2011년 6월 7일 화요일
Who's the Real Catfish?
(This is a quite different online fraud than the one described within Catfish. Although it is obvious that these kinds of frauds have to be punished - because they created tangible losses - what about Angela's case?)
The powers of online anonymity are truly dazzling. It only takes a "slip" of your fingers to increase your height from 179 cm to 185, or suddenly pass five birthdays so that you're old enough to do anything. It only takes a few clicks to innocently save a picture of a glamorous somebody that you've never seen before, and somehow fit his or her face onto yours. The problem, and yet ironically also the benefits, of today's Internet is the fact that its users can hide behind any mask they choose. People can create any name, characteristic, and identity, to make a new "version" of themselves. And the catch phrase is, nobody can ever know - at least, if they don't try. The unwritten rule for internet, especially social network sites, is that such identities, whether true or false, are trusted to a certain extent. You don't really go around questioning the authenticity of a Facebook friend that you've just made and never met.
The film Catfish is an exact "violation" of this rule. Its filmmakers, with growing suspicions of an online relationship with prodigy painter Abby and her charming sister Meghan, go on to uncover their true identity - their mother Angela, who has been the real force of communication behind her two daughters. Or rather than an "uncovering," it's more of a "witch hunt," for various points do hint that Niv and his brother actually knew about the whole deal before their in-film realization. (For one thing, they Due to its questionable processes, despite the filmmakers' claim that this is "100% real," Catfish has raised much controversy. In fact, we can ask ourselves two questions about this film:
First, were the filmmakers of Catfish too harsh within their production of the documentary? Although it wasn't explicitly stated within the film, Niv and the others certainly violated certain rights that Angela had. One certainly doesn't go barging into others' homes under the pretense of "visiting," all the while shoving a camera in the person's face. But that is what happened. And even if Niv was "gentle" in his visit and stay with Angela, she still looks genuinely surprised, awkward, and even hurt, with her situation if not with Niv himself. Yes, Niv might have been emotionally hurt, surprised, or creeped out with Angela's actions as well. But if he had been truly concerned, he would have left it at telling Angela off online or merely breaking off all relationships with her whatsoever. Yet he chose to make a film.
Moreover, even if Angela did get her fifteen minutes of fame through the film - after all, her site that sells her paintings seems to be doing pretty well - that still does not fully count for Niv's actions. Is the humiliation outweighed by the fame gained by her paintings? Even though her painting career might have been uplifted (a step closer to her more idealistic life) and her paintings might have gained more meaning in them (loneliness of the common woman), the fact that Angela gained wounds within this process still stands.
Second, what about the film industry in general? Can certain rights be given up or violated in order to create a magnificient work? Even though today's filmmaking laws and rules prevent people from violating rights, cases like Catfish still occur. Even though such pieces might embody a theme of society and bring on it attention and concern, Catfish did not achieve that; rather, it brought about more witch hunts. Niv does not seem concerned about bringing care and concern to the lonely people like Angela through his film; rather, he seems more intent on drawing out the "creepiness" of oneline anonymity more than anything. Art, made from humanity, should try to express and, at times, endorse humanity - not hurt it. All the benefits that could have been made, even at the expense of questionable methods, were lost.
While Catfish might be an interesting and attractive film, there is still no doubt that it raises quite a few harms. Not only were Angela Pierce's rights violated, but the message that was spread by the film can also be considered harmful. It is true that false identities on the web are somewhat disturbing, sometimes even sinister. But the phenomenon that is occuring on certain forums and the Catfish Like page on Facebook - people who report certain people as being a fake and request others to "go to their profile pages and leave a comment saying they're fake" - seems equally bad. All they are focused on is the witch hunts. Perhaps they feel snobbish relief within their own authencity, the fact that they are genuinely what they are, and proud of it. Or perhaps they feel a perverse sort of satisfaction in the fact that they are not lonely enough to decorate their lives with fallen feathers. What if Niv had been an unattractive man in the suburbs or Nowhere, USA, instead of a charming young man in New York, and Angela had been a world-famous dancer...? Who would have been the real lonely one, and would the two people still have felt the same about each others' situations? Even without the what-if's, we are faced with an odd situation. Angela created a false Facebook account, but Niv created a false documentary that was viewed by thousands of people. The question still stands: who's the real catfish here?
MOTIONS
THW enforce real name identification systems for social network sites.
THB some rights can be given up for the sake of the arts.
THW ban films that have used questionable methods (//offensive methods) in their production.
2011년 5월 24일 화요일
America's Freedom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-N3dJvhgPg : Youtube video about Bin Laden's death.
