Firstly, the article states that teens are more responsible and mature than the teens of previous generations. Thus, they should be entitled to privileges adults hold. For example,there was nearly 40% of teens reported drinking in the past month in 1995; less than a third did in 2005.Hence, the author is trying to show that a teenager's maturity need not be restricted to age and that certain teenagers should be exceptions to the law as they can be responsible as well as aware of their actions.
Secondly, an important point brought up was that teens should be administered a 'maturity' test to determine if one would be entitled to adult privileges such as voting, having sex with people of any age, drinking, smoking, driving and getting a tattoo. By passing said test, the teen would be deemed responsible and thus, make decisions like an adult. Thus, teens would be able to do as they please and not be conformed by age limits.
However, there are many flaws to this suggestion which the author emphasizes in the article. It is a waste of time and resources for society and the government to conduct such tests to deem who is fit to take on adult privileges.
Furthermore, even though teens may know how to make good decisions, they don't actually make good decisions as often as adults. Often, these bad decisions made by teens may affect their entire life.
Hence, i do agree with the author regarding the issue of passing a 'maturity' test and i feel that it would be ineffective and of little advantage to society as a whole. On the other hand, i do not agree that parents should 'reward' their child with more freedom just because statistics show that the percentage of teens doing vices has dropped. By 'rewarding' the child, there will be less firm supervision imposed onto the teen thus leading to a higher percentage of wayward teenagers just like how it used to be previously.
Tuesday, March 30
Yinan / Parents: Relax.
Food for thought: Should parents always be making decisions for teens nowadays?
I doubt so.
I strongly feel that parents should not do so, although teens are still adolescents, because they indeed has attained a certain level of maturity to allow themselves in making rational decisions. Parents can, of course, make decisions for teens but only if there is a need to do so. Thus i say that teens should be granted the rights to make their own decisions.
Teenagers nowadays have very different thinking as compared to the past generation of teens. We are much more independent learners and have a very high confidence level in trusting ourselves in making the best and rational decisions that benefits us most. What makes parents think that teens aren't capable of making the decisions when teens are not even allowed the chance to prove so? According to Robert Epstein, Harvard Ph.D said that teens aren't able to prove their competency because parents protects teen from danger, don't trust them to work on their own and also, make basic decisions about their health, education or religion. I think that parents are excessively protective of their child against danger and they should instead give them more freedom in expressing themselves and their capabilities in a matured way.
Furthermore, Studies have shown that ever since the new generation of teenagers has evolved, there has been increasingly less rate of crimes, violence, consumption of illegal drugs, teen pregnancy, etc. as compared to our parents' generation. This proves my point to a greater extent that parents should acknowlege the fact that more and more teens are aware of the dangers of unpleasant doings, suggesting greater maturity and intelligence amongst teens.
On the other hand, parents can make decisions for teens only if there is a need to do so. You may say that children will benefit less if parents do not interferre with decision making. This is rather theoretical as parents may be more experieced than teens but this does not necessarily mean that the decisions made are always essential for the growth of teens. As there is an "Adult in Every Teen", parents are preferred to make decisions for their child when they are younger and should gradually let go as they grow up. The fact that why teens don't reserve the right to decide for themselves is partly due to financial issues. For example, a teen might be eager to study abroad but due to lack of financial support (if parents are not favouring the idea of overseas studies), he is unable to do so, thus limiting his ability to make effective decisions for himself.
Therefore, I say that teens should deserve more respect and trust instead of patronization and over-protection from adults in making decisions. Hence, parents should not always decide in the place of their child [teen] as ultimately, it is the child who is going to complete his life journey.
Just for Fun :)
Monday, March 8
Evelyn / TO WHAT EXTEND DO YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY TAKE AN INTEREST IN POLITICS?
Are youths today really interested in politics? In your answer, tell me what politics means to you.
The article sums up the sentiments of youths towards politics as a whole. It is precise in showing the "Politics, schmolitic" or "who cares?" reaction garnered from most youths on the streets you ask about politics. In fact, most youths would tune out the minute the word 'politics' is uttered. Ask any teen on the street who Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam is. Odds are, they would not know. He is in fact, our Minister for Education.
