Month: January 2015

Torture

Torture is a very controversial topic. When questioned, the vast majority of people believe there should be clear laws against the use of torture. However, over a third believe that torture can be justified in some cases to protect the public, but what is torture? Torture can be described as the action or practice of inflicting severe pain on someone as a punishment, or in order to force them to do or say something. The use of torture can be argued to be inhumane, however it has often been used for the “greater good” but does that justify it? I will be explaining why I believe it is necessary in some cases.

Torture has saved thousands of lives, regardless of whether it is ethical, it has been proven to be useful. On the 7th of July bombings, my mother was en route to take the line which was bombed. At this time I would have been 8 years old, and the effects of losing my mother would have been very devastating. What may sound like a story similar to a story found in a newspaper, is actually a personal experience of mine. When reflecting on this subject, I can only think of the extents I would go to to prevent the situation. I believe if the people who opposed torture in the previous statistic, were placed in a similar predicament as myself, they would soon align themselves with my own beliefs.

This is my reasoning for the strong beliefs that I hold concerning the use torture. Any method used in preventing the greater loss of live is necessary, even if it may be deemed unethical. When statistics are used, we tend to see this as a number, and forget that the victims have lives just as valuable as yours. With the case of torture, when I was personally affected by an experience like this, my opinion was re-enforced. Even when interrogating a suspect who is not yet condemned of the said conviction, torture is still right as its motive is to gain information, which would save lives if applicable. This makes me feel that people who are against the use of torture are weak-minded and believe in ideals which will never be attainable. This shows that the use of torture is a must and is justified because majority of the population believes it acceptable in all applicable circumstances.

Torture gains information, saves lives but it is only at the expense of one person. Torture is vital in the grand scheme of things and in the situations it is used in, is would be considered to be the lesser of two evils. A necessary evil when preventing the greater loss of life, for example if you were in a situation where you or family member could end up as part of collateral damage from a terrorist plot, you would probably give anything to evade the situation. I believe that people’s views on torture, stems from their belief on the possibility of it affecting them. I am sure that if this situation was more personal, the previous statistic would be higher.

Sam Harris produces an important view on torture, he provides a scenario where a known terrorist has planted a bomb in the heart of the city. The terrorist is finally in your custody, and he is gloating about a forthcoming explosion and the human suffering it will cause. Given this scenario I believe that torture is necessary in this hypothetical simulation as it is used for the greater good. A wrong act is done to achieve the greater good, making it the most ethically appropriate decision. If the terrorist, was allowed to initiate his plan without any repercussions, the loss of life would be more inhumane act. In this case, would it not be right to stop someone’s plot to take a large amount of lives? He comes in Gloating about his upcoming plans, and inhumane act. However, based upon my previous statistic, some would say it  would be inhumane to perform an act to prevent this. Calling torture inhumane is quite contradictory, as the most cruel and monstrous act would be the terrorist claiming innocent lives. Terrorists need to be reprimanded and punished.

If an innocent person is tortured, to try to obtain information that the person being mistreated does not have; it would still be less troubling than the possible damage of a bomb. This is an example of a greater amount of lives being saved, at the expense of a single individual. The main argument against torture is that the Geneva Convention states that torture must not be used. Torture is primarily used in warfare. Interrogating one man can help reveal even more information to prevent other possible plots. Regardless of whether one person is innocent and does not deserve to be punished, if you consider the possibility of many people dying; would it not be wrong for the interrogator, to not do everything in his power to prevent the situation? An important view for torture is the recognition that the use of torture is far more humane, than the person being tortured’s plans, and more than people by terrorist’s experiences. For example the recent beheadings of innocent civilians by the Islamic State militants. This is an injustice that chooses innocent civilians as its victims. People may disagree with my point as the use of torture is not permitted in the Geneva Convention, but those who abdicate the laws of war should not be entitled to the benefits of it. Nevertheless, terrorists aren’t seen as lawful combatants, they are seen as a grey area. They won’t have agreed to fight using the laws of war(so in theory, they should not benefit from the Geneva Convention). Even with these views, the use of torture is not intended to be used as a punishment but rather a means to protect the innocent.

Narrative Writing

I had worked there for years, and year after year the ploughs ran deeper. I remember the first time vividly. It was on a foggy winters morning, I was armed with a thick black jumper accompanied by light blue overalls so worn they appeared stone washed. It was early in the morning, and I began my work of labour in the farm. As I ploughed through the farm, I uncovered what I first believed was a stone. It was unusually shaped, oblong, with dents on the sides. I believed the stone was weathered. It was as pale as a ghost and discoloured. The stone circulated my mind for some time, I returned to the stone a few hours later, and again while sowing seeds in the ground.

I began foundling the stone which I placed in my pocket for some time. While working, the stone fell out of my pocket, and tumbled into the dirt. I decided to pick it up. I began by remove it from the surrounding soil. I leant over to unearth the relic left in the ground, pushing away the moist mud which found its way beneath my long finger nails. I uncovered the rest of the stone by moving the surrounding ground. I felt a chill move vertically across my spine, I had to come to terms with the realisation that the relic was instead the remains of  a hand. The field I had been working on was the venue of the battle of the Somme during the great war, the same war I had been informed of for years at school. I had been aware of this, but had not thought about this much as I had been very desperate for a job at the time. I remember myself feeling very cold as I made contact with the bone, but I began to feel this less and less as I uncovered more and more bones. The hands seemed like they were reaching back into the earth for reminders of what happened. An ectoplasmic chill hung over the fields, working there had never been the same.