When people think of the United States of America, they usually think of (beside the
hamburgers, Disneyland, and other fun and games) the Statue of Liberty, the
Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War - things that represent
freedom. Ever since it came into being, the USA have declared liberty as one of its
most fundamental and primary values. Many wars - the Revolutionary War, the Civil
War, and others - have been fought to protect certain inalienable rights; many are still
being fought in the form of movements and unions today. Even in the affairs of the
world America has claimed the position of an international judge and protector of
liberty, aiding many countries and warning the others. Yet the question arises when we
see this same America stepping on this same freedom that it has sworn to protect.
Does America have the "right" to intrude on others' rights to protect its own citizens? To
break some rules so that it can carry out its own picture of world peace?
Such controversies have risen recently with the death - or rather, the assassination - of
Osama Bin Laden. Although Bin Laden's death has been hailed by many as a
substantial contribution to world peace, many question the legitimacy of the actual
steps taken to kill Bin Laden. The mission has been found to have gone against
international rules, which state that to dispatch troops in another nation, one must gain
consent or at least inform that nation of one's intentions. Pakistan was not even aware
of the fact that US troops were within its borders.
In order to really think about this question, we must look at the characteristics of a
nation. A nation is a unit of citizens comprised of those who (usually) agree to its
policies and culture, make their political and economic units, and in turn are protected
by the nation. In this sense that nations are self-serving units, nations are - or must be
-selfish for its own survival. Countries don't have to donate money and resources to
others, although it would be much appreciated. When they are attacked, it is only
natural that they must have a chance to defend themselves and their citizens. Following
this logic, the death of Bin Laden can be hailed or at least justified as a reasonable
action. After all, Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, for denying human rights to many
people, and other terrorism that threatened not only America but the rest of the world.
Yet the problem rises because of the fact that it went against international
security/military rules. The reason that these international rules exist is not trivial; once
they are gone, they would result in a multitude of slippery slopes. If Bin Laden's murder
was simply hailed as an end to terrorism (which is factually untrue), then this would be
set as a prototype for other military missions in the future. Every nation would look to
the case of the USA - which is already being recognized as one of the world's
superpowers - and the set international rules would be mussed. This would lead to
more military chaos and eventually result in less safety. Not only realistically, but also
ideally must a nation follow international rules when they have good basis; countries
also form a certain society, after all. To defy to a rule that they have agreed to follow and
respect - because they know certain tangible harms would come of it - would break this
society apart, lessening world peace. As a world superpower, the effect of the USA is
even greater.
The actions that America took with Bin Laden can be seen as either selfish or
generous. It is selfish in the matter that America haughtily ignored the rules that it
needed to follow for the mission, and killed the terrorist leader without a shred of doubt.
Yet it is also generous in the matter that the world has been rid of a dangerous
terrorist. Although America, as a nation, does have rights to be selfish, it also must, as
a superpower, heed the rest of the world in its actions. This is where Bin Laden's death
might be congratulated, but America's actions must be taken into criticism. If America
would really like to set a world example and settle world peace, then it should make
real changes: aid with the political and economic system to help the citizens and
persuade back the terrorists. Help with the humanitarian policies of the nation. These
solutions might sound very vague, but humanitarian interventions are always much
better - and longer-lasting - than military interventions. If America must be selfish and
protect its own borders, then let it play the part of the tortoise: slow and steady wins the
race, after all. Such are the steps to real protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=columnists
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?ref=columnists
describes how real peace won't come until there are significant changes made within
the political structures of the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/opinion/10iht-edcohen10.html?ref=columnists
celebrates the death of Bin Laden.
Possible Motions
THB military intervention is necessary to counter terrorism.
THB world superpowers have the right to military intervention.
THB America has a right to be a world superpower.
When people think of the United States of America, they usually think of (beside the
hamburgers, Disneyland, and other fun and games) the Statue of Liberty, the
Declaration of Independence, the American Revolutionary War - things that represent
freedom. Ever since it came into being, the USA have declared liberty as one of its
most fundamental and primary values. Many wars - the Revolutionary War, the Civil
War, and others - have been fought to protect certain inalienable rights; many are still
being fought in the form of movements and unions today. Even in the affairs of the
world America has claimed the position of an international judge and protector of
liberty, aiding many countries and warning the others. Yet the question arises when we
see this same America stepping on this same freedom that it has sworn to protect.
Does America have the "right" to intrude on others' rights to protect its own citizens? To
break some rules so that it can carry out its own picture of world peace?
Such controversies have risen recently with the death - or rather, the assassination - of
Osama Bin Laden. Although Bin Laden's death has been hailed by many as a
substantial contribution to world peace, many question the legitimacy of the actual
steps taken to kill Bin Laden. The mission has been found to have gone against
international rules, which state that to dispatch troops in another nation, one must gain
consent or at least inform that nation of one's intentions. Pakistan was not even aware
of the fact that US troops were within its borders.
