At first thought,it seemed completely logical to deprive a person of his or her life for some unforgivable offences that he or she might have committed. Furthermore, the death penalty probably kept people in line over the centuries. However, coming to think about it all over again,i believe firmly that death penalty is unacceptable in modern society.

First and foremost, we have to agree unanimously and see that most punishments are meted out to offenders in order to rehabilitate them.That is exactly why criminals are locked up for long periods of time to assist them in learning how to adapt and return to society as useful citizens.If the ultimate reason for punishments is rehabilitation,then it seriously makes no sense to execute someone.Only if the society dares to admit that the shameful purpose of punishment is retribution and revenge,and that everyone is able to accept retribution and revenge as a principle behind the act of punishment,then the death penalty is logical and acceptable.

Secondly,just as the article has pointed out,many advanced countries like those in Europe and some states in America have done away with the death sentence.Also,the argument put forward in these countries where the death sentence has been discontinued is that the criminals are not always responsible for their acts and the fact that sentencing(let's say)a murderer to death will never bring the victim back to life.In fact,there are people who believe that a lifetime in prison in much more unbearable and painful than a quick death at the hands of the executioner.Therefore, there seems to be good arguments supporting the stand that death penalty should simply be done away with.

Yet,i think the main reason some countries are still keeping the death penalty is because it is believed to be effective in deterring people from committing serious crimes.It is often argued that the presence of death penalty and the putting to death of a few criminals under it,will deter like-minded criminals from committing the same crime.Though this argument does have merits in the sense that it will probably work and might have probably worked for some countries,it still seems rather unfair to the criminal.

All in all, i totally disagree with the existence of death penalty in Today's society and that it should be abolished as soon as possible.

Prejudice

Prejudice is known to be a "disease" that we can never get rid of.It is something dangerously harmful to to our mental,and perhaps even physical,health that we can never eradicate.

One good example of prejudice is the racism in United States.In the aftermath of the civil war,the blacks who no sooner were granted freedom that they had always been fighting for,sadly experienced harsher and stronger prejudice that before when they were still regarded as slaves.They were not allowed to dine in places where the whites were dining in,go to the same schools as the whites,and even were deprived of their rights to vote for elected officials.Actually,the first merchants who entered the slaves tradewere not doing so because they were prejudiced against the africans-they did it for the sake of monetary benefits.Unfortunately,they started to think that all blacks could be regarded as inferior slaves after they had laid the foundations for economic profits well.

In my opinion,this discrimination against the blacks is unreasonable and definitely not justifiable.It is just like any harmful and contagious disease that has been passed down for centuries,making it so deeply ingrained in the country's culture that it is almost impossible to eradicate anymore.

Therefore,i firmly agree that prejudice is frighteningly detrimental to the victims' mental health and that prejudice can never ever be wiped out unless the world has decided to work together to eradicate it through global efforts.

Youtube has no ethics?

Is it true that youtube has no ethics,and that it has been created only for the sole purpose of entertainment and money? i say a resounding no.

Youtibe is a popular video-sharing website .According to a 16th July 2006 survey, 100 million clips are viewed daily on YouTube, with an additional 65,000 new videos uploaded per 24 hour, and the site has almost 20 million visitors each month. With this viewership which is extremely high, advertisers would want to be on YouTube, and this in turn leads to profit-making for the company.

YouTube also provides entertainment for people. On YouTube, not only can you find millions of home-made videos which are interesting and amusing (such as a video of a girl snorting a strand of cooked spaghetti and then choking it out her mouth), you can even watch music videos and dramas. The only concern is just that some of the videos may constitute copyright infringement.

However, putting entertainment and profit-making aside, YouTube was also utilized for other useful purposes. It was used to provide healthcare information through the health-related videos which are uploaded by either doctors or laypeople. For instance, a government funded clinic in Builth in Wales, UK, has posted videos on YouTube with nurses demonstrating how to sample blood sugar levels and usean inhaler.Furthermore, even the political candidates for the 2008 US Presidential election have been using YouTube as an outlet for advertising their candidacy.

Hence, the purpose of creating YouTube is not solely for entertainment and money.

Youtube has no ethics?

Is it true that youtube has no ethics,and that it has been created only for the sole purpose of entertainment and money? i say a resounding no.

Youtibe is a popular video-sharing website .According to a 16th July 2006 survey, 100 million clips are viewed daily on YouTube, with an additional 65,000 new videos uploaded per 24 hour, and the site has almost 20 million visitors each month. With this viewership which is extremely high, advertisers would want to be on YouTube, and this in turn leads to profit-making for the company.

YouTube also provides entertainment for people. On YouTube, not only can you find millions of home-made videos which are interesting and amusing (such as a video of a girl snorting a strand of cooked spaghetti and then choking it out her mouth), you can even watch music videos and dramas. The only concern is just that some of the videos may constitute copyright infringement.

However, putting entertainment and profit-making aside, YouTube was also utilized for other useful purposes. It was used to provide healthcare information through the health-related videos which are uploaded by either doctors or laypeople. For instance, a government funded clinic in Builth in Wales, UK, has posted videos on YouTube with nurses demonstrating how to sample blood sugar levels and usean inhaler.Furthermore, even the political candidates for the 2008 US Presidential election have been using YouTube as an outlet for advertising their candidacy.

