I believe that effective law and order comes with effective punishment as it is the back bone in justice. Punishment is already synonimous with any form of our law and order , all around the world. It can come in the form of capital punishment, prison, caning and to some extent torture. So what does punishment serve as in this world? Skhould it be there or not?
Firstly of course as a wonderful deterrent. Punishment aims to keep people from turning to criminals through fear of it. The death penalty plays on people's innate fear of death to work effectively. Punishment can be considered some form of retribution. An eye for an eye as they call it. Crimes they have commited are done unto them in the form of punishment to return what they hav done. This serves to appease victims of crimes and allow them to let go of what has been done to them. Lastly, it serves as a security measure to keep wrong doers off the streets and away from the innocent, whether through prison or elimination, the concept holds true.
The fact that punishment is needed in law and order is undisputed, for now. However the real issue is whether ANY punishment is justified in the name of law. Capital punishment reins supreme in this issue. Long has a debate raged on whether any crime in this world deserves death. Death is viewed so negatively as it is a terrible crime. However in my opinion, capital punishment will still rein supreme as the best deterrent and retribution for all. Instead of asking why someone is sentenced to death, do ask why not? Those sentenced to death are those who themselves have commited a crime that has destroyed many lives, whether through the murder of loves ones, or mental and psychological scars. So why is it wrong to take life of one who has taken many in order to stop many more from getting hurt?
Another point to take would be the presence of interesting yet seemingly effective punishmenes. There are those who believe that dipping your hand into a pot of boiling oil can prove your innocence, or your guilt. Most of us will squeal at the thought of it, but yet there are those who believe in its amazing powers. So the question is, does what the punishment do actually justify the fact that us humans are putting faith in oil 450C hot? Hmmmm i would say yes and no. Yes by the fact that if it works, use it. No by the fact that we are civilised creatures, jury maybe, but oil, never.
In conclusion, i believe that such an extensive topic is not for me to discuss. But, i do know that punishment is needed in society, as we have yet to achieve a model society where none is reequired
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Money
I recently read an article in ST and found it extremely amusing. It was entitled " Why the rich act like idiots". Apparently, the overly rich in the world has done a few less than intelligent actions that have been made public.
The one such incident was someone driving a nice and glossy Ferrari Enzo into the wall and happily walked away unhurt as if nothing happened. I suppose that they have yet to understand that the car is about 1000 times the monthly salary of say, an office worker. So that would make out to about 80 or so years worth of salary, totally impossible for him to acquire in his lifetime. But then again, i have asked many a wealthy friend why they actually spend like that. Same answer : They can. Really, it is not about the reason they spend, usually it is because they can.
Aside from the obvious reason of being a status symbol, i dont see a point to getting a mansion so big where it is impossible to make full use of it. Besides, there is a certain point where enough is enough and more money practically wont make a difference, unless you enjoy ramming Enzos into the wall. However, their strongest defence would be that it is their money and they can do anything about it. So calling them idiots is a very big insult. This is the same as you having lots of water and pouring it in a hole and calling it a pool. I suppose this results from having too much of something.
It is also said that too much money can go to your head. In some sense it can be true. But i dont see Bill Gates acting silly. Probably the word to use is eccentric. Money may make someone act so but only in amounts that we probably cannot imagine. Having mad money in life is a do or dont thing. No in between. Either you have endless cascades of it or you dont. So eccentricity can therefore be a rare attribute acquired by an elite few, and not exactly a bad thing. Variety once in a while is good.
Money is a wonderful thing to have, but let us not let that get to our head. Wealth is great, but it isnt the only great thing in life.
The one such incident was someone driving a nice and glossy Ferrari Enzo into the wall and happily walked away unhurt as if nothing happened. I suppose that they have yet to understand that the car is about 1000 times the monthly salary of say, an office worker. So that would make out to about 80 or so years worth of salary, totally impossible for him to acquire in his lifetime. But then again, i have asked many a wealthy friend why they actually spend like that. Same answer : They can. Really, it is not about the reason they spend, usually it is because they can.
