Weblog 4

In the first article by Sally Satel in When Altruism Isn’t Moral, she is saying just how corrupt she thinks altruism can be. She is saying this because a few years ago a man tried to donate an organ to an elderly man named Sonny Davis but he was originally denied by the Kaiser Renal Transplant because he was neither family nor a close friend. They needed to verify the reasons for wanting to donate his kidney by making sure that it wasn’t for financial gain or any personal gain. In the second article by Peter Laird in When Altruism Isn’t Moral Isn’t Right, he goes into great detail just how illegal it is for a doctor to allow such an illicit act. His point to the article is that the Kaiser Transplant team was absolutely correct in checking his reasons for donating his kidney. Sally Satel says that it was immoral to make Mr. Davis wait for them to check the donor’s reasons because the longer it takes for a donor the more time Mr. Davis has to become more weakened from dialysis. She also believes that altruism can be corrupt in other ways such as; putting pressure or even forcing a family member to donate simply because they are family or it can allow a disowned family member to gain social status with the family by donating. Peter Laird is saying that it is our legal duty to check the donor because if something happens or if the doctor is accused of something and they don’t have legal documentation proving their innocence then not only with they be faced with the aggressive prosecution of the government but they will also be faced with going before the medical board. He believes that calling the Kaiser Transplant team immoral simply because they asked for proof of authenticity from the donor’s offer is absolutely wrong. Both writers have very just points about altruism but the unfortunate fact is that people really don’t know what boundaries to put on donating an organ. The talk of possibly allowing tax breaks, tuition vouchers, tax-free retirement accounts, or even lifelong health coverage could be used to help “inspire” people to consider donating their organs to help those in need. I agree with Peter Laird in the long run. He seems to have a more legal concern to altruism than Satel.

 

Weblog 3

In the article Singers solution to world poverty by Peter Singer, he basically says that every person should donate their entire extra/saved money to help both the poor and the children that need help in other countries. He used to different scenarios to help prove his point on how and why people may be willing to donate. One is about a woman named Dora who was offered 1,000 dollars to take a nine year old boy to an address to be adopted; however, when she did so she realized that he was too old to be adopted and that he would be killed and his organs sold. She then decided to take the boy back and adopt him herself. The second example he used was about a man named Bob that had an old vintage car that was his pride and joy. Bob was at the train tracks one day and was forced with a choice of saving a child that was too far away to help by diverting the train into his sacred car or saving his car and letting the child die. He chose to let the child die and possibly the worst part of this story is that he didn’t seem to feel much guilt to his decision. This goes to prove that a person that has to see the child in need may be more willing to help because it won’t be so easy to pass off or forget, than if they don’t actually see the child in need and ignore them. He then proceeded to go into detail how he believes that by donating 200 dollars you could possibly help save the life a child. He listed two different donation organizations: UNICEF and Oxfam America. In the article Singers not so persuasive solution to world poverty by Greg Schaefer, he both seems to agree and disagree with Singer. He agrees that people should be more willing to help donate in order to save lives but not with the fact that they should give every extra amount of money they make to these donations. He agrees with Singers theory about seeing the children will affect people more so than if they never actually see them; however, it even made him angry to read that someone is demanding their money. He says that Singer started out great and using empathy to suggest the reader to donate with his first two stories, but then failed his point by ending in outrageous demands of giving all of your money. I agree with Schaefer in the long run about helping children in need and that if you are able to donate you should, not to say that you should give up your entire savings to it.

Reflection 1

          My writing has evolved in many ways but not nearly as much as it needs to be, to be considered perfect. When I first started writing way back when I truly believed that writing was supposed to be all in one paragraph and the idea of proper grammar and sentence structure was absolutely crazy. I then discovered that my paper could be formatted in many different ways, such as the five paragraph structure. This format included an introduction paragraph, three body paragraphs and a conclusion paragraph. It wasn’t until late in high school that I started to learn about proper grammar and so on, I thought that if my papers had five paragraphs and my computer said that I didn’t have any errors that my paper was perfect. My papers would have run on sentences, punctuation errors, commas that didn’t need commas and so on, and all of these mistakes were never caught by computer. In the tenth grade I went to my English teacher and asked her to give me extra help in these areas because I didn’t understand why my papers weren’t getting the 100 that I thought they deserved. She gave me some extra lessons in grammar because I had no clue what those things were at the time. Since then I have tried extra hard to become more aware of my mistakes in grammar and punctuation, though I know I still make plenty. English is possibly my worst subject, but I do make an honest effort in it.

