Meaning of..

Dialectics

1. of, pertaining to, or of the nature of logical argumentation.

2. dialectal.

3. the art or practice of logical discussion as employed in investigating the truth of a theory or opinion.

4. logical argumentation.

5. Often, dialectics.
a. logic or any of its branches.
b. any formal system of reasoning or thought.

6. Hegelian dialectic.

7. dialectics, (often used with a singular verb) the arguments or bases of dialectical materialism, including the elevation of matter over mind and a constantly changing reality with a material basis.

8. (in Kantian epistemology) a fallacious metaphysical system arising from the attribution of objective reality to the perceptions by the mind of external objects. Compare transcendental dialectic.

9. the juxtaposition or interaction of conflicting ideas, forces, etc.

"The mother of revolution and crime is poverty"(Aristotle)
Do you agree?

According to dictionary.com, poverty is defined as the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor; indigence.

Revolution is an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed. It is a significant change that usually occurs in a relatively short period of time and may cause major changes in a culture or economy.
Crime on the otherhand is an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited. Both usually take place when the needs of the people are not taken care of.

Crime mainly results when people are not able to sustain their life, when basic livelihood like food and water are not met. In the less devloped country, it is hard for the poor to breakthrough the vicious cycle of poverty. Moreover, the bulk of those uneducated comes from the poor as they are unable to afford an education which would naturally upgrade them and enable them to search for better higher paid jobs which will give them better living conditions and afford the basic necessities needed. As a result of globalisation today, the standard of living of a country becomes higher. Its a common situation, where children often pesters their parents to buy them the newest and expensive toys inorder not to lose to their friends for not being able to afford them. When poverty sinks into the family, it often leads to desperation, inorder to keep up with life's expectation criminal activities therefore takes place.

Revolution on the otherhand can results due to poverty. One such example is the 1917 revolution in Russia where the peasants wanted a fairer social and political order as land was controlled by the landowners. The people were living in poverty and the living conditions was very poor. Taxes were high even though the agricultural productivity was low. The workers on the otherhand had long working hours and often lived in overcrowded housing with deplorable sanitary conditions. Some after living in the cities encountered material goods they never seen in the villages before, moreover the urban industrial life gave them many benefits. Hence, as the people wanted to have a better life and to break through the vicious cycle of poverty, a revolution therefore took place.

However, i feel that even though poverty can lead to both revolution and crime, it is not the mother of them. Revolution can be caused due to a conflict in political views like the chinese civil war where two parties was involved one which wanted democracy and another which wanted communism in china. On the otherhand, poverty does not totally leads to crime. From the article "Unemployment, poverty not sole causes of crime", Prime Minister Honourable Dr. Kenny D. Anthony says that:

"No reasonable person will totally deny that providing job opportunities for the unemployed, reduces the chances of them engaging in criminal activities. But to say that unemployed persons have no choice but to turn to a life of crime is absurd. It is equally absurd to say that people commit crime because they are poor. Some of the poorest people that I know are among the most decent law abiding people in St. Lucia. They resent criminal activities and have never found themselves on the wrong side of the law”

Therefore, i feel that what Aristole says is more of an over-generalising statement. As much as poverty may lead to revolution and crime, but it is unfair to say that poverty is the main causes of both revolution and crime as there are many other factors that leads to them. As far as i believe, people will not create a revolution or commit crimes if their welfare are not challenged. In this world there are many people living in poverty, but i believe many of them strives and works hard to make ends meet. I also believe that many of the people in this world have good morals and upbringing which teaches them not to engage in criminal activities, and only the minority will commit crime and most of the time crime is commit out of greed instead for genuine needs. Therefore, i agree only to a small extent that "the mother of revolution and crime is poverty".

According to wikipedia,
Lookism is discrimination against or prejudice towards others based on their appearance.

