Right. The voluntourists are here to make a change, to teach the disadvantaged children science, or maths, or English; to build wells and dig holes and plant crops. That’s the positive difference they’re going to make! The problem with this argument is that even if they could have made a ‘positive difference’ with their Western skills and qualifications, no voluntourists ever stay long enough to promote a significant enough change. In fact, a ‘teacher’ who stays for 2 weeks and then leaves is more likely to cause instability in a child’s learning than anything else, which won’t benefit them in the slightest. If anything, it will cause hindrance to their education. Furthermore, these ‘teachers’ don’t design their own curriculum, so the content which the children receive would be the same whoever teaches get someone write my paper ghost story of vietnam veteran haunting lakewood brings me onto my final point: voluntourism may boost the economy of a country, but it similarly detracts from it. Like all tourism, this form will inject money into the nation’s economy by buying souvenirs, attending events, visiting attractions, eating food, using electricity etc. Unlike other touristic activities however, it will take away jobs from locals – especially when pertaining to skilled employment such as in schools. Whereas a local teacher could have taught with as much diligence, skill and drive as a Western voluntourist, they are not given the opportunity because they do not have the funds. As a result, the economy is, like every economy dependent get someone write my paper ghost story of vietnam veteran haunting lakewood tourism, contingent on foreign financial support. At the start of the essay I promised to explain why the sense of achievement felt by many voluntourists is misguided. The truth is, if the purpose of their trip was to go on holiday and acquire an ego boost while there, they’ve achieved what they set out for. But if the purpose was to help a poorer nation, to benefit the local communities and do aid work, they’ve failed miserably. It’s not that voluntourism should stop; many countries rely on the money it brings, it’s rather that it should stop being marketed as benefiting the poor. The sooner this happens, the sooner real changes can be made. Essay: Hackers should be prosecuted for the release of sensitive material. Discuss. With the technological advances of the recent years, communications are getting rapidly more convenient and advanced. Replacing letters and telephone calls are e-mails, the preferred method of communication between most business people, politicians and leaders. The contents of these emails will vary; light messages about sporting events; last weekend’s football game; the need for Pakistani groups in Britain to integrate into society. While some may be of little interest to the general public, others will instigate riots and outrage. At the centre of these leaked communications are the hackers who break into private accounts and, on their own discretion, decide to expose the contents of these messages. What are the effects of their actions? And should they be held accountable through prosecution? The recent case of Paul Sabapathy, the Queen’s representative who resigned after an email he sent was leaked to The Guardian, illustrates the effects on an individual after having their private conversations disclosed to the public. Sabapathy’s email reportedly criticised the lack of social integration by Pakistani communities in Britain, going on to say that they lacked “basic common courtesy and civility”. Later, he voiced a public apology. The problem with cases like Sabapathy’s – which can hardly be categorised in the same group as whistle blowing or ‘the right to information’, is that his opinion led to his demise. Hate speech has long been considered a crime in the UK, but the law rarely polices activities, least of all conversations, that happen in private. If Sabapathy had walked himself to Hyde Park, stood on a bench and publicly proclaimed how despicable he found Pakistanis, it would have been one thing, but what he did was almost laughably ordinary; irritatedly express his views in private. So what’s the real problem here? Well, the question arises that if private views can be subject to the same scrutiny as public views, does privacy even exist anymore? In George Orwell’s 1984 a mass Utopia governed by ‘Big Brother’ polices all free thought. Not only is speaking out of turn a punishable offence, so too is the act of thinking in the wrong ways. Emails may not be as reclusive as thoughts but the ideas run parallel. If hackers can release information from your online account without punishment, will doctors who decide to extract thoughts using hypnosis also be exempt? The thought scarily resembles the dystopia envisioned by Orwell. Few people would argue against the leaking of sensitive material when it pertains to public interest, but the danger presented by hackers, who, like technology are getting more and more advanced, is that their discretion to release information is often skewed by personal interest. In his case, Sebapathy had little power or ability to affect the Pakistani community, so his comments may have caused offense but disclosing them would have had little benefit on society. The outrage surrounding the situation suggests, in fact, that the leak did more harm than good. Hackers are increasingly presented as the heroes of the online world and the truth is they do their part. They are able to access documents cordoned off from ordinary law enforcement officers, so in situations where details of terrorist attacks may have been shared over social media, through instant messaging or, indeed, emails, their skills can save lives. Nevertheless the other side of the argument is that their actions can ruin lives at no particular benefit to anyone. Whether or not hackers are prosecuted, then, is a decision that should be weighted on the outcomes of their actions. There are cases when the release of search and buy essays information will save lives (above) but this is rarely the case. It should therefore be argued that with regard to hackers, prosecution should be the default, and exemption an exception to the norm. Essay: Criminal law should never be used to punish someone for not doing something. Discuss. Criminal law exists to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. Those who qualify as “guilty” have broken the law, while the “innocent” who need protection are the victims who suffer as a result. When planning legislation, law makers cannot take into account every scenario that may come to court, and the laws passed cannot serve in the best interests of every individual, only that of society as a whole. Therefore if a person fails to act in accordance with the law it should be the role of the legal system to punish them. If the law exists to protect society, it follows that a person, whose actions have adverse effects on said society, need help do my essay the life of tupac shakur be penalised. Consider a situation where passer-by A notices a child drowning in the nearby lake. Imagine he can swim. Unfortunately he is also running late for an important meeting and tells himself that