Many Americans break the laws of California and other states everyday. Frank Trippetts argument is that many people who say that they do not break the law are actually breaking in a way that no one can find out about.Frank Trippett supports his claim by showing examples of different ways of breaking the law. I disagree with the author's argument because it is unrealistic to not pay your taxes with the code that is given to the United States government, people polluting the world with loud noise, or speeding down the highway. Some people who disagree with his views will say that it is okay to break the law if no one sees it or hears about about it. The counterargument is that when someone is speeding down the highway it is the cops job to go after the person who is speeding.
More specifically, I believe that gun violence will always be an issue whether they are banned or not. If someone plans on hurting someone, they will not care about rules. For example, Guns are very easy for people to buy, but how is the seller going to know what they plan to do with it. It is not like they are going to say that they are going to kill someone with it. Therefore, I conclude that banning guns is not worth it because people who want to use them for negative reasons will even if they are banned.
It is a very good option for someone who has a true desire to end their addiction behavior, but has no real support system. They may have the support of their family and a few friends, but they no one who shares in their story, or who knows how it feels to want to drink or do drugs when the stress of life gets to be too much. Twelve-step programs present several ethical and legal issues that present challenges to the treatment. These self help groups are anonymous and are not suppose to be discussed outside of the group setting, discussing things outside the group can present privacy issues; therefore, members must pledge secrecy to what is discussed during AA meetings (Capuzzi & Stauffer, 2012). Many people participate in AA because they feel at liberty to openly speak about their life as a substance abuser and their road to recovery.
And that is just great. But so many other people would disagree so strongly with her sunny disposition, after being robbed, by fate, of the life they had worked so hard to make for themselves. Mairs says in her essay, “I am not a disease.” (213) but living with an invisible illness is consuming. It eats people alive. Invisible illnesses cannot be seen by someone who doesn't know what to look for.
Written assignment unit 4 Term 5 Smoking is bad as everyone knows. In order to stop this habit, governments are working on different solutions. Still there is a conflict of interest that makes a ban of advertising of tobacco a complex issue as I explain below. To summarize the argument in favor of banning tobacco advertising, I have to start by defining what is tobacco and why it is controversial. Tobacco is known to be a killer of humans for many years, like Cancer, HIV, and other diseases.
People like Eric Garner were innocent and shouldn 't have got their life taken. From the other side people say “The Officer would have never did what he did if you did what you were supposed to”, also the officer probably felt offended or threatened that just don 't kill or hurt people because they feel like it .“Power always thinks it has a great soul,” and it cannot be trusted if left unchecked (adams to jefferson). People think the officers do what they have to do to protect themselves, But They do everything for a reason. They wouldn 't just hurt or harm a citizen for no reason
Quentin Tarantino once said “Just because I was at an anti-police brutality protest, doesn 't mean I 'm anti-police. We want justice, but stop shooting unarmed people.” Some people that read this quote might totally disagree but i believe it to be true. Too many people these days think that just because your are anti-police brutality means that you are also just anti-police which is not the case. Even though the police force is doing all the can to handle the situation as much as possible, police misconduct and brutality in the United states is becoming more common and should be resolved immediately because it has led to too many innocent people dying because of their reckless actions which was all caused by police acting on situations
He then wastes no time in finding personal ties to this event through his family, which shortly thereafter, he states his main argument. Although this use of pathos in the opening is quite enticing, Milbank does not support it properly throughout the piece. As mentioned earlier, he states that the fight for apartheid to end, gay to have protected rights, and environmentalism to be more care for are not really powerful movements in society, though as seen in recent years, many people can beg to differ. Of course, if Milbank had made such a statement with sufficient evidence, it might have had a chance to win the reader over; however, he hardly scratches the surface of any possible evidence that could have been used, which makes this statement seem more like a shallow insult than just a simple criticism. Also, this lack of evidence makes the reader question Milbank’s legitimacy pertaining to this issue, as it begs the question: Does Milbank really know how much sacrifice went into these merely “noble” movements?
People often misunderstand how the right to protest free speech, and democracy works, often thinking in an entitled mentality “free speech is important for me” , the need to protest has increasing over past few years, many people are discontent with the globalization and the government. Protesting is a right, but when used for free speech, it is not always the answer. (state posision) The right to protest is one of basic human rights; however, the right to protest does not allow anyone to destroy the property. The injustices being done by groups does not merit the need more violence. As Martin King said “So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.
While there is some truth to this argument, it is wrong because only teachers think of this and not parents who are the ones who have to pay for uniforms. For example,you don’t want to buy something for your child that they won’t want to wear or use, especially if they don’t help with absolutely anything. To sum up the fact, many of the people who agree on not having school uniforms stand strongly. However, they are completely convinced they will work wonders for two main justification bullying can’t be eliminated and clothing can’t boost performance in academic environments. This is true due to all statistics stated by many studies, if we want to live in a world where kids want to be able to be themselves everywhere then we must think more deeply about not just our thoughts on uniforms.