I do not agree with the views of the writer. Mainly due to three points,he said that advertisement's information comes with no cost,to bring forth information from other sources and advertising include interest of public, which i do not agree.
Firstly,the writer states that the information given by the advertisement is free and need not pay at all. However, have you ever realized that advertisement loves instilling fears in the hearts of other, to increase "awareness" and thus buy their products as a form of calming ourselves. Thus it is not true at all that we do not pay for the information, as we paid for their products which is just an indirect form of buying their information.
Secondly,many advertisement like to include their so-called "professional consults" especially toothpaste where they like to use doctors as forms of examples who used their product, this is a form of including information from external sources where doctors are asked to use their professional knowledge to back up their product showing how famous and widely used by prominent figures of the medical industry, especially in dentistry.
Lastly, I totally disagree with the fact that the companies includes public interest. Normally when we see advertisement of medicines like slimming pills they always highlight the benefits of their medicine, but have they ever highlighted the after effects of consuming their pill? Have they really cautioned the user that these pills are not beneficial to human body due do some harmful substance that would cause body problems? All these important cautions are not stated in advertisement. Thus they normally dun put consumer interest much to their attention.
If I would create an advertisement for a tobacco company, I would definitely not state the statistics of the chances of getting lung cancer with the usage of tobacco as it will only scare the consumers away. What i would do , is to depict smoking as a very "cool" image, as only then it will attract more consumers especially from the younger generation. For tobacco companies there would not be a need for too heavy advertisement as once a person takes it, he will thus be addicted and it will not need too much or constant advertisement to captured and preserve their interest.
However, by doing so we are just compromising on our integrity and our honesty on health issue of the nation. Thus, advertisements will only show the good side of their product, but not show the cons of their products as it will not attract people but scare consumers away.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Science is a menace to civilization
I agree to the stand of text A, more than text B. I agree to text A more, as it shows the aftermath or rather the reality that is pictured after all the technology is introduced into the civilization. I have two takes for this mainly, the aftermath of medical science and the irony of the phrase stated in text B,"Beauty of science".
I do not agree with the stand of text B as they stated that medical science have contributed largely to the human race, advances in medicine have led to pasteurisation, vaccination, antibiotics, anaesthetics, the obliteration of smallpox, transplant surgery, genetic engineering and many more life-saving discoveries. However, to what extend is this life saving issue viable? From many previous incidents of suicide cases were due to the over dosage of insomnia pills. Not only are there suicide, cases, medical science also introduced the number killer of all times, drugs. Drugs have been a hassle to the currently society, not have it enticed people to go crazy about it, it has also took away the lives of many people and it created lots of extra jobs for the people in the court to do. What's the purpose of all these drugs? To hang people for trafficking them and to kill people who get addicted to them? Thus is it true that medical science have improved our society? Or has it rather caused turmoil and chaos in our nation.
I do not agree with the statement stated in text B, "Beauty of science". Firstly, I would like to question the viability of the term beauty of science, does science even have a beautiful side? Or is it just a facade? I would like to site two examples. Firstly, from text A , they stated that technology gave us a more fulfilled and happy life styles, but have we ever thought how much they took away from us? Text A , also states that technology have been robbing us off our skills and this is true, as the aid of technology is just crippling human as humans are lazy in nature and will always find the easy way out, thus the introduction will not benefit the human population but instead harm the population. Another example is GM food which is largely advertised in the world of science. It is very efficient enabling faster plant growth and cases like that. However, the after effects of these benefits is shocking, GM food is not at all beneficial to the human body as it contains high amounts of pesticide and harms the human body.
Thus, from these two stands we can exactly see the menace and harm that it has imposed on our civilization, not benefiting us in many ways.
I do not agree with the stand of text B as they stated that medical science have contributed largely to the human race, advances in medicine have led to pasteurisation, vaccination, antibiotics, anaesthetics, the obliteration of smallpox, transplant surgery, genetic engineering and many more life-saving discoveries. However, to what extend is this life saving issue viable? From many previous incidents of suicide cases were due to the over dosage of insomnia pills. Not only are there suicide, cases, medical science also introduced the number killer of all times, drugs. Drugs have been a hassle to the currently society, not have it enticed people to go crazy about it, it has also took away the lives of many people and it created lots of extra jobs for the people in the court to do. What's the purpose of all these drugs? To hang people for trafficking them and to kill people who get addicted to them? Thus is it true that medical science have improved our society? Or has it rather caused turmoil and chaos in our nation.