Youths today are preoccupied with their own lives and are more interested in fashion, shopping and partying. Many feel that politics are only for 'older and uncool folks'. Politics today bore youths as they feel that policies discussed in parlimentary debates and speeches are too dry and is irrelevant to them cause them to further distance themselves from the subject.
This is especially worrying for youths at our age (16 to 18 years old.) as we are slowly reaching the legal age for voting. (21 years old) If we do not pick up an interest in politics, how would we know who to vote for when it is our turn to stand in the voting booth and cast our votes for the next party to lead Singapore? Without any information, it may lead to adverse consequences if Singapore grant the wrong people power.
Personally, I feel that politics is important in today's context even if it is at times rather dry. Without any knowledge of politics we would not know the reasons behind policies in our country that affects us too. I feel that the goverment should do more to interest and involve the youths in politics in order to make them see the importance of it. This can be done in ways mentioned in the article- by holding informal talks cum Q and A sessions, integrating politics into language lessons at all levels, holding unofficial youth forums and even making use of social networks like facebook and twitter to share with youths more about politics. Only this way can the government help youths understand the importance of politics.
The article sums up the sentiments of youths towards politics as a whole. It is precise in showing the "Politics, schmolitic" or "who cares?" reaction garnered from most youths on the streets you ask about politics. In fact, most youths would tune out the minute the word 'politics' is uttered. Ask any teen on the street who Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam is. Odds are, they would not know. He is in fact, our Minister for Education.
Youths today are preoccupied with their own lives and are more interested in fashion, shopping and partying. Many feel that politics are only for 'older and uncool folks'. Politics today bore youths as they feel that policies discussed in parlimentary debates and speeches are too dry and is irrelevant to them cause them to further distance themselves from the subject.
This is especially worrying for youths at our age (16 to 18 years old.) as we are slowly reaching the legal age for voting. (21 years old) If we do not pick up an interest in politics, how would we know who to vote for when it is our turn to stand in the voting booth and cast our votes for the next party to lead Singapore? Without any information, it may lead to adverse consequences if Singapore grant the wrong people power.
Personally, I feel that politics is important in today's context even if it is at times rather dry. Without any knowledge of politics we would not know the reasons behind policies in our country that affects us too. I feel that the goverment should do more to interest and involve the youths in politics in order to make them see the importance of it. This can be done in ways mentioned in the article- by holding informal talks cum Q and A sessions, integrating politics into language lessons at all levels, holding unofficial youth forums and even making use of social networks like facebook and twitter to share with youths more about politics. Only this way can the government help youths understand the importance of politics.
Saturday, March 6
Hawa / Generation OMG
1. How has or will the experience of living through an economic crisis shape each of the generations mentioned in the article?
Economic crisis can have a postive and negative impact on the different generations.
The positive impact is mainly the values learnt from living through an economic crisis. Parents will see the need to cut back on costs. Seeing that their income have drastically decreased, they will spend more on basic necessities and less on luxury items. This means that parents learn to be more prudent shoppers to prevent unncessary spending. The economic crisis can affect children too. They may choose to work simple jobs in order to help the family earn, providing them with working experience and will make them more mature. According to the article, the economic crisis also affects the education experience of some youths since some youths choose two-year college courses instead of the usual four years in order to help their family save money. This shows that such a crisis can teach youths values like compassion and responsibility. The article also said that living through such a crisis makes youths more civic-minded.
However, there are negative impacts too. As parents face increasing levels of stress at work, they tend to get more frustrated and may resort to drinking in order to relieve stress. However, they fail to realise that alcohol only provides a short-term relief. Drinking can also create other problems within the household such as domestic violence etc. This may harm the mental growth of their children. This is especially so for those who are still in school. As they are at a stage whereby they are maturing into young adults, they do need the guidance from their parents. If their parents are constantly arguing or drunk and do not listen to their needs, their adolosence period will be a frustrating one as they do not have the support from their own parents. This may affect their moral values when they become adults (ie, if my parents drink, I can drink too. If my father beats my mum, I can do so too.)
2. It was said that "There is no simple cause-and-effect relationship in how economic adversity pushed a generation into any one kind of behaviour ... The impact depends on the context and the mood of the time and how children understand the spirit of the times."
In your opinion, how would young Singaporeans be shaped by the current recession? How would you be shaped by it? Justify your answers.
