Is it unconstitutional for Polk County to put a ban on the sell and purchase of pornography? Has the government and other authoritative agencies over stepped their boundaries once again? Should the pornography industry be given a chance in Polk County?
General nudity and pornography have been around since the beginning of modern civilization. But with the dawn of technology, the distribution of pornography has become more accessible and widespread. Many conservatives who support the ban and still look down upon pornography as obscene, disgusting, and disgraceful want to keep it as far away from store shelves and computer screens as possible. On the other end of the spectrum, you have those with a more liberal outlook on the situation who believe that it is a person’s constitutional right to do as they please as long as it isn’t directly impairing another person’s constitutional rights. Do you think that officials have the proper authority to ban the sell of porn in Polk County or just in general?
“Polk County is an anomaly in Florida, it really is. I don’t know how to put this politely. It really hasn’t evolved.” Lawrence G. Waters
http://www.bannedmagazine.com/LawrenceWalters.0001.htm
The 2005 Florida Statutes: Chapter 847-Obscenity
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0847/titl0847.htm&StatuteYear=2005&Title=->2005->Chapter 847
Whitney:
I don’t think that the government or state officials have the right to ban the sale of pornography. As long as the business owners are following the rules and guidelines then it should not be a problem. Especially now that anything and everything can be found on the web, I think that it is kind of pointless to stop making money simply because some feel that it is indecent. I can see no reason to support the ban on pornography when there are other things going on in Polk County that are more harmful to the general public such as gun crime and drug wars.
Horace:
I don't believe that Polk County should ban porn. Honestly, I don't see anything wrong if someone wants to watch porn for his/her entertainment or even for learning purposes. Some people think that it is only for perverts, but some people learn from it. Some of us have a higher sex drive than others, and porn should be a way to lessen the stress they have legally. I say, legally, because if a person can take their sexual aggression out on a person, it would be called rape, so I think they should lift the ban and allow people to express themselves in the privacy of their homes.... Don't You?
Friday, October 17, 2008
Friday, October 10, 2008
Born Gay?
Is sexual orientation a trait people are born with? Or is it an illness that people can be cured of? Do people choose to be gay or are they born this way?
This issue has been debated for decades by religious and political leaders, scientists and the general public, and it is the center of the gay-rights activist argument. Proponents of this issue claim that gays are biologically born this way and cannot change their sexual orientation, and, thus, gays should be afforded the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual people. Opponents of this issue claim that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" and that gays can be cured with therapy and prayer. Many opponents also believe that gays should not be afforded the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual people. What do you think?
Jamie: I think that gays are born gay, and there is more and more scientific evidence of this every year. Most of the scientific research is done overseas, though, because funding is hard to get in the United States due to the huge political implications.
Look at this very infomative article in the Seattle Times which gives documented studies showing how biology may drive sexual orientation...
Social and environmental studies have been going on for over 40 years, and there is no conclusive proof or evidence showing that how a child is raised or the environment the child is raised in has any bearing on sexual orientation. I feel that gays should have the same rights and protection as heterosexuals.
Angela: I absolutely agree that being gay isn't a choice. As a lesbian myself, I can relate that it's not really a choice. I've been out of the closet now for almost three years, and I can remember that since I was about nine I really felt that I should like boys, mainly because my best friend became boy crazy then; I would have liked boys if I could have, but it just didn't happen. I was starting to notice my attraction to girls then and it caused me a lot of inner turmoil; after about a year of her droning on about boys, she noticed that I never really participated in the conversation and asked me if I thought I might be gay. I blew up at her and later regretted it because I knew that it was true. So, these days, I'm comfortable with it, but I really feel that if I did have a choice I probably would have chosen to be straight when I was first starting to realize my same-sex attractions.
Sara: I can't believe that people just choose to be gay no matter the ramifications they are forced to experience for it. What I mean is for the last several years society has gained an acceptance, but, still, homosexuals are still seen as taboo. However, this is a double edged sword because when the general public thinks about homosexuals, the stereotypes that come to mind are effeminate men holding hands and kissing in the streets with loud flamboyant tones of speech. Who thinks of women in this sense? It's okay for women to like women..even the manliest of women, and there is rarely this huge question hanging over their head whether they chose it or not. So I wonder is the question if men are born gay? Or do they choose? Everyone has heard of the chick that says "screw men" and flips sides, but I've never heard a guy have such a rough time with women that they say "screw 'em"...I think people are born gay or with same-sex attractions (not necessarily gay), and if it is a choice, it is a choice they are making for themselves and not a single other person.