In order to really think about this question, we must look at the characteristics of a
nation. A nation is a unit of citizens comprised of those who (usually) agree to its
policies and culture, make their political and economic units, and in turn are protected
by the nation. In this sense that nations are self-serving units, nations are - or must be
-selfish for its own survival. Countries don't have to donate money and resources to
others, although it would be much appreciated. When they are attacked, it is only
natural that they must have a chance to defend themselves and their citizens. Following
this logic, the death of Bin Laden can be hailed or at least justified as a reasonable
action. After all, Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, for denying human rights to many
people, and other terrorism that threatened not only America but the rest of the world.
Yet the problem rises because of the fact that it went against international
security/military rules. The reason that these international rules exist is not trivial; once
they are gone, they would result in a multitude of slippery slopes. If Bin Laden's murder
was simply hailed as an end to terrorism (which is factually untrue), then this would be
set as a prototype for other military missions in the future. Every nation would look to
the case of the USA - which is already being recognized as one of the world's
superpowers - and the set international rules would be mussed. This would lead to
more military chaos and eventually result in less safety. Not only realistically, but also
ideally must a nation follow international rules when they have good basis; countries
also form a certain society, after all. To defy to a rule that they have agreed to follow and
respect - because they know certain tangible harms would come of it - would break this
society apart, lessening world peace. As a world superpower, the effect of the USA is
even greater.
The actions that America took with Bin Laden can be seen as either selfish or
generous. It is selfish in the matter that America haughtily ignored the rules that it
needed to follow for the mission, and killed the terrorist leader without a shred of doubt.
Yet it is also generous in the matter that the world has been rid of a dangerous
terrorist. Although America, as a nation, does have rights to be selfish, it also must, as
a superpower, heed the rest of the world in its actions. This is where Bin Laden's death
might be congratulated, but America's actions must be taken into criticism. If America
would really like to set a world example and settle world peace, then it should make
real changes: aid with the political and economic system to help the citizens and
persuade back the terrorists. Help with the humanitarian policies of the nation. These
solutions might sound very vague, but humanitarian interventions are always much
better - and longer-lasting - than military interventions. If America must be selfish and
protect its own borders, then let it play the part of the tortoise: slow and steady wins the
race, after all. Such are the steps to real protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/opinion/11friedman.html?ref=columnists
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/opinion/04friedman.html?ref=columnists
describes how real peace won't come until there are significant changes made within
the political structures of the Middle East.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/10/opinion/10iht-edcohen10.html?ref=columnists
celebrates the death of Bin Laden.
Possible Motions
THB military intervention is necessary to counter terrorism.
THB world superpowers have the right to military intervention.
THB America has a right to be a world superpower.
Judge Comments
The graph doesn't go up for some reason ㅠㅠ
Seungmin Oh PM
ARGUMENTATION 8.5
STYLE 8.0
OVERALL 8.5
DEFINE
Osama Bin Laden - terrorist
-- It would be better not to define a person, as a "~terrorist~" but rather give some
background - preferably with emotion so the judges think, "Oh, that's a bad guy" or
something like that.
ARGUMENTATION
1. Assassination protects human rights
- every human: right to live
- OBL interfered on these rights by killing ppl
- killing OBL protecting from further terrorism and protecting human rights
-- include more statistics to make it more convincing. + also details, like how did he kill
people and whom? for what exact purpose?
-- Why would killing OBL stop the killing of people? OBL has other men under him. Give
proof that OBL is the leading force behind these killings and to assassinate him would
stop (or at least decrease) them.
2. Strong message to the public
- public afraid of OBL
- ppl only aware that there was terror
- more aware of how US is going to stop terror, harms of terror
- US gov can give a message that if terror, going to retaliate
-- not very convinced. ppl only aware that there was terror? 9/11 was a hard hit on most if
not all of Americans
-- also the backside that this "message" might hint how brutal US could be....
Changwoo Lee LO
ARGUMENTATION8.7
STYLE 8.0
OVERALL 8.6
- social contract: every person is guranteed of a natural right, same on intl basis
--- dangerous opening; this could be used against you (when you actually BREAK the
social contract by harming others' rights, then your rights could be breached in turn)
REBUTTALS
- (first argument) : every criminal has a right to get judged by the law
- (second argument) : might bring about revenge
-- words like "the government insisted" are good; makes the opposition sound v. stubborn
and illogical
1. disobeying the international law
Geneva Convention - cannot kill citizen of other country w/o permission
-- why do we need to follow the Geneva Convention? it's not written in stone. why do we?
