Blog Assignment 4
Cavan Sieckowski, a deputy director of news and analytics, wrote about a Chick-fil-a in Orlando. All Chick-fil-a's close on Sunday following God on how Sunday should be a day of rest, but this particular Chick-fil-a stayed open despite the fact. After the recent shootings, Workers from the Chick-fil-A Lee Vista in Orlando kept their restaurant open the following day to hand out free food for those lining up to give blood for the victims. Even though this is a king gesture many Americans have socially attacked Chick-fil-a over their presidents marriage equality statements and the company's past donations to anti-gay organizations.
I find these attack on Chick-fil-a wrong, as a Christian I do not support the LGBT community, but I also understand that God does not want you to take vengeance over wrong doing or situation. But instead you should show grace because then they will see you as good. SO what I see this Chick-fil-a is doing is to just reach out and help them and pray for them for we (everyone else) is no better than them spiritually. I find people are trying to get their way to much and just won't accept things for how they are. Overall people are taking to much advantage of their rights and liberty's.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Blog Assignment Part 3
Anjali Sareen, a full time traveler and blogger, wrote a message to many liberals that support banning all guns from the United States in her article "Orlando Is My City. And I'm Sick Of This S***". In her statement she claims that "enough is enough," and that Americans will never see change in the gun policy because nobody is taking action over the situation. Anjali wants all guns to go in order to stop these mass killings like the one in Orlando. She believes that people will reach out and write about how wrong it was on social media, which in turn will make them feel like they are doing something. But they are not really doing anything. She claims that people are to scared to stand up for the fact that just regulating guns may not be the answer and that people need to stand up for just banning guns once and for all.
But her argument isn't completely logical. What if the gun ban was real, there are still many ways for people to kill each other, such as knives and explosives. There is almost no way to ensure the end of these killings, even when guns are banned completely. And another thing is that who ever the bad guys are they will always have guns. Look at the Mexican drug cartels for instance, guns are banned in Mexico yet these cartels still have guns and the citizens do not. The cartels use this power against the helpless, defenseless people forcing them to do whatever they want. But what if the people of Mexico did have guns? These cartels surely would be able to exert as much power right? Now what if a few of the men in the club "Purge" were carrying weapons, they could have then easily retaliated against the shooter. Furthermore, it is also invalid that people on social media and other forms of communication aren't doing anything at all. It does help spread the word on what is right or wrong and can make change. A politician could read something on social media that could change his perspective on a situation, then he could go and stand up for this new cause.
In the end I do not completely agree with the author. I find her main points interesting and I can see how it makes sense to her but I don't think it will entirely work. The only idea I can somewhat agree on is the point she makes on peoples use of social media and only spreading the word. I agree that it is mostly pointless because there is no action, but it does help.
Anjali Sareen, a full time traveler and blogger, wrote a message to many liberals that support banning all guns from the United States in her article "Orlando Is My City. And I'm Sick Of This S***". In her statement she claims that "enough is enough," and that Americans will never see change in the gun policy because nobody is taking action over the situation. Anjali wants all guns to go in order to stop these mass killings like the one in Orlando. She believes that people will reach out and write about how wrong it was on social media, which in turn will make them feel like they are doing something. But they are not really doing anything. She claims that people are to scared to stand up for the fact that just regulating guns may not be the answer and that people need to stand up for just banning guns once and for all.
But her argument isn't completely logical. What if the gun ban was real, there are still many ways for people to kill each other, such as knives and explosives. There is almost no way to ensure the end of these killings, even when guns are banned completely. And another thing is that who ever the bad guys are they will always have guns. Look at the Mexican drug cartels for instance, guns are banned in Mexico yet these cartels still have guns and the citizens do not. The cartels use this power against the helpless, defenseless people forcing them to do whatever they want. But what if the people of Mexico did have guns? These cartels surely would be able to exert as much power right? Now what if a few of the men in the club "Purge" were carrying weapons, they could have then easily retaliated against the shooter. Furthermore, it is also invalid that people on social media and other forms of communication aren't doing anything at all. It does help spread the word on what is right or wrong and can make change. A politician could read something on social media that could change his perspective on a situation, then he could go and stand up for this new cause.
In the end I do not completely agree with the author. I find her main points interesting and I can see how it makes sense to her but I don't think it will entirely work. The only idea I can somewhat agree on is the point she makes on peoples use of social media and only spreading the word. I agree that it is mostly pointless because there is no action, but it does help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)