Was Portia being merciful or driving Shylock to ends? #8

Whether or not Portia was being merciful or was trying to drive Shylock to his wits ends on purpose depends on how you view Portia as a person. If you view her as one who is pretty, rich, generous, kind (the perfect girl in the context), she was definitely being merciful towards Shylock when she was asking him to show mercy towards Antonio. I believe Portia was already prepared beforehand and have already decided to use these reasons to backfire Shylock's bond, and what she was doing was giving him a chance to stop what he's doing for the benefit of both himself and Antonio. Similarly, previously in the novel, we can see Portia trying to help Bassanio when he knew that Antonio was in trouble. Instead of being stingy and unwilling to let him leave, she asked him to give many more times the amount that was borrowed just to save his dear friend. This shows clearly that Portia was a very generous and big-hearted person in nature.

However, it isn't entirely impossible that Portia was doing this to drive Shylock to his ends. In this case, a very possible reason was to stop Shylock from threatening both Bassanio and his dear friend, Antonio. Through her actions, she first tricked Shylock into saying that he would only have the penalty, but later turned the tables around by saying that the penalty cannot be carried out as it's suspected of murder. Similarly, in other parts of the novel, we can see that she wasn't as "kind" as she appears to be, having a different thinking as compared to what she says. Therefore, being a smart and cautious person herself, it was possible for her to do this on purpose.

Ultimately, I believe that she was being merciful towards Shylock, as it is more reasonable to say that she is a generous person than a ruthless person. Given her actions towards Antonio and Bassanio, I'm positive that she wouldn't treat Shylock, another typical human being, any worse.

Euthanasia #7

Euthanasia is basically the act of intentionally ending a life to relieve the pain and suffering he/she is experiencing. In different countries, there are different laws pertaining to this issue, but deep within oneself, is Euthanasia truly correct and should be an act that must be supported?

To view the issue from one who believes that Euthanasia isn't wrong, it should be supported with the basis that Euthanasia is entirely voluntarily. When one decides to undergo Euthanasia, he/she would have to settle paper works as well as the grief to leave their family members. That feeling, which may not be known to others, is a very painful one. One would have to expect his death the next morning, and knowing that it would be his last night living in the world would definitely be a tormenting one. Furthermore, when one makes a choice, it is his choice. One definitely has the right to do whatever he wants with his life, no matter good or bad. In addition, as Euthanasia will only be permitted if the patient is in a severe condition, I see no wrong in helping him end his life peacefully.

However, to view this issue from a moral point of view, Euthanasia would definitely be wrong. Although the patients may agree to the act, no human deserves a right to die more than another. What's more, since everyone is a human being, no one should have the right to take away someone's life without facing the consequences. Imagine, if someone on the street tells you to kill them, are you morally right to "assist" them in killing? Besides, decisions can be changed anytime. When one asks for Euthanasia, he/she may not be in the right state of mind, and it'll be too late should he/she finds the true value of life later on.

Overall, I don't think that this issue is really subjective to different people. As for me, I believe that Euthanasia should not be done as regardless of how much one is pleading for you to end his life, we should never agree to it, as it'll definitely haunt us for the rest of our lives for taking a life.

Why isn't there a Senior or Elderly Day #6

There's no exact reason that is said, but I do have a few ideas for this:

1) Youth Day is one for the youths to reflect.

People often want children to cherish their childhood while they are still at it, and I believe Youth Day is a day specially set for them to reflect. (Although not many actually does that) Adults often reason that when one grows old, they no longer have the ability nor the strength or are having large difficulties trying to learn new things as compared to when they were young. Very often, children refuse to listen and end up saying these to their future children and the cycles repeats again. In contrary wise, they won't have an "Elderly Day" for the elderly to reflect. To the elderly, many of them already feels sad / regretful that they wasted their childhood on pointless activities, and having this Elderly Day might backfire and hurt these elderly instead.

2) Grandparents Day

There is already an official day proclaimed "Grandparents Day", thus there isn't really a need for Elderly Day. For Grandparents Day, children usually return to their parents home to have dinner, chat, and so on. In the busy world we're in today, many children are unable to visit their parents often, leaving them lonely. Thus, having this day allows for these children to return to their parents side and learn to take good care of their parents. This day is especially important to me, as I felt that children nowadays especially should learn to appreciate their parents. Some of these children, due to work, place their parents in the Old Folks Home. Others who are extremely poor tries to get money and inheritance from these parents through CPF, the ungrateful ones.

Overall, I believe the main reason for there to be no Elderly Day is because no one wants to be reminded that they are old. Everyone who experienced aging would always want to return to their days in childhood, regardless of how impossible it is.

Quoted: "How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country". A Lie? #5

"How sweet and fitting it is to die for one's country", I believe this statement has different viewpoints to it under different circumstances and scenarios.

