Should Schools Have a Vocational Track?
Schools should have vocational tracks because it prepares the students for the future before it is too late. Vocational tracks provide students the opportunity to learn and experience how their work field is like before they graduate. This gives the student a chance to focus on what they plan to be when they grow up in the future since all the basic Math, English etc. classes wrap into what their career choice is. Students may feel as if they understand the school work easier since it is in their interest. Most of the time students do not try hard in college- preporatory schools because they get no say on what they are taught and everyone is taught the same exact thing. But with vocational schools, the students have a say in what they want to be taught since it is given through the career field of their choice. Also, college is not made and fit for everyone so therefore with vocational schools students are given the chance to learn what they choose to be in the future before they graduate. Some people might disagree but I support vocational tracks.
If You Were a Parent, Would You Buy a Doll That Misrepresented Your Values?
If I was a parent I would still buy a doll for my child even if it misrepresented my values. In my eyes, a doll is just a doll; something that is suppose to entertain a child and nothing more. The role of a doll is to make life for children fun when they have nothing to do. What is so harmful about that? Even if I did not agree with the purpose of the doll, as a parent, I would not let that be the reason that I would not buy that doll for my child. Children usually would not look at a doll and critique it or compare it to themselves. The child would just play with a doll to keep themselves entertained. I do not find dolls a negative threat on little girls because most of the time these dolls do demonstrate a positive image for little girls. What is why as a parent, I would not have a problem buying my child a doll even if it misrepresented my values.
Should Guns Be Illegal?
I do not believe handguns should be illegal due to defense purposes. People should be given the right to use handguns to defend themselves only. I believe that if it was harder for someone to get their hands on a gun and purchase one, crimes and violence would not occur. I think people should get to have possession of a gun if they were put through several examinations and proof that they get to own a handgun but for defensive purposes only. But besides that handguns should not be allowed for people who plan to use it to cause violence.
Art Dissent
Picture #4: Cruel Reality
1. The issue in this picture is that people are getting physically injured and hurt fighting over oil.
2.The people and objects present in the picture is a amputated soldier, American flag, and two oil rigs.
3. The art techniques used in the picture is negative labeling since they show the man physically hurt to due fighting for oil.
4. The three things I could infer from the picture is that fighting in war is very dangerous, Great Britain and the United States are in conflict, and oil was the reason for the man being amputated.
5. The message in the picture is that soldiers are getting physically hurt for something as simple as oil.
6. The interest group that would disagree with this picture are extremely patriotic people because they would see it as the man devoting himself for the country and he should just own up to his injuries since it was for the country.
7. The artist would most definitely agree with the message the image is portraying because overall people would look at being amputated for fighting over oil would be a wrong thing and he would probably show sympathy towards the man being hurt for the country.
1. The issue in this picture is that people are getting physically injured and hurt fighting over oil.
2.The people and objects present in the picture is a amputated soldier, American flag, and two oil rigs.
3. The art techniques used in the picture is negative labeling since they show the man physically hurt to due fighting for oil.
4. The three things I could infer from the picture is that fighting in war is very dangerous, Great Britain and the United States are in conflict, and oil was the reason for the man being amputated.
5. The message in the picture is that soldiers are getting physically hurt for something as simple as oil.
6. The interest group that would disagree with this picture are extremely patriotic people because they would see it as the man devoting himself for the country and he should just own up to his injuries since it was for the country.
7. The artist would most definitely agree with the message the image is portraying because overall people would look at being amputated for fighting over oil would be a wrong thing and he would probably show sympathy towards the man being hurt for the country.