Honestly in this type of argument it comes down to the better facts rather than opinions and that’s why Cillizza makes the better argument. From both sides of the argument we can see the basic ideas of each authors but now let’s go deeper On the side of privacy. As privacy is an important issue as to the people, we can see that the people believe that if you “watch someone long, and you’ll find something to arrest”. (Paragraph 4). Schneier shows this to prove that doing nothing can lead to trouble with blackmail or abuse with surveillance information.
“…bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.” The distinction between bullshit and a lie is at times very clear, but it also can be hard to identify. Bullshit is not a lie, and a lie is not bullshit, even though both are considered to be deceitful and insincere. Harry Frankfurt wrote his essay entitled “On Bullshit”, and through reading and analyzing his writing, his position on which is problematic (lying or bullshitting) becomes clear. Near the end of his essay, Frankfurt states, “Thus the production of bullshit is stimulated whenever a person’s obligations or opportunities to speak about some topic are more extensive than his knowledge of the facts that are relevant to that topic” (Frankfurt, On Bullshit, 99). Bullshit is a double-deceit towards a person, because you are hiding the fact that you do not know the information about a topic, and you are spouting out information which you are not 100% sure of, and claiming as if you know enough to hold a conversation.
Can moral panics over popular culture and popular media ever be justified? Discuss using one or two popular media examples. A moral panic has been described as a condition, incident, person or group of various people, which emerges to be seen as a threat to the interests and values of society. Historically, the term ‘popular culture’ has referred not to the culture identified as theirs by the people themselves, but to that identified for them by others. [Williams, 1976] In some circumstances, moral panics over popular culture and media can be justified as it is not certain that once someone is exposed to a particular text, how they are going to perceive it.
People tend to make assumptions when we don't understand a situation. It is a normal reaction to immediately fill in any missing information by making up our own story. In the essay “Don’t make assumptions” Don Miguel Ruiz states that one of the problems with this tendency to make assumptions is that we believe them. We usually do this because we prefer to try to make sense of people and situations. The problem with this is that most of the time our hypothesis is incorrect which causes all kinds of difficulties.
The organization needs to consider how its activities will influence others and good results. In the detailed analysis it alludes to organizations who sidestep the law by offering the items independently and later join them to make the item that is illicit, despite the fact that this could be viewed as lawful it is just a terrible good decision. It is ethically wrong to settle on a decision to ensure one gathering of individuals while disregarding the wellbeing of an alternate, which is precisely what happens at the present time
Is Lying Always Wrong? Lying, in general, is a bad thing, but it is often the right thing to do. Under certain circumstances, a lie can be a much more moral of an act than the telling of the truth. I disagree on the fact of it always being wrong. People sometimes tend to use lying to prevent from hurting one’s feelings, protecting someone from being harm, and lying in order to get the truth.
The second guideline by Grice and Skinner is ethical speakers choose topics that promote positive values. To illustrate, speakers should bear in their mind that the topic they are going to present should be based on the audience’s importance. Speaking on topics like “five smart ways to skip a lecture” might be interesting, but it is totally unethical and might bring certain bad consequences. Speaking to benefit the audience is the third guideline. Public speakers must consider the audience needs prior than their personal needs.
Many professionals have created rules and guidelines to follow when ethical questions or dilemmas arise in the workplace. Interpreters have followed this pattern, as the RID and AVLIC have Codes of Ethics. Although these guidelines are helpful, they do not cover every situation. Interpreters must not only follow the Code of Ethics, but must also have strong personal morals as well as ethical judgment to be tested in the workplace. This essay will cover a situation in which an interpreter is faced with an ethical dilemma; whether or not to turn in a hearing student they catch cheating.
Technology in every aspect can be misused by wrong people. Inventors or people can come up with an innovative invention to benefit people; however there are also people who would who would use this invention to do wrong things. Publius is a new technology that guarantees individuals the freedom of speech and to express their thoughts and not be victimized for what they say. Publius offer safety to certain levels that hackers or government entity cannot just read your file. In my opinion it is ethical to market Publius because it creates of open the door for people to speak out about the different malpractices that happen in their country and couldn’t speak about it.
For example, you aren’t going to learn how to compute sales tax on a shirt at Wal-Mart if you aren’t educated thoroughly. In order for me to be successful in school, I’m going to use my life skills, and common sense, and participate in my classes the correct way. Using life skills is an excellent way to become successful in school! Learning how to be respectful to your fellow peers can keep you out of trouble, as well as getting on the teachers’ good side. If you’re not in trouble, this leaves you more class or free time to complete your assignments.