            There are many people that influence my writing; however, I don’t have one in particular that I could consider my favorite or that I admire the most. I admire any writer that posses the skill to add imagery to their papers. I believe imagery is what creates your story and possibly your point depending on the type of paper you are doing. I have discovered that I don’t really like writing papers necessarily; I prefer to write short stories. Perhaps that is why I admire the skill of imagery in ones writing. If I had to write a paper I would prefer to do an argumentative paper or something that is on a specific topic. I despise doing research papers, they’re so tedious and time consuming.

           

Weblog 2

Part I

1. Kids stealing from neighbors unlocked cars

2. Having to lock my car in my own driveway

3. People driving while texting or talking on their cell phones

4. Teachers that don’t care about their students

5. Managers that pass their work onto other employees on top of their own tasks

6. Teen pregnancy and unprepared motherhood

7. Smoking in restaurants

8. High unemployment rates in our country

9. Pay cuts and shortage of hours at work

10. Child abuse

 

Part II: People driving while texting or talking on cell phones

1. What do I know about this issue right now?

            At the moment I know that there is a recent law made effective on July 1, 2009 that all drivers are banned from texting while driving. Drivers under the age of 18 are prohibited from using their cell phones while driving and that includes both texting and talking. Also school bus drivers are prohibited from all cell phone use while driving. Unfortunately this new law is only a secondary enforcement law; meaning that police officers can’t pull you over for just texting or talking they have to have another reason. That other reason could be speeding, no safety belt, a rolling stop, or something else such as a DUI. Once they’ve pulled you over they can give you two tickets on for the original reason they pulled you over and the other for texting or talking.

2. What have I heard or read about the issue? What have I seen or experienced?

            I heard about this law being a secondary law from my boyfriend’s father, he used to be a master policeman in Virginia Beach with the K-9 force. I’ve seen just how ineffective this law has been first hand. Just last week I was trying to go to work and I was in a turning lane. The two left lanes were both turning lanes I was in the one to the right so that once I turned left onto Hanbury I would be in the right lane to go onto the turning lane for the highway. The car next to me was supposed to end up in the left lane once they turned; however, they were texting during their turn and they completely ran me off the road into the grass because they went into both lanes not even paying attention to me while I was honking at them to get in their own lane. When the turn was finished they were in my lane while I was in the grass on the side of the road, they didn’t even realize what they had done.

3. Why is this issue a problem? Who does it affect? How does it affect them?

            This issue is a problem because it can be very dangerous to text or talk while driving. Most don’t pay enough attention while multi-tasking in the car. This danger affects anyone in a car near them. They could have a car accident and hit anyone on the road. There have been fatal and near fatal car accidents caused by drivers texting or talking on their cell phones.

4. What position do I hold on this issue?

            I’m against talking and texting on cell phones while driving. I think it’s reckless, stupid, careless, and dangerous.

5. What reasons can I think of to support this position?

            There are many reasons that support my position such as: car accidents, reckless driving, near fatal accidents, new teenage drivers ruining their driving records so early in their driving careers because of carelessness.

6. What evidence would help me develop my reasons in more depth?

            In depth my reasons are that I was almost in a bad car accident because one driver wasn’t paying attention to driving for two minutes that could have waited until he reached his destination. My neighbor got her driver’s license because she was in an accident within the first four months of receiving her license because she was texting her boyfriend while driving and she wasn’t paying attention to the road. She ended up driving into the other lane during five o’ clock traffic and hit another car head on. She wasn’t hurt to bad; however, the other driver was hurt badly and was sent to the hospital for two weeks from their injuries.

 

Part III

1. How would I describe one of the positions held by people who might disagree with me?

            One of the positions people might disagree with me about is that what if their message was urgent or life threatening? What if it is one of their kids texting them for help or an emergency? What if it’s their boss giving them time sensitive material that needs to be heard right away? People will always have excuses to why there shouldn’t be a law or rules or reasons why something happened but those reasons can also be turned against them. For instance the reason that one woman answered the phone was because she received an urgent call from a family member. She thinks the news is going to be about the surprise party she’s planning and on her to shop for. Instead the news isn’t about her party it’s about a family death or injury, the news is so alarming and upsetting that she stops paying attention to the road and is turn in her own accident. That is just one of the many reasons why I feel that there is always a reason why people should wait to text or talk while driving.

