Suppose you have an nagging person in your life. They bug you, they irritate you, but they never hit you. Now and then they mock you. If you respond to them in anger, it may start a greater argument, and you might end up being the one criticized by others even though all you wanted to do was defend yourself. Still, if you do nothing, the problem within you only gets worse until you become very angry.
Not too long ago, medical and European ethics entered the global spotlight when a boy named Charlie was denied experimental treatment that had a possible chance to cure him. Since the boy was too little to decide for himself, the parents were attempting to take action. However, the state denied their request for treatment and even went so far as to deny them the opportunity to see their child.
Likely to be Part 1: The Family
I had originally written some huge articles but decided to synthesize my points and spare you the long rambling. You can thank me later. However, it does perhaps lose some eloquence… or congruity, so if you’re wondering why this article is so brief and seemingly disconnected, you at least now have a reason.
Last time on Jarbled… *cue video sequence of strange snippets from parts of the show you never remember seeing*
I’d like to talk about passion. I think I figured out why there hasn’t been much humor on my blog lately… uh… well, one reason at least.
This topic deserves a far longer and more thorough post than what I’m going to make today, but in this case, I’d like to comment more on the supporting perspective of ethical animal treatment – especially in the future – than rehash the news. This will be a long post.
Everyone gets to have their say in politics, so here’s mine. Ready or not… oh, I guess you could just click some other more interesting link, but why do that when you could read the opinions of some random internet stranger?
The world is run by money. Everything goes back to money, or to put it more accurately, capital. The rich get richer and the poor poorer. What do you do when you’ve taken the money of everyone in your country? Simple: You go overseas and take their money! (And while you’re at it, lock the internet and hide the key.)
My blog usually entails writing about stuff more like Gnome, but today, I can write about real genomes. Recently, the NY Times reported that scientists had found an easy way to slice and edit genes. The same scientists have also started talks in limiting usage of these techniques for fear of their consequences. There are multiple reasons for such limitations, from scientific to social, which I would like to discuss.
In a previous post, I spoke about the nature of the term “right” and why it isn’t the appropriate word for conveying our freedoms and responsibilities we innately believe others should respect. In this post, I continue with that in mind, arguing in favor of privacy but without following the misguided cultural trend of using the word “right”. I begin by listing three types of reasons for privacy, one per section, and conclude with an argument based on my aforementioned article.
Table of Contents
- The Religious Reason – Privacy Stemming from Being a Gift
- The Social Reason – Society and Privacy
- The Personality Reason – Psychological Requirement
- The Right, or Loving, Response – Endowing Privacy
Each section is rather short and should serve to stimulate ideas rather than be a comprehensive proof of the need for privacy.
An analogy I often use to demonstrate the term “rhetoric” is to say “ice cubes are cool, therefore ice cubes are awesome”. What is going on here is the alteration of an idea based on the abstracting of an original idea. Certainly ice cubes can be awesome, and the appreciation of ice cubes being cool makes them awesome (subjectively speaking), but the coolness alone does not make the ice cube awesome. Yet this change in an idea often goes unnoticed when the word attempts to describe a more complex framework. In short, we may find ourselves applying rhetoric without even realizing it. The word we are actually searching for may be more limited in scope and definition but be supported by reality. Let us start with an analogy.