Bri: I do not think that being gay is just a choice; you can't exactly help who you're attracted to or who you love. They teach us to look at colors equally right? Since I have a gay brother and a bunch of gay friends, I see it firsthand -- my brother knew since he was just a boy, he was never attracted to females. And as for rights, who are we to dictate others' lives? It's their world -- we just happen to be living in it. If gay couples want to get married or want to adopt, as long as they are suitable and provide for each other then why not? That's how they chose to live.
This issue has been debated for decades by religious and political leaders, scientists and the general public, and it is the center of the gay-rights activist argument. Proponents of this issue claim that gays are biologically born this way and cannot change their sexual orientation, and, thus, gays should be afforded the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual people. Opponents of this issue claim that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" and that gays can be cured with therapy and prayer. Many opponents also believe that gays should not be afforded the same legal rights and protections as heterosexual people. What do you think?
Jamie: I think that gays are born gay, and there is more and more scientific evidence of this every year. Most of the scientific research is done overseas, though, because funding is hard to get in the United States due to the huge political implications.
Look at this very infomative article in the Seattle Times which gives documented studies showing how biology may drive sexual orientation...
Social and environmental studies have been going on for over 40 years, and there is no conclusive proof or evidence showing that how a child is raised or the environment the child is raised in has any bearing on sexual orientation. I feel that gays should have the same rights and protection as heterosexuals.
Angela: I absolutely agree that being gay isn't a choice. As a lesbian myself, I can relate that it's not really a choice. I've been out of the closet now for almost three years, and I can remember that since I was about nine I really felt that I should like boys, mainly because my best friend became boy crazy then; I would have liked boys if I could have, but it just didn't happen. I was starting to notice my attraction to girls then and it caused me a lot of inner turmoil; after about a year of her droning on about boys, she noticed that I never really participated in the conversation and asked me if I thought I might be gay. I blew up at her and later regretted it because I knew that it was true. So, these days, I'm comfortable with it, but I really feel that if I did have a choice I probably would have chosen to be straight when I was first starting to realize my same-sex attractions.
Sara: I can't believe that people just choose to be gay no matter the ramifications they are forced to experience for it. What I mean is for the last several years society has gained an acceptance, but, still, homosexuals are still seen as taboo. However, this is a double edged sword because when the general public thinks about homosexuals, the stereotypes that come to mind are effeminate men holding hands and kissing in the streets with loud flamboyant tones of speech. Who thinks of women in this sense? It's okay for women to like women..even the manliest of women, and there is rarely this huge question hanging over their head whether they chose it or not. So I wonder is the question if men are born gay? Or do they choose? Everyone has heard of the chick that says "screw men" and flips sides, but I've never heard a guy have such a rough time with women that they say "screw 'em"...I think people are born gay or with same-sex attractions (not necessarily gay), and if it is a choice, it is a choice they are making for themselves and not a single other person.
Bri: I do not think that being gay is just a choice; you can't exactly help who you're attracted to or who you love. They teach us to look at colors equally right? Since I have a gay brother and a bunch of gay friends, I see it firsthand -- my brother knew since he was just a boy, he was never attracted to females. And as for rights, who are we to dictate others' lives? It's their world -- we just happen to be living in it. If gay couples want to get married or want to adopt, as long as they are suitable and provide for each other then why not? That's how they chose to live.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Animal testing...
We are in a day and age in which animals have become virtually consumable -- they've become mere testing products and food. Due to increasing demand in both areas, animals are being put through procedures that are quick and cheap for people but cruelly painful and torturous for animals. During this time, with such large demand and so many other issues, should we try to make a difference in the quality of these animals' lives in the business industries?
Jessica:
Animal abuse is an issue that many disregard. Shouldn’t the life of animals be valued? In the business industries, life isn’t respected; what is of great importance is the product that is going to be produced at the end. No industries care about the inhumane acts against animals. The majority of the time, businesses emphasize on “The faster the production process, the more money that will come in.” The reality is that the animals being tested, as test “subjects”, are simply test subjects.
