In Vancouver, heroin addicts commit crimes to support their habits. Addicts ruin their lives because of the need to do whatever they have to do, from breaking in and entering to stealing, to get their hands on heroin. The “free heroin for addicts” program provides heroin for these addicts; however, the program mostly aims to save the city from rising crimes from these aforementioned addicts rather than weening addicts off of heroin. Thus, the city’s crime rate will lower, but the addiction rate will remain stagnant. However, the program keeps addicts out of the hospital from bad drugs or unsanitary needles with hardly affordable hospital bills by giving free heroin in the cleanest way possible.
I could use some help getting started, and in general.
As more people are involved in any sort of situation, more options and conflicts arise. The true way to bring up as little conflicts as possible would be through leaving decision making to one person. However, in the situation of child rearing, having only one adult involved in the process is overwhelming and tends to result in growing pains and deteriorating mental health of the parent. However, as the amount of people increase, the amount of conflicts and disagreements increase. Thus, the process should be as limited as possible to as little people as possible. Thus, child rearing should be limited to two people in a contemporary American society.
0:00. The ad begins pointed straight at the feet of presumably an adult on the black pavement of a road. The adult is wearing sneakers and jeans. Before any sort of pause, the camera quickly pans up to the adult’s face across his entire body. This adult is actually a white teenage male, wearing a black tee shirt and glasses with a white truck and a suburban house in the background. This implies that the teenager is in a suburban neighborhood, common for a lot of families with teenagers. The teenager wears an expression that implies seriousness with a bit of suspicion, as his eyes are slightly narrowed at the camera. The camera pauses on his face for a moment before he says something, seemingly having a joking tone as he moves exaggeratedly as he talks.
0:03. The teenager gets into the white truck quickly and the camera points straight at the oil gauge, which is pointed straight at the center of the gauge at 40. The camera waits at the oil gauge for a moment before changing to the speedometer for only a short second, the needle pointed at 0. Then, the camera is switched to the tachometer, which is also located at 0 due to the car not yet being turned on.
0:05. The camera then is faced at the teenager, whose eyes are wide as he says something to the camera, nodding his head as he speaks. This indicates that he might be excited, or saying something in anticipation for driving. The camera then switches to the list of gears, switching around the different gears, starting at drive and ending in neutral.
0:07. A hand is shown pulling a lever on the side of a material that looks similar to that of the seating of the truck. The teenager is then abruptly shown falling backwards as the back of his chair falls backwards. The same hand is shown pulling the same lever and the teenager returns back to sitting position. He speaks into the camera, seemingly amused by going up and down on his seat.
0:09. Suddenly, the camera changes and the underside of the hood of a car is shown, the bar placed into it to hold it up by the same hand used in the other motions, which is assumed to be the teenager’s hand. The camera then changes to under the hood, and the teenager pulls a handle out of the engine. He is then shown holding a metal rod with a rag and a smug look on his face as he speaks and nods to the camera.
0:11. The teenager then leans on the side of the truck near the front of the hood, talking as he taps his fingers on a metal object under the hood. The camera then focuses on the metal object for a moment after he tapped his fingers, the teenager still leaning on the truck in the foreground. His body language indicates that he is speaking about something he knows about, and specifically the metal object in the car.
0:13. The scene then changes to the teenager standing next to the smaller truck, slowly walking forwards as the camera moves backwards. He speaks towards the camera, still wearing an expression that implies knowledge. This carries on for a few more seconds.
0:17. The camera is now focused to something in the foreground, and a phone is quickly lifted into view. The phone is an iPhone, and has apps similar to what would be seen on an iPhone: Settings, MyList, People, Camera, Chat/SMS, Maps, Player, Browse. Below the list of apps are three notifications: “There’s a super-cool video you need to watch RIGHT NOW !!” “Somebody posted about something you said somewhere – and you won’t believe what they said !!!” and “You have 384 unread broadcasts CLICK HERE TO CATCH UP.” These notifications aren’t something most would see on an actual iPhone, but are meant as an exaggerated version of a distraction that would be present on a phone.
