Constructivism Essay - 1400 Words

Empiricists and rationalists have proposed opposing theories of the acquisition of knowledge, which appear unable to coexist. Each theory holds its own strengths but does not demonstrate a strong argument in itself to the questions, â€Å"Is knowledge truly possible?† and â€Å"How is true knowledge obtained?†. Immanual Kant successfully merged the two philosophies and provided a convincing argument with his theory of empirical relativism, or what some may call constructivism. His theory bridges the gap between rationalism and empiricism and proves that empiricists and rationalists each present a piece of the full puzzle. In order to truly understand Kant’s epistemology, one must first review and understand both empiricism and rationalism on an†¦show more content†¦This initiates the principle of induction, which is the assumption that the future will be like the past. An example of this would be every time smoke is seen, one will inevitably look f or the fire that is causing the smoke. This is because based on previous experiences, it is known to be true that fire causes smoke. One notable problem with pure empiricism is that it does rely upon reasoning. If the concept of causality is true, there must be some form of reasoning to be able to relate one action to a reaction. Hume’s principle of induction assumes that one experience will be similar to a previous experience under similar circumstances. It takes a measure of reasoning to assume that the previous experience of dropping a glass would result in the same consequence when dropping a vase. To account for this, Hume believes that reason draws connections between concepts in the mind, but it cannot form connections between those ideas in the external world (Lawhead, 2010). Hume divided reasoning into 2 categories: namely, relations of ideas and matters of fact. â€Å"This dichotomy between relations of ideas (which are logically necessary, but tell us noth ing about the world), and matters of fact (which tell us about the world, but which are not certain), is often called ‘Hume’s fork’† (Lawhead, 2011, p. 108). Rationalism In contrast to empiricism, rationalists claim that knowledge is gained from reasoning. It is through reason that theShow MoreRelatedConstructivism in the Classroom1832 Words   |  8 Pages1. Constructivism is a method that says students learn by building their schema by adding to their prior knowledge by the use of scaffolding (Rhinehart Neas). Because the students are basically teaching themselves new information, the teacher is there mainly for support and guidance for the students. Pro: By using a constructivist approach to teaching, students will be â€Å"fully engaged in their own learning† (Rhinehart Neas). This allows the students to make sense of what they are doing by relatingRead MoreConstructivism : A Learning Theory917 Words   |  4 PagesConstructivism is a learning theory that suggests that because individuals are not blank slates new knowledge is constructed by building upon prior knowledge and experiences (Brandsford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000). Within the classroom setting, constructivism often includes, but not limited to a hands-on activity, group work, and teachers acting as facilitators. At the sight of observation, the learning activity was a guided reading lesson. This reading activity was designed for a small group of fourRead MoreThe Theory Of Education And Constructivism1587 Words   |  7 PagesTwo of the more prevalent theoretical frameworks used in education are constructivism and andragogy. Savicevic (1991) points out that t he popularity of andragogy has spread among practitioners and researchers in many countries, including Hungary, England, Finland, France, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, and Russia (as quoted in Chan, 2010, p. 28). Constructivism, on the other hand, has become, as O’Neil (1992) observes, â€Å"a new catchword† among educators (as quoted in Oxford, 1997, p. 37). ThisRead MoreEncouraging Constructivism in Todays Classroom Essay1953 Words   |  8 Pagesaside and I feel like constructivism learning theory should be given a try in the classroom. Learning according to the free dictionary is the act or process of experience of gaining knowledge or skill. This knowledge or skill is gained through schooling or study. (The Free Dictionary by Farlex). Constructivism is a philosophy of learning founded on the premise that, by reflecting on our experiences, we construct our own understanding of the world we live in. (Constructivism, 2014). In other wordsRead MoreTheoretical Frameworks Of Learning, Discipleship And Constructivism3882 Words   |  16 Pageschildren learn with a focus on one area from a selection of current priorities drawing on relevant literature, research and practice from a critical perspective This essay will discuss two theoretical frameworks of learning, Behaviourism and Constructivism. Then examine the orginin, need and importance for ability grouping specifically to aid the gifted student. It will then analyse evidence of a child from block School Experience (BSE) 1 and relate theory to practice. Learning can sometimes appearRead MoreEssay about What Is Constructivism3002 Words   |  13 PagesWhat Is Constructivism Watching a young child grow from infancy to toddler hood, we marvel at the amount of learning that has allowed her to understand her expanding environment. Those early years provide the basis for language, physical dexterity, social understanding, and emotional development that she will use for the rest of her life. All of this knowledge is acquired before she even sets foot in school! This child has taught herself by gathering information and experiencing the worldRead MoreTeaching Phylosophies and Learning Theories: Constructivism3051 Words   |  13 Pagesfollow in order to reach students of diverse learning styles; it would be a disservice to the student to only focus on teaching through the paradigm of one theory. Throughout the paper, however, I will discuss examples where the learning theory of constructivism has proved to accurately portray how I best learn new information and also how it will be an appropriate theory to guide me in teaching high school agriculture in a productive learning environment, as well as serve as a tool in managing classroomRead MoreRealism, Liberalism, And Social Constructivism1009 Words   |  5 Pagesanalyze the international system using a variety of theories. Realism, liberalism, and social constructivism are only a handful of lenses through which we view global affairs. Realism suggests that anarchy causes states to fight for survival and the balance of power. Liberalism suggests that while states do fight to survive, anarchy creates an environment conducive to cooperation. On