Young Singaporeans would be more thrifty shoppers. This is because their parents are more reluctant to fork out money to buy luxury goods. Hence, assuming they are considerate children, they will ask for less things (things meaning wants, rather than needs). Others may also get a part time job because they do not want to keep asking their parents for money. For example, most of my friends last year got a job after the OLevel exams to fund their expenditure during the three-month holiday. This demonstrates their independence, as they choose to earn their own spending money instead of asking their parents for it.
Economic crisis can have a postive and negative impact on the different generations.
The positive impact is mainly the values learnt from living through an economic crisis. Parents will see the need to cut back on costs. Seeing that their income have drastically decreased, they will spend more on basic necessities and less on luxury items. This means that parents learn to be more prudent shoppers to prevent unncessary spending. The economic crisis can affect children too. They may choose to work simple jobs in order to help the family earn, providing them with working experience and will make them more mature. According to the article, the economic crisis also affects the education experience of some youths since some youths choose two-year college courses instead of the usual four years in order to help their family save money. This shows that such a crisis can teach youths values like compassion and responsibility. The article also said that living through such a crisis makes youths more civic-minded.
However, there are negative impacts too. As parents face increasing levels of stress at work, they tend to get more frustrated and may resort to drinking in order to relieve stress. However, they fail to realise that alcohol only provides a short-term relief. Drinking can also create other problems within the household such as domestic violence etc. This may harm the mental growth of their children. This is especially so for those who are still in school. As they are at a stage whereby they are maturing into young adults, they do need the guidance from their parents. If their parents are constantly arguing or drunk and do not listen to their needs, their adolosence period will be a frustrating one as they do not have the support from their own parents. This may affect their moral values when they become adults (ie, if my parents drink, I can drink too. If my father beats my mum, I can do so too.)
2. It was said that "There is no simple cause-and-effect relationship in how economic adversity pushed a generation into any one kind of behaviour ... The impact depends on the context and the mood of the time and how children understand the spirit of the times."
In your opinion, how would young Singaporeans be shaped by the current recession? How would you be shaped by it? Justify your answers.
Young Singaporeans would be more thrifty shoppers. This is because their parents are more reluctant to fork out money to buy luxury goods. Hence, assuming they are considerate children, they will ask for less things (things meaning wants, rather than needs). Others may also get a part time job because they do not want to keep asking their parents for money. For example, most of my friends last year got a job after the OLevel exams to fund their expenditure during the three-month holiday. This demonstrates their independence, as they choose to earn their own spending money instead of asking their parents for it.
Friday, March 5
LELING/ INVOLVEMENT OF YOUTHS IN POLITICS
Are youths really not interested in politics?
in your answer, tell me what politics mean to you.
i feel that most of the youths today are not interested in politics. Politics would seem to have taken a backseat under the list of interests that youths have as compared to other topics such as celebrity gossip, latest handphone models and electronic gadgets such as MP3, ipod etc. At an age of 13-24, how many youths actually bothers to read the newspapers, how many actually even watches the news? and also, how many can actually tell you the name of the minister of education? many youths would often make "no time" as an excuse to be ignorant of the world issues. however, they could actually spend these time to go online networking sites and check out their friends' facebook, new twitters. is it really the case that youths have no time to be involved in politics? or is it simply because they are living in self-chosen ignorance?
to me, politics is being involved in the discussions of measures the government are taking, having an opinion of our own and also voicing them out. most of the youths today are apathetic towards politics as they often feel that it does not concern them."it's the government's job!",as some may say. however, i feel that politics is very important in everyone's life. everybody has a say in this democratic society, and has to say it. we can help to improve our lives by voicing out our opinions and not just leaving everything to the government. It is only through feedbacks from the citizens, from the youths who have unlimited creativity that can successfully turn singapore into a city of possibilities.
in your answer, tell me what politics mean to you.
i feel that most of the youths today are not interested in politics. Politics would seem to have taken a backseat under the list of interests that youths have as compared to other topics such as celebrity gossip, latest handphone models and electronic gadgets such as MP3, ipod etc. At an age of 13-24, how many youths actually bothers to read the newspapers, how many actually even watches the news? and also, how many can actually tell you the name of the minister of education? many youths would often make "no time" as an excuse to be ignorant of the world issues. however, they could actually spend these time to go online networking sites and check out their friends' facebook, new twitters. is it really the case that youths have no time to be involved in politics? or is it simply because they are living in self-chosen ignorance?
to me, politics is being involved in the discussions of measures the government are taking, having an opinion of our own and also voicing them out. most of the youths today are apathetic towards politics as they often feel that it does not concern them."it's the government's job!",as some may say. however, i feel that politics is very important in everyone's life. everybody has a say in this democratic society, and has to say it. we can help to improve our lives by voicing out our opinions and not just leaving everything to the government. It is only through feedbacks from the citizens, from the youths who have unlimited creativity that can successfully turn singapore into a city of possibilities.