- serious disobeying of int law
- Bin Laden cannot be an exception even when he is a criminal
ex. Nazis also were judged by court before sentenced to death
-- good example. you might also want to mention that a law was disobeyed for no
significant purpose, and explain how killing Bin Laden would not only not stop the mass
murders of people, but actually result in more deaths and violence.
2. alternative was possible
- although US had the power to capture him, killed him
- OBL no resistance.
- killing can never be justified
Jegug Ih DPM
ARGUMENTATION 8.9
STYLE 8.2
OVERALL 8.8
REBUTTALS
- terrorists have rights : no when that much destruction and mayhem
- message : message to the public. 9/11~.
- third world war... war against terrorism.
- in war can kill others.
- cannot trust the Pakistan gov (too much trouble)
- OBL need to be judged? - no. already confessed to crimes, so already proved of
guiltiness.
- OBL might have been disarmed but guards.
--- the war thing is a bit too radical for my tastes, but I think it could work with some
people. but we're still not at war legally or explicitly.
3. need fast and speedy action
- scenario: escape? terrors?
- when he's dead the dangers are much less.
-- what about the possibility of vengeful terrors?
- wrongfully trialed and found innocent... like Nazi...
- for the message to be strong, need to be quick and brief.
Wonhyuk Lee DLO
ARGUMENTATION 8.6
STYLE 8.7
OVERALL 8.7
REBUTTALS
- terrorists have harrassed human rights... no right to be respected? : human right not a
concept of good and bad. although in jail cannot deprive them of human rights
--- unsteady, goes against LO's intro about social contract. also following this logic - then
can't we punish murderers and mass killers? I guess this goes over to capital
punishment...
- message: effect goes down when terrorists become angry
(GW rebut: arrest --> anger too. ) -- arrest then think about it..?
3.
- US trying to justify by saying decreasing symbol of terror. but did nothing but bring up
revenge. (actually said)
- no reason for OBL to be hit at the spot
- assassination cannot happen even in the aspect of blocking terrorism
-- if you had stats about the potential risings of revenge terror, then this would be very
persuasive.
---- a few halts but I liked your style: calm and steady. A bit more emotion might be good
- unclear situation, unsteady situation. revenge terrorism!!
Seungchan Kim GW
ARGUMENTATION 8.7
STYLE 8.7
OVERALL 8.8
1) human rights vs gov actions
- v. important, valuable.
- but in the case of a war....
-- I wish you had taken LO's social contract theory and turned that against them; that
would have been less radical than claims of war. But preferences differ.
- 9/11 - killed+feared
- so different from simple crimes of murder... this is terror -- murder - traditional process,
but in the case of terror, need to take speedy action
-- explain WHY we need speedy action - because we have it on a bigger scale? why?
- OBL given chance to prove innocence? - but already in war, already claimed guilty.
- people are unarmed, cannot kill people? - but a lot of destruction already made
-- I had a feeling that this clash was unorganized, try to put it into points rather than merely
saying "the opp said this and that"
2) speedy action
- alternative of jurisdiction
- but other scenarios... also planned other terrorism, can be still an icon
- support could also grow for OBL
-- change title of clash, it's misleading (OPP didn't respond to speedy action claim)
3) social message
- strong message
- anger rises even in jurisdiction, so better to give strong message
Sumin Park OW
ARGUMENTATION 8.7
STYLE 8.8
OVERALL 8.8
- intro: child w/ fever. to let him cool down, give coke and ice. cool down but won't cure the
cold. short-term remedy, like what gov has tried to argue
--- uuhhhh... so the assassination is the coke?
1) efficiency interventing terrorism
- both agree that OBL symbol of 9/11 and related to terrorism in US
- assassination - short-term stop to terrorism; Al-Kaeda left w/o leader
-- don't spend too much time repeating opposition
- but in long-term, chaos.
1. counter-attacks, counter-terrorism
- destroyed facilities in Pakistan , b/c of chance that P. gov collaborated with US
- bully example.. but not as simple as that
-- too many real-life small-scale examples.... cut it down
- violent nature will result in counter-terrorism
- PROP argues bring sympathy to terrorist groups? - but already numerous
supporters, possible leaders.
2. did not follow proper proceedings of judicial system
- innocent until proven guilty; must be put on a trial
-- so why must we take this procedure? explain the significance
- infringed individual's rights and prevented truth to be discussed in a courtly
environment.
2) based on a righteous cause
- US proven to change their stances, hide their facts of the crime scene... so the US claim
cannot be trusted
Seungmin Oh PM
ARGUMENTATION 8.5
STYLE 8.0
OVERALL 8.5
DEFINE
Osama Bin Laden - terrorist
-- It would be better not to define a person, as a "~terrorist~" but rather give some
background - preferably with emotion so the judges think, "Oh, that's a bad guy" or
something like that.