2. What reasons and evidence might they offer to support their position?

            Perhaps their job is a life-altering job such as: a lawyer, doctor, surgeon, homicide detective, police officer and so on. They might argue that their call or message was urgent and perhaps saved lives with news such that a heart just became available for a transplant, new evidence has just arrived about a murder, or that a their client has more news about their case. Maybe even that a mother received a call from her sick child at home needing medicine or just their mother.

3. What past experiences do people on the opposing side seem to share?

            They all share the experience that when their phones ring they can’t help but think that what if that call or message is urgent. Therefore they answer their call or message in hopes or urgency; at times their call is urgent but the majority of the time it’s not.

4. How do their experiences seem to differ from mine?

            I can’t say for a fact but when I do answer my phone and I realize that the call/ message isn’t important I hang up or set the phone back down until I’ve stopped the car so that I’m not putting others in danger. It seems that most people don’t do that, they continue to talk until they’ve finished their conversation.

5. Why might these experiences have led them to take their positions?

            They might have taken their position simply because this is a free country and therefore they do have the right to talk or text at any time. They might enjoy the luxury of being able to multi task while driving.

6. Is there a set of experiences shared in common by people on each side of the issue?

            Yes, both would like the luxury of being able to multi task while driving. People multi task every day; they eat while driving, talk while driving, take care of their kids in the back seat while driving, messing with the radio while driving, and so on. However the difference between the sides are that one side sees that the majority of the multi tasking as dangerous, and the other side sees this luxury as what it is, a luxury.

7. How do these differences influence how I will respond to their position on the issue?

            I will respond to their position by attempting to point out all of my personal reasons why I believe that it is dangerous to multi task while driving. I would help by showing them other cases of people that believe it is dangerous to talk or text while driving.

Weblog 1

Part I

1. I believe that people are basically good, but have their flaws. People are constantly trying to better themselves.

2. I believe that society is basically a large group of people. This group can be defined by the area they live in, the work environment, even their home life. It can be cultural, social, or economical.

3. I believe that government is has become very corrupt. It’s become a way for people to gain power and then use it for their own benefit.

4. I believe that justice is a thing of the past. I think that justice used to be a way to equal out the bad deeds done to good people. Now we have murderers living comfortable and soundly for the rest of their lives. Justice isn’t accommodating murderers or other bad people it’s helping those that have had bad things done to them.

5. I believe that knowledge is power. The more knowledge one can have the better one is. I personally think that colleges should be more affordable or even free so that everyone would be able to go to college and better themselves. If more people had more knowledge than maybe our world wouldn’t be is such bad shape.

6. I believe that science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through difficult research. It’s a process of trial and error, and experiments.

7. I believe that reality is a state of mind. It’s a conscious state that is of existence. The definition of reality is real existence.

8. I believe that life is continuing the species. It is how plants are able to grow, and creatures are able to procreate.

9. I believe that happiness is up to the person feeling it. Happiness isn’t something that can be bought, or sold, or created, or forced, or any other way. It’s an honest emotion that one has to feel from the inside. It’s almost like a light that goes off inside of you that radiates from the inside out.

10. I believe that goodness is the exact opposite of evil and bad. Goodness is a way of helping people, showing kindness, acts of giving, and so on.

11. I believe that death is the end of life. It’s a fact of life that all life must come to an end. With this being a fact I believe that no one should ever take life for granted. Life is too short to waste.

12. I believe that God is an all powerful being and that he does exist. I believe that God does have a plan for all of humanity. He is the creator of life and everything in it.

 

Part II: Death

1. What reasons can I think of to support my belief?

            I was still a young child when my grandfather died. At the time I didn’t fully understand what had happened I just understood that he would never come back. It was then that I realized that life is too short to just overlook on the side lines and waste.

2. What evidence supports my reasons?

            My grandfather was a very cautious man as is my grandmother. Neither of them really ever went and had an adventure in their lives they lived a normal life and that good enough for them at the time. Their plan had always been to live a normal life, to raise a family that had a good concept of morals, honesty, and integrity, and then once their children had children and lives of their own they were going to retire and have their “adventure”. They had bought a time share plan not even a year before his accident, they were going to travel the world or at least the country and maybe Europe. Then my grandfather had a seizure and fell down the stairs, breaking his neck. He survived the first seizure and even the fall and my grandparents started to realize just how precise life is. They thought the worst was over but some time later he had a second seizure and passed away. That is my evidence that life is too short and death comes all to quickly.

