Doubting/believing

Ramzi Halwani
Dania Adra
English 203
                                     The Fight Against Animal Testing

Hyperlink: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/professor-elizabeth-fisher/why-we-should-accept-anim_b_3608923.html

         Animal experimenters want us to believe that if they gave up their immoral habit, sick children and other disease and accident victims would drop dead. But the most significant trend in modern research in recent years has been the recognition that animals rarely serve as good models for the human body. In addition, fortunately, a wealth of cutting-edge, non-animal research methodologies promises a brighter future for both animal and human health. The fact is that experimenters already do test new drugs on people.  No matter how many animal tests are undertaken, someone will always be the first human to be tested on. Because animal tests are so unreliable, they make those human trials all the more risky. Also, animals feel pain and fear just as we do, and their overwhelming natural inclinations, like ours, are to be free and to protect their own lives, not to be locked in a small cage inside a laboratory awaiting death or torture.

       Animal research does bring up a critical ethical dilemma: does the likely benefit of the research outweigh the likely harm to the animal? In fact, experimenters and research institutions throughout the world, that are considered at the forefront of organism development and civilizational progress do not take animal testing lightly. These individuals that are more morally inclined and ethically developed than most members of society do actually weigh in the necessity of use of animal testing in their research.  The use of animals in research is never undertaken lightly and no-one uses them unnecessarily or uncaringly. Also, medical and scientific organizations around the world agree that animals are essential in scientific research, for developing medicines and safety testing. Medical researchers do in fact rely on animal research to help us learn more about how the body works.

works cited:

Fisher, Elizabeth. "Why We Should Accept Animal Testing." The Huffington Post UK. UCL Neuroscience, 15 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 Nov. 2015. web.

Difficulty

Ramzi Halwani

Dania Adra

English 203

November, 2015

 

Shown in the attached photograph taken by myself is a yellow Canary bird who appears to be captive inside a cage. Food in the form of seeds and apples, water, and shelter are basically all the elements necessary for his survival, and they are all provided for him by his owners. The cage is occasionally cleaned and a sanitary and respectable environment for living is maintained throughout the year. In return, the bird is expected to melodically chirp in the morning and throughout the day to keep his owners some company, and calmly flutter around his cage, in other words, be his/her natural self. There is a social contract between the bird and his owners.

 

In The Social Contract by Rousseau, the author mentions the significance of creating a social contract to create a legitimate social authority. The contract's main goal is to preserve the general welfare of members of a certain society by obligating them to hold certain responsibilities towards their bigger society while sacrificing some of their natural liberties in favor of a more important civil liberty. This is mostly summarized in the text when he says “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau 113).

 

 My voice about the picture is supported in the fact that the bird has in fact given up his natural and God-given liberties, such as the right to roam freely in the Amazon Forest, which is home to many of his species. It is supported in the fact that his owners have made an oath to themselves to never let his living environment or health deteriorate as a cause of their negligence. Both of them shape up a civilized society, where the Canary bird does not revolt and his/her owners do not take advantage or mistreat him/her. Simple.

As for support regarding my voice in Rousseau's text, The Social contract essential idea comprises of bringing together citizens in group called “sovereign”, who practice the legislative power, and  in return this contract offers them the “ownership of everything they possess” (Rousseau 113). This contract forces them to work for a more general goal.

 

As explained above, the picture I chose for this assignment, while being significantly less complex and profound to the ideas and themes portrayed by Rousseau, outlines one of its most important main ideas; the social contract. Although the social contract between the bird and his/her owner might be noticeably less complex, developed, elaborate, and unexpressive in its portrayal of how a group of individuals or citizens form a single social system, it does succeed in highlighting the relationship between two elements in a social system, and the way these elements act around each other. In other words, the owner takes good care of the Canary bird, and the bird does go into a frenzy trying to revolt, escape, or misbehave.

works cited:

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques “The Social Contract” Shifting Narratives.  Zane S. Sinno, Lina Bioghlu-Karkanawi, Dorota Fleszar, Najla Jarkas, Emma Moughabghab, Jennifer M. Nish, Rima Rantisi, and Abir Ward.  Mazraa, Beirut:  Center for educational consultation and Research, Educart,  2015.  Print.