Think about these situations:
Chickens get crammed into a cage; imagine yourself locked in a six by six closet with four to six other people. You're scared about what is about to happen next.
Cows get injected with different hormones and then are prepped for meat processing. See in your mind's eye being injected with chemicals that change different aspects of you, which may even burn to the bone, like a test subject. Then you're skinned alive, shipped to a different location with hundreds of others like you. Most of your bones and muscles are torn -- envision the pain. In truth, animals don’t need to empathasize with or try to comprehend such a feeling, for they already feel it.
All animals can feel, hear, and see so what makes them less valuable than the lives of businessmen?
Mercy for Animals is an animal rights organization that visually demonstrates the merciless operations that take place. Note: Mercy for Animals is only one of many societies that seek support for the animals.
Go to: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/issues.asp (maybe there is a lot more insight that will make more sense)
Mark:
We should make a stand for the animals that are cruelly killed or tested on. We, as human beings, should not test on animals for any reason. The killing of animals is somewhat of a controversial issue. From one point of view, I hate cruelty that is placed in the killing of animals\; on the other hand though, the slaughterhouses have to do it in the manner that they do it in. If they don't kill them the way they do, it would spoil the meat.
Daniel:
While I do believe that products need to be tested and that we need the food industry, I believe there is a better way in going to these goals. I see nothing wrong with killing a cow for food, but I cannot agree with the methods used. The slaughtering of an animal should be clean, quick, and painless. I also believe that the living conditions of these animals are terrible. If we are going to kill them for their meat we might as well make their short lives comfortable.
Jessica:
Animal abuse is an issue that many disregard. Shouldn’t the life of animals be valued? In the business industries, life isn’t respected; what is of great importance is the product that is going to be produced at the end. No industries care about the inhumane acts against animals. The majority of the time, businesses emphasize on “The faster the production process, the more money that will come in.” The reality is that the animals being tested, as test “subjects”, are simply test subjects.
Think about these situations:
Chickens get crammed into a cage; imagine yourself locked in a six by six closet with four to six other people. You're scared about what is about to happen next.
Cows get injected with different hormones and then are prepped for meat processing. See in your mind's eye being injected with chemicals that change different aspects of you, which may even burn to the bone, like a test subject. Then you're skinned alive, shipped to a different location with hundreds of others like you. Most of your bones and muscles are torn -- envision the pain. In truth, animals don’t need to empathasize with or try to comprehend such a feeling, for they already feel it.
All animals can feel, hear, and see so what makes them less valuable than the lives of businessmen?
Mercy for Animals is an animal rights organization that visually demonstrates the merciless operations that take place. Note: Mercy for Animals is only one of many societies that seek support for the animals.
Go to: http://www.mercyforanimals.org/issues.asp (maybe there is a lot more insight that will make more sense)
Mark:
We should make a stand for the animals that are cruelly killed or tested on. We, as human beings, should not test on animals for any reason. The killing of animals is somewhat of a controversial issue. From one point of view, I hate cruelty that is placed in the killing of animals\; on the other hand though, the slaughterhouses have to do it in the manner that they do it in. If they don't kill them the way they do, it would spoil the meat.
Daniel:
While I do believe that products need to be tested and that we need the food industry, I believe there is a better way in going to these goals. I see nothing wrong with killing a cow for food, but I cannot agree with the methods used. The slaughtering of an animal should be clean, quick, and painless. I also believe that the living conditions of these animals are terrible. If we are going to kill them for their meat we might as well make their short lives comfortable.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Popular Vote vs. Electoral Vote?
In Article two Section one of the Constitution, the provision establishing the Electoral College can be found.
What is the Electoral College and why is it supposedly needed?
Our Founding Fathers created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the President from the whims of the public. The House of Representatives and the Senate are the groups that formally elect the next President. When you vote for a presidential candidate, you are really voting to instruct the electors from your state to cast their vote for the same candidate.
These delegates cast their votes after the popular vote is tallied up from their state.
The reason the United States Government says that the Electoral College is still in place today is quite simple. They state that if it was based on the popular vote, there would be no need for people in states like Wyoming, South Dakota and New Hampshire to even show up to vote as the election would be over after votes from Texas, California and New York were tabulated. Consequently, this makes many of us as U.S. citizens feel like our vote counts for nothing. Instead of voting for our next President we are actually voting for electors of our states to pick our next president for us.