Overweight and underpaid as 'lookism' sweeps the world
Lookism: How It Affects Us
A Crime Most Foul
Lookism - Our tendency to discriminate bad-looking individuals:


Ageism is stereotyping and prejudice against individuals or groups because of their age.

Ageism Said to Erode Care Given to Elders
Ageism is the most common form of discrimination in UK
Shock as doctors admit to ageism


Disablism is defined as discriminatory, oppressive, or abusive behaviour arising from the belief that disabled people are inferior to others.

diablism blogging
WHERE PREJUDICE, DISABILITY AND "DISABLISM" MEET
Challenging 'disablism' - Mayor speaks out against disability discrimination
Scope Disablism Summit 2006


Discrimination against Foreigners (Xenophobia) is a fear or contempt of foreigners or strangers and is typically used to describe fear or dislike of foreigners or in general of people different from one's self.

South Africa takes practical steps to combat xenophobia
European Football to stand united as Action Week kicks-off
“We all wear tinted glasses”

The South Korean Hostages Crisis

the reports can be found at
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/julyweb-only/130-41.0.html

Issue:
The Talebans demanded that all insurgent prisoners in Ghazni province to be release in exchange for the South Koreans Missionaries.

According to Wikipedia, i found out what is the Code of Pashtunwali (Pakhtunwali) is.

Basically it is an ancient feudal tribal "code of honor" that belongs to the Central Asian landscape, particularly to Afghanistan and western Pakistan. As a set of rules guiding both individual and communal conduct, Pashtunwali is still socially enforced in those areas.

Pashtunwali promotes core tenets including self-respect, independence, justice, hospitality, love, forgiveness, revenge and tolerance toward all (especially to strangers or guests). All these codes of conduct are helpful in maintaining social and moral checks and balances within Pashtun Society. Aside from its core tenets, Pashtunwali is unique to every Pashtun, and it is considered a personal responsibility to discover and rediscover its essence and meaning.

Also, using Wikipedia, i managed to find out more about Talibans. It consists of Sunni Muslims, and ruled most of Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001 where the 911 attacks occurred. America's forces then removed the Taliban leaders. Even till now The War In Afghanistan continues.

The Taliban Sharia law is very strict, especially for woman. Women were forced to wear the burqa in public. They were allowed neither to work nor to be educated after the age of eight, and until then were permitted only to study the Qur'an. Women seeking an education were forced to attend underground schools, where they and their teachers risked execution if caught. They were not allowed to be treated by male doctors unless accompanied by a male chaperon, which led to illnesses remaining untreated. They faced public flogging(whipping) in the street, and public execution for violations of the Taliban's laws.

I did not really follow the news on the kidnapped of South Korean's missionaries. However, i feel that the Afghanistan Government should not release those prisoners as more chaos will happen and it will give the Taleban's a weak image of the Afghanistan government. The situation is like a double edged sword. If they were to release the prisoners, there is a likelihood for such cases to happen again and that the government would be overthrowed by the Talibans. Yet if they do not, the Koreans will be killed.

From Associated Press "Earlier this year, the Afghan government freed five Taliban prisoners in exchange for the release of an Italian newspaper reporter abducted by the extremist group. The move was harshly criticized by the United States and some European nations, with critics arguing it would be an incentive for the Taliban to stage more kidnappings." Moreover, there has been previous cases of the negotiation for the release of prisoners in exchange for hostages to be freed. This showed us that the Talibans are using threat to get what they want, putting the Afghanistan Government in a tight situation. By releasing, means more chaos and the country will be even more unstable. By ignoring the threat would mean people dying, just because the demand of the Talibans was not met. What makes it worst is that these people are not even inolved in the conflict, yet they have to suffer and die from the mistakes made other people.

If a compromise cant be made between the Talibans, the Afghanistan Government and the South Koreans, war between countries may occur as a result. Its really an irony. The Talibans are taught to follow Pashtunwali which promotes core tenets including self-respect, independence, justice, hospitality, love, forgiveness, revenge and tolerance toward all (especially to strangers or guests). Yet, they are out there kidnapping the hostages. Are they really practising their faith, or is it just to gain power in the country again?