the other hand, constructivism suggests that people constructed this system of international relations and anarchy is whatRead MoreFeminism and Constructivism: A Comparison2645 Words   |  11 Pagesthe traditional rationalist theories of neorealism and neoliberalism to critical re-evaluations. As a result, constructivism is a concept that has emerged as an alternative approach to dominant IR theories. It focuses on the importance of state i dentities in defining and gaining knowledge of state interests, actions and goals. There are theorists who purport that the rise of constructivism allows for a further understanding of another international theory, feminism. This is a branch of critical socialRead MoreThe Best Case For Constructivism2765 Words   |  12 PagesMake the best case for constructivism as an epistemology in international relations. Discuss at least one constructivist work that you believe makes an outstanding contribution. Introduction When discussing constructivism as an epistemology in international relations (IR), it is important to note that there are many definitions, or rather, forms of constructivism in social sciences, especially when it pertains to international relations. Within the field of IR there are many constructivist scholars

Is Hunting Ethical Free Essays

string(125) " whole year and without it we would pay more than five hundred dollars for meat in 6 months because of my large family size\." The difference between hunting and killing â€Å"It is 4:00 in the morning as a father and son prepare for a day of elk hunting, Whenever October comes around this father and son know that it is an important month because it is hunting season and they have a chance to provide meat for their family. The day brings success to the hunters as they harvest a male elk and take it back home to share not only the meat but also the memories that were provided by the hunt. Many people in this world have opinions about hunting saying it is â€Å"unethical† or that it is a cruel form of killing for fun. We will write a custom essay sample on Is Hunting Ethical or any similar topic only for you Order Now Hunting is portrayed as an activity that allows humans the right to go out into the wild and harvest an animal or animals just as our ancestors did many years ago, that is a good picture of it but there are many reasons why people hunt other than to get meat shoot a gun or hang out with friends in the outdoors Benefits of hunting Hunting isn’t what most people think, it doesn’t just help the hunters who are getting meat but it helps the population of animals as well. In Colorado alone there are an estimated two thousand elk and 1500 deer taken a year, this seems cruel but hear me out. If a herd of elk gets to big then there will be scarce amounts of food because there many mouths to feed but only so many acres of edible grass and plants to feed them. This problem causes fights and the weaker elk get run out of the herd because of over population, these elk that are disowned by the herd usually die off from starvation or predators. Matt Forsyth a local area hunter says â€Å"my family and I can live for a year on one animal harvested from our hunting trips†. That means that one animal out of the thousands in Colorado can support a family and save an estimated 400 dollars that is usually spent on beef pork and chicken bought from the store. My family relies on meat from my father and I every year, if we are not successful it is a devastating blow on our bank accounts. STATISTICS ABOUT HUNTING 12. 5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22. 9 billion. An estimated 10. million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days. There were 4. 8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2. 4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. 2. 3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl 1. 1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons. As the above figures state hunting is a very much enjoyed sport that Colorado residents take a very great passion in and I believe it always will be. DISADVANTAGES ABOUT HUNTING Many animals die yearly from accidental death from hunters, accidental death occurs when a hunter mistakes and shoots an animal or the target species he was pursuing. I have seen many accidental deaths as a hunter and it is very sad because I hate to take a life from an animal that did not deserve it, I am not saying all animals deserve to die but if I cannot benefit from the death of an animal then why does it deserve to die? Poaching is also a huge problem in America. I do not like this one part of hunting and I wish it could be eliminated, poaching is when a human illegally harvests an animal without a license. Over 1500 animals are poached each year and many of those animals had their lives taken only for their horns or ivory teeth and tusks. Many people will say that hunting is not right because the animals are helpless and innocent, I say otherwise. At the beginning of time hunting was a major part of life and was a necessity, being the only means of survival. It was a source of food, clothing, and sometimes tools. Hunted animals were know as game animals. The earliest tools used to hunt were bow and arrow and spears, where now in the present we hunt with more powerful weapons like the compound bow and rifle. Having these newer and updated tools man can now hunt with out having to work as hard at killing their prey. Just because it is easier to hunt with the new and improved rifles and bows does not mean that it is easy. I give a lot of credit to the Native Americans because they had it worse than us, they had to run and chase their animals till it was down where as now days you can use an all terrain vehicle or a truck to get deep in the forest. I feel like people do not look past the blood of hunting because it is such a gory part of the process and they feel justified to say that hunters are messed up in the ead because would we want to be shot and bleed to death, I wouldn’t but still hunting has evolved from the early ages so humans were just taught that hunting was a way of living. I have been hunting since I was nine and I will admit that there were some parts of the sport that I wish I didn’t see. I hate to see an animal suffer and I have seen my fair share of that, b ut my plan was not to kill for the thrill or pride of taking down an animal. I did it because it was the meat that my family ate for a whole year and without it we would pay more than five hundred dollars for meat in 6 months because of my large family size. You read "Is Hunting Ethical" in category "Papers" There is always a downside to everything and as much as I love hunting I have to say that there is parts that I do not like. â€Å"What we see is the aftermath of people