ARGUMENTATION
1. Assassination protects human rights
- every human: right to live
- OBL interfered on these rights by killing ppl
- killing OBL protecting from further terrorism and protecting human rights
-- include more statistics to make it more convincing. + also details, like how did he kill
people and whom? for what exact purpose?
-- Why would killing OBL stop the killing of people? OBL has other men under him. Give
proof that OBL is the leading force behind these killings and to assassinate him would
stop (or at least decrease) them.
2. Strong message to the public
- public afraid of OBL
- ppl only aware that there was terror
- more aware of how US is going to stop terror, harms of terror
- US gov can give a message that if terror, going to retaliate
-- not very convinced. ppl only aware that there was terror? 9/11 was a hard hit on most if
not all of Americans
-- also the backside that this "message" might hint how brutal US could be....
Changwoo Lee LO
ARGUMENTATION8.7
STYLE 8.0
OVERALL 8.6
- social contract: every person is guranteed of a natural right, same on intl basis
--- dangerous opening; this could be used against you (when you actually BREAK the
social contract by harming others' rights, then your rights could be breached in turn)
REBUTTALS
- (first argument) : every criminal has a right to get judged by the law
- (second argument) : might bring about revenge
-- words like "the government insisted" are good; makes the opposition sound v. stubborn
and illogical
1. disobeying the international law
Geneva Convention - cannot kill citizen of other country w/o permission
-- why do we need to follow the Geneva Convention? it's not written in stone. why do we?
- serious disobeying of int law
- Bin Laden cannot be an exception even when he is a criminal
ex. Nazis also were judged by court before sentenced to death
-- good example. you might also want to mention that a law was disobeyed for no
significant purpose, and explain how killing Bin Laden would not only not stop the mass
murders of people, but actually result in more deaths and violence.
2. alternative was possible
- although US had the power to capture him, killed him
- OBL no resistance.
- killing can never be justified
Jegug Ih DPM
ARGUMENTATION 8.9
STYLE 8.2
OVERALL 8.8
REBUTTALS
- terrorists have rights : no when that much destruction and mayhem
- message : message to the public. 9/11~.
- third world war... war against terrorism.
- in war can kill others.
- cannot trust the Pakistan gov (too much trouble)
- OBL need to be judged? - no. already confessed to crimes, so already proved of
guiltiness.
- OBL might have been disarmed but guards.
--- the war thing is a bit too radical for my tastes, but I think it could work with some
people. but we're still not at war legally or explicitly.
3. need fast and speedy action
- scenario: escape? terrors?
- when he's dead the dangers are much less.
-- what about the possibility of vengeful terrors?
- wrongfully trialed and found innocent... like Nazi...
- for the message to be strong, need to be quick and brief.
Wonhyuk Lee DLO
ARGUMENTATION 8.6
STYLE 8.7
OVERALL 8.7
REBUTTALS
- terrorists have harrassed human rights... no right to be respected? : human right not a
concept of good and bad. although in jail cannot deprive them of human rights
--- unsteady, goes against LO's intro about social contract. also following this logic - then
can't we punish murderers and mass killers? I guess this goes over to capital
punishment...
- message: effect goes down when terrorists become angry
(GW rebut: arrest --> anger too. ) -- arrest then think about it..?
3.
- US trying to justify by saying decreasing symbol of terror. but did nothing but bring up
revenge. (actually said)
- no reason for OBL to be hit at the spot
- assassination cannot happen even in the aspect of blocking terrorism
-- if you had stats about the potential risings of revenge terror, then this would be very
persuasive.
---- a few halts but I liked your style: calm and steady. A bit more emotion might be good
- unclear situation, unsteady situation. revenge terrorism!!
Seungchan Kim GW
ARGUMENTATION 8.7
STYLE 8.7
OVERALL 8.8
1) human rights vs gov actions
- v. important, valuable.
- but in the case of a war....
-- I wish you had taken LO's social contract theory and turned that against them; that
would have been less radical than claims of war. But preferences differ.
- 9/11 - killed+feared
- so different from simple crimes of murder... this is terror -- murder - traditional process,
but in the case of terror, need to take speedy action
-- explain WHY we need speedy action - because we have it on a bigger scale? why?
- OBL given chance to prove innocence? - but already in war, already claimed guilty.
- people are unarmed, cannot kill people? - but a lot of destruction already made
-- I had a feeling that this clash was unorganized, try to put it into points rather than merely
saying "the opp said this and that"
2) speedy action
- alternative of jurisdiction
- but other scenarios... also planned other terrorism, can be still an icon
- support could also grow for OBL
-- change title of clash, it's misleading (OPP didn't respond to speedy action claim)
3) social message
- strong message
- anger rises even in jurisdiction, so better to give strong message
Sumin Park OW
ARGUMENTATION 8.7
STYLE 8.8
OVERALL 8.8
- intro: child w/ fever. to let him cool down, give coke and ice. cool down but won't cure the
cold. short-term remedy, like what gov has tried to argue
--- uuhhhh... so the assassination is the coke?