ARticle LInk: http://www.freewebs.com/vivloh/juneblogtask.htm

Blogging task
Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility.
In the context of Singapore’s multi-racial society, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, which author’s view do you think should be adopted?
Write a response of at least 300 words and 2 content paragraphs, and include materials from both articles as well as your own knowledge and experience.

Freedom of speech, according to http://www.en.wikipedia.org/ is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship.

Singer believes that freedom of expression is essential to any democracy and therefore should not be limited. According to the article, Singer, a son of Austrian Jews, feels that "we cannot consistently hold that cartoonists have a right to mock religious figures but that it should be a criminal offense to deny the existence of the Holocaust. I believe that we should stand behind freedom of speech. And that means that David Irving should be freed." Everyone should have the freedom to express their point of view, instead of being imprisoned for expressing views that cannot be refuted by evidence and argument alone.

Freedom of speech is needed in order for a country to grow. According to the article, Singer feels that " freedom of speech is essential to democratic regimes, and must include the freedom to say what everyone else believes to be false, and even what many people find offensive." Also, "without that freedom, human progress will always run up against a basic roadblock.

I feel that, even if people were imprisoned for denying the holocaust, their imprisonment will not change their stand towards the holocaust even after their jail-term. The government should instead repeal laws which permits the holocaust denials, yet at the same time strive to do their best to inform their citizens about the reality of the Holocaust and why the racist ideology that led to it should be rejected. This will therefore helped changed the mindsets of those people as they would then better understand the situation of the particular issue.

On the other hand, Szilagyi believes that more focus should be placed on social responsibility. According to the article relating to the controversy regarding the Danish press publishing of Prophet Mohammad cartoons, Szilagyi believes that freedom of speech is an essential foundation of any democracy. However, when the newspaper insist on this right, they have to understand that they do not alone create the context and lifespan of their messages. Self-control must be enforced.

In today's networked world, existing societal and political tensions can be inflamed instantly through the transfer of messages from one cultural context to another. Compared to last time, traditional borders of culture and nation no longer exist. Whether we liked it or not, now we all effectively live next door to one another. Therefore a balance must be strike between individual and collective press freedom rights.

I feel that even though freedom of speech will help build up democracy, responsibility have to be exercised when using it. Just one word of slander can easily cause a turmoil between countries and nations. Just one word of insult can rage war among religions. Therefore even though the press needs to serve the ever-evolving public interest, it must also focus on responsibility not solely on freedom.

In a multi-racial society like Singapore, where there is cultural and religious pluralism, i feel that Szilagyi's view should be adopted. Like our national pledge, "pledge ourselves as one united people, regardless of race, language or religion, to build a democratic society." Even though there may be issues against other races in the country, the press must exercise self-control. Instead if such situation should arise, i feel that the government should intervene and help solve the problem, promoting peace among the races. Also, as a Singaporean, i feel that we should respect each other and not find fault with each other as in order for a country to grow, there must be mutual respect for each other and also peace among races and religions. If freedom of speech is adopted without exercising social responsibility, a multi-racial country like Singapore will face social unrests and there will be tension among the citizens, like the 1964 race riots that happened due to high tensions between the races.

Therefore i feel that szilagyi's view should be adopted in a multi-racial country like Singapore.

overview of term 2
-power of mass media, subjective perception, censorhip
-crime and punishment, death penalty, vigilantism, life/death issues

skills learnt
-paraphrashing, summary, inference

holiday assignments
1. research on milestones (deadline: july 3rd 2007)
2. june blog task (deadline: by TErm 3, week1)
more details: http://mdmloh.blogspot.com

Go IVLE GP 8005 to do practise GP comprehension paper..

"The death penalty is not deterrent, it is murder." Do you agree?