going out and killing trophy animals and removing those trophy parts, which would be the antlers or the horns and leaving the carcasses to rot,† â€Å"It is so disrespectful to the wildlife and gives hunting a bad name. † (Sarason) Antlers are valuable. They can earn poachers hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per mount. (Forsyth) â€Å"Some people do it purely as a business. They’ve detached from their activity. It’s just pure dollars and cents. They don’t see wildlife as anything other than something you can buy and make a buck,† (Sarason) â€Å"it is 4:00 in the morning as a man and his hunting guide sit in a cozy cabin drinking coffee and going over the game plan for the day, this man has paid his guide an estimated 3,000 dollars for this hunt. The day starts off in the truck as they drive to a hillside to see if spotting a herd will bring them luck, sure enough out of the tree’s comes a beautiful male elk with an astoundingly big set of antlers. This is where the 3,000 dollars comes in because this man is on a guided elk hunt that has been set up on a high fenced ranch (the animals have no way to escape or be free), the elk are given special grass and food to grow big antlers. The man shoots the elk takes pictures and leaves the meat with the guides who will charge him an additional 500 bucks to get it cut and delivered to his house† People from around the world come to have supposedly the hunt of a lifetime and partake in an event that our ancestors have done but it is far from what actually happens. Many guided hunts are just slaughter of animals because they have no place to be free and live a life, they shoot the animals and the guide hauls it cuts it and prepares it and all you have to do is pay 3,500 dollars for it which is a deal right? Real hunting is when you pay 300 dollars a year to chase fair game through beautiful mountains and enjoy cutting the meat hauling it and doing all of the stuff that makes hunting what it truly is today. HOW ARE ORGANIZATIONS GETTING INVOLVED Many people have a jaded opinion about hunting because they see tv shows about it and the people always shoot the big animals and it all looks so easy but in reality it is not all that easy, real hunting requires patience love and respect for not only the pastime of it but the animals as well. No person will ever be right about wether it is ethical or if it isn’t but everybody can have a say in what they think is right or what they believe in. unting is such a controversial subject to many people because just like anything, if you don’t know anything about it you are either really interested or very skeptical and I have found that many people are skeptical. Because of all the modern PETA campaigns many people are upset about hunters going out and harvesting an animal because it is an â€Å"innocent† animal that has been killed for pleasure or thrill. But hunting is an art form and a blessed opportunity for humans to provide their family with meat as well as learn more about the outdoors and life. Many campaigns have been run to stop hunting in many states. These campaigns are put together by PETA a non-profit organization that try’s to outlaw the abuse and neglect of animals, also called animal cruelty. Organizations like PETA are against hunting because they are under the impression that hunting is a cruel form of killing helpless innocent animals which is true somewhat. What they do not understand is that while many animals die every year but true hunters will never kill for the fun of shooting a gun or killing. With a lot of the gun laws that the president is trying to pass maybe all of these animal cruelty organizations wont have to keep fighting hunters because if such laws pass then many Americans will not be able to hunt anymore. Rumor has it that PETA is trying to get all gun laws passed just because of the way that it could help save many animals every year. Hunting is a very controversial subject because it is so important to some people and many families rely on an animal to be harvested every year. Good hunting ethics are not usually covered by written laws. Ethics are a personal code which dictates how we act. It is conduct that is morally right, safe, proper and fair. According to Aldo Leopold, regarded as the â€Å"father† of wildlife management, â€Å"ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal. † T. D. Carroll, the Father of Texas Hunter Education, once said: â€Å"There are written and unwritten laws. The written laws tell us what we can and cannot do while the unwritten laws tell us what we should and should not do. † HOW WOULD ANIMALS BE AFFECTED IF WE DID NOT HUNT If we didn’t hunt animals they would die of starvation and disease. That is why we have regulations on hunting. And that is why bag limits and seasons change yearly. Take for instance the Snow Goose, It is so overpopulated right now that it takes food from animals and fish that are low in population thus the overpopulation of this bird could cause other animals to go extinct. It would not be the hunters causing the extinction. This year there was a conservation order in effect issued by the Colorado Fish and Wildlife Department to hunt as many as you can-no bag limit which seems like a killing frenzy for all of the geese but given the options it really helps all animals. Another instance is with exotic species (species that don’t naturally occur in a particular area). For instance here in Colorado, the Mountain Lion does not belong here but It flourishes and if it keeps its pace then it could totally wipe out the population of native species of animals. Thus, the state says you can hunt and kill the Mountain Lion whenever you want and as many as you want, you just have to tell the state where you shot it. Look at the wild pig. Not natural to the United States and now we have a major problem on our hands. They destroy crops and take the food of our natural species. If deer hunting became illegal we would have so many deer in this country no one would be able to drive down the highway without fear of hitting one at 70mph possibly killing the passengers of the vehicle. Or there would be so many deer the food would eventually run out for them causing them to starve to death. Many in Colorado are interested in living a healthy lifestyle, which often includes consuming organically-grown food. â€Å"Locally grown† is becoming an increasingly popular way to enjoy fresh fruit and vegetables and backyard gardens are seeing a resurgence. One of the driving forces for the â€Å"going organic† movement is related to concerns about chemicals and pesticides associated with mass production of our food. Meat from hunting does not go through the chemical-related processes of grocery-store domestic meats. Hunting and eating wild game provides a