Thursday, March 4
Wen Rui / The Dumbest Generation? Don’t Be Dumb.
What does being ‘dumb’ mean according to this article?
According to the article, ‘dumb’ refers to only bare minimum of general knowledge, and thus being ignorant about major happenings around the world, unaware of intellectual, economic and civic or historical disasters and being “ geographic clueless” . At such, “dumb” people are extremely dependent on technology such as the use of internet and they are the ones who give a “blank-eyed "huh?" “When common general knowledge questions are asked or mentioned even in a casual conversation.
Do you agree with the article’s argument? Give 3 reasons for your answer.
I do not agree with the article’s argument that an ignorant person is dumb. Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. Ignorant does not indicate that a person has a low level of intelligence. On the other hand, dumb refers to stupidity, the lack of intelligence. For example, a student who is unaware about the Singapore Budget 2010 does not imply that this student is stupid or dumb. He or she is just ignorant and chooses to subjectively ignore the news of the Singapore’s Budget. Therefore, an ignorant person is definitely not dumb.
Secondly, the author quotes George Santayana, who is despaired of a generation's ignorance, warns that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' While it is true that being aware of historical events and thus learn from the past helps to avoid making similar mistakes, I feel that even if you ‘remember the past’, you might not necessarily be knowledgeable and not ignorant at all.
Thirdly, I do not agree that ‘those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’. Does remembering the past implies that one is able to understand and apply it in any context whenever the need arises? I think remembering the past does not indicate one’s level of intelligence but how good one’s memory is. Henceforth, I disagree that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’.
According to the article, ‘dumb’ refers to only bare minimum of general knowledge, and thus being ignorant about major happenings around the world, unaware of intellectual, economic and civic or historical disasters and being “ geographic clueless” . At such, “dumb” people are extremely dependent on technology such as the use of internet and they are the ones who give a “blank-eyed "huh?" “When common general knowledge questions are asked or mentioned even in a casual conversation.
Do you agree with the article’s argument? Give 3 reasons for your answer.
I do not agree with the article’s argument that an ignorant person is dumb. Ignorance is the state in which one lacks knowledge, is unaware of something or chooses to subjectively ignore information. Ignorant does not indicate that a person has a low level of intelligence. On the other hand, dumb refers to stupidity, the lack of intelligence. For example, a student who is unaware about the Singapore Budget 2010 does not imply that this student is stupid or dumb. He or she is just ignorant and chooses to subjectively ignore the news of the Singapore’s Budget. Therefore, an ignorant person is definitely not dumb.
Secondly, the author quotes George Santayana, who is despaired of a generation's ignorance, warns that 'those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.' While it is true that being aware of historical events and thus learn from the past helps to avoid making similar mistakes, I feel that even if you ‘remember the past’, you might not necessarily be knowledgeable and not ignorant at all.
Thirdly, I do not agree that ‘those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’. Does remembering the past implies that one is able to understand and apply it in any context whenever the need arises? I think remembering the past does not indicate one’s level of intelligence but how good one’s memory is. Henceforth, I disagree that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’.
Wednesday, March 3
Lynn/ Climate change, one bulb at a time?
What issues do you think Singaporean youths would really speak out for? Give at least 3 issues and explain why you think so?
There are many issues that Singaporean youths would actually speak out for, depending on whether or not they wish to. Three issues would be environmental problems, technology matters and for their own rights (eg freedom of speech).
Firstly, environmental problems such as littering is seen in our daily lives. Youths initiate projects in other to improve the situation. An example would be having a duty roster in class where everyone would play a part in keeping our surroundings clean. Moreover, there is an annual "Clean and Green" week where the entire school population works together to participate in events such as Beach Cleaning etc. Debates revolving around Global warming (that is currently happening around the entire world) are also held intra-school and youths will get to voice out their opinions on how they can make the Earth a better place to live in (eg. no littering, reduce pollution by taking bus instead of a car).