0:19. As the camera remains focused on the phone, something on the phone fades into the screen, which is a circular photo of a man with his thumbs up with a caption that says “Uncle Greg!” Underneath the photo and caption are two circles, a green circle with a thumbs up inside with a caption of “Accept ?” and a red circle with a thumbs up inside with a caption of “Guilt ?” The camera then changes to include both the teenager and the phone in view as the teenager says something towards the camera, nodding.
0:21. The camera then switches to look at the front pocket of the teenager, where he fumbles with the phone to stow it away in his pocket. It switches back to look at him as he speaks towards the camera once more, seemingly concerned.
0:24. The camera focuses back on the pocket of the teenager, where he rests his hand over his phone. Text covers the screen in front of the teenager, saying “Stay safe put your distractions away! It’s not that complicated.” The words “Stay safe” and “complicated” are larger and in yellow text, indicating its importance. The scene then fades to black, the advertisement over.
Proposal: Our population is growing steadily as time goes on, and raising a child is often a task put to several people in order to be sure that the child has the healthiest childhood and grows into a healthy adult. However, when examining the details of the situation of raising a child, sometimes it must be determined that more than two people, or more than a nuclear family, may not be what a child needs. The healthiest environment for raising a child in our day and age is limited to only two people, with no help from outside sources such as extended family or friends. Most families utilize the help of extended family members, such as aunts or grandparents. Some families even require help from babysitters or family friends in order to make sure the child is being watched consistently. However, the agreement between two people on matters as important as raising a child is already hefty; three or more people requires even more time to come to a conclusion. Children also require a lot of on-the-spot decisions. Having multiple people disagree on how to raise a child may introduce more arguments and difficult decisions being made around the child, which will lead to an unhealthy childhood surrounded by disagreements.
The essential content: This book delves deep into the studies of bargaining and negotiation, starting with the different types of bargains and how the amount of issues can change the likelihood of coming to an agreement. It defines bargaining and negotiation as well as explores the different scenarios in bargaining. It does delve into third-party agreements and the likelihood of coming to an agreement with that extra person available, coming to a solution that the third party must be trusted and understood in order for the agreement to truly come to fruition. It also lists that the more issues available to the situation, the less likely a full agreement will be reached.
What it proves: The “third party” mentioned earlier meant more of a facilitator and as such, isn’t as involved in the discussion situation and is virtually irrelevant, as the third party in the scenario of raising a child would act more as a family counselor instead of an active role in the child’s life. However, it was distinctly stated that the likelihood of an agreement being reached while more issues were at hand was lower. With the knowledge that adding in multiple people to a scenario adds more issues, or options to bargain with, this proves that two people should be the maximum for raising a child, as coming to an agreement best fit for the child must be the priority.
The essential content: The difference in children between nuclear and extended families were measured and accounted for. The discussion noted that extended families have children that fared better in the circumstances in Sudan. It presented the information of why there might also be a bias, as in Sudan the circumstances are much different than in the Western world, with situations such as stressful events like migration, or even different beliefs and culture that are not as relevant here such as “religious beliefs, norms of childhood development, approaches to the resolution of marital problems, etc.”
What it proves: The nuclear family format does not work for everyone, which is why this needs to be developed more as an essay. This source proves that a country such as Sudan will have much different circumstances as compared to that of the western world, or in our case, America. The norms of childhood development are very different as a whole.
The essential content: This reading analyzes the concept of “bargaining power” and the situation of concession. It defines types of normative arguments and tactics of arguing, as well as conflict resolution and how bargaining power affects the situation. The theory of using tactics that punish both parties instead of punishing one or the other makes a concession more likely is disputed.