lean, â€Å"free-range† protein product similar to that of organic food stores. Moreover, for those who hunt, fresh meat procured through hunting offers a â€Å"do-it-yourself† pride and satisfaction similar to that of growing your own garden. Hunting provides healthier food for the hunter and his/her family. I have nothing against farmers, I support them 100%, but there’s more protein in the meat of a wild animal than there is a cow, pig, etc. So, more protein means a healthier cut of meat. It only takes one male to reproduce so anybody that says population control isn’t a â€Å"valid† reason to hunt isn’t well equipped with the facts of hunting. Since it only takes one male animal, then there’s no reason to have older animals that are not healthy reproduce because that would be passing along weaker genes, and that will make that generation of animals weaker. A lot of people say that hunters only shoot the males animals but that shows just how un-educated they are on this subject. I know many people who will kill a female over a male any day. There’s no benefit to just harvesting males and not the females. Each sex needs a specific number harvested to keep the population healthy. Back to the example I used about an older male animal breeding. Same thing goes with female animals. The older they get, the weaker their offspring will be. The less milk they’ll produce. The older the animal (males and females), the weaker the state of their body/health. Inbreeding DOES happen where animal populations have exploded. You need a good mix of male and females of different ‘lines’ so that you will get healthy offspring. Not only for that aspect of population control- if there are too many animals in a given area no matter if they are mostly males or mostly females, the animals will deplete the area of resources- food, water, cover. So, not only will the animals be at a higher risk for diseases/illnesses like rabies or CWD in deer, the land will be greatly affected by it too. The difference between hunting and killing â€Å"It is 4:00 in the morning as a father and son prepare for a day of elk hunting, Whenever October comes around this father and son know that it is an important month because it is hunting season and they have a chance to provide meat for their family. The day brings success to the hunters as they harvest a male elk and take it back home to share not only the meat but also the memories that were provided by the hunt. Many people in this world have opinions about hunting saying it is â€Å"unethical† or that it is a cruel form of killing for fun. Hunting is portrayed as an activity that allows humans the right to go out into the wild and harvest an animal or animals just as our ancestors did many years ago, that is a good picture of it but there are many reasons why people hunt other than to get meat shoot a gun or hang out with friends in the outdoors Benefits of hunting Hunting isn’t what most people think, it doesnâ€⠄¢t just help the hunters who are getting meat but it helps the population of animals as well. In Colorado alone there are an estimated two thousand elk and 1500 deer taken a year, this seems cruel but hear me out. If a herd of elk gets to big then there will be scarce amounts of food because there many mouths to feed but only so many acres of edible grass and plants to feed them. This problem causes fights and the weaker elk get run out of the herd because of over population, these elk that are disowned by the herd usually die off from starvation or predators. Matt Forsyth a local area hunter says â€Å"my family and I can live for a year on one animal harvested from our hunting trips†. That means that one animal out of the thousands in Colorado can support a family and save an estimated 400 dollars that is usually spent on beef pork and chicken bought from the store. My family relies on meat from my father and I every year, if we are not successful it is a devastating blow on our bank accounts. STATISTICS ABOUT HUNTING 12. 5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22. 9 billion. An estimated 10. 7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days. There were 4. 8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits. They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2. 4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment. 2. 3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl 1. 1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons. As the above figures state hunting is a very much enjoyed sport that Colorado residents take a very great passion in and I believe it always will be. DISADVANTAGES ABOUT HUNTING Many animals die yearly from accidental death from hunters, accidental death occurs when a hunter mistakes and shoots an animal or the target species he was pursuing. I have seen many accidental deaths as a hunter and it is very sad because I hate to take a life from an animal that did not deserve it, I am not saying all animals deserve to die but if I cannot benefit from the death of an animal then why does it deserve to die? Poaching is also a huge problem in America. I do not like this one part of hunting and I wish it could be eliminated, poaching is when a human illegally harvests an animal without a license. Over 1500 animals are poached each year and many of those animals had their lives taken only for their horns or ivory teeth and tusks. Many people will say that hunting is not right because the animals are helpless and innocent, I say otherwise. At the beginning of time hunting was a major part of life and was a necessity, being the only means of survival. It was a source of food, clothing, and sometimes tools. Hunted animals were know as game animals. The earliest tools used to hunt were bow and arrow and spears, where now in the present we hunt with more powerful weapons like the compound bow and rifle. Having these newer and updated tools man can now hunt with out having to work as hard at killing their prey. Just because it is easier to hunt with the new and improved rifles and bows does not mean that it is easy. I give a lot of credit to the Native Americans because they had it worse than us, they had to run and chase their animals till it was down where as now days you can use an all terrain vehicle or a truck to get deep in the forest. I feel like people do not look past the blood of hunting because it is such a gory part of the process and they feel justified to say that hunters are messed up in the head because would we want to be shot and bleed to death, I wouldn’t but still hunting has evolved from the early ages so humans were just taught that hunting was a way of living. I have been hunting since I was nine and I will admit that there were some parts of the sport that I wish I didn’t see. I hate to see an animal suffer and I have seen my fair