Secondly, I feel that youths are very actively involved in helping to shape technology. For example, an apple ipod. Before there was actually apple ipod, there was normal mp3, plain boring ones. Mundane colour, big and bulky, little functions. But now, there are mini ones (size of fifty cents coin -- ipod shuffle), colourful ones (rainbow colour) and functions such as recording, downloading clips and even videos. All this is only possible with the feedbacks from the youths, who are the main consumer of the ipod. Therefore, I conclude that youths actually voice out their opinions with regards to technology, thus causing it to improve by leaps and bounds within a short period of time.
Lastly, youths are geared towards benefits which gives them the drive to fight for their wants. An example would be in schools. There used to be a six-day week where youths are required to go back to school on Saturday for enrichment programmes/CCA etc. However, after hearing the voices of the youths, MOE made adjustments to the timings to allow us to have a five day week!
In conclusion, I feel that there are many outspoken youths that should continue to contribute feedback to the society in order to progress as a nation.
Tuesday, March 2
Xingjie-Dare Violate a Copyright in Hong Kong? A Boy Scout May Be Watching Online
Can peer pressure really help fight crime? Give at least 3 reasons why you think so.
Yes, peer pressure really can help fight crime to a large extent.
The first reason is that in today's society,peers play a very significant impact to youths.From their actions,to their hobbies, many of these are influenced by their peers. For example youths are introduced to different genre of music e.g. K-pop via their peers. Thus, peer pressure can help fight crimes as youths have the ability to influence each other and in this case, influence each other to not commit any crimes.
The second reason is that young people today have a strong desire and need to not only be part of a community but also to be fully accepted as one in the larger community. Hence, many young people would go along with the flow, going along with the ideas,believes or values of their peers so as not be an odd one out. With such mentality, peer pressure can help fight crimes as young people would go along with the flow, supporting the notion to never commit crimes.
The third reason is that in today's society, young people choose to listen to and agree with the viewpoints of their peers as oppossed to their parents or any grown-up. For example, youths may treat their parents asking to go to bed early as nagging and not be bothered by it. however if their peers were to point out the same point, youths would more likely listen. As such, peer pressure can really fight crime as young people would be more likely to listen to what their peers say and change for the better.
Thus, i conclude that peer pressure can really help to fight crimes.
Yes, peer pressure really can help fight crime to a large extent.
The first reason is that in today's society,peers play a very significant impact to youths.From their actions,to their hobbies, many of these are influenced by their peers. For example youths are introduced to different genre of music e.g. K-pop via their peers. Thus, peer pressure can help fight crimes as youths have the ability to influence each other and in this case, influence each other to not commit any crimes.
The second reason is that young people today have a strong desire and need to not only be part of a community but also to be fully accepted as one in the larger community. Hence, many young people would go along with the flow, going along with the ideas,believes or values of their peers so as not be an odd one out. With such mentality, peer pressure can help fight crimes as young people would go along with the flow, supporting the notion to never commit crimes.
The third reason is that in today's society, young people choose to listen to and agree with the viewpoints of their peers as oppossed to their parents or any grown-up. For example, youths may treat their parents asking to go to bed early as nagging and not be bothered by it. however if their peers were to point out the same point, youths would more likely listen. As such, peer pressure can really fight crime as young people would be more likely to listen to what their peers say and change for the better.
Thus, i conclude that peer pressure can really help to fight crimes.
Afiqah/ The Dumbest Generation? Don’t Be Dumb.
What does being ‘dumb’ mean according to this article?
In this article, being 'dumb' is referred to being ignorant about current affairs that is occurring in one's society or even the world. One is also considered being 'dumb' when one is not sufficiently equipped with minimal general knowledge as well as being indifferent to common economic, geographical and especially historical facts. Being 'dumb' also includes the lack of ability to think critically and logically. This becomes surprising appalling given the level of material wealth and technological facilitation which starkly contrasts the poor intellectual attainments of youths in this generation.
Do you agree with the article’s argument? Give 3 reasons for your answer.
I agree with the argument mentioned in this article.
