Hit The Lights: What Kind of Union is Best for Today's Society?

Throughout history there have been major changes to our society caused by numerous social factors. Factors such as economics, technology, education, and values are just some of the causes of the "Evolution" of our society. These dramatic changes that have been made to our society have greatly changed the way we see certain things. Consequently, one rather serious question must be asked, what type of marriage is best suited for a society like todays which is constantly changing and evolving?

Firstly, a marital union is defined as a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship. It is an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged in a variety of ways, depending on the culture or subculture in which it is found. That being said, due to these changes there are several types of marital unions that take place in our society. Same sex marriages have become extremely common and accepted and the traditional form of monogamous marriage between a man and a woman remains intact in our society. Interestingly, in certain areas of North America (particularly in the State of Utah) polygamy a union in which there are multiple spouses is not only practiced but also tolerated. However, one question still remains: Which of these unions is best for today's society?

As we all know, the typical "Nuclear Family" has been the backbone of our idea for what a family should resemble for a very long time. However, considering what is happening in our society today is this true? Although some would argue against the traditional family, which has been a constant in American society for an excruciatingly long time. I must assert my firm belief that it is still the best type of union for today’s society. Being raised in an environment like this myself, I believe it is both very effective and instrumental in raising children to become productive members of society and to create a unified family. For example, within this family a father is able to show his son how to become a man and a mother can show her daughter how to become a woman. Secondly, the tradition man and woman monogamous union creates a nurturing environment for a child. This is done by having several family members that are a part of the “Nuclear Family” thereby creating a comforting environment. 

In conclusion, although there are many types of unions that are large parts of our society. I must side with the side in which I believe is best suited for our society due to my belief that the traditional monogamous union between a man and a woman is still the union that is best suited for a society that is in constant change. Being raised by two parents in this union I can say that I turned out “OK”.  However, I am in no way ruling out all other types of unions. 

Heaven and Hell: Why Do Bad Things Happen to Good People?

Everyday, horrible things happen in this world that we call our home. Countless "good" people are killed, raped, stabbed, smacked, slashed and are troubled by other numerous violent actions every day. One might begin to wonder exactly why bad things do happen to good people. However, this question is a very difficult one to answer and in order to do so, an individual must truly assert their own belief in the following: Is there really a god?

Firstly, the terms "good" and "bad" must both be understood to have multiple meanings. For example to a terrorist who has been taught his entire life to go out and sacrifice himself in the name of his god would consider what he would be doing as "good". However, to a normal Canadian citizen such as myself, what this man considers as "good" is considered "bad" to me. Therefore, when a "bad" thing happens to someone it could  be considered "good" to someone else. However, one question still remains. Regardless of whether something is considered "good" or "bad", why do these things happen?

According to the philosopher John Mackie, the reason for all the suffering in the world is simply that there is no god. This is a belief known as religious skepticism. Mackie classified his solutions as to why there is suffering into two categories, Orthodox and Unorthodox. Orthodox solutions usually preserving the traditional characteristic of god and Unorthodox usually disproving certain characteristics of god. One rather interesting Orthodox solution is known as the "Freedom Response". This view establishes that suffering is the price individuals pay for their own freewill. This is because other humans cause suffering not god. Essentially, suffering and evil is caused by humans having their own freewill.  Now, after understanding and reading about this theory as an individual who believes in god I must admit this is the only theory that could explain all the suffering and pain in the world to me. 

In conclusion, although Mackie has argued against the "Freedom Response", I must admit that this is the only solution that can truly make sense to me. As someone who does believe in god I must state that although there is a lot of pain and suffering in this world, it is not because there is no god it is because  it is self-inflicted suffering. Only through this view can I truly comprehend and grasp the idea of why bad things happen to good people. 

Take No Prisoners: What Should Canada Do With Its Young Offenders?

In every society there has always been crime. Whether it was simple crimes such as petty theft, dealing of marijuana and vandalism or the most heinous of crimes such as murder, rape and assault. There have always been measures that are taken in order to maintain justice in society. For each crime there is a different sentence or punishment given to each offender for what they have done. However, a serious issue comes into play when those that are under 18 commit these deeds. This leaves many asking the following question: What should Canada do with its young offenders?