share of that, but my plan was not to kill for the thrill or pride of taking down an animal. I did it because it was the meat that my family ate for a whole year and without it we would pay more than five hundred dollars for meat in 6 months because of my large family size. There is always a downside to everything and as much as I love hunting I have to say that there is parts that I do not like. â€Å"What we see is the aftermath of people going out and killing trophy animals and removing those trophy parts, which would be the antlers or the horns and leaving the carcasses to rot,† â€Å"It is so disrespectful to the wildlife and gives hunting a bad name. (Sarason) Antlers are valuable. They can earn poachers hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars per mount. (Forsyth) â€Å"Some people do it purely as a business. They’ve detached from their activity. It’s just pure dollars and cents. They don’t see wildlife as anything other than something you can buy and make a buck,† (Sarason) â€Å"it is 4:00 in the morning as a man and his hunting guide sit in a cozy cabin drinking coffee and going over the game plan for the day, this man has paid his guide an estimated 3,000 dollars for this hunt. The day starts off in the truck as they drive to a hillside to see if spotting a herd will bring them luck, sure enough out of the tree’s comes a beautiful male elk with an astoundingly big set of antlers. This is where the 3,000 dollars comes in because this man is on a guided elk hunt that has been set up on a high fenced ranch (the animals have no way to escape or be free), the elk are given special grass and food to grow big antlers. The man shoots the elk takes pictures and leaves the meat with the guides who will charge him an additional 500 bucks to get it cut and delivered to his house† People from around the world come to have supposedly the hunt of a lifetime and partake in an event that our ancestors have done but it is far from what actually happens. Many guided hunts are just slaughter of animals because they have no place to be free and live a life, they shoot the animals and the guide hauls it cuts it and prepares it and all you have to do is pay 3,500 dollars for it which is a deal right? Real hunting is when you pay 300 dollars a year to chase fair game through beautiful mountains and enjoy cutting the meat hauling it and doing all of the stuff that makes hunting what it truly is today. HOW ARE ORGANIZATIONS GETTING INVOLVED Many people have a jaded opinion about hunting because they see tv shows about it and the people always shoot the big animals and it all looks so easy but in reality it is not all that easy, real hunting requires patience love and respect for not only the pastime of it but the animals as well. No person will ever be right about wether it is ethical or if it isn’t but everybody can have a say in what they think is right or what they believe in. hunting is such a controversial subject to many people because just like anything, if you don’t know anything about it you are either really interested or very skeptical and I have found that many people are skeptical. Because of all the modern PETA campaigns many people are upset about hunters going out and harvesting an animal because it is an â€Å"innocent† animal that has been killed for pleasure or thrill. But hunting is an art form and a blessed opportunity for humans to provide their family with meat as well as learn more about the outdoors and life. Many campaigns have been run to stop hunting in many states. These campaigns are put together by PETA a non-profit organization that try’s to outlaw the abuse and neglect of animals, also called animal cruelty. Organizations like PETA are against hunting because they are under the impression that hunting is a cruel form of killing helpless innocent animals which is true somewhat. What they do not understand is that while many animals die every year but true hunters will never kill for the fun of shooting a gun or killing. With a lot of the gun laws that the president is trying to pass maybe all of these animal cruelty organizations wont have to keep fighting hunters because if such laws pass then many Americans will not be able to hunt anymore. Rumor has it that PETA is trying to get all gun laws passed just because of the way that it could help save many animals every year. Hunting is a very controversial subject because it is so important to some people and many families rely on an animal to be harvested every year. Good hunting ethics are not usually covered by written laws. Ethics are a personal code which dictates how we act. It is conduct that is morally right, safe, proper and fair. According to Aldo Leopold, regarded as the â€Å"father† of wildlife management, â€Å"ethical behavior is doing the right thing when no one else is watching- even when doing the wrong thing is legal. † T. D. Carroll, the Father of Texas Hunter Education, once said: â€Å"There are written and unwritten laws. The written laws tell us what we can and cannot do while the unwritten laws tell us what we should and should not do. † HOW WOULD ANIMALS BE AFFECTED IF WE DID NOT HUNT If we didn’t hunt animals they would die of starvation and disease. That is why we have regulations on hunting. And that is why bag limits and seasons change yearly. Take for instance the Snow Goose, It is so overpopulated right now that it takes food from animals and fish that are low in population thus the overpopulation of this bird could cause other animals to go extinct. It would not be the hunters causing the extinction. This year there was a conservation order in effect issued by the Colorado Fish and Wildlife Department to hunt as many as you can-no bag limit which seems like a killing frenzy for all of the geese but given the options it really helps all animals. Another instance is with exotic species (species that don’t naturally occur in a particular area). For instance here in Colorado, the Mountain Lion does not belong here but It flourishes and if it keeps its pace then it could totally wipe out the population of native species of animals. Thus, the state says you can hunt and kill the Mountain Lion whenever you want and as many as you want, you just have to tell the state where you shot it. Look at the wild pig. Not natural to the United States and now we have a major problem on our hands. They destroy crops and take the food of our natural species. If deer hunting became illegal we would have so many deer in this country no one would be able to drive down the highway without fear of hitting one at 70mph possibly killing the passengers of the vehicle. Or there would be so many deer the food would eventually run out for them causing them to starve to death. Many in Colorado are interested in living a healthy lifestyle, which