"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.
Question: Is it right for us American citizens to vote to persuade the minds of our state’s delegates? On the other hand, should the popular vote by the citizens be the deciding factor in choosing our next President? Do you feel like your vote counts?
Brad: Personally, I feel that my vote doesn’t count as much as I wish it would. I do understand that these electors know more than the average citizen, when it comes to politics, but what’s the point in us voting to persuade somebody else? If they, supposedly, know more about the subject, how could a little vote like mine (an average citizen) change the mind of a delegate who is, allegedly, much more educated on the topic than I am?
Jessica: My opinion is we should not have the Electoral College votes. Many elections have been turned over because of the fact of the Electoral College votes. The election in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland is a prime example. Harrison had 5,439,853 popular votes and won 233 electoral votes. Cleveland won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes but only had 168 Electoral College votes. The Electoral College vote should not determine our next President. It’s not what the people really want, it’s the states. I feel as if my vote does not count because when it comes down to the Electoral College vote, it only matters what our House of Representatives and Senate wants. How do we know if they really voted for the President we want? They have the right to vote for whomever they want as their President, so why try persuading them? If they have to vote for the most popular candidate, where did their rights go?
Jonathon: On the topic of Electoral College votes I may not have much opinion. Though I believe that since I take time out of my schedule every four years (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November), my vote should do more than just pick someone else to vote for me. Though it’s true that big populated states would take over less-populated states, it should matter more than just someone else’s vote. This is why I feel the Electoral College should be more the people than the representatives, who, as some might say, are just corrupt, and vote for who they do for the money they were paid. I do understand that not all are the same, but there are people who are corrupt, and bribes play a part in the power they hold.
What is the Electoral College and why is it supposedly needed?
Our Founding Fathers created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the President from the whims of the public. The House of Representatives and the Senate are the groups that formally elect the next President. When you vote for a presidential candidate, you are really voting to instruct the electors from your state to cast their vote for the same candidate.
These delegates cast their votes after the popular vote is tallied up from their state.
The reason the United States Government says that the Electoral College is still in place today is quite simple. They state that if it was based on the popular vote, there would be no need for people in states like Wyoming, South Dakota and New Hampshire to even show up to vote as the election would be over after votes from Texas, California and New York were tabulated. Consequently, this makes many of us as U.S. citizens feel like our vote counts for nothing. Instead of voting for our next President we are actually voting for electors of our states to pick our next president for us.
"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787
"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787
"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.
Question: Is it right for us American citizens to vote to persuade the minds of our state’s delegates? On the other hand, should the popular vote by the citizens be the deciding factor in choosing our next President? Do you feel like your vote counts?
Brad: Personally, I feel that my vote doesn’t count as much as I wish it would. I do understand that these electors know more than the average citizen, when it comes to politics, but what’s the point in us voting to persuade somebody else? If they, supposedly, know more about the subject, how could a little vote like mine (an average citizen) change the mind of a delegate who is, allegedly, much more educated on the topic than I am?
Jessica: My opinion is we should not have the Electoral College votes. Many elections have been turned over because of the fact of the Electoral College votes. The election in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland is a prime example. Harrison had 5,439,853 popular votes and won 233 electoral votes. Cleveland won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes but only had 168 Electoral College votes. The Electoral College vote should not determine our next President. It’s not what the people really want, it’s the states. I feel as if my vote does not count because when it comes down to the Electoral College vote, it only matters what our House of Representatives and Senate wants. How do we know if they really voted for the President we want? They have the right to vote for whomever they want as their President, so why try persuading them? If they have to vote for the most popular candidate, where did their rights go?
Jonathon: On the topic of Electoral College votes I may not have much opinion. Though I believe that since I take time out of my schedule every four years (the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November), my vote should do more than just pick someone else to vote for me. Though it’s true that big populated states would take over less-populated states, it should matter more than just someone else’s vote. This is why I feel the Electoral College should be more the people than the representatives, who, as some might say, are just corrupt, and vote for who they do for the money they were paid. I do understand that not all are the same, but there are people who are corrupt, and bribes play a part in the power they hold.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Welcome, everyone!
Hello, everyone!