Firstly, Santayana claims that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" which is true to a large extent. Youths of the present generation are showing indications that they are not at all informed of historical events that have occured in the past. This is indeed worrying because they would be subjected to repeating the same mistakes their forefathers might have committed in the past. Should the youths fail to even recall the exact historical events, it is extremely doubtful that they would be able to extract lessons from the past and apply them to the present. Hence it is highly likely that mistakes from the past would resurface due to the 'dumb' youths' negligence.
Secondly, the authors mentioned that multi-tasking impairs performance in the moment which is a given. This is because one's concentration is being divided into the various assignments at hand and inevitably, the quality of each assignment accomplished will be affected, especially so for learning. Leaning requires a high demand of concentration as it is less flexible and more specialized hence information cannot be diffused almost immediately. There is thus no argument here that multi-tasking adversely affects youths' performance in their daily activities.
Thirdly, the authors state that video games hold benefits for youths in terms of cognitive skills. The nature of engaging in such gaming activities fosters hand-eye coordination, spatial skills, elaborate fantasy narratives and hypotheses testing as well as problem solving. These encourages youths to be adequately honed in such skills albeit being unaware about current affairs. Even so, youths are still labelled as 'dumb'. I believe the label is quite befitting because having general knowledge is the basis of being intellectual. Despite being armed with impressive skills, the lack of common information is comparable to a body without flesh but only a skeleton frame.
Amirah/ Young People’s Protests Are Easy to Mock- But Ignore Them at Your Own Peril
Do you agree that hardship allows children to mature better? Why?
Are Singaporean youths mature? Give at least 2 reasons why you think so.
Yinan- Their lives are an open (Face)book: 9 in 10 teens here hang out on social networking sites.
In your view, is online social-networking healthy or harmful to people your age? Give 3 reasons why you think so.
I think that online social-networking is harmful to people of our age. Social-networking basically means that we connect with people through the Internet- online. There are several reasons as to why social networking can be harmful.
Youths nowadays are easily addicted to Facebook. They will allow themselves to spend a lot of time just online, either chatting on msn of using the facebook. Research had shown that most of the youths in Singapore are considered 'deep' users, as their social lives mainly exist on facebook: updating and posting pictures, videos and posts on facebook. More than half of the youths worldwide also uses facebook at least once a day. This isn't a good trend as it simply shows the fact of life: that youths aren't spending their time fruitfully. Be it in their studies or time spent with the family. This also means that we doesn't know how to control our usage of time properly. In a long run, it would be really bad for the development of youths as they are too reliable on social-networking for making new friends, and they can even add people whom they have not talked to in real life. Hence, this brings to my next point.
Youths are too 'revealing'. They like to post pictures and videos online, and sometimes, personal information like address and mobile numbers online which can possibly attract unwanted strangers. You can't be sure that you know each and every one of your friends on facebook right? The use of technology is in fact encouraged but not always advisable if it poses threat to our safety. One of the reason behind this is that parents don't spend enough time with their children. A survey shows that "These kids may be the loneliest generation ever" due to both working parents. Yes, i know that teenagers need to reach out to their friends to spent their lonely hours of the day but this doesn't necessarily mean we have to do it via online networking.
Apart from that, i think that this uprising trend isn't favourable because it just shows how much influence the online networking has on us. A simple question: Since when did you stop using Friendster and starts using Facebook? I believe that in some way or another, the decision to create an account is because of your friends' influence and that you doesn't want to be outcasted. We all want to be included in the big family of facebook.
In conclusion, i think that social networking poses more harm than 'health' because at the end of the day, we would only receive a nicer-looking profile with probably more friends and photos in it but ultimately, we will lose a lot of valuable time which i can better spent.
Rebuttal is wanted! :)
Anyway, I love Facebook!
I think that online social-networking is harmful to people of our age. Social-networking basically means that we connect with people through the Internet- online. There are several reasons as to why social networking can be harmful.
Youths nowadays are easily addicted to Facebook. They will allow themselves to spend a lot of time just online, either chatting on msn of using the facebook. Research had shown that most of the youths in Singapore are considered 'deep' users, as their social lives mainly exist on facebook: updating and posting pictures, videos and posts on facebook. More than half of the youths worldwide also uses facebook at least once a day. This isn't a good trend as it simply shows the fact of life: that youths aren't spending their time fruitfully. Be it in their studies or time spent with the family. This also means that we doesn't know how to control our usage of time properly. In a long run, it would be really bad for the development of youths as they are too reliable on social-networking for making new friends, and they can even add people whom they have not talked to in real life. Hence, this brings to my next point.