Response Prep

Ahmad Turiaki

Professor Dania Adra

English 203

26 October 2015

“The Brand Malala”: Western Exploitation of a Schoolgirl

Regarding the social perspective, Grayson states the fact that Malala is trying to raise

awareness for gender justice, whereas the media and companies are exploiting her, treating

her as a product for promoting the US war against terror: “There are double standards on

how terrorism is reported. Taliban terrorism is used to propel the “good west versus bad

east” narrative in the media.” (593). However, Malala isn’t aware of the fact that she is

being used by her mentors, and she’s genuinely trying to help other women achieve this

gender justice.

Regarding the emotional perspective, the author’s tone is angry and sarcastic at the

fact that Malala has gotten that special treatment just so that she could be exploited and

used as a brand for the big companies, where she refers to her as: “brand Malala” (596),

while many other war and torture victims are ignored and left aside. Additionally, she

mentions how UK feels to meet gender justice: “What press usually fail to mention however

is how Britain and its allies are failing miserably on “gender justice” back home.” (594).

Her angry tone is clearly shown at the last two paragraphs (598) where she criticizes the

Injustice and suppression of other women who are trying to claim their own rights.

Regarding the rhetorical perspective, her text is argumentative, which tackles

the manipulative and corruptive side of malala’s story, where she is being used as a pawn

in a bigger game. The blog uses simple and easy to read text which targets the general

audience. Additionally, she uses rhetorical questions as: “How many men do you see

studying gender to work with women for greater equality” (594), to make the readers

think and realise the degree of the issue there.

Regarding the logical perspective, Grayson provides evidence on how far Malala’s

exploitation went: “One wonders why then, given that both Ziauddin and the BBC are so

quick to warn of the dangers of the Taliban, they would put a child in the line of fire (albeit

her identity thinly disguised) to write her diary for public consumption.” (595), which

happened just after: “ her father volunteered his daughter to the BBC to document life at

school under the Taliban.” (595) It is surprising too that from all the girls shot there, Malala

was the only one to get all that care and attention, which shows that the whole situation

was planned beforehand by the same people who were giving her all that care. She

mentions too how the government should strive for true gender equality that is being

ignored in the country itself: “Exploitation of women wheather emotionally, physically,

financially is so ingrain inour society and institutions that I am not even sure whether some

men realize their actions.” (594).

Regarding the ethical perspective, Grayson clearly shows how she is against the

hypocritical actions that was happening behind the scenes in order to get dirty profit,

through exploiting and harming a girl who was oblivious to that fact. Finally, she argues

against the fact that US drones killing many innocent people is unheard of: “There are

double standards on how terrorism is reported. Taliban terrorism is used to propel the

“good west versus bad east” narrative in the media whilst US state terrorism is served up as

“collateral damage” and is more likely to get buried along with its victims. All violence must

be condemned.” (593-594)

work cited:

Grayson, Carol Anne. "Brand Malala": Western Exploitation of a schoolgirl". shifting narratives. Ed. Zane S. Sinno, Lina Bioghlu-Karkanawi, Dorota Fleszar, Najla Jarkas, Emma Moughabghab, Jennifer M. Nish, Rima Rantisi, and Abir Ward. Beirut: Center for educational consultation and Research, Educart, 2015. (593-598) Print.

Michel Massabni
Prof. Dania Adra
English 203
22 October 2015

                                                  Is death penalty a good solution?

                    In my opinion, killing a man, for any reason, is not acceptable. First of all, no matter what the criminal actions were, don’t give the right to another man of deciding his death. Moreover, usually, death penalty is used against murderers. What did they do? Kill people. What is then the government trying to teach? Not to kill. How? By killing. This sort of thinking has, in my opinion, no form of logic. Furthermore, why does the state do this only for killers? If this sort of punishment is good in any way, why don’t we rob the thieves? Why don’t we rape the rapists? That doesn’t make any sense, does it? Then why is it okay when it comes to death? Finally, killing someone for a crime shouldn’t be allowed for a completely different reason too: the judges can’t be absolutely sure that the man is guilty. Death isn’t a reversible thing. What if, 20, 30 years later, we find out the man was innocent? This happened already a couples of times in history, how could they fix anything afterwards? What will the family of the now victim think? What will the people in general think of the whole system if a completely innocent man has been killed?