This is where 10% of your grade begins. The rules for the discussions are as follows:
1. You will be posting a blog on an issue. What you will do is EMAIL to me the blog on the issue you wish to cover and the commentary you wish to add to the topic (naturally, you've got to start the conversation). I will post it up on the blog site for your classmates; whereupon, the discussion will begin.
2. You will also be responsible for CONTRIBUTING your thoughts, comments, theories, comparisons, rants, raves, inquiries, outrage, etc. on each of the blogs posted by your classmates. It's a give-and-take discussion, as well it should be.
3. Your blog postings and responses must NOT be anonymous. It wouldn't make much sense to grade an anonymous contributor when I wouldn't know to whom I'd grant the grade, would it?
4. Since your blog postings and commentaries aren't going to be anonymous, I expect you to respond thoughtfully and intelligently. Please note, however, that I will not censor your writing. I strongly adhere to the ideology of freedom of speech. I simply ask that you refrain from using vacuous vulgarities and brash insults directed at your fellow commentators. That's not adequate argumentation, in any case.
5. Your blog issue will be on a CURRENT topic that's debatable. This may require you to start reading the newspaper and newsworthy magazines, watching the tube, browsing the internet, and so forth. Direct your blog commentators to certain stories/articles on the topic as well, to assist in your discussion and their contributions.
6. Bear in mind, folks, I'll be contributing, too! Don't let MY vantage dissuade you from posting either (in good argumentation, no side is 100% right or wrong!). That certainly ISN'T what freedom of speech entails. In other words, feel free to disagree with my views. Just be prepared to back up your claim!
7. Have a good time with this. What I hope this blog will do is free your mind a bit and give you some ideas as to research paper topics you might not have thought of before!
8. Find out what my other 1102 class is up to by visiting
http://enc1102weeklyissues.blogspot.com/
(They'd love to have you there.)
So, without further adieu... Let's begin with something easy --
Each of you introduce yourself and give us ONE pet peeve -- one thing that irritates you -- big or small -- that really gets under your skin.
I'll start:
I'm MacKenzie Jennings, and I can't stand it when people actually have conversations on their cell phones while at the movies. It's even worse when they reveal the plot twists while on the phone.
This is where 10% of your grade begins. The rules for the discussions are as follows:
1. You will be posting a blog on an issue. What you will do is EMAIL to me the blog on the issue you wish to cover and the commentary you wish to add to the topic (naturally, you've got to start the conversation). I will post it up on the blog site for your classmates; whereupon, the discussion will begin.
2. You will also be responsible for CONTRIBUTING your thoughts, comments, theories, comparisons, rants, raves, inquiries, outrage, etc. on each of the blogs posted by your classmates. It's a give-and-take discussion, as well it should be.
3. Your blog postings and responses must NOT be anonymous. It wouldn't make much sense to grade an anonymous contributor when I wouldn't know to whom I'd grant the grade, would it?
4. Since your blog postings and commentaries aren't going to be anonymous, I expect you to respond thoughtfully and intelligently. Please note, however, that I will not censor your writing. I strongly adhere to the ideology of freedom of speech. I simply ask that you refrain from using vacuous vulgarities and brash insults directed at your fellow commentators. That's not adequate argumentation, in any case.
5. Your blog issue will be on a CURRENT topic that's debatable. This may require you to start reading the newspaper and newsworthy magazines, watching the tube, browsing the internet, and so forth. Direct your blog commentators to certain stories/articles on the topic as well, to assist in your discussion and their contributions.
6. Bear in mind, folks, I'll be contributing, too! Don't let MY vantage dissuade you from posting either (in good argumentation, no side is 100% right or wrong!). That certainly ISN'T what freedom of speech entails. In other words, feel free to disagree with my views. Just be prepared to back up your claim!
7. Have a good time with this. What I hope this blog will do is free your mind a bit and give you some ideas as to research paper topics you might not have thought of before!
8. Find out what my other 1102 class is up to by visiting
http://enc1102weeklyissues.blogspot.com/
(They'd love to have you there.)
So, without further adieu... Let's begin with something easy --
Each of you introduce yourself and give us ONE pet peeve -- one thing that irritates you -- big or small -- that really gets under your skin.
I'll start:
I'm MacKenzie Jennings, and I can't stand it when people actually have conversations on their cell phones while at the movies. It's even worse when they reveal the plot twists while on the phone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)