Dress codes are very beneficial for high schools and they are needed, however, how far can school administration go before students reach their limit? Being in high school myself just over a year ago, I can say that I did hear plenty of complaints about dress codes. However, the high school I went to had the usual limits; no short-shorts, no tank tops, no stomach showing. This is just a normal dress code and it is something that students can usually handle and understand without feeling like their rights have been pushed. There were hardly any outbursts or protests from the students about dress codes that I attended school with. The same cannot be said about a high school in North Dakota. In an article I read titled, "Yoga Pants to Distracting for Boys? A N.D. School Cracks Down on Girls." I found this article browsing through The Christian Science Monitor webpage and it caught my attention. I was immediately interested to read about it because school dress codes have always been controversial, but I thought that banning yoga pants was pushing the limits of female students.
The principal of the high school held an after school assembly for all of the females in the school. During the assembly he played video clips from the movie Pretty Woman. Having seen this movie myself and knowing that it is rated R, I was immediately surprised that the principal was even allowed to play that movie in a school setting. The point he was trying to make through the use of the videos was that woman present themselves with how they dress and that yoga pants and tight pants need to be covered. Obviously, very few of the female students responded well to this. The female students protested and said that it was bias that school districts put limits on girls instead of teaching the boys that girls are not sexual objects.
I believe that the principals reasoning for the ban on yoga pants is fallacious. It was fallacious reasoning that the principal handled the female students in the manner that he did. The principals focus was on the males of the school. He didn't show any benefits for the females, or any sign that he was also going to talk to the male students about respect for females. Although yoga pants can be tight, they are still covering the body, and females should be able to wear them to school without worrying about how it is going to affect males test scores.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Opposition Constructive
Beauty Products
Every person in the world has used a beauty product at some point in their life. In fact, every person in the world who has any finances at all has used beauty products in the last month. Why? Because they are beneficial. The benefits of beauty products do not even begin to compare to the risks. When I say that most people even ask, are there risks? Hardly. The little amount of chemicals found in beauty products do pose a threat to skin and health. However, a huge part of that risk could be eliminated through women and men being well informed about their allergies.
Does it take time? Yes. Does it cost money? As do most things in life, yes. Are women less themselves due to beauty products? This is arguable. For example, when I had terrible acne in high-school, makeup was the sole thing I relied on to be able to act like myself without the embarrassment. But overall, does it cause health problems? This is a very broad question because there are so many different products and everyone reacts uniquely to different chemicals, but for the most part, no. Beauty products are not the sole blame for health problems.
First off, what are beauty products? Beauty products are, "Articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance." This includes makeup, lotions, nail polish, hair gels, hair spray, perfume, etc, basically most things that a large amount of women love. This should be appreciated by men because that is largely part of the reason they marry their wives, have relationships, or even flirt.
Beauty products have been around for millenniums, women would not continue to use these products if they were truly causing non-reversible health problems.The benefits of beauty products are endless. Beauty products help with good hygiene, confidence, sun protection (applied in most face makeups), dry skin, oily skin, etc. Every person has a different need and they find the cure through beauty products. Whether that be physically or emotionally. Physically being whether or not they need lotion to protect their cracking hands. Emotionally being covering up blemishes to feel comfortable and sociable in public without feeling ashamed of flaws.
How many news stories or reports are about beauty products causing health problems? Very little. That is because it happens very rarely, and when it does happen it is usually not because of the beauty product itself, but because of the persons body who is applying the product. Allergies are something that everyone has, and the beauty industry should not take responsibility in that if it is clearly labeled on their product. I believe that it is the buyers responsibility to be aware of what allergies they have to certain chemicals before they buy the product. Women need to be informed and cautious when buying beauty products, not because of the product, but because of their allergies. Women should be consulting with dermatologists as a source to learn more about their skin type and beneficial products.
Another issue at hand is how difficult it can be to determine if the cause of some health problems are actually beauty products. This is because there is such a small trace of chemicals in beauty products and women use such small amounts every day, that if they were to track it, it would take ten to twenty years (depending on the usage) to determine the cause. An additional thing to remember is that beauty products are rarely used solely, women often mix different brands. The chemicals put in one product are not tested to withstand the chemicals of another product. This skews the results of tests that are determining what chemicals cause problems, however, the environment also plays a large factor.
