Link to video below:
Enjoy!
Sunday, May 18, 2014
Extra-credit: "Does God Exist?" Tosin Onibiyo.
This is the link to my extra credit video. Does God exist? I believe there is a God even though at the seminar there were a lot of people who believe God do not exist. I believe God exist even though I have not seen him but he shows His signs and wonders. He heals when we sick, he has risen the dead, He has performed miracles and I just believe totally in Him. The other opponent believe otherwise. They think the miracles we claim was just a coincidence of time, it's just human being getting lucky or you don't and so forth. And like said in the video, even though they have a pretty good point, I still believe God do exist.
Conclusion of Nussbaum argument - Tosin Onibiyo
In my arguments, I noticed how McLean’s dissent in aspect to racism basically pointed out the Justice Taney’s historical errors once again, how irrational the decision was towards another fellow human being who was labelled as only a property of another, and how disgusted Justice Taney was towards Scott and classified him a non-citizen of the United States. Disgust relies on moral obtuseness. It is possible to view another human being as a slimy slug or a piece of revolting trash only if one has never made a serious good-faith attempt to see the world through that person’s eyes or to experience that person’s feelings. Disgust imputes to the other a subhuman nature. How, by contrast, do we ever become able to see one another as human? Only through the exercise of imagination.
The disgust statement above in aspect of the Scott case explains how Justice McLean tend to emphasize that the other justices did not show much compassion before making the harsh decision they made against Dred Scott as per they saw him as just a slave, minority; a piece of property and not human just like they are. But in fact, Justice Mclean was a visionary for his time because he understood that justice couldn’t be in scarcity for an ethnic group in society. He firmly believed the Dred Scott decision was a miscarriage of justice and that decision could have farther consequences in the black community.
In the “disgust” perspective, the system did not accord any compassion for Scott, an attribute that is essential to fairly try a case and emphasize with fellow humans. However, Mclean did show emotions in his dissent although that did not stop the decision from taking effect. I welcomed emotions in my discourses and encouraged it to be part of court decisions. I also argue that, hiding behind the robes, judges and justices are making gigantic mistakes because their humanity is hidden which was the case for Dred Scott and his family. I argue the relevance of emotion for the law to be undeniable. It would be impossible to completely remove emotions from the law and transform it into a tool of pure logical analyses.
The second part I am discussing disgust on will is the same sex marriage/homosexuality scenarios. Today, disgust is not much defended as a ground for sodomy laws, but it does play a prominent role in debates over gay rights. Same-sex relationships have been disgusted by so many in the society even states enacted laws upholding sodomy acts to be illegal practice and a crime. In Bowers v Hardwick (1986), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexual after Hardwick was observed by a Georgia police officer while he was engaged in the act of consensual homosexual sodomy with another adult in the bedroom of his home. He was thereby been charged with violation of the Georgia statute that criminalized sodomy. Hardwick challenged the statute but to no avail (although this case was later overturned in 2003). Another example, campaign literature on behalf of Colorado’s Amendment Two (the law that denied local communities the right to make non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation, overturned in Romer v. Evans – a case which Supreme Court ruled that a state constitutional amendment in Colorado preventing protected status based upon homosexuality or bisexuality did not satisfy the Equal Protection Clause) said that gay men drink raw blood and eat feces.
There have been quite a few cases in which people who kill a gay man have been able to win a reduction from classified degree murder to manslaughter on the grounds that they were disgusted by the person’s sexual appearance. For some people, the disgust towards homosexuality is traditional to them, and some, based on culture. When one never grew up to see such happen in the society before and it starts to happen, they immediately project this unexplainable disgust towards suchpeople and activities. Because it was not the norm of the societyduring their time or has never really been seen or done. This will then bring about disgust in such society and then the separationof the disgusted from those groups as emphasized earlier and there comes hatred; separations and can sometimes in rare occasions can lead to killing of such person(s). For example, there have been couples of scenarios where gay students get bullied or frustrated by their fellow classmates and due to too much pressure, they either become depressed, sad, or suicidal and kill themselves. But nowadays, even though some certain people still do not and will not accept this to be a part of the society norm, it sure has improved drastically over the years and we also do have important people in the society coming out of their “shells” and announcing that they are gay and such. It is much acceptable in the society than it was about ten years ago and most states in the U.S are accepting this to be a part of our lives and society today.
Friday, May 16, 2014
Speaking as Nussbuam in perspective to "Disgust" - Slavery and same-sex marriage. By Tosin Onibiyo. Part 1.
In “Hiding from Humanity,” I clarified how disgust has traditionally played large roles on certain issues in the society generally. And I will focus on the legality of slavery in aspect to racism and same-sex marriage and/or relations of it in this paper today. To start with, disgust cognitive content involves a shrinking from contamination that is associated with a human desire to be non-animal. And of course, that desire is irrational in the sense that we people know we cannot succeed trying to fulfil it and it mostly ends in a pernicious manner. Psychological research have shown that people tend to project disgust properties onto groups of people in their own society; people who usually are different and act different of what the norms of the society entails. For example: gender, same-sex marriage, slavery, and so forth. By branding members of these groups as disgusting, awful, slimy, foul or smelly, the dominant group is able to drastically distance itself even further from its ownanimality. Such irritation projections have been involved in more localized forms of discrimination, hatred, racism, and inequality in the society against slavery, homosexuals and allsort.