3. How was my belief formed?

            Both of my grandparents were extremely healthy. They were possibly the healthiest people I have ever known, even to this day. For the longest time when we would have family reunions their children would joke that their own parents would outlive all of us. I always thought that my grandpa would be alive to see my graduation, to be in my wedding, and to play with my children. It never occurred to me that he wouldn’t see his great grandchildren, let alone the rest of his grandchildren. His death was sudden and unexpected, something that no one would have ever been able to foresee. Therefore life is to never be taken for granted.

4. What have I read or heard that has influenced or shaped my belief?

            Recently I did a report for a school assignment on natural disasters. These disasters ranged from tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, and earthquakes. For the most part these disasters are sudden and without much warning and mostly only hurricanes give some warning. In 2008 there were some deadly tornadoes that ran through Tennessee, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. In Tennessee alone there were 52 deaths.

5. What have I seen or experienced that has influenced or shaped my belief?

            I personally have never seen anyone die but I do have a couple of experiences with life being too short before death takes over. Other than my grandfather on my dad’s side my grandmother on my mom’s side passed away right before my high school graduation. We were planning on how she was going to get to Virginia because she lived in Colorado and didn’t like to fly. About a month before my graduation she passed away.

6. How have these experiences led me to my present position?

            They all prove just how short life really can be. Death comes all too soon and it would be a shame if you didn’t live your life to the fullest.

7. What effect does this specific belief have on the choices I make on a daily basis?

            I believe that death can lead to regret, sorrow, and pain. It is because of this that I believe that everyone should live their life to the absolute fullest and to not let worry or fear rule your life. This theory is one of the true reasons that I am at school, and why I encourage everyone to follow their passions and dreams.

 

Part III

1. How would I describe one of the positions held by people who might disagree with me?

            One position that they could disagree with me is that living life to the fullest is too dangerous and that if people live a more cautious life then they will live longer and just as happy.

2. What reasons and evidence do people on the opposing side use to support their positions?

            Perhaps there is someone that has a dream of being an amazing cliff diver. My position says to live life to the fullest and to not let death scare you because death is inevitable. Their reason for opposing this position is that if this person decides to cliff dive than they are increasing their chances for death because of the dangers of cliff diving. They might suggest that this person try to find a safer passion so that they can still pursue their dream but yet they can also live a long and healthy life.

3. What past experiences do people on the opposing side seem to share?

            They too might have loved ones that have passed on. They might have lost a grandparent and seen what it has done to the surviving spouse. They might have lost someone to a natural disaster in another state or country.

4. How do their experiences seem to differ from mine?

            They might not have had to see a grieving widow wondering about all the things they should have done before while they still had the chance. They might not believe in regret and that every moment counts no matter what it is. Some people might just feel that death itself is a natural occurrence of life and that everyone must die and that it’s all for a higher reason.  

5. Why might these experiences have led them to take their positions?

            Perhaps the people that have experienced death in their lives don’t have the same sympathy levels that others might have. Perhaps they believe in reincarnation and that death is only temporary and that the person they lost will come back to them in good time. My friend is a Hindu and she lost her grandfather about 5 years ago and she barely grieved when she heard the news of his death. When I asked her why she barely grieved she said that “he would come back”.

6. Is there a set of experiences shared in common by people on each side of the issue?

            Death is unfortunately inevitable. Both sides of the argument would agree with that.

7. How do these differences influence how I will respond to their position on the issue?

            I should consider both sides of the argument. I should also try to understand why it is that the other side feels the way they do so that I’m not just being closed minded. Now that I’ve tried to understand how someone else might feel about death I think that one should still pursue their dreams but yet their true goal in life is to live a long, healthy, and happy life. If their life is full of misery and despair then they’re not living their life in a way that one would want to remember.

Introduction

Hello all,

My name is Rachel Moser, I’m 20 years old and this is my second semester at TCC. My goal here is to become a registered nurse, though I still haven’t decided if I’m going to finish my nurse training at TCC or if I should go to an actual nursing school. I know the sentara program is a good school but it’s still a work in progress. This semester will certainly be an adventure; I have a difficult course load this semester and I just started a new job about a month ago. I’ll be honest I’m terrible at both science and english, my writing skills are terrible so this semester really will be a challenge.