Firstly, Webster's Dictionary defines a crime as an action or omission that constitutes an offense that may be prosecuted by the state and is punishable by law. As we all know, crime is something that has an abundance in all societies. In fact, in Canada before 1908 crimes committed by any person of any age were treated as adults. However, once the Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908 was put into place, each offender that was under 18 was to be considered "not as a criminal, but as a misdirected and misguided child". Many years later in 1984, Canada then created a new act known as the Young Offenders Act. However, it was often criticized due to the fact some found it too lenient on the defendant as well as giving out inconsistent and unfair sentences. Due to the criticism of the previous act, on April 1, 2003, the government of Canada established the  Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) which officially replaced the previous act. This particular act is still in place today although the Harper government did attempt to make certain policies of the YCJA more severe. However, the Canadian Supreme Court overruled Harper's government on the grounds that "general deterrence is not a principle of youth sentence under the new regime."

Some would say that a person is not born to commit a crime and that there are attributing factors that can cause someone to develop into a criminal. For example, those that are born in a rundown neighborhood and grew up with crimes happening all around them have a tendency to either be involved in crime or have a tolerance for crime. Therefore, when it comes to handing out sentences to a young offender, I believe that the fact they learned this behavior should be taken into account. For example, a 17 year old boy from a bad area of town that was just arrested for dealing drugs should not just be thrown into jail but should be rehabilitated in order for them to become a productive member of society. Essentially, what I believe should be done is that for each offender is that their background should be put into account in order to truly deliver a fair and effective sentence. 

Now, the YCJA's goal is essentially just this as its main goal is to "prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person's offending behavior, rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them back into society, and ensure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offences, in order to promote the long-term protection of the public." This is very effective due to the fact that it is not fair to simply force a young offender into a jail cell and throw away the key. When someone is still very young they have not fully developed both mentally and physically. Secondly, jail is an extremely traumatic experience for anyone but even more so for a young person.

In conclusion, in order for Canada to deliver an effective and fair sentence to a young offender, the background information of each offender must be present in order to do so. As we can see, Canada is a country that is constantly trying to improve its judicial system in order to ensure that everyone is treated equally. The YCJA is a great example of this as we can see our country is moving forward. These young offenders are still children like myself and simply cannot be treated the same way that a fully developed adult is treated. 

Little Animation on the YCJA:

...And Justice For All: How Do I Make Difficult Decisions?

Throughout life every single individual must make problematic and arduous decisions that can affect their future drastically. When faced with these types of decisions, one can only think of several things. Firstly, a person could only begin to imagine the amount of happiness that both they and others would receive out of this decision. Secondly, they begin to think of the implications that making this decision would cause. As we go through life these decisions will continue to bombard us. However, the true question is how should we should come at these decision in an attempt to ensure the greatest outcome. 

To begin, the amount of happiness of both an individual as well as others is very important. For example, the use of steroids in professional sports. As we know, the use of steroids is both frowned upon and against the rules of professional sports as it is considered to be "cheating". However, there is a major conflict when it comes to this subject. Utilitarianism would argue that by taking steroids an athlete can perform at a higher level than all the other athletes. Consequently, making both all the fans as well as many others very happy. However, Deontology would argue that consuming steroids is a morally atrocious deed and should not be done as it breaks several rules. Regarding my own decisions, I usually look towards what would be the considered the Utilitarian choice. I would chose with this side due to the fact that it would result in the most amount of happiness for everyone.

A rather difficult scenario would be the following. Imagine that there were five people with the same blood type that were all in desperate need of organ transplants. Coincidentally, there is a patient in the waiting room that is perfectly healthy and has the same blood type as the five people. Now, there is a very huge and conflicting predicament. Utilitarianism would argue for the one man who is healthy to give up his life and allow the five others to go and live their respective lives. Deontology would argue that this gentleman has the right to live his life. However, my personal decision would be to go towards the teachings of Mill and Bentham. By taking the life of one person, five other lives will be saved. Thereby creating the greatest possible outcome. Which is why I chose to side with Bentham and Mill, as in order for me to make a decision of a large magnitude I do need to think about the total amount of happiness that this choice would produce.

In conclusion, although both Deontology and Utilitarianism both have very convincing arguments for which side one should agree with, I cannot simply make a decision because it is the morally right thing to do. However, this is why I can make a decision based on the amount of happiness will come out of the choice I have made. Consequently, there are some people that when faced with a difficult choice have no idea to do. But, as Geddy Lee once said, “If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice", and I believe we can all agree with that. 

Uprising: What Should Education Be Like In a Web 2.0 World?