However, disgust does not provide the disgusted person or persons with reasons as to why they are disgusted in public or private scenarios. For example, If a particular person happens to feel that gay men or homosexuals are disgusting, that person cannot and will not be able to offer any reasoning that will persuade another to share the emotion; there isn’t anything per se that would make the dialogue a real piece of persuasion unlike anger. Anger will bring about enough reasoning for the persuasion. With this been said, I will discuss briefly on the slavery aspect and the same-sex/homosexuals aspect. From the previous case studies done; Scott v. Sanford (1857); Justice John McLean, in his dissent to the decision pointed out Taney's historical errors. He emphasize the time of the Founding of the United States, and how several states had admitted free persons of the color to the suffrage-thereby recognizing them as citizens and few other arguments he and Justice Curtis made.
Continuation of Dworkin theory on equality - Tosin Onibiyo
Now, to the two general theories of distributional equality I proposed to talk about earlier in this paper. The first I call equality of welfare and the second I called equality of resources. I will be speaking briefly about this two in this part of the essay. Equality of welfare can be well described as an interpretation of treating people as equals. In other words, it holds that a distributional scheme when it transfers or distributes resources among people, it treats them as equal. But when it no longer transfers, this would leave them more equal in welfare. On the other hand, equality of resources holds that distributional scheme treats people as equals when it distributes or transfers so that no further transfer would leave their shares of the total resources more equal.
These two theories as just stated are very abstract because each holds different interpretation and theories to it. If a man with wealth for example was to draw his will based on equality of welfare, between six kids; where one is deaf, another a pimp with quality rich taste, the third a writer with less-expensive taste, another a successful governor with expensive ambitions, and so forth. If he was to base this on equality of welfare, he has to take all differences between his children into account so as to not leave them equal shares according to my article on “What is equality.” Why is or should this be so? The ideal of equality of welfare may seem a plausible explanation of why this is so. Because when we look at the example closely enough, we will see that those who are handicapped like the deaf child in all fairness should be entitled to more wealth than the others. He is deaf and for this reason, he will need more resources to achieve the equal welfare. Even with this equal welfare analysis, this same example provides some problems for the ideal. Some might insist that the governor will need more of the wealth than the deaf because he will need more money to run his political campaigns. Some might say it’s the pimp who needs more money than the writer to continuously look expensive and flashy. We can say the governor case from this example is much stronger than that of others but weaker in comparison to the deaf child. But if it were to be based on equality of resources, he need not worry on how to not leave them with equal share but how to equally divide his wealth assuming the children have almost the same wealth as the other. Furthermore, I argue that equality ofresources presupposes an economic market of some form,mainly as an analytical mechanism but also, to a certain extent, as an actual political institution. And economic market have been seen as a device for both defining and achieving certain community-wide goals variously described as prosperity, efficiency, and overall utility. Also as a necessary condition of individual liberty, the condition under which free men and women may exercise individual initiative and choice so that their fates lie in their own hands. But the economic market has during this same period come to be regarded as the enemy of equality, largely because the forms of economic market systems developed and enforced in industrial -countries have permitted and indeed encouraged vast inequality in property.
Monday, May 12, 2014
The two theories of equality from Ronald Dworkin - By Tosin Onibiyo. Part 1
Two general theories Ronald Dworkin emphasized about in his article "Equality."
(Talking like Dworkin the author here):
The first I call equality of welfare and the second I called equality of resources. I will be speaking briefly about this two in this part of the essay. Equality of welfare can be well described as an interpretation of treating people as equals. In other words, it holds that a distributional scheme when it transfers or distributes resources among people, it treats them as equal. But when it no longer transfers, this would leave them more equal in welfare. On the other hand, equality of resources holds that distributional scheme treats people as equals when it distributes or transfers so that no further transfer would leave their shares of the totalresources more equal.
These two theories as just stated are very abstract because each holds different interpretation and theories to it. If a man with wealth for example was to draw his will based on equality of welfare, between six kids; where one is deaf, another a pimp with quality rich taste, the third a writer with less-expensive taste, another a successful governor with expensive ambitions, and so forth. If he was to base this on equality of welfare, he has to take all differences between his children into account so as to not leave them equal shares according to my article on “What is equality.” Why is or should this be so? The ideal of equality of welfare may seem a plausible explanation of why this is so. Because when we look at the example closely enough, we will see that those who are handicapped like the deaf child in all fairness should be entitled to more wealth than the others. He is deaf and for this reason, he will need more resources to achieve the equal welfare. Even with this equal welfare analysis, this same example provides some problems for the ideal. Some might insist that the governor will need more of the wealth than the deaf because he will need more money to run his political campaigns. Some might say it’s the pimp who needs more money than the writer to continuously look expensive and flashy. We can say the governor case from this example is much stronger than that of others but weaker in comparison to the deaf child. But if it were to be based on equality of resources, he need not worry on how to not leave them with equal share but how to equally divide his wealth assuming the children have almost the same wealth as the other.
Team 5 video blog - video 4
We all talked about the Patriot Act in the last team video blog (video 4). It was how the Patriot Act as changed out lives in the country in our own different opinions. We talked about how there is no more securities or much privacy in our separate lives anymore since it's was enacted. In my opinion how things we do like right now can be used against us all in future when we want to get some government job or confidential job. That's why the secret service will bring all the things you've said in your private email or messages or what you have posted on social media against you and will not allow you to be able to get the jobs. The Patriot Act is good to some clarification but also derive you of certain privacies. Learn more from what's been said from the videos: links below... Enjoy!
Friday, May 9, 2014
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)