What it proves: In the situation of raising a child, there is always going to be a situation where someone is in the wrong or has done something wrong for the child. Introducing a third option where both or neither can be punished may result in an entirely new situation where more confusion arises and less agreements occur.
The essential content: This source examines and produces information about the source of conflict and what it means. In one section, the different shortcomings and causes of conflict are listed. The importance of this reading is listed in the conclusion, where it lists constructive activities to solve long term conflicts.
What it proves: People have conflicts from all sorts of sources, from internal issues to external limits. While this goes for every person alive, the more people that are introduced, the more conflicts that arise. The importance is noting how many different conflicts can result from a multitude of sources and noting that more people involved means more circumstances that might affect the outcome of the child’s development.
The essential content: This source compares and contrasts agreeableness and activeness in the situation of a conflict and how it might affect the outcome of the solution. The correlation between agreeableness and activeness are also dependent on the people involved in the conflict, and tend to result in a more favorable outcome.
What it proves: In order for a conflict of interest to be resolved, one must first reason and be active in the argument in order to come to a conclusion. However, multiple people being active in an argument results in less likelihood of each of them having the same level of voice simply because the others may be drowning out one of more people involved.
It’s to help kids like that that Brannan and her volunteers put together an informational packet on secondary trauma for parents to give to teachers, explaining their battle-worthy idiosyncrasies and sensory-processing sensitivities.
- This is a factual claim, as this phrase claims that Brannan made the packet and for what purpose.
- “Kids like that” is incredibly vague, even if it does make more sense in context when referring to Kateri Peterson’s eight year-old, who “counts the exits in new spaces he enters” for the safety of his family.
- “Battle-worthy” implies that a child, if having similar issues to a war veteran suffering from PTSD, is in any way worthy for war. Perhaps this is a way to further push the claim that the child is unlike most children by presenting the argument as if children of veterans are “different”.
They’re common enough problems that the Department of Health and Human Services got in touch with Brannan about distributing the packet more widely.
- The first part, “They’re common enough problems,” is an extremely vague numerical claim with the phrasing “enough.” However, any amount could be “enough” and therefore isn’t exact enough to be any sort of proven claim.
- The rest of the quote is factual, as the claim can be proven as true or false through whether or not the Department of Health and Human Services actually got in touch with Brannan.
- “More widely” is also extremely vague, as it could range from across the country to the next town over.
Brannan gave the packet to Katie’s kindergarten teacher, but thinks the teacher just saw it as an excuse for bad behavior.
- This is a factual claim, as it cannot be disputed what exactly Brannan THINKS.
- However, the claim that “the teacher just saw it as an excuse for bad behavior” is an evaluative claim and could be easily disputed in any way.
Last fall, she switched Katie to a different school, where she hopes more understanding will lead to less anxiety.
- Another factual claim as well, as this is Brannan’s thoughts.
- “More understanding will lead to less anxiety” is a causal claim, as it claims that more understanding causes less anxiety.
Though Brannan hopes Katie will come out of childhood healthy, she still says, “She’s not a normal kid. She does things, and says things. She’s a grown-up in a six-year-old’s body in a lot of ways.”
- The claim that Brannan SAID this is factual. However, Brannan’s claim is evaluative, as it evaluated Katie’s actions from observations and can be disputed.
- “She’s a grown-up in a six-year-old’s body in a lot of ways.” This phrase is very much evaluative and is in fact impossible, as a “grown-up in a six-year-old’s body” cannot exist through maturation. However, it’s very strongly used also as an analogy claim, as Katie’s state of being “not a normal kid” makes her like an adult.
- This claim is used to drive home the notion that children of veterans with PTSD are “different”.
It seems counterintuitive that those who spend their time attending to the mentally ill end up with a mental illness of their own as a result of this work. Although mental illness can appear in all sorts of shapes and sizes, especially one such as PTSD, a common idea that we may all visualize for someone with PTSD is a veteran from a war. Despite the fact that not every person with PTSD is a war veteran, war veterans remain the face of PTSD survivors. With this knowledge that not everyone can get PTSD from a war, a question arises: Can someone with PTSD give someone else PTSD?