Today's society is constantly evolving. According to Moore's Law, every 18 to 24 months our newest technology will be improved upon, essentially doubling what preceded it. While Moore's Law provides us with the "How?" what we really want to know is the "Why?". Essentially, man kind is constantly aiming to ameliorate our past designs and ultimately make our lives easier. With these new advancements in technology come certain things that must be put into perspective. One crucial thing however, is how an education system should be run with this new technology.

A very wise man once said, "With great power, comes great responsibility". The same idea works with the internet and how we use it in our education systems. There are many new technological devices that can be utilized to their greatest extent in an education system. Devices such as laptops, Smart-Boards, projectors and internet access are just a few things that are essential to create a modern and sophisticated learning environment. Some might say this is a radical and non-traditional idea. However, according to Nicholas Negroponte, it is the exact opposite. Negroponte founded a foundation, called the One Laptop Per Child Program, in which small laptop computers that are virtually indestructible are sent to children in Africa in order to allow them to explore all the knowledge on the internet. This demonstrates the key importance of the internet as a tool for education, making it essential for every student to have a laptop with an internet connection. Thereby, allowing students to learn how to use this new technology but to also contribute to the online community. 

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once said that the reason he founded Wikipedia was in order to provide an immersive and boundless online encyclopedia to everyone. What Wales has set up is a perfect example of the community one can create using the internet. Thereby creating a perfect atmosphere for learning where everyone can share what they have found or researched online with their classmates. Secondly, it allows for instant sharing of information which is extremely useful in a classroom if it is put to use correctly. For example, if a teacher finds an article that is pertinent to what the class is learning the teacher can distribute this article to his or her students quickly and efficiently. The teacher can also use websites such as Youtube and education.com in order to demonstrate certain ideas to their students using visual aids such as images and videos. 

In conclusion, in a Web 2.0 world there are two main things needed in a classroom, a computer with an internet connection and a projector. Through this, learning can become an interactive and interesting experience. The power that the internet gives us to educate is simply incalculable. Sites such as Wikipedia and Google are terrific tools that allow us to find new and useful information. As we can all see, major changes continue to occur and will keep on occurring in the world of education. The real question is, “Are you ready for change?”, because I am. 

Am I Evil?: What Does It Mean To Be Human?

The Meriam-Webester's dictionary defines the word "Human" as "a bipedal primate mammal". However, as we all know the true definition of this word is much more than just a simple mammal. The true meaning of what it is to be a human cannot be easily described. As we learned from Ingrid Betancourt, there are many crucial things that qualify a person to be a human. Unfortunately, Ms. Betancourt was kidnapped by a group of guerrilla militants known as the FARC and was held captive for six years. After listening to her speak about her six year long kidnapping, there are several rather interesting aspects of human nature that she mentions. So, we must ask ourselves this question, "What does it mean to be human?". 

Firstly, one main aspect Ingrid mentions of what it means to be human is that humans are brutal, mean and harsh. Some might say that this idea is a bit too extreme. However, it's the exact opposite. Let's take what the FARC did to Ingrid as an example. This group of guerrilla warriors attempted to brutalize and humiliate Ingrid in an attempt to ultimately dehumanize her. However, she did prevail against them and escape from her captivity. which leads to the second aspect which is that a human is a determined fighter and will never give up hope in the face of adversity. In this case, Ingrid proves this by surviving six years being held captive by the FARC. Although at some times she seemed emotionally distraught, Ingrid never gave up hope and remained resilient until she was freed. Finally, the aspect that impacted me the most was when she said the following, "No matter how evil a person may appear to be, there will always be a little bit of "Light" in each person.". This statement is completely correct as it's essentially the truth. Even if someone is a horrible person, in the end they are human and have a little bit of good inside of them NO MATTER WHAT.

In conclusion, there are many aspects to what it means to be a human. However, if I were to narrow it down, I could not have put it any other way than I did previously. Although Rene Descartes once stated, " I think therefore, I am.", one cannot truly be human just because they are able to think or simply because they exist. Essentially, what makes someone human is not what we are, but who we are. By making this assertion, one can fully understand both the philosophical and emotional meaning of what it is to be human. 

Sad But True: What Do We Rely On Most For Knowing What Is True?

Since the dawn of time, man has continually attempted to further his understanding of how he attains knowledge. There has always been a thirst for knowledge inside of every human being  ever since we were even in our most primitive states. After that, philosophers emerged and with them came new ideas. These ideas came into existence because of man's hunger for knowledge and for greater understanding of himself.  However, one major question has been asked since then; What does man rely on most for knowing what is true? There is definitely an answer to this question. However, we must understand that there are two sides to this argument: The Empiricist side and the Rationalist side. 