Aside from the obvious reason of being a status symbol, i dont see a point to getting a mansion so big where it is impossible to make full use of it. Besides, there is a certain point where enough is enough and more money practically wont make a difference, unless you enjoy ramming Enzos into the wall. However, their strongest defence would be that it is their money and they can do anything about it. So calling them idiots is a very big insult. This is the same as you having lots of water and pouring it in a hole and calling it a pool. I suppose this results from having too much of something.
It is also said that too much money can go to your head. In some sense it can be true. But i dont see Bill Gates acting silly. Probably the word to use is eccentric. Money may make someone act so but only in amounts that we probably cannot imagine. Having mad money in life is a do or dont thing. No in between. Either you have endless cascades of it or you dont. So eccentricity can therefore be a rare attribute acquired by an elite few, and not exactly a bad thing. Variety once in a while is good.
Money is a wonderful thing to have, but let us not let that get to our head. Wealth is great, but it isnt the only great thing in life.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Nuclear Warfare
The United States, with assistance from the UK and Canada, designed and built the first atomic bombs under the "Manhattan Project". This pretty much started the ball rolling for development of more powerful nuclear weapons. Some incidents in which nuclear weaponry have been employed was during World War 2 where the nuclear bombs "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" detonated respectively over the skies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is estimated that 220000 people died in both bombings. Such was the power of nuclear weaponry and opened the eyes of people around the world to fear it.
Thus from this, nuclear warfare was born. It truly puzzles me that humans pursue the development of weapons that could pretty much destroy the Earth and everyone on it. During the Cold War, the United States and the USSR increased their nuclear stockpile drastically, letting it serve as nuclear deterrence. The goal to this was of course to achieve second strike status - the ability to respond to a nuclear attack with some of its own, and subsequently strive to acquire first strike status, where one is in a position to destroy an enemy's nuclear arsenal before they even retaliate. During the peak of the Cold War, there was more that enough nuclear weapons to blast the Earth to oblivion, yet more was made and many still coming.
The use of nuclear if at all should be carefully debated upon, such that lives are not lost withiout reason. In the case of the Japan bombing, nuclear attacks were preferred as it was argued that many lives would be lost in an invasion. Furthermore, Japan might not surrender without sufficient military pressure. However, many argue that the bombings were immoral as many innocent civilains were killed and the attacks were unnecessary for tactical and military reasons. Amidst all the arguements, none can prove each other wrong; what is done is done. No one would have known the outcome if the United States were to abort the bombing.
Due to the immense power of nuclear weapons, laws have been imposed so as to limit the use and creation of such weapons. Nuclear-weapon-free zones have been declared all over the world and weapons developtment is prohibited through signing of treaties. As recently as 2006 a Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone was established amongst the former Soviet republics of Central Asia prohibiting nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are not the pinnacle in military might, with the advent of fusion or hydrogen bombs, the world may very well be heading towards a superweapons war. Much care must be taken or regret we will over our actions.
Thus from this, nuclear warfare was born. It truly puzzles me that humans pursue the development of weapons that could pretty much destroy the Earth and everyone on it. During the Cold War, the United States and the USSR increased their nuclear stockpile drastically, letting it serve as nuclear deterrence. The goal to this was of course to achieve second strike status - the ability to respond to a nuclear attack with some of its own, and subsequently strive to acquire first strike status, where one is in a position to destroy an enemy's nuclear arsenal before they even retaliate. During the peak of the Cold War, there was more that enough nuclear weapons to blast the Earth to oblivion, yet more was made and many still coming.
The use of nuclear if at all should be carefully debated upon, such that lives are not lost withiout reason. In the case of the Japan bombing, nuclear attacks were preferred as it was argued that many lives would be lost in an invasion. Furthermore, Japan might not surrender without sufficient military pressure. However, many argue that the bombings were immoral as many innocent civilains were killed and the attacks were unnecessary for tactical and military reasons. Amidst all the arguements, none can prove each other wrong; what is done is done. No one would have known the outcome if the United States were to abort the bombing.