According to www.dictionary.com , death penalty is a sentence of punishment by execution for certain crimes like murder.

Note: In the United States, capital punishment has been an extremely controversial issue on legal, moral, and ethical grounds. In 1972, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was not, in principle, cruel and unusual punishment(and not, therefore, unconstitutional), but that its implementation through existing state laws was unconstitutional. In 1976, the Supreme Court again ruled that the death penalty was not unconstitutional, though a mandatory death penalty for any crime was. Thirty-nine states now practice the death penalty.

Deterrent is something that deters to prevent or discourage the occurrence of an action, as by means of fear or doubt

According to wikipedia, death penalty or capital punishment is used historically to punish both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent(refers to any expression designed to convey dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of a governing body). In the modern world today, capital punishment is still carried out in some countries where death penalty is reserved for punishments such as premeditated murder, espionage (spying), treason, or as part of military justice.

From the article "Crime and Causality: Do killers Deserve to Die?" It states that even if one supposes that the capital punishment is moraly justifiable, there are many good reasons to supposed it. Throughout the years, some people have been wrongly found guilty, some having been executed for offences which they never commit. Discrimination also plays a part in deciding a sentence. Being racial bias, a non-white is likely to get a heavier sentence compared to someone who is a white. Also, due to economic statue, the poor and marginalized are much more prone to execution than the rich.

There are 5 ways of executing a criminal.
1. Electric Chair where the condemmed is strapped to a wooden chair, with electrodes attached and a shock of thirty thousand watts is applied. The prisoner is literally cooked internally, and death may require mulitple shocks.
2. Gas Chamber where death is casued by exposure to cynide gas where victim die from suffocation.
3. Lethal Injection is the most widespread and humane method where poison is injected into the body to kill the criminal.
4. Hanging is the suspension of a person by a ligature, usually a cord wrapped around the neck, causing death.
5. Firing squad where it requires all members of the group to fire simultaneously, with one who will fire the lethal shot. The condemned is typically blindfolded or hooded, as well as being restrained

The principle of capital punishment is that certain murderers deserve nothing less than death as a just, proportionate and effective punishment. It is 100% effective as a deterrent to the criminal being executed; that killer cannot commit any more crimes. By setting a precedent, it act as a deterrent for others who wants to commit such similar crimes. With capital punishment in placed, it also shows that the country is tough on criminals. There will be a decrease in crime rates, having less chaos in the country as others would probably think twice before commiting a crime, thus making a country much more politically stable, presevering national security

Also, with capital punishments, by killing the criminal, it helps to bring justice for the victim and the his family members. The criminal will never ever again fatally harm anyone, thus possing no threat to the public. Moreover, it is more economically sound to execute a prisoner than to keep him in life incarceration, and also better off sentencing death penalties to criminals who are beyond rehabilitation than for him to leave off taxplayers.

However, capital punishment is murder. Execution is the act or instance of putting to death or being put to death as a lawful penalty. It is a state-sanctioned killing, and it devalues the respect we place on human life. Therefore, how can we punish someone for commiting murder, when he/she is punished by means of a death sentence? Isn't there killing of a person happening in both cases?

By sentencing someone to be put to death, it rules out possibility of rehabilitation, that they may repent of their crime, serve a sentence as punishment, and emerge as a reformed and useful member of society. Also, some victims may be wrongly found guilty, with some may have already been executed. Moreover, the methods of death penalty may go wrong, and thus delay the process of executing the criminal

Death penalty acts as a deterent to others, yet it is clear that retaliation to the death is no longer necessary to protect ourselves from murderers, and the deterrent effect of executions is very much open to question. Human should not play God by melting out death penalty. As two wrongs do not make a right, we should not just sentence a criminal for his crime, but analyse and understand what had shaped him and led him to kill others.

Therefore i agree to a large extent that the death penalty is not deterrent, it is murder.