Youths are too 'revealing'. They like to post pictures and videos online, and sometimes, personal information like address and mobile numbers online which can possibly attract unwanted strangers. You can't be sure that you know each and every one of your friends on facebook right? The use of technology is in fact encouraged but not always advisable if it poses threat to our safety. One of the reason behind this is that parents don't spend enough time with their children. A survey shows that "These kids may be the loneliest generation ever" due to both working parents. Yes, i know that teenagers need to reach out to their friends to spent their lonely hours of the day but this doesn't necessarily mean we have to do it via online networking.
Apart from that, i think that this uprising trend isn't favourable because it just shows how much influence the online networking has on us. A simple question: Since when did you stop using Friendster and starts using Facebook? I believe that in some way or another, the decision to create an account is because of your friends' influence and that you doesn't want to be outcasted. We all want to be included in the big family of facebook.
In conclusion, i think that social networking poses more harm than 'health' because at the end of the day, we would only receive a nicer-looking profile with probably more friends and photos in it but ultimately, we will lose a lot of valuable time which i can better spent.
Rebuttal is wanted! :)
Anyway, I love Facebook!
Monday, March 1
Shazunah/ Violent games = Violent children?
Does violence in young people begin solely from violence in media? Give at least 3 reasons why you think so.
Violence in young people does not begin solely from violence in media because there are many other factors that may influence violence in young people. Young people are defined as youths from the age of 13 to 18 years old and violence is defined as rough tendencies such as fighting. Media in this case is referred to as gaming.
It is undeniable that media may play a role in causing violent tendencies in young people. As shown in the article, studies have shown that minority of young people playing m-rated games do get into trouble committing crimes like theft and fighting but the majority still do not get into trouble. Such violent behaviour may be the result of peer influence. That minority that did such acts may not have carried out the actions if not influenced by the peers. Bad company may cause young people to join fighting gangs and have vioelnt tendencies.
Secondly, violence may begin with the family. In a dysfunctional family whereby these young people are exposed to violent tendencies, they may see violence as a solution to problems hence they may adopt such behaviour. Parents who fought regularly may be the cause for a youth to have violent tendencies hence it is not fair to blame it solely on violence in media. Such behaviour if not corrected from young, will be carried out through their adult lives hence causing them to be an abusive person.
Thirdly, violent children may be the result of war. The hatred that is contained within them and the many strong influences surrounding around them. Given a situation of war where these young people meet the deaths of their loved ones and for the pride of their country, they may be willing to indulge in violent activities. The Tamil Tiger Eelam recruits children to participate in wars hence going through and being brought up in such a condition may result violent children.
Violence in young people does not begin solely from violence in media because there are many other factors that may influence violence in young people. Young people are defined as youths from the age of 13 to 18 years old and violence is defined as rough tendencies such as fighting. Media in this case is referred to as gaming.
It is undeniable that media may play a role in causing violent tendencies in young people. As shown in the article, studies have shown that minority of young people playing m-rated games do get into trouble committing crimes like theft and fighting but the majority still do not get into trouble. Such violent behaviour may be the result of peer influence. That minority that did such acts may not have carried out the actions if not influenced by the peers. Bad company may cause young people to join fighting gangs and have vioelnt tendencies.
Secondly, violence may begin with the family. In a dysfunctional family whereby these young people are exposed to violent tendencies, they may see violence as a solution to problems hence they may adopt such behaviour. Parents who fought regularly may be the cause for a youth to have violent tendencies hence it is not fair to blame it solely on violence in media. Such behaviour if not corrected from young, will be carried out through their adult lives hence causing them to be an abusive person.
Thirdly, violent children may be the result of war. The hatred that is contained within them and the many strong influences surrounding around them. Given a situation of war where these young people meet the deaths of their loved ones and for the pride of their country, they may be willing to indulge in violent activities. The Tamil Tiger Eelam recruits children to participate in wars hence going through and being brought up in such a condition may result violent children.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)