                    On the other hand, I can understand the author point of view.  He believes that “we can only achieve justice by killing a vicious killer” (Robert Blecker). In a way, we could say that some people deserve to die because of everything they have done and the little hope there is in turning those people into the “right side”.  He thinks that the punishment should fit the crime. If someone killed my son, I don’t think I would be happy or feel any kind of justice if the criminal just goes to jail. I would want to take revenge, to make things “fair”. “A basic retributive measure -- like for like or giving a person a taste of his own medicine -- satisfies our deepest instincts for justice.” (Robert Blecker). It’s also clear that, by instinct, anyone would want such a thing: “justice”.

Work cited:

                     Blecker, Robert. “With death penalty, let punishment truly fit the crime”. CNN. Cnn.com. August 22, 2013. Web. October 22, 2015.

Ahmad Turiaki's Doubting/Believing blog

Ahmad Turiaki

Professor Dania Adra

English 203

22 October 2015

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Israel’s Perspective

Throughout her text, Valerie Coleman states that the land of Israel, which is located in the

heart of Palestine, is the birthplace of the Jewish people and therefore it’s their right of claiming.

 What she doesn’t mention though is the fact that the whole idea of the Israeli occupation in

Palestine has forced the native people out of their homes and basically invaded their freedoms. In

addition to that, the whole idea of creating a country for a single group of people based on religion,

let alone in an already existing country, doesn’t make sense in today’s world, since no matter what

one’s faith is, all people should have equal freedom and rights in their lands. This Israeli movement

has forced many Arabs out of their homes which were rightfully theirs, and divided their lands so

that they would get a big portion of it to claim as their own. She even mentions the fact that Israel

attacks its neighboring country and seizes land that is almost double Israel’s size, a horrific act that

Israel justifies with the fact that its Arab neighbors were themselves building their armies on the

Israeli border.

Although the occupation has been terrible for the Palestinians, many Israeli residents just

want to live peaceful lives, and all the Instability in the region is having a toll on their daily lives, even though the Palestinians are having a harder time. The Israeli government is trying to keep its

territory and citizens safe from potential threats and attacks that may happen at any moment.

The many conflicts and interventions in the area has made it extremely hard for both groups to

figure out a solution and the communication to achieve harmony and peace in the area.

Work cited:

Coleman, Valerie, May 30, 2008. Israel's Perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Retrieved from http://www.trunity.net/ValerieColeman/view/article/133151

The Armenian genocide: The Turkish side of the story.

Garabed Bardakjian

Prof. Dania Adra

English 203

22 October 2015

The Armenian genocide: The Turkish side of the story.

As we proceed to read the text, that has been "adequately" conjured up by ethnic Turkish scholars at Stanford University, it is a blunt descriptive piece that approaches the topic of The Armenian Genocide. As though to add insult to injury from the beginning, the recorded killings of the Armenian race is referred to as "events of 1915" (SUTSA). Neglecting to identify the death of 1.5 million (Robert Fisk) men, women and children as something other than an event. However; later restating themselves, they speak of the events as to being "atrocities" carried out by the Ottoman Empire, atrocities which Mustafa Kemal Ataturk's newly founded Turkey condemned and thereby expressed its grief to the Armenian people. In the text, it is written that The Armenian independence movement started somewhat later than other nations, around the 1880s. However; it does not state the fact that during that period between 1880 and 1915 (1894-1896) (Sara Cohan), Sultan Abdul-Hamid II had already slaughtered thousands of Armenians, an event that will be later known as The Hamidian Massacres. Moreover; admitting to an order given by the Ottoman empire for "relocation" (SUTSA), sadly adding that during the said relocation, the Armenians were  killed by attacks of local Muslims, gangs, hunger and epidemic. And today, to be able to counter-argue, we have pictures of Ottoman empire soldiers posing next to the corpses of hanged Armenian men (Mark Tran, The Guardian). Even-though, in the text it is written, and I quote "The Ottoman state certainly deserves the blame for letting this happen. However, the evidence tells that it is the inability of the state to control its provinces, rather than its intended plan, that lead to the atrocities." (SUTSA) and so I guess that generals at the time were incompetent of not hanging these men neither did they order it to happen. And after seeing this picture, the Turks say the following "evidence tells that the events were not the plan of a group of sick-minded officials that wanted to exterminate a race, apparently in the need of a scapegoat. This was the result of inter-communal warfare that was like a fire engulfing the whole region." there was a fiery warfare, ignited by the Young Turks, aka "The Three Pashas" (Robert Fisk) (Minister of the Interior; Mehmed Talaat Pasha, the Minister of War; Ismail Enver Pasha, the Minister of the Navy; Ahmed Djemal Pasha). The Turk scholars try to hard to cover up the truth of their bloody past, and I am against it. They even to this day praise the leaders who have killed thousands upon thousands of Armenians , calling them Heroes who vanquished the "traitors". 