Due to the immense power of nuclear weapons, laws have been imposed so as to limit the use and creation of such weapons. Nuclear-weapon-free zones have been declared all over the world and weapons developtment is prohibited through signing of treaties. As recently as 2006 a Central Asian Nuclear Weapon Free Zone was established amongst the former Soviet republics of Central Asia prohibiting nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are not the pinnacle in military might, with the advent of fusion or hydrogen bombs, the world may very well be heading towards a superweapons war. Much care must be taken or regret we will over our actions.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
I read with interest with regards to the recent construction of the "Creationism" museum – a museum in Cincinnati USA which showcases the evidence for creationism in an attempt to provide a more balanced account on the origin of species. "Now where have I heard such a story before?" I asked myself. "Probably in 1001 Arabian Nights", my cynical side remarked. The reality is, this "war" has gone on for centuries. From the incarceration of Galileo Galilei in the Middle Ages to the recent banning of Darwinism in American Schools, this war is far from new, and equally far from over.
Science and religion has always been mutually exclusive, made worse by the centuries of prosecution from those who oppose science. In the past, persecution has been the form of denial through the creation of non-violable dogmas. Excerpts from an ancient tome bandied about as the absolute truth and any thing not in accordance with it must automatically be false. Now, with time, it has progressed to lobbying and political pressure on the educational system and as the "creationism" museum will attest to – the use of science in religion.
Science has always been the unbiased study of nature. The key to science is to never stop questioning, to ask, to seek and to answer. Theories in science are rarely carved in stone. It can be verified over and over again through experiments. Old theories are discarded as new one emerges. Progress is readily observable, from the likes of the gramophone to the current shiny ipods so many of us own.
Religion on the other hand, as its synonym suggests, depends on faith. And from sayings such as "leap of faith, have some faith etc", it is easily deducible that faith is the unquestionable belief in a concept or thing regardless of the nature of its truth. We must believe that God created this world; we must believe that the Red sea once existed as two entities and that lepers were cured and feet once trod on the surface of body of liquid water. Faith is the only ingredient required – no more, no less.
Back to the soon to be functional Creationism Museum, this museum shall fly in the face of the "truth" it so yearns to protect. Faith does not need evidence, it does not need proof. Worst of all, it does not need a concrete monument displaying evidence that mainstream science has not validated. Monuments and the money funding it cannot constitute evidence, constant experimentation and questioning does. It is the ultimate tragedy - attempting to validate faith thru science, for both cannot co-exist. Forcing this unholy union leads only to the loss of integrity on both sides, and while new scientific theories can emerge to replace the old, the same thing cannot be said about the other.
Science and religion has always been mutually exclusive, made worse by the centuries of prosecution from those who oppose science. In the past, persecution has been the form of denial through the creation of non-violable dogmas. Excerpts from an ancient tome bandied about as the absolute truth and any thing not in accordance with it must automatically be false. Now, with time, it has progressed to lobbying and political pressure on the educational system and as the "creationism" museum will attest to – the use of science in religion.
Science has always been the unbiased study of nature. The key to science is to never stop questioning, to ask, to seek and to answer. Theories in science are rarely carved in stone. It can be verified over and over again through experiments. Old theories are discarded as new one emerges. Progress is readily observable, from the likes of the gramophone to the current shiny ipods so many of us own.
Religion on the other hand, as its synonym suggests, depends on faith. And from sayings such as "leap of faith, have some faith etc", it is easily deducible that faith is the unquestionable belief in a concept or thing regardless of the nature of its truth. We must believe that God created this world; we must believe that the Red sea once existed as two entities and that lepers were cured and feet once trod on the surface of body of liquid water. Faith is the only ingredient required – no more, no less.
Back to the soon to be functional Creationism Museum, this museum shall fly in the face of the "truth" it so yearns to protect. Faith does not need evidence, it does not need proof. Worst of all, it does not need a concrete monument displaying evidence that mainstream science has not validated. Monuments and the money funding it cannot constitute evidence, constant experimentation and questioning does. It is the ultimate tragedy - attempting to validate faith thru science, for both cannot co-exist. Forcing this unholy union leads only to the loss of integrity on both sides, and while new scientific theories can emerge to replace the old, the same thing cannot be said about the other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)