often includes consuming organically-grown food. â€Å"Locally grown† is becoming an increasingly popular way to enjoy fresh fruit and vegetables and backyard gardens are seeing a resurgence. One of the driving forces for the â€Å"going organic† movement is related to concerns about chemicals and pesticides associated with mass production of our food. Meat from hunting does not go through the chemical-related processes of grocery-store domestic meats. Hunting and eating wild game provides a lean, â€Å"free-range† protein product similar to that of organic food stores. Moreover, for those who hunt, fresh meat procured through hunting offers a â€Å"do-it-yourself† pride and satisfaction similar to that of growing your own garden. Hunting provides healthier food for the hunter and his/her family. I have nothing against farmers, I support them 100%, but there’s more protein in the meat of a wild animal than there is a cow, pig, etc. So, more protein means a healthier cut of meat. It only takes one male to reproduce so anybody that says population control isn’t a â€Å"valid† reason to hunt isn’t well equipped with the facts of hunting. Since it only takes one male animal, then there’s no reason to have older animals that are not healthy reproduce because that would be passing along weaker genes, and that will make that generation of animals weaker. A lot of people say that hunters only shoot the males animals but that shows just how un-educated they are on this subject. I know many people who will kill a female over a male any day. There’s no benefit to just harvesting males and not the females. Each sex needs a specific number harvested to keep the population healthy. Back to the example I used about an older male animal breeding. Same thing goes with female animals. The older they get, the weaker their offspring will be. The less milk they’ll produce. The older the animal (males and females), the weaker the state of their body/health. Inbreeding DOES happen where animal populations have exploded. You need a good mix of male and females of different ‘lines’ so that you will get healthy offspring. Not only for that aspect of population control- if there are too many animals in a given area no matter if they are mostly males or mostly females, the animals will deplete the area of resources- food, water, cover. So, not only will the animals be at a higher risk for diseases/illnesses like rabies or CWD in deer, the land will be greatly affected by it too. How to cite Is Hunting Ethical, Papers

Religion as the Opium of the Masses free essay sample

Like the Hebrew prophets of old, Marx knew that to speak of social justice, we must become socially self-critical, and that means becoming critical of the ruling powers whether they may be kings or priests or investment bankers. Power and privilege in society always disguise their own arbitrariness behind the facade of fair play, which may be called providence or karma or standardized test scores. Whatever basis is used to claim an objective and unbiased perspective such claims need critical analysis and challenge. About 90% of the world belongs to some sort of religion. Marx understood that purpose and that is why he made the statement, â€Å"religion is the opium of the masses† which means that religion is what keeps the masses motivated, like a medicine that blinds them to all the hardships of life. Religion has blinded the people to enjoy their sufferings hoping for something like a ‘purgatory’ or a ‘heaven’ that they would enjoy after their toiling on earth. We will write a custom essay sample on Religion as the Opium of the Masses or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page It has come to control the people with its guiding principles although most of its guiding principles aren’t adhered to by its top leaders for example: on the news there are various stories of pastors molesting children or their congregations, popes, monks and nuns breaking their vows; yet their followers are faithful due to the promise of a peaceful after life. For Marx, all ideas are relative to the social location and interests of their production. And like the prophets before him, the most revealing perspective is not from the top down or from the center outward, but the view of the â€Å"widow and the orphan† – the point of view of the exploited and the marginalized. Suffering can see through and unveil official explanation; it can cry out and protest against the arrogance of power. This brings us back to how Marx viewed religion as the â€Å"opium of the masses†. That is we tend to think Marx had a monolithically negative view of religion but that is not the case immediately preceding this language â€Å"the opium† the following is found Religion is at one and at the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest. Religion is the sign of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. Here Marx recognizes in religion an active moral agency especially for the deprived and the despised. Religion is not simply the ideological expression of the powerful, legitimacy the social hierarchy as in the case, for example, of singing hymns with the hidden message that there’s a â€Å"King in Heaven† so there shall and should be kings on earth. No, for Marx in the hands and voices of the poor and exploited, religion is â€Å"protest†. It is a crying out against â€Å"real suffering† not illusory sufferings such as fear of punishment from the gods or suffering caused by some impurity inherited from a previous incarnation. For Marx, the essence of religion is its voicing of â€Å"suffering† its crying out against the realtors of exploitation and degradation. The essence of being human is a passionate suffering, a struggle to take back into our hands a world we have made but which is then taken away from us. Religion has found a way in which it governs our or lives or society in general. It is normal for the major religious group in a society to automatically control the ruling party. The major religious group affects the behavior of the people in power and somewhat controls their decisions due to their effect on the people. A major religious group can influence the choosing of who stays in power or who comes into power just by saying ‘God’ has chosen a particular person to lead us and make our country or state stronger. The people have no choice but to follow the doctrine that’s why Marx made the statement, â€Å"religion is the opium of the masses† was made. Religion has somewhat found a way to control every aspect of the lives of individuals in the society. It has become the new trend of the day; everyone belongs to a religion because of the returns that they intend to receive. Religion has turned into the medicine for all types of sorrows this in turn controls the people who come to it for help.