1) efficiency interventing terrorism
- both agree that OBL symbol of 9/11 and related to terrorism in US
- assassination - short-term stop to terrorism; Al-Kaeda left w/o leader
-- don't spend too much time repeating opposition
- but in long-term, chaos.
1. counter-attacks, counter-terrorism
- destroyed facilities in Pakistan , b/c of chance that P. gov collaborated with US
- bully example.. but not as simple as that
-- too many real-life small-scale examples.... cut it down
- violent nature will result in counter-terrorism
- PROP argues bring sympathy to terrorist groups? - but already numerous
supporters, possible leaders.
2. did not follow proper proceedings of judicial system
- innocent until proven guilty; must be put on a trial
-- so why must we take this procedure? explain the significance
- infringed individual's rights and prevented truth to be discussed in a courtly
environment.
2) based on a righteous cause
- US proven to change their stances, hide their facts of the crime scene... so the US claim
cannot be trusted
2011년 5월 3일 화요일
A Little Bit of Blaphesmy, or Perhaps the Truth
I realized that this post hadn't gone up (but remained unposted), so I'm uploading it again :(
People usually "know what they see." Most of the time they rely their knowledge and beliefs on what they can actually observe or experience, preferring to have evidence in soldifying their opinions. Yet this inclination is broken in one field: religion. Despite the fact that there is hardly any "clear" evidence for the presence of a or multiple gods - miracles and the like excepted - many people of the past and the present tend to indulge themselves in a religion. In fact, the importance of religion goes beyond the scope of daily lives; many conflicts within the history of humanity is related to religion in some way, such as the Crusades or the animosity between the Shi'a and the Sunnis of Islam. Either for better or for worse, religion continues its grasp on people today.
With a family of mixed religions - my grandparents' generation is Buddhist, while my parents' generation is Catholic - I've come to view religion in a somewhat looser manner. During my childhood I've been to both temples and churches, and have both a baptized name and a name based on Buddhist concepts. Although today I consider myself as a Catholic - the influence of parents is big, after all - I'm also not very strict within my beliefs, unlike some people who shout in pub lic to convert to Christianity or "go to hell." Perhaps because of this freer perspective, I have come to occasionally have qualms about the standing religions - Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Jewish, and the rest.
Religions, after all, are not defined by a god or gods; no god has ever directly come out of the skies to preach to people about how to pray or build churches. Rather, it is people who have defined the concept of god, made rituals to serve their god, and wrapped it up and called it a religion. And if we are to strictly follow the psychological reasons for the creation of religions, we have to attribute the creation of gods to people's anxieties. Are gods only remnants of people's fears, beings created as people long ago became afraid of lightning and other natural disasters?
Perhaps there's some credit to this fear-theory, but I believe that there is more to this than that. By stating that it is humans who have defined religion, I'm not saying that there is no god - I'm saying that there are, or should be, no boundaries. Perhaps there is only one god and all the religions of the world are different perceptions, different analyses of the same - being - or someone - that I couldn't possibly know about. Whether Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Jewish - they are all different facets of the same being, a being people have to define with religious texts and rituals because they can't simply define it - Him? - any other way.
I've sometimes feared that my thoughts might be considered blaphesmy in some aspects. After all, to argue that actually all religions are valid and that it's quite stupid to argue about who's right is, whether in churches or in the Middle East, something not recommended. But it is quite stupid. It's not about creating a universal religion. It's about religious tolerance and actually respecting people's views. Every religion has some essence of truth in it, and it's up to the people to not contradict their own beliefs with their actions.
* Apparently according to the five-element theory, I have too much hwa or fire within my spirit, which means that my name must contain a Chinese character with properties of water to prevent a fiery personaity / disaster. ("Yeon" from my name, 涓, stands for a small river or brook)
People usually "know what they see." Most of the time they rely their knowledge and beliefs on what they can actually observe or experience, preferring to have evidence in soldifying their opinions. Yet this inclination is broken in one field: religion. Despite the fact that there is hardly any "clear" evidence for the presence of a or multiple gods - miracles and the like excepted - many people of the past and the present tend to indulge themselves in a religion. In fact, the importance of religion goes beyond the scope of daily lives; many conflicts within the history of humanity is related to religion in some way, such as the Crusades or the animosity between the Shi'a and the Sunnis of Islam. Either for better or for worse, religion continues its grasp on people today.