Knowing the story as it was told from generation to generation, it is partial that the benefit of the doubt is given to the Turk scholars, whom believe that Armenians are generally emotional (SUTSA) when it comes to this part of their history, and given that the Republic of Armenia has declined any diplomatic or economic ties with Turkey before the recognition of the massacres as Genocide by the latter country. It is also true that during WWI, Armenian militias called guerrillas helped the Russian advance into Anatolia. causing uprisings in different parts of Anatolia such as Van, thus creating panic in the rear of the Turkish army (SUTSA). However; at that time, Historical Armenia had been divided into two sides: The Russian side and the Turkish side. So, as much as there were Armenian fighters in Russian troops, there were in Turkish troops. But it was a live or die situation, on the front-line during Turkish-Russian clashes, Armenians would unknowingly kill one another for the sake of their families well-being back home. We've had men like Tovmas Nazarbekian, who was a general in the Russian Caucasus army. And on the other hand, men like Sarkis Torossian, who was a decorated Ottoman captain, who fought in the Gallipoli campaign, and was the first person to sink a British battleship, only to return home and find his family massacred by the rule of the same Empire for which he risked his life. Saying that "This reluctance to give up politics in favor of historical research prevents the true story from being unearthed and the lessons to be learned from them" (SUTSA) is a very true statement, however through the years the Turkish government has failed to give up politics time and time again. Lobbying governments of major countries into not recognizing the "events" as Genocide, and one of the major benefectors? Non other than the major Ottoman Empire activist and extremist, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the president of modern day Turkey. the same person who greeted the Palestinian president at his controversial 1150 room, 490m € palace, with 16 warriors dressed in historical Ottoman Empire Armour and weapons (Agence France, The Guardian).

Works Cited

Stanford University Turkish Student Association. "The Armenian genocide: The Turkish side of the story.". Stanford University: Stanford University Turkish Student Association . Web.

Fisk, Robert. "Robert Fisk: The forgotten holocaust". Independent, 2007. Web.

Cohan, Sara. "A Brief History of The Armenian Genocide". Genocide Education Org.: Sara Cohan, 2005. Web.

Tran, Mark. "Background: the US Turkey-Armenia 'Genocide' ruling". The Guardian: Mark Tran, 2010. Web.

Press in Ankara, Agence France. "Abbas welcomed at Turkish presidential palace by Erdoğan - and 16 warriors". The Guardian: 2015. Web.

• 
  

In the text entitled "Why an arranged marriage 'is more likely to develop into lasting love'", the author, Paul Bentley presents his argument that arranged marriages are actually more likely to be successful marriages than marriages based on love (Bentley). One if his main points is that couples who are in an arranged marriage tend to work harder to keep the marriage from falling apart, to keep it going (Bentley).

Bentley assumes, based on vague references to unknown research and studies, that this is because they have begun to fall in love, but the real reason behind this is that they are forced to remain in the marriage, and are not allowed to even consider divorce by those who forced them into it in the first place. They may develop a decent relationship with each other, but they will not necessarily fall in love. They tolerate each other, and the author confounds love and tolerance in the text. Tolerance is merely being able to stand someone's presence, love is enjoying someone's presence; there is a difference.

However, I can understand the author's side of the argument because arranged marriages sometimes do work if they are based off of real consideration of how well two people work together (Bentley). If the parents/guardians thoroughly think through the potential for two people to be compatible, then there is a possibility that this arranged marriage will end up becoming a marriage based on love, as the author says (Bentley).   

All in all, the author seems to wrongly assumes that arranged marriage is generally more likely to work. However, the author does have a logical argument, because going through tough situations does strengthen a relationship. However, it does not necessarily create love, as he claims, and the majority of people in arranged marriages remain unsatisfied and unfulfilled.

Works Cited

Bentley, Paul. Mail Online. 4 March 2011. 21 October 2015 <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1363176/Why-arranged-marriage-likely-develop-lasting-love.html>.