I begun to become more and more fascinated in the battle, reading sources and speaking to archaeologists who possessed higher understanding. One day I stumbled upon a source which translated the extent of the bravery of the soldiers of the Somme, they stood outnumbered upon the fields I Used to plough, and were told to walk, not run into the woods and the machine guns which had been nesting inside them. The men marched with bravery and prided to their imminent deaths. This sparked a chain of thoughts in my head, which all had a familiar undertone. The theme of fate. Was it the fate of those soldiers to not avoid their deaths so future generations may learn, was it the fate of the soldiers finger to die in location in which I may find him, did I choose my life or did it choose me? I pursued the life that chose me and followed my new found love in archaeology.

Today, I returned to the site of my prior employer and uncovered a long grave with roughly around 20 broken skeletons. A grave not fitting for honourable soldiers. All the flesh and skin had left them, bones and their boots that had outlasted them. The skeletons were stopped mid-action, the skulls had their jaws wide open, like they were shouting and I could only imagine a visual image of the soldier’s heads being thrown back by the impact of the bullets. Almost ironic as they had lost their voices. The display of the bodies could almost be described as art, but together to create a greater image. A mosaic, made up of boots and bones, where all the soldiers who had saved this country had left for their-selves. The death of the honourable, 20 bodies in a grave with no headstone. Nothing to signify the bravery and sheer determination these people showed. All of this just for a flag.

Text Response

Dear Isabelle Kerr

I am writing to respond and give my opinion towards your article on slang. I agree with some aspects of your article, words like “Twerking, selfie and unlike” do not give an accurate representation of youth culture. These additions to the Oxford dictionary are social trends. The word selfie means “a photograph that one has taken of oneself, typically one taken with a smartphone or webcam and shared via social media”. The fact that they are typically taken with a smartphone, emphasizes the fact that they are just social trends. The advance in technology has allowed us to interact with it in new ways which were not available in the past. The fact that they are social trends consolidates the point that they should not be included in the Oxford dictionary. Older slang words such as “groovy” are not currently used and have been replaced with new slang words. However the use of the Online Oxford dictionary means that it can be edited and words do not become obsolete.

You address a few major issues some people generally have with slang. Many people believe that slang does not accurately portray youth culture and often makes them appear as “yobs”. Although, slang also has its positives that were not addressed in the first  article, slang is often used to caption social trends. You state in the article that you had to investigate why Miley Cyrus was said to have twerked at the MTV awards. This would not have been as efficiently translated if the headline was “ Miley Cyrus danced to popular music in a sexually provocative manner involving thrusting hip movements and a low squatting stance at the MTV video music awards”. In this case slang is used to define a very specific action, but this also has its negatives. As I stated, it captions trends.

I believe that there isn’t anything wrong with slang. During an interview of any type, people of all ages generally understand that the language used, must be formal, as with a change in audience, so does the language appropriate to use. Use of informal language could make the interviewee seem illiterate, however language is defined by the people that speak, so it can not be a defining factor in assessing ones intellect. This makes me question your levels of intellect, as you clearly have in your article.

Slang is in no way, shape or form detrimental to the English Language. In your article you state that “we are in a constant battle to prove whether we are all ASBO wielding yobs”, but the use of slang portrays an important aspect to the English language. An important point to take into account when talking about slang, is that it has a specific audience and it is only an addition to formal language. This can be substituted for a synonym or the definition itself e.g “that girl is a jezzy” can be said formally by saying “that girl is promiscuous”. Such synonyms helps the younger deal with the plasticity of language, which is generally good practice. Great writers such as Shakespeare also used slang terms such as ‘sanctimonious’ and ‘assassination’ in his plays. Writers such as condemned in their time for their use of slang, despite this, their words have earned their place in the dictionary and will be for future generations. So in theory, only time will tell if they are suitable words to be added to the dictionary. Using Shakespeare’s example, it took generations of people utilizing these words before they became acceptable. However text base slang terms should not be added to the dictionary, ‘Srsly’ is an abbreviation of the word ‘seriously’, it is only text based and made to be informal. The addition of slang terms being added to the dictionary is aimed at making slang terms formal however an abbreviation of a currently existing word could only be informal.

The use of slang can also be used as a literary device as it can be used to convey character and culture. Examples of slang terms used in “Of Mice and Men” are: ‘bindle’, meaning a bundle of bedding, and ‘cat house’, referring to a house of prostitution. These terms do not take away from the book but instead give the book a sense of context and culture at the point in time. These terms are included into one of the worlds greatest pieces of literature and are cleverly used to depict the time in which it was written.

To conclude, I believe that the use of slang is fine when used within the boundaries of social context. For example, when speaking with a friend, it is perfectly acceptable to use words you are both accustomed to which may entail slang. Slang is used as a literary device, therefore, who are you to scrutinise the work of great writers such as George Orwell, Shakespeare and Harper Lee. I think you are a literary “opp” (Opp meaning opposition).

Yours faithfully,

Nelson.