another person will save the child. Subsequently, the child dies. In this situation should A be prosecuted? To answer this, it is important to first i) prove that he noticed the drowning child and actively ignored them. We need to also establish that he was ii) capable of saving the child’s life. Only when both these assertions are stated as fact can prosecution begin. This is because the failure buy essay online cheap importance of multiculturism A to act enabled a loss of life, even when he was not actively involved in pushing the child into the water. To counter-argue the prosecution of A, you might say it was never his responsibility to rescue the child. If he had spent time at the lake he might have lost his job; perhaps he has a family who rely on his income. Yet losing a job and losing a life are incomparable. Unemployed, A would have received social benefits so it was not a matter of life and death. To reinforce the notion that the role of law is to benefit society, failing to punish A’s lack of action sends the message that citizens do not have a duty of care towards each other. Not only will this result in the potential loss of lives, “each man for himself” is also a selfish and unstable social policy. Consider now a second scenario involving passer-by B. She stops at the lake and, unable to swim, dials the emergency number while struggling to help from the bank. Despite her attempts, the child still drowns. In this case should she be prosecuted? Looking at the above criteria, the conclusion should be no. B, i) noticed the child and actively sought to help. She was also, ii) incapable of diving into the lake to rescue them by herself – lest she jeopardise her own life. In this circumstance it was not her failure to act that enabled the death. Her prosecution would send a message of fear into society that ignoring a person in need would be safer than helping them unsuccessfully. Finally, imagine a third passer-by: C. C cannot swim, he has no means of communication. He is physically incapable of rescuing the child himself. About to miss his train, C hurries away. By the time he reaches a phone, the child has drowned. The difference of this case compared to the previous two is that irrespective of intention ‘i)’ C could not have prevented the death of the child ‘ii)’. Even if he had called for emergency services it would have been too late. In these circumstances he should not be prosecuted because his lack of action did not enable the child’s death. These three cases are isolated and it would be unlikely to find them recreated in real life. Nonetheless an important point has been illustrated here; the objective of criminal law is to protect citizens; not to punish them. A person prosecuted for their failure to help an individual in need may be saved by the same law when they’re the one in the ‘lake’. Indeed legislation should be enacted for the overall well-being of society. The power to vote is considered, in many countries, a fundamental human right. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies that a government should exist to express “the will of the people”, and should either be elected through “secret vote” or “equivalent free voting procedures”. In the UK, the very notion of taking away citizens’ freedom to elect their government would spark uproar. The British value their democracy. Australia, Belgium and Egypt, among other nations take it a step further; the law of these countries compel its people to vote. In some places missing an election will be met with a sanction, often in the form of a fine. In Egypt, failure to comply could result in imprisonment. So why do some countries choose to enforce voting while others are more lenient? Australia’s policy is explained in part by the reported “94% turn out in the last federal election” which purports to reflect the political views of the country’s citizens much more accurately. Compare these statistics to those of its cross continent counterpart Britain, which boasted a high of 66.1% in 2015, and one might well call Australia’s government democratically superior. By this notion, it is high time the UK updated its policy on voting rights to make the act compulsory for all those over 18. Theorised benefits for the change in legislation include political parties and their candidates spending more time and resources on their campaign rather than on encouraging people to vote; a parliament that better reflects the “will of the people”; a government which benefits all socio-economic groups, not only the ones most likely to vote; and the education of young people to political issues that they would not previously have been exposed to. The modification in law could bring many potential benefits to the United Kingdom, including promoting equality in the population, producing better informed individuals and bringing greater social and political stability. Ultimately, the theory stands that if everyone votes, everyone is more likely to get what they want. Unfortunately, theories don’t always work in practice and the argument against enforced voting is strong. The main case is that coercing people who have no interest in politics ohio vote could skew the results in a negative way since citizens who participate in elections for the purpose of escaping fines are more likely to make uninformed decisions that do not reflect their views. Perhaps this explains why only 29 countries have adopted the law; while even liberal groups in Australia have campaigned against the ruling, stating that a “forced vote” is not equivalent to an “engaged vote”. In Australia’s 2010 election 6% of votes were spoiled. In Britain, that percentage dropped to just 1%. It seems that voting is not something that everyone wants, or feels qualified to do. Maybe, then, the problem that governments around the world need to address is not the absence of voters at the polling station but rather the absence of information allowing them to make informed decisions. Politics has the stamp of the social elite, so many groups do not realise its relevance, nor do they have access to user friendly information. Many are put off by long manifestos, technical language and speeches which they cannot relate to. As a consequence, voters are alienated and choose not to take part. To confront this issue, the government cannot take a direct approach; forming new legislations to mimic those in Austalia, Belgium and Egypt will not solve problems in an effective way. Instead of force, the law should be employed to educate. The absence of 34% of the voting population in the 2015 elections is not a figure that can be changed overnight, but it can be changed. Law and social policy go hand in hand, so legislation that alters the accessibility of politics and basic perception of voting is a more viable, stable and effective way to go. In order to encourage democracy, democratic methods must be used. Using force, a naturally undemocratic means, to achieve democracy will make a nation seem hypocritical, and it is a terrible thing for a government to be run by hypocrites. Indeed, whichever party proposes the change might find they lose a good proportion of the votes by the next general election.

Current Viewers:
Web hosting by Somee.com