The Theme Of Inherit The Wind Essay Example For Students

The Theme Of Inherit The Wind Essay In the play Inherit the Wind by Jerome Lawrence and Robert Lee, the theme is that all people have the right to think. One examply that supports the theme is the conversation between Howard and Melinda. While dangling a worm in front of Melinda, Howard remarks, Whatre yuh skeered of You was a worm once (4). Melinda replies by exclaiming thats sinful talk and Im gonna tell my pa (4). The two children ponder their beliefs and are influenced by the people around them. The thinking process begins when very young. Children constantly ask the question Why? Howard and Melinda begin to wonder what is the right belief. Another example of the theme occurs during the questioning in act two. During the questioning, Drummond desperately tries to establish that everyone has the right to think (64). We will write a custom essay on The Theme Of Inherit The Wind specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now Drummond says that a man is on trial and threatened with fine and imprisonment because he chooses to speak what he thinks (64). Yet another example of the theme occurs when Bert and Rachel decide to go off on their own. Rachels decision to break away from the beliefs of her narrow-minded father and go off with Bert is expressed when she replies to Bert, Im not sure. But Im leaving my father (110). Cates offers to carry Rachels suitcase while shouting over his shoulder, See you at the depot (115). Theyve decided that although they arent sure which belief is right or wrong, they want to know that theyre free to speak what they think. Indeed, the theme of Inherit the Wind is the right to think.Words/ Pages : 280 / 24

Case about Yahoo essays

Case about Yahoo essays 1. Success as a Web Search Engine a. Why was Yahoo! such an early success on the Web? Yahoo was an early success due to a combination of factors such as timing, hard work, and a good understanding of Web surfers tastes and needs.. In early 1995, Net mania was just flowering. It was a great time to be a young entrepreneur with an Internet idea. Dave Faldo and Jerry Yang saw a consumer need for classifying and differentiating web sights. Resting the urge to automate this process, Yahoos founders instead chose to manually perform this search, reviewing and classifying roughly 1000 sights a day. This approach combined with their decision to offer a free service lead to early success. b. Why was Yahoo! more successful as a search engine than other, more technically superior search engines? Yahoo!s search engine was designed to be both reliable and streamlined. The design was simple so it would pop up quickly. Its focus was on quality, not quantity. Yangs comment that if you have 13 Madonna sights, you probably dont need a 14th rings true. Surfers choosing Yahoo! not only were provided reliable information, but they were not bombarded with 1000 sights to review. Additionally, Yahoo! provided a product that was appealing and fun to use. c. Why is the fact that Yahoo! spends money on people, not computers, one of the keys to their success? Yahoo!s founders business plan was to manually categorize existing web sights and provide a succinct list of quality sights to choose from. This human-created directory was all that distinguished Yahoo! from its competitors as Net euphoria swept the stock market in early 1996. Other search engines were throwing any sight that met the search requirements at the user. Yahoo!s concept saved the browser the time they would otherwise spend filtering out the garbage to find these quality sights. 2. Building a...

Biography of Sir Seretse Khama, African Statesman

Biography of Sir Seretse Khama, African Statesman Seretse Khama (July 1, 1921–July 13, 1980) was the first prime minister and president of Botswana. Overcoming political resistance to his interracial marriage, he became the countrys first post-colonial leader and served from 1966 to his death in 1980. During his tenure, he oversaw Botswanas rapid economic development. Fast Facts: Sir Seretse Khama Known For:  First prime minister and president of post-colonial Botswana  Born:  July 1, 1921 in Serowe,  British Protectorate  of  BechuanalandParents: Tebogo Kebailele and  Sekgoma Khama IIDied:  July 13, 1980 in Gaborone,  BotswanaEducation: Fort Hare College, South Africa; Balliol College, Oxford, England; the Inner Temple, London, EnglandPublished Works: From the Frontline: Speeches of Sir Seretse KhamaSpouse: Ruth Williams KhamaChildren: Jacqueline Khama,  Ian Khama,  Tshekedi Khama II, Anthony KhamaNotable Quote: It should now be our intention to try to retrieve what we can of our past. We should write our own history books to prove that we did have a past, and that it was a past that was just as worth writing and learning about as any other. We must do this for the simple reason that a nation without a past is a lost nation, and a people without a past is a people without a soul.   Early Life Seretse Khama was born in Serowe,  British Protectorate  of  Bechuanaland,  on July 1, 1921. His grandfather Kgama III was paramount chief (Kgosi) of the Bama-Ngwato, part of the Tswana people of the region. Kgama III had traveled to London in 1885, leading a delegation which asked for Crown protection to be given to Bechuanaland, foiling the empire building ambitions of Cecil Rhodes and the incursions of the Boers. Kgama III died in 1923 and the paramountcy briefly passed to his son Sekgoma II, who died two years later. At the age of 4, Seretse Khama effectively became Kgosi and his uncle Tshekedi Khama was made regent. Studying in Oxford and London Seretse Khama was educated in South Africa and graduated from Fort Hare College in 1944 with a Bachelors degree. In 1945 he left for England to study law- initially for a year at Balliol College, Oxford, and then at the Inner Temple, London. In June 1947, Seretse Khama first met Ruth Williams, a WAAF ambulance driver during World War II who was working as a clerk at Lloyds. Their marriage in September 1948 threw southern Africa into political turmoil. Repercussions of  Mixed Marriage The apartheid government in South Africa had banned interracial marriages and the marriage of