Does makeup cause acne? For some people, yes. It's as simple as that. But that is why there are also beauty products known as cleansers. Washing your face morning and night can reduce acne caused by makeup that clogs your pores. However, acne can be much more severe than makeup-deep. From a personal experience of trying makeup after makeup, using different brands and checking ingredients, the problem came down to me. No matter what makeup I used or how many times I washed my face, the acne continued. This is where a dermatologist was extremely helpful! The only answer for my acne was a prescription, not a change in makeup because the makeup wasn't the cause. The makeup turned out to be my base of protection.
Overall, as a healthy woman, I can say I am so grateful for beauty products! I know that my makeup brings out the best in me. I feel less social and less confident when I am not wearing it. Yes, there are health risks to beauty products if women are not properly informed about their bodies and makeup chemicals. However, the risks do not begin to out-weigh the benefits of feeling wonderful through beauty products.
Every person in the world has used a beauty product at some point in their life. In fact, every person in the world who has any finances at all has used beauty products in the last month. Why? Because they are beneficial. The benefits of beauty products do not even begin to compare to the risks. When I say that most people even ask, are there risks? Hardly. The little amount of chemicals found in beauty products do pose a threat to skin and health. However, a huge part of that risk could be eliminated through women and men being well informed about their allergies.
Does it take time? Yes. Does it cost money? As do most things in life, yes. Are women less themselves due to beauty products? This is arguable. For example, when I had terrible acne in high-school, makeup was the sole thing I relied on to be able to act like myself without the embarrassment. But overall, does it cause health problems? This is a very broad question because there are so many different products and everyone reacts uniquely to different chemicals, but for the most part, no. Beauty products are not the sole blame for health problems.
First off, what are beauty products? Beauty products are, "Articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance." This includes makeup, lotions, nail polish, hair gels, hair spray, perfume, etc, basically most things that a large amount of women love. This should be appreciated by men because that is largely part of the reason they marry their wives, have relationships, or even flirt.
Beauty products have been around for millenniums, women would not continue to use these products if they were truly causing non-reversible health problems.The benefits of beauty products are endless. Beauty products help with good hygiene, confidence, sun protection (applied in most face makeups), dry skin, oily skin, etc. Every person has a different need and they find the cure through beauty products. Whether that be physically or emotionally. Physically being whether or not they need lotion to protect their cracking hands. Emotionally being covering up blemishes to feel comfortable and sociable in public without feeling ashamed of flaws.
How many news stories or reports are about beauty products causing health problems? Very little. That is because it happens very rarely, and when it does happen it is usually not because of the beauty product itself, but because of the persons body who is applying the product. Allergies are something that everyone has, and the beauty industry should not take responsibility in that if it is clearly labeled on their product. I believe that it is the buyers responsibility to be aware of what allergies they have to certain chemicals before they buy the product. Women need to be informed and cautious when buying beauty products, not because of the product, but because of their allergies. Women should be consulting with dermatologists as a source to learn more about their skin type and beneficial products.
Another issue at hand is how difficult it can be to determine if the cause of some health problems are actually beauty products. This is because there is such a small trace of chemicals in beauty products and women use such small amounts every day, that if they were to track it, it would take ten to twenty years (depending on the usage) to determine the cause. An additional thing to remember is that beauty products are rarely used solely, women often mix different brands. The chemicals put in one product are not tested to withstand the chemicals of another product. This skews the results of tests that are determining what chemicals cause problems, however, the environment also plays a large factor.
Does makeup cause acne? For some people, yes. It's as simple as that. But that is why there are also beauty products known as cleansers. Washing your face morning and night can reduce acne caused by makeup that clogs your pores. However, acne can be much more severe than makeup-deep. From a personal experience of trying makeup after makeup, using different brands and checking ingredients, the problem came down to me. No matter what makeup I used or how many times I washed my face, the acne continued. This is where a dermatologist was extremely helpful! The only answer for my acne was a prescription, not a change in makeup because the makeup wasn't the cause. The makeup turned out to be my base of protection.
Overall, as a healthy woman, I can say I am so grateful for beauty products! I know that my makeup brings out the best in me. I feel less social and less confident when I am not wearing it. Yes, there are health risks to beauty products if women are not properly informed about their bodies and makeup chemicals. However, the risks do not begin to out-weigh the benefits of feeling wonderful through beauty products.
Monday, October 6, 2014
Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #3
Anyone who has a facebook, which is the majority of the population, has seen a post or two that may have seemed skeptical. But how far is too far and at what lengths does freedom of speech apply? In my opinion, people are protected by freedom of speech until it threatens the lives of other people. When the constitution was being made and the first amendment was set in place to protect peoples basic freedoms, things such as facebook posts were not taken into consideration. Is a facebook post protected by freedom of speech? In an article I read, titled "Free Speech and Facebook", it questions the first amendment and challenges the Supreme Court to present a clear boundary on freedom of speech or the lack thereof.