Hence, the purpose of creating YouTube is not solely for entertainment and money.

Male superiority

An article which i have recently read pointed out that male superiority is no longer welcomed in today's society.The author believes that women are definitely the future driving force of the economy instead of men.He stated that women nowadays are becoming increasingly intelligent and capable in the workforce.Furthermore,women have been proved to have higher Emotional Quotient(EQ) and,ergo,are able to handle different situations better than their male counterparts,as far as emotions are concerned.Throughout the centuries,women's cry for equality has been heard clearly by all and has undeniably succeeded in forcing the male chauvinism to retreat,and by no means defeat it.However,now that mal superiority has already retreated,women seem to be less powerhungry and have shown no interest in taking over the men.Instead,a great deal of married women are happy to remain as supporting roles and,hence,refused to join the workforce after they got married or have given birth.Without the cut-throat mentality and killer instincts in business,i,as a male,seriously doubt the female's ability to take over the men and rule the world.Therefore,i totally disagree with the author that men should let the women take over the world because of a simple fact: they cannot do it well to save their lives.However,i cannot dispute the fact that there are indeed some women who are impressively capable.Yet,that is the minority in case you have not really noticed.

Is the use of torture ever justified in dealing with criminals and terrorists?

Although it may seem a tad insensitive to say this,but there are indeed circumstances when the use of torture on dealing with terrorists and criminals has been justified.Sometimes,the use of torture on the criminals and terrorists is necessary to force them to disclose essential knowledge and informations to aid the police in criminal investigations.However,there is still a considerable number of people who are amazingly insistent and firm in their stand that torture,no matter what,can never be justified.

It is easy to justify anything that a person strongly believes in.That is why some people are convinced that it is justifiable to torture terrorists.They generally feel,and rightly too,that violence against innocents for whatever reason,unlike the use of torture on criminals,can never be justified.Ergo,in their own eyes,terrorists deserve to be tortured and should not be given any mercy.Furthermore,the police are trying to introduce legalised torture as an acceptable investigation tool and technique.They argued that the police should have every right to torture any serious crime offender whenever and wherever they were certain they had informations about other crimes.For example,in cases of kidnap,the police should have the right to torture the criminal should he/she refused to reveal informations about the victim's whereabout.This is crucial so that the police could rescue the victim.

On the other hand,this has been disputed by certain people who think that torture,in every sense,is morally and ethically prohibited.They do not trust the use of torture to be effective in any real-life situations.In fact,they believe that if the police cant gt any information from the criminals,it will be fruitless for them even if they force the criminals through se of torture.They think that the use of torture is a lousy solution and that this solution could turn out to be a big problem-moral problem.

Can the media ever be relied upon to convey the truth?

Personally,i do not believe that the media can be trusted as an absolutely reliable teller of truths.Isnt it more than apparent to us that no one media in this whole wide world has actually been given complete freedom? Without complete freedom to publish and cover anything that the media wishes to,it is almost impossible for us to base our trust in the media to convey the truths and ONLY the truths.Let's take a look at America's self-proclaimed free press.Is it really not curbed in any single way? i seriously doubt so.Then,why exactly are they practising censorship?Furthermore,the article has brought out a point that media could be bribed and,thereafter,used as propaganda to manipulate the public into believing what the government would very much like us to preceive as the truths.China's media has also been restricted to publish anything that is trying to bring down communism.Ergo,we should not depend on the media entirely to convey the truths of today.

Next,i think we should not overlook the fact that the media is,afterall,business-orientated.Hence,it is understandable that they would love to make attractive profits.The media is reasonably eager to gain patrons and popularity.As a result,some would fabricate news while others would simply twist the truths into something more sensational and superficial just to attract more readers,patrons,viewers etc.This,sometimes,is the reason that has caused the media to be less reliable.

All in all,i do not believe that the media is still capable of bringing light to the world.yes,it would definitely be ideal if the media is perfectly honest in their coverage instead of slanting and twisting the truths and publishing selectively.Yet,the reality of today is that there is no one completely free media that tells only the truths and nothing else at all.So,let's not be gullibly naive and think otherwise.

An influential pontiff- Pope John Paul II

Pope John Paul II.The most revered personality on earth.The man who had commmitted a significant part of his life to spread love and attain world peace.He believed that the only possible way to establish true peace universally was to teach peace itself.Ergo,he started a pilgrimage and travelled extensively to over 100 countries just to spread a belief that he had held firmly to his heart:peace is not an unattainable ideal.This made him one of the most-travelled leaders in history.In fact,he was the one who made many people around the world realised that they are linked by a common destiny,which must be constructed together,and not individually.Furthermore, he was a multilingual person and,hence,he could effectively convey his thoughts and ideals to a great deal of foreign countries.Besides his universal call for world peace and the even spread of love,he was also notable for speaking against materialism,war,dictatorship and establishing the World Youths Day which brought together millions of youths.Therefore,he's definitely worthy to be proclaimed as one of the most influential man on earth for he had successfully convinced countless people to believe in and respect peace.As a result,our world became even more civilised.