AltruismJohn F. Kennedy

Which makes me think; of the many different ways people submit there self into that category. For example watching someone be sexually assaulted and stabbed to death outside of an apartment building but never calling the police to help or even attempting to help yourself. That’s what happen to Kitty Genovese and she had thirty-eight witnesses. Why was it that thirty-eight people stood there and watch her murder? Because they were too busy diffusing the responsibility for the simple fact that all these people are around someone must have called. As humans we do that a lot not help someone on the side of the road because they must have someone coming to help, never look at the screaming nose outside you don’t want to get involve, don’t help that person who’s being attack; diffusion of responsibility: Diffusing the responsibility of yourself being involved into a situation that might put you in danger. That seem reasonably but how about when you do something that doesn’t benefit you in anyway but you do it because it makes everyone else happy; this is altruism. Let say someone did go and help Kitty Genovese they could have been seriously injured but Kitty Genovese would have had her life. Altruism is any nice gesture you do for someone else at the expense of yourself it doesn’t mean you can’t satisfaction from your acts. In most cases of altruism you would enjoy it but the con of it is sometimes you can’t say â€Å"No† when you should be saying no. You’re doing what others want you to do when that’s not what’s in your heart to do. All I know is that more people should stand up for others because in any case you would want people to ignore you in your time of need. I can’t really say how to get help but if you’re in danger caught people’s attention, say something important, but most of all caught someone attention. One thing I must say be safe in this crazy world we call earth . AltruismJohn F. Kennedy Which makes me think; of the many different ways people submit there self into that category. For example watching someone be sexually assaulted and stabbed to death outside of an apartment building but never calling the police to help or even attempting to help yourself. That’s what happen to Kitty Genovese and she had thirty-eight witnesses. Why was it that thirty-eight people stood there and watch her murder? Because they were too busy diffusing the responsibility for the simple fact that all these people are around someone must have called. As humans we do that a lot not help someone on the side of the road because they must have someone coming to help, never look at the screaming nose outside you don’t want to get involve, don’t help that person who’s being attack; diffusion of responsibility: Diffusing the responsibility of yourself being involved into a situation that might put you in danger. That seem reasonably but how about when you do something that doesn’t benefit you in anyway but you do it because it makes everyone else happy; this is altruism. Let say someone did go and help Kitty Genovese they could have been seriously injured but Kitty Genovese would have had her life. Altruism is any nice gesture you do for someone else at the expense of yourself it doesn’t mean you can’t satisfaction from your acts. In most cases of altruism you would enjoy it but the con of it is sometimes you can’t say â€Å"No† when you should be saying no. You’re doing what others want you to do when that’s not what’s in your heart to do. All I know is that more people should stand up for others because in any case you would want people to ignore you in your time of need. I can’t really say how to get help but if you’re in danger caught people’s attention, say something important, but most of all caught someone attention. One thing I must say be safe in this crazy world we call earth .

The Armenian Genocide in Modern Politics Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 500 words

The Armenian Genocide in Modern Politics - Essay Example An inadvertent theme in the sources is the genocide's similarity to the atrocities perpetrated by Nazism in the Second World War – inadvertent, of course, because they record a â€Å"direct precedent for Hitler's genocidal policies† rather than a later imitation. However, the justification of the genocide is also reflected in twenty-first-century policy. Document 10.3, an excerpt from the memoirs of the American ambassador, records the Minister of the Interior's reasons for the genocide as follows: that the Armenians had â€Å"enriched themselves at the expense of the Turks†, that they â€Å"determined to domineer† over the native Turkish people, and that they â€Å"openly encouraged [the Turks'] enemies†. The similarities between this and Nazi anti-Semitism are familiar, but its recurrence in modern America is far more subtle and disturbing. Taalet's projection of his own actions on his enemies is reminiscent of, for example, right-wing accusations of leftist violence, or even the widespread and mistaken idea that both Democratic and Republican rhetoric was equally as bad after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. Unlike people who adhere to Republican principles, Democrats are not suggesting â€Å"a fake attack on [their] governor to discredit union protestors†. Although the United States is not participating in genocide, some of the nationalist and racist tendencies currently prevalent are reminiscent of the reasons for the Armenian genocide.... Both the genocide and present US politics can be related to Kramer's idea that war in the twentieth century morphed into a â€Å"new style of warfare† (Sebag Montefiore) which he calls total destruction: conflict was no longer limited to the battleground but included the annihilation of civilians and culture as well. Documents 10.4 and 10.5 refer to Armenians being â€Å"Islamicized† (Author, 167) in order to survive, forsaking their culture in return for their lives; the report to the German government goes on to say that Armenian â€Å"orphanages, hospitals, schools and the like† had either been closed down or were being â€Å"threatened daily by the authorities† (Author, 167). The perpetrators of genocide did not merely want to eradicate Armenian people; their sights were set on the entire cultural history and memory of Armenians. More sneakily, pro-choice laws (and therefore women) in the United States are also threatened daily: three hundred and fifty one separate pieces of abortion-related legislation had been proposed in 2011 before the end of March (Steinmetz). Although the circumstances are very different, the effect is not so; such attack on women's rights could be considered a genocide of sorts, or rather a slow and secret mass femicide. Similarly, â€Å"cases of rape of women and girls even publicly are very numerous† (Author, 162) in the Armenian genocide as in the twenty-first century US, where one in six women and one in thirty-three men are sexually assaulted (RAINN). It is true, however, that nationalism and racism are not so prevalent in American politics as they were in the Armenian genocide, although both have

Politics essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words - 1

Politics - Essay Example The Marxist theory, laid down by Karl Marx, is an ardent follower of a class structure within the state. Marx said that there remained a vast demarcation between the capitalist and the socialist structures of society and in order for the weaker sections to rise; there normatively should be a revolution on part of the working class. The capitalist society exploited the working classes with respect to power and wealth and used the labour in order to gain more and more resources and climb the social ladder. They were not concerned about the plight of the working class at all. Thus, all the political power rested within the hands of the capitalists. The questions however remained, could the working class not rise and abolish the suffering that it was subjected to by the capitalists, overnight? â€Å"Certainly, on paper, the working class could do away with the state However, this would be only a formal, juridical act to the extent that the workers had not seized power in a society already so rich and with such an abundance of material goods and services that social conflicts as such, that is, centring on the distribution of these products, could disappear; and that the necessity for arbiters, watchdogs, police, to control all that chaos disappeared at the same time as did the relative scarcity of goods. This has never happened in the past and it is hardly likely that it ever will.† (Mendel, Ernest) The main reason for Marx’s theory was to establish how power was divided between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ of society; how there was a competition for the scarce resources that existed and how the politically powerful capitalists were the ones that had gained access to everything. The working class could only hope to gain some important by abolishing the existing state in order to themselves regulate the conflicts that existed among the