Empiricism is defined as the theory that states that knowledge appears from evidence gathered from experiencing something. This theory emphasizes the role of experience and evidence forming our perception of what is and what is not real. On the other side is Rationalism. This is a philosophical theory which states that what we perceive as real is not drawn from experience and evidence but rather from intellect and deduction. Rationalism bases its theories on the assertion that reason has the upper hand on other ways of understanding and believing knowledge such such as experiencing it first hand. Thereby splitting this argument into two sides.

Before debating which side is the right side, we must understand that both sides are extremely valid. I will state that I believe that I am much more of an Empiricist than a Rationalist. Usually, I grasp knowledge when I have done something myself rather than think about a certain thing. For example, one can read hours on how to drive a car. However, will they really be able to conduct the vehicle with ease and precision? I seriously doubt this. If one believes in god or a form of god simply through thinking of a god rather than witnessing or observing it, do we really know that it is real? Does believing and conjuring an idea of a higher power make it true? In my opinion, No. This idea makes us wonder what we are perceiving is real, whether it’s what we see and experience or what we believe and ponder is true. However, I will always know what I am going through is real due to the fact that I am the one experiencing this, which is why I am on the Empiricist side of this argument. 

In conclusion, although both sides have their own positives and negatives, my allegiance is pledged towards Empiricism due to the fact that through evidence and experience there is no doubt in my mind that something is tangible and real, not to deny that using reason and deduction will allow us to perceive that something is real. In fact, Plato’s allegory of The Cave can be used in this situation as just because you have not seen or experienced something, does not make it any less real. However, to reiterate, the fact something is real is implanted in your head once you have experienced it. 

More to come,

-Mason

The Internet: You Live It or Lie It

This is my first official blogpost and I am looking forward to it. I have been asked to answer the following question: Is the internet helping or hurting?

In the simplest terms, the internet is probably one of the single greatest inventions man has ever come up with. It allows us to view essentially any sort of information on anything we want in a matter of moments. Did I forget to mention that its also ALL available to you at anytime of the day and on demand?  The amount of information at your disposal is basically incalculable. However, there are some major problems with the internet that have us wondering, "Is the Internet Helping or Hurting?"

One might argue that the internet has helped us in many crucial ways. It has brought us loads of entertainment whether it comes from videos, images, video games, social networking and I could go on. However, recently there have been many aspects of the internet that have become extremely unappealing. For one, social networking sites such as Facebook or Myspace have left us wondering whether it is even safe to be members of these sites. False identities and Cyber Bullying are just some of the things that will assuredly not have you interested in being involved with these sites. Creating a false identity for oneself is both unintelligent and downright wrong. Although some may claim that they can be whoever they want online, how do they really know that? The fact of the matter is that you are who you are, and what you post online isn't really the truth. Cyber bullying is surely one  extremely dangerous aspect of the internet. It has caused some horrific things to happen to certain people. Suicides, deaths and the ruining of lives are just some things that can result from simply typing out a message to someone on a computer and sending it to them via the internet. 


Lastly, a complete lack of privacy is something that is truly immoral and unsafe. Imagine someone happened to post a photo of you that depicted you vomiting into a toilet because you had a few too many drinks. Then, you go and apply for a new job, and lets say that it's your dream job. The interview goes well and you think that you've nailed it. However, you are not hired because they went and did a background check on you and found this photo of you severely inebriated, which completely changed their mind about hiring you. 

In conclusion, I strongly believe the internet is hurting us. There are many good aspects of the world wide web. However, is it all truly worth it if most of our personal information is out in the open waiting for anyone to get their filthy hand on it? Absolutely not. Which is why we must realize that we all must be extremely careful with what we post online whether it be a Youtube video, a picture to Facebook, or your address on Myspace. I have seen some rather embarrassing things on some of my peers online that I would surely not want associated with my name. As Kurt Cobain Once Said: " I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not."We must realize that it is better to be oneself than to be someone who we are not. 

Hope you enjoyed this,

-Mason 

Hello me. meet the real me.

So, I have published blogs in the past but I stopped for a little. so now I guess you could say I am back in the saddle (again). Anyway, this is for my sociology class where ill be conducting some sort of music related sociological study.


Cheers,
Mason