a black chief to a British white woman was a problem. The British government feared that South Africa would invade Bechuanaland or that it would immediately move for full independence. This was particularly a concern for Britain because it was still heavily in debt after World War II. Britain could not afford to lose the mineral wealth of South Africa, especially gold and uranium (needed for Britains atomic bomb projects). Mixed Marriage Controversy Resolved Back in Bechuanaland, the regent Tshekedi, Khamas uncle, was annoyed. He attempted to disrupt the marriage and demanded that Seretse return home to have it annulled. Seretse came back immediately and was received by Tshekedi with the words, You Seretse, come here ruined by others, not by me. Seretse fought hard to persuade the Bama-Ngwato people of his continued suitability as chief. On June 21, 1949, at a Kgotla (a meeting of the elders) he was declared Kgosi and his new wife was warmly welcomed. Fit to Rule Seretse Khama returned to Britain to continue with his law studies, but he was met with a Parliamentary investigation into his suitability for the chieftaincy. While Bechuanaland was under its protection, Britain claimed the right to ratify any succession. Unfortunately for the British government, the investigations report concluded that Seretse was eminently fit to rule. The British subsequently suppressed the report for 30 years. Seretse and his wife were banished from Bechuanaland in 1950. Nationalist Hero Under international pressure for its apparent racism, Britain relented and allowed Seretse Khama and his wife to return to Bechuanaland in 1956. They could return on the condition that both he and his uncle renounced their claim to the chieftaincy. What the British did not expect was the political acclaim that six years of exile had given him back home. Seretse Khama was seen as a nationalist hero. In 1962 Seretse founded the Bechuanaland Democratic Party and campaigned for multi-racial reform. Elected Prime Minister High on Seretse Khamas agenda was a need for democratic self-government and he pushed the British authorities hard for independence. In 1965, the center of Bechuanaland government was moved from Mafikeng, South Africa, to the newly established capital of Gaborone. Seretse Khama was elected as Prime Minister. When the country achieved independence on September 30, 1966, Seretse became the first president of the Republic of Botswana. He was reelected twice and died in office in 1980. President of Botswana Seretse Khama used his influence with the countrys various ethnic groups and traditional chiefs to create a strong, democratic government. During his rule, Botswana had the most rapidly growing economy of the world (starting from a point of great poverty). The discovery of diamond deposits allowed the government to finance the creation of new social infrastructure. The countrys second major export resource, beef, allowed for the development of wealthy entrepreneurs. International Roles While in power, Seretse Khama refused to allow neighboring liberation movements to establish camps in Botswana but permitted transit to camps in Zambia. This resulted in several raids from South Africa and Rhodesia. Khama also played a prominent role in the negotiated transition from white minority rule in Rhodesia to multi-racial rule in Zimbabwe. He was also a key negotiator in the creation of the Southern African Development Coordination Conference (SADCC) which was launched in April 1980, shortly before his death. Death On July 13, 1980, Seretse Khama died in office of pancreatic cancer. He was buried in the Royal Cemetery. Quett Ketumile Joni Masire, his vice president, took office and served (with reelection) until March 1998. Legacy Botswana was a poor and internationally obscure country when Seretse Khama became its first post-colonial leader. At the time of his death, Khama had led Botswana to become more economically developed and increasingly democratic. It had become an important broker in Southern African politics. Since Seretse Khamas death, Botswanan politicians and cattle barons have begun to dominate the countrys economy, to the detriment of the working classes. The situation is more serious for the minority Bushman peoples, which form 6% of the countrys population, with pressure for land around the Okavango Delta increasing as cattle ranchers and mines move in. Sources Khama, Seretse.  From the Frontline: Speeches of Sir Seretse Khama. Hoover Institute Press, 1980.Sahoboss. â€Å"President Seretse Khama.†Ã‚  South African History Online, 31 August 2018.â€Å"Seretse Khama 1921–80.†Ã‚  Sir Seretse Khama.

Reggae Music Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Reggae Music - Essay Example During the run-up to the elections, he arranged concerts where Eccles’ performed politically loaded numbers. The other Reggae groups that were also supportive of Manley were Dennis Brown, the Chosen Few and The Wailers. Let’s take, for example, Eccles’s â€Å"Rod of Correction†. The title of the song is a reference to the staff given to Michael Manley, as a gift, by Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. The Emperor was highly revered across the black diasporas and more so in the Caribbean. The biblical symbolism is noted in how the rod commonly came to be known as â€Å"Joshua’s Rod†, whereby making Manley the Joshua – the personification of the â€Å"good† according to the Old Testament. And just as Joshua brought down the walls of Jericho and led the Jews to the land of Canaan, Manley was projected to lead his fellow countrymen to peace and prosperity. There are other symbolic references too. The parable of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the story of the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites are the other references to the Old Testament. Manley is portrayed as Joshua (the Savior) and his incumbent opponent is taken as the Pharoah. Need less to say, such powerful biblical symbolism made a critical impact on the Jamaican society, which was highly religious, and made Michael Manley the Prime Minister. The people will later be disappointed with Manley and disillusioned of his promises of paradise are quite another story (Cooper 1996).