With a family of mixed religions - my grandparents' generation is Buddhist, while my parents' generation is Catholic - I've come to view religion in a somewhat looser manner. During my childhood I've been to both temples and churches, and have both a baptized name and a name based on Buddhist concepts. Although today I consider myself as a Catholic - the influence of parents is big, after all - I'm also not very strict within my beliefs, unlike some people who shout in pub lic to convert to Christianity or "go to hell." Perhaps because of this freer perspective, I have come to occasionally have qualms about the standing religions - Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Jewish, and the rest.
Religions, after all, are not defined by a god or gods; no god has ever directly come out of the skies to preach to people about how to pray or build churches. Rather, it is people who have defined the concept of god, made rituals to serve their god, and wrapped it up and called it a religion. And if we are to strictly follow the psychological reasons for the creation of religions, we have to attribute the creation of gods to people's anxieties. Are gods only remnants of people's fears, beings created as people long ago became afraid of lightning and other natural disasters?
Perhaps there's some credit to this fear-theory, but I believe that there is more to this than that. By stating that it is humans who have defined religion, I'm not saying that there is no god - I'm saying that there are, or should be, no boundaries. Perhaps there is only one god and all the religions of the world are different perceptions, different analyses of the same - being - or someone - that I couldn't possibly know about. Whether Christian or Muslim or Hindu or Jewish - they are all different facets of the same being, a being people have to define with religious texts and rituals because they can't simply define it - Him? - any other way.
I've sometimes feared that my thoughts might be considered blaphesmy in some aspects. After all, to argue that actually all religions are valid and that it's quite stupid to argue about who's right is, whether in churches or in the Middle East, something not recommended. But it is quite stupid. It's not about creating a universal religion. It's about religious tolerance and actually respecting people's views. Every religion has some essence of truth in it, and it's up to the people to not contradict their own beliefs with their actions.
* Apparently according to the five-element theory, I have too much hwa or fire within my spirit, which means that my name must contain a Chinese character with properties of water to prevent a fiery personaity / disaster. ("Yeon" from my name, 涓, stands for a small river or brook)
2011년 3월 29일 화요일
30 Days
As I write this, I feel vague gratitude for the concept of written language - something, I must admit, I don't feel everyday. Not a day goes by without writing something, whether it be mere scribbles or a full-fledged essay. Yet people don't always take writing seriously. Words are written down with little thought, sometimes with some dread; students often groan before composition classes and wring their hands over essay tasks. More than a few students might be happy if said writing tasks were banned forever.
But to go for thirty days without writing anything is something completely different. In this 30 Days program, the protagonist will have to endure a month without writing anything, ranging from simple grocery lists to five-paragraph essays. All kinds of writing tools will be banned, including electronic devices that can be written with, (in other words, no text-messaging or typing on computers) and any kind of content will not be allowed. All other normal activities are permitted, however.
Is this kind of program even possible? I wouldn't know, since writing is not simply what I do everyday, but what I love as well. Writing in my journal or doing writing-related club activities (such as Minjok Herald) are activities I love to participate in, and writing is deeply integrated in my future as well. Moreover, writing serves to deliver as a means of communication that serve for both the self and the community. Because of its relative permance, writing can be used for various tasks, from reminding oneself with a simple checklist to conveying opinions around the world. As obvious from writing's significance, it was only because written language was invented that human culture began to advance quickly. Without writing, "the concept of humanity," as Herman Hesse said, would be gone.
Through this program, I hope that the protagonist and the audience will realize the value of writing. Despite - or perhaps because of - its deep place in everyday life, writing is hardly valued anymore. Through this abstinence from writing for thirty days, gratitude, with luck, will be reawakened within the people's minds.