I do not agree with the statement stated in text B, "Beauty of science". Firstly, I would like to question the viability of the term beauty of science, does science even have a beautiful side? Or is it just a facade? I would like to site two examples. Firstly, from text A , they stated that technology gave us a more fulfilled and happy life styles, but have we ever thought how much they took away from us? Text A , also states that technology have been robbing us off our skills and this is true, as the aid of technology is just crippling human as humans are lazy in nature and will always find the easy way out, thus the introduction will not benefit the human population but instead harm the population. Another example is GM food which is largely advertised in the world of science. It is very efficient enabling faster plant growth and cases like that. However, the after effects of these benefits is shocking, GM food is not at all beneficial to the human body as it contains high amounts of pesticide and harms the human body.
Thus, from these two stands we can exactly see the menace and harm that it has imposed on our civilization, not benefiting us in many ways.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
As humans, we should not exercise censorship in the field of pornography :D
The censorship of pornography is widely debated by the society. Many think that pornography just corrupts the mind of pure innocent kids, however I do not agree with this view of large portion of the general public. I think that there should not be censorship to this area as its part of our human body, which is natural, it’s a form of personal expression and it is also a part of an "all-rounded" education.
Firstly, Pornography is described by many as the revealing of our "private" parts and it is obscene and unruly to reveal them to the general public. I disagree to this point, as these "obscenities" are just natural human body parts, what’s there to be afraid of displaying them? Besides, we even study them in Biology lessons, showing us samples of photos with people suffering from syphilis(a disease that greatly affects the penis), and even during assemblies where there are females around. Thus, I do not see a need for censorship, as people of this era are so comfortable with it, unlike people 2 centuries back, where they are so conservative.
Secondly, Pornography is a form of free will expression. As a citizen of the country, everyone should be able to display whenever they like, and if this is so, people should be able to view them as and when they like. This is the true definition of a democratic society, where humans are free to show their different forms of expression. Pornography, as a method of speech, words and pictures about sexuality, is a channel for people to display their sexual desires for people to view. This would create a wider variety of options for people to choose from, looking and displaying their desires in different methods.
Lastly, Pornography is part of an "all-rounded education". As students, there is a need for us to experience and learn the arts of releasing desires. Pornography could be just complimentary to the sexual education that we are taught in school. For example, Elizabeth Choy, has naked portraits of herself, and is not shameful of them. Thus, Elizabeth Choy, a war hero, should be an exemplary example for us to follow.
In conclusion, I feel that Pornography is just a form of expression of the sexual desire of the human body. There is nothing wrong for us to learn and understand more about "nature". Thus, instead of being shameful of it, needing to censor them; it should be glorified, not being kept in the dark.
Firstly, Pornography is described by many as the revealing of our "private" parts and it is obscene and unruly to reveal them to the general public. I disagree to this point, as these "obscenities" are just natural human body parts, what’s there to be afraid of displaying them? Besides, we even study them in Biology lessons, showing us samples of photos with people suffering from syphilis(a disease that greatly affects the penis), and even during assemblies where there are females around. Thus, I do not see a need for censorship, as people of this era are so comfortable with it, unlike people 2 centuries back, where they are so conservative.
Secondly, Pornography is a form of free will expression. As a citizen of the country, everyone should be able to display whenever they like, and if this is so, people should be able to view them as and when they like. This is the true definition of a democratic society, where humans are free to show their different forms of expression. Pornography, as a method of speech, words and pictures about sexuality, is a channel for people to display their sexual desires for people to view. This would create a wider variety of options for people to choose from, looking and displaying their desires in different methods.
Lastly, Pornography is part of an "all-rounded education". As students, there is a need for us to experience and learn the arts of releasing desires. Pornography could be just complimentary to the sexual education that we are taught in school. For example, Elizabeth Choy, has naked portraits of herself, and is not shameful of them. Thus, Elizabeth Choy, a war hero, should be an exemplary example for us to follow.
In conclusion, I feel that Pornography is just a form of expression of the sexual desire of the human body. There is nothing wrong for us to learn and understand more about "nature". Thus, instead of being shameful of it, needing to censor them; it should be glorified, not being kept in the dark.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