The way that a person would think about contagiousness would be that of a communicable disease such as a cold or strep throat. Post traumatic stress disorder, however, is a mental illness as a result of trauma. This disorder would not be spread like a cold or strep throat, but through someone with PTSD causing trauma in another person. This experience is especially common in the families of veterans, as some results of a PTSD trigger can result in a scary experience- yelling, screaming fits, breaking objects, or other violent behavior. Sometimes the affected will not even remember these spells, resulting in further confusion of the reactions that others may have to these episodes.
However, despite the fact that PTSD is a very serious disease, a very common notion of some families of war veterans is that despite how difficult life may be with this disorder, war veterans, or anyone else with the disorder for that matter, still are and will continue to be people who deserve love and appreciation. Mental illness in media and daily life in general tends to deviate from what we perceive as the “norm”, hence why some may believe that those that act like “crazy people” are subhuman. However, as those who may experience having loved ones with PTSD or any mental illness for that matter may agree upon, people with mental disorders are still, in the end, people who deserve the same rights as any other person.
It seems counterintuitive that someone would end their life to give life to someone else. After all, it is only human to desire to live on and survive. However, as assisted suicide was legalized in several countries including Belgium, some chose to donate their organs after death to ensure someone else could live even in these people’s deaths. A common notion that people have is “survival of the fittest” or “every man for himself”, so why would people want to die in order to save someone else?
Euthanasia is generally reserved for those that are either terminally ill or for those that will have to live a life of suffering with some sort of painful disease. However, assisted suicide for those that are not terminally ill is especially rare, and generally unaccepted. Despite this, most people that eventually die from euthanasia attempt to end their lives much before their predicted deaths. Most people have a will to survive and live on, but these patients make these moral decisions as their learn about their diseases as a result of not wanting to survive through intense pain and suffering. “This isn’t life,” one woman says in an interview. “It’s hell.”
Thus, knowing that these patients choose to end their lives while they still had the agency to, euthanasia is a very sad yet important part of life that must not be illegal or ignored. It is human to be sensitive to human suffering and want others to live on. However, as others may have said, it is not truly living to live every day wanting to die.
It seems counterintuitive that people may connect race with prescription of medication, especially since most people may say that “mental illness doesn’t discriminate”. Why, then, are the rates of those on medication for people who are white higher than those who are black or Hispanic?
Although no two people have the same conditions, depression is a common factor within several different walks of life, communities, and cultures. However, according to a study from 1992-2008 in Washington, 11% of white patients with depression were being treated with medication, while a very little amount of about 4% of black or Hispanic patients with depression were being treated with medication. There could be many reasons why this occurs, but to actually find the root of the issue would not be easy. Some may suggest that the media’s idea of mental illness suggest that it is an issue of white people, and as such people who are not white believe that they do not need the medication for this reason. Others may suggest that psychiatrists that prescribe medication tend to have a bias on whether or not white patients need medication over patients of color, which may be for the same or a similar reason.
Despite what some may think, however, depression is a universal illness that can be a result of a multitude of conditions, or even simply genetics. Although some may not experience depression in the same way, that does not change the fact that anyone could have it. Depression, and most mental illnesses for that matter, is not cut and paste, nor is it the same for every person that has it.
- family structures
- non-nuclear families and their children’s well-being
- the effect on the growth of children as they age with one or more parent
- Nuclear families are much more effective for the growth of children as the child receives the correct amount of parental roles and learning experiences that a child requires.
- Families with more than one adult taking a parental or teaching role for one or more children result in a much stronger and healthier youth for a child.
- Families with more than simply the parents caring for the children are healthier for a child, as even when the parents may be busy or unwell, other adults can take necessary roles in caring for children.
- Families with a larger support system than simply a mother and father create a healthier emotional environment for children.