2011년 3월 22일 화요일
Debate Feedback
MOTION: THB teens should be allowed to participate in demonstrations. | ||||
Date: 2011.3.16 | GOVERNMENT | OPPOSITION | ||
Introduction | Pts | Name Jinkwan Hyun | Name Kwonsok Oh | |
Delivery | 8/10 | Nice and assertive. Could do with more eye contact. State the definition before dividing the arguments. | 6.5/10 | -Lose (as a particular senior would say) the “verbal trash;” drop lines like “I think” and “how I define it.” Have more conviction. It’s not about how you think something, it’s about how it is (or at least on the surface), and if you merely “think” so the judges aren’t going to believe it either. |
Arguments | 8/10 | 1. democratic citizens. allowed to be active. rights should be granted to students as well. the constitution. even if we do not need 2. educational effects. A) political systems. B) reconstruct their own views. -I see no flaws yet, but be careful: merely stating that a certain right is within the constitution might sound authoritative but isn’t really. Explain the connotations and the significance of certain values within the constitution. You may also have to explain why students can be treated the same as other citizens (they’re often not, and this issue was raised later in the debate). | 7/10 | -I wish the wording of the arguments had been somewhat different. “Not good for society” and “not good for themselves” just doesn’t cut it; when wording arguments you need to give their main idea within the few words. Alternatives like “encourages chaos within society” would have been better. -You assumed that teenagers lacked the capability of thinking deeply and logically, and tended to make flawed decisions and couldn’t be very responsible. (What are we, then?) It may have been better to emphasize the potential irresponsibility not through the lack of thinking capability, but through the lack of social experience. To assume that all teenagers are illogical is dangerous and often false. But saying that teenagers lack social experience because of their age is more objective and thus safer. -The second argument – “can participate in other moderate ways” – could have been elaborated more. And who says students’ responsibility is to study? It may be right, but it needs more elaboration and link to the status quo at hand. |
Notes | Tot 16/20 | Fair enough start to the debate. I still have some doubts about the definition, though; merely defining “allow” as “not to ban” is very vague, and might provide complications. (For instance, allowing demonstrations through the education board and allowing demonstrations through a student’s home are completely different matters.) | Tot 13.5/20 | -I understand the arguments but some dangerous assumptions were made. Perhaps it’ll help to provide a better analysis of the status quo? |
Rebuttal One | Pts | Name Jegug Ig | Pts | Name Sungchul Lee |
Delivery | 7.5/10 | -Conviction good, but could be somewhat more persuasive. You tend to be a bit informal (I think) during debate – something that can be both positive and negative. | 6/10 | -I had a feeling that you went back and forth between the arguments and rebuttals. State them clearly. -Ending needs more conviction. |
Arguments | 7.5/10 | -The definition of citizenship could have been better; “all people living here” doesn’t really cut it. Explaining about the certain responsibilities and returned rights – and why students can be counted as citizens – might have been better. Or you could have analyzed that freedom is allowed as long as others’ rights are not violated, and link this to demonstrations. “Adults can be extreme as well” is a bad response. Just because others show a similar characteristic doesn’t justify anything. -Have to explain why young people need to give conservative adults (-another generalization!) through demonstrations only. Can’t there be other methods? | 6/10 | -I heard a lot of assumptions, especially about the status of teens. How exactly do teens lose logical thinking and reasoning abilities? (-no link) Is this guaranteed through demonstrations? (-generalization) The basic foundations of this argument need to be explained. |
Notes | Tot 15/20 | -Some generalizations and assumptions… | Tot 12/20 | I took a lot of points off for the assumptions ㅠㅠ |
Rebuttal Two | Pts | Name Seungchan Kim | Pts | Name Daeun Jung |
Delivery | 8/10 | Good body language and clarity, but I felt that as you progressed through your speech you became somewhat distracted. | 8/10 | I see some organization issues but for the most part, fine. |
Arguments | 8.5/10 | - students' rights - harm and benefit analysis - nature of demonstrations -You might want to put the nature of demonstrations at the beginning of your speech, so that you can explain about demonstrations and build upon that point to explain other related points. (like you’ll have to explain why demonstrations cause no harms to others to ensure participation in demonstrations as a right) -As a whip you might want to analyze the debate more than you simply repeat what was said before you. - -Don’t accept a POI in the middle of your speaking (as you did with 성철’s). teenagers can do logical thinking. why emotionally swayed? (성철) | 9/10 | -I thought you had good points, like the fact that the government never proves why the benefits of demonstrations are exclusive only to demonstrations. (like the educational effects – aren’t they present in in-class discussions as well?) -The responsibility point (that students cannot be responsible for every single behavior) was a bit dangerous in diction. (It opens up the rebuttal that adults too can be irresponsible.) - . |
Notes | Tot 16.5/20 | Satisfactory rebutting, but you might want to 1) state the burdens of proof for the government and explain how your side has proven them, 2) why he benefits of student demonstrations are exclusive, and 3) why you can’t restrict the students’ rights (other than the fact that they are citizens and thus have rights). | Tot 17/20 | Good points, but you might want to watch your diction from opening new rebuttals to the opposing side. |
Conclusion | Pts | Name ChangWoo Lee | Pts | Name Su Min Park |
Delivery | 7/10 | More confidence than last time, that’s good. | 8/10 | Clear and confident as always. |
Arguments | 7/10 | -I didn’t hear a lot of things since the speech was short (due to a lack of time), but good summary. The reply speaker needs to emphasize the reasons why their house won, though. | 8/10 | -Good points, but “not mature enough” could have been addressed with more persuasive diction. -More emphasis on the government team’s errors could have made the speech much more influential and persuasive. |
Notes | Tot 14/20 | -Short but clear. | Tot 16/20 | -Could do with clearer organization, although I did understand all of the points. |
- Win goes to the opposition
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)