The article I read was a story of a man using his facebook to vent in a threatening way. Him and his ex-wife had some quarrels and he wrote multiple posts about harming her, but he did it through rap lyrics. He even went as far as to post about performing a heinous school shooting he just didn't know which elementary school to pick since there were so many in his ten mile radius. When FBI officials caught attention of his postings, an agent showed up at his house and the man said, "the next time you knock, [I'll] touch the detonator in my pocket and we're all going boom.". After that bold move, the man was charged for violating a federal threat statute and sentenced to three years and eight months in prison. Currently, he is having his lawyers fight the case because the prosecutors did not have enough grounds at his trial to overcome freedom of speech. The government rejected the counter argument because they amount of fear the man caused to other people was enough.
Overall, I believe that the governments reasoning was cogent and the other mans reasoning had some fallacious factors.The governments reasoning was cogent because if everyone was allowed to post threatening things on facebook, no one would know if the person posting was planning on acting on their thoughts. However, I agree with the man that there does need to be more clarity on the subject of freedom of speech in the modern day. The mans reasoning was fallacious because he assumed he could post threatening things on facebook and threaten a federal agent and be protected by freedom of speech.
The article I read was a story of a man using his facebook to vent in a threatening way. Him and his ex-wife had some quarrels and he wrote multiple posts about harming her, but he did it through rap lyrics. He even went as far as to post about performing a heinous school shooting he just didn't know which elementary school to pick since there were so many in his ten mile radius. When FBI officials caught attention of his postings, an agent showed up at his house and the man said, "the next time you knock, [I'll] touch the detonator in my pocket and we're all going boom.". After that bold move, the man was charged for violating a federal threat statute and sentenced to three years and eight months in prison. Currently, he is having his lawyers fight the case because the prosecutors did not have enough grounds at his trial to overcome freedom of speech. The government rejected the counter argument because they amount of fear the man caused to other people was enough.
Overall, I believe that the governments reasoning was cogent and the other mans reasoning had some fallacious factors.The governments reasoning was cogent because if everyone was allowed to post threatening things on facebook, no one would know if the person posting was planning on acting on their thoughts. However, I agree with the man that there does need to be more clarity on the subject of freedom of speech in the modern day. The mans reasoning was fallacious because he assumed he could post threatening things on facebook and threaten a federal agent and be protected by freedom of speech.
Sunday, October 5, 2014
Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #2
I read an article titled, "California Enacts Bill to Protect Female Farm Workers from Sex Abuse". I found this article on the PBS Frontline website and was immediately interested because I haven't heard about it in the news before. The article is about a law that has just been passed in California to protect female farm workers from sexual abuse. There are over a half of a million undocumented females working in fields all over America, many of which have been forced into sexual relationships by their supervisors. This has not been brought up before because the undocumented women who were being sexually abused lived in fear of being deported. These women had only one option and that was to give into the required sexual pressure put on them by their superiors. The issue was brought to attention by a documentary titled, "Rape in the Fields". This documentary brings to life the seriousness of the cruelty that is happening to many women who work in the fields.
Overall, I found the reasoning for this new law in California very cogent. The new law requires the middlemen, who provide the workers, to take more responsibility on stopping rape and sexual harassment. Whether or not the middlemen were aware of the situation before, they are now and it requires them to care more about the situations of the workers they are hiring. Another cogent requirement of the new law is sexual harassment training for labor contractors, supervisors, and all farm employees. Furthermore, the state of California can now revoke licenses from contractors who have participated in sexual harassment.
These are the women who pick and process food for America, and documented or not, they should still have their basic right of being able to say no to sexual assaults. The only question I have is, why haven't other states passed this law yet?
Overall, I found the reasoning for this new law in California very cogent. The new law requires the middlemen, who provide the workers, to take more responsibility on stopping rape and sexual harassment. Whether or not the middlemen were aware of the situation before, they are now and it requires them to care more about the situations of the workers they are hiring. Another cogent requirement of the new law is sexual harassment training for labor contractors, supervisors, and all farm employees. Furthermore, the state of California can now revoke licenses from contractors who have participated in sexual harassment.
These are the women who pick and process food for America, and documented or not, they should still have their basic right of being able to say no to sexual assaults. The only question I have is, why haven't other states passed this law yet?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)