If someone was to die for a country when it is during a war to defend one's country, I believe it is definitely a very noble and honorable act. In wars, there would definitely be inevitable deaths, hundreds of thousands of them. However, what are this soldiers really fighting for? Why are they sacrificing their lives? Well, it's for the rest of the people in the country; they fight for the land, they fight for peace, they fight to defend. In wars, the country defending is always at loss; they have to protect its people as well. These citizens are their "assets", and losing them would be entirely losing the whole place, and thus, soldiers are tasked to protect the people at all cost, even by dying. Thus, I believe these people who sacrificed for the country is those that's truly noble and of course, should feel honored to do so.

However, although both are soldiers, I feel that one who died trying to attack another country should not feel sweet at all. Not saying that these soldiers are the "evil" ones, since the leaders are the ones who launched the attacks, but it is definitely not something to be proud of to me. When attacking others to gain their land, I believe it's a cruel and inhuman act, especially directed at the leaders. All they want is more land, more power, more money, and in doing so, they kill thousands of people, and they don't even show any signs of regret nor grief for them. Thus, I believe those who tries to gain power, whether under orders or not, won't feel sweet and fitting when dying.

All in all, I believe that no one should be killing another human. This inhuman act, even if for the country, should be avoided at all cost as none of us would feel happy for killing another human being.

Peer Pressure #4

On the previous assembly, we were introduced to this topic of peer pressure. During the talk, we were exposed to two different scenarios, one being the "bad boys" side and the other being the "cool girls" side. These videos are basically the extremest bad side of human nature in school, and shows how to new "recruits" to these "gangs" managed to break away from this bad company with the help of their true friends. We were also introduced to a new term, N.A.H

N - Identify NEGATIVE influence

With reference to the video, the negative influence for the male group is basically those friends who are always asking the male lead out for LAN gaming and encouraging him to skip school and steal money from his parents. The negative influence for the female group, on the other hand, are the group who persuades the female lead not to be friends with her best friend because they "didn't like her".

A - AVOID them

This was just what the characters in both groups did, they broke away from them. Besides, most of those negative influence didn't exactly treat them like friends anyway.

H - Finding HEALTHY influence

This is for the person to identify which friends are those that will stand by him/her, encourage him/her to be a better person in life instead of ruining him/her.

Together, these three factors form up the most important and crucial of maintaining a healthy peer group, that will stand by you and push you into becoming a better person no matter what. Even though this cases of extreme peer pressure may not be available in our school (asking them to do foolish things like skipping school), there are definitely are cases like asking them out for LAN gaming and affecting their results indirectly. By finding a healthy peer group early and not be influenced by the negative, we will definitely progress to becoming a better and successful person in life.

A True Gentleman #3

According to Dictionary.com, a gentleman is a man regarded of having qualities of refinement associated with a good family. However, I do feel that this definition is wrong.

As mentioned in a class, a gentleman would have a few distinct qualities: being smart in appearance, knows what to speak and when to speak, is polite to all and have appropriate behaviour at all times as well as the ability to keep cool under any situation. With reference to the meaning given in Dictionary.com, not all gentleman have to have a “good family” as said. Are you saying that one with a bad background, e.g. family members in jail, does not possess the quality to be a gentleman? And if that’s the case, does that mean everyone who did not have a pleasant family history cannot be a gentleman?

In contrary wise, I do not think that being smart in appearance is an important aspect of being a gentleman. As the saying goes: don’t judge a book by its cover. However smart a man might look on the outside, he could be an all jerk in it, breaking hearts of girls. However, a man might be all filthy or so, but he could have a big heart and possesses every other quality. So in this case, does this mean that a person who doesn’t look smart, especially if it’s natural, cannot be called upon as a true gentleman?

All in all, I feel that a gentleman cannot be judged based on what you see him as and what he’s background is, but must be felt and interacted with to determine whether he is a true gentleman.

What do you think: was the state’s image “rehabilitated”? #2

After such an incident made known to public, there would definitely be a change of perception on the state of Mississippi. To me, I feel that the state's image had not been rehabilitated, even after the actions laid down by the justice system.

First of all, the victims in this case were three civil right workers, a White, a Jew, and a Black, killed by the Klu Klux Klan. According to initial reports, these three were actually caught, but released later on. Worst of all, they went missing after their release and were found dead shortly after. What did these people do to deserve such misfortune? All they were trying to do was out of goodwill, trying to help the Blacks and regain their state in the society, and because of that, they were killed?

Even though the eighteen culprits were caught and imprisoned later, I feel that just a mere imprisonment is totally insufficient. Three lives and all they got was a four to ten years of sentence to jail? That's totally absurd! Today, murder in United States would incur at least 15 years of jail term, which I still feel is not a very reasonable exchange for a life. Although the officials in Mississippi changed their perspective of prejudice in the state, which I felt made the three noble sacrifices a worthwhile one.

Till today, Mississippi is still remembered for the Civil Rights Movements. If we were to ask people their impression of Mississippi, I'm sure the majority would provide a negative one.