The right answer for the Patriot's love triangle

 spoilers for Legend and Prodigy by Marie Lu

(scroll down)

Sarah Bolton

(image from Amazon.com)

https://www.amazon.com/Prodigy-Marie-Lu/dp/0142427551

Day and Tess had been together for a long time. Almost ever since Day got forced to live on the streets and hide from the Republic. They’re so close, Day even calls Tess “cousin”. Because of the events in book one, they got separated. Now, they’ve finally reunited in book two, when Day joins the patriots. However, Tess had developed a crush on Day, and was trying to steer him away from June and claim him for her own.

Day and June’s relationship spawned more recently, during the events of book one. Their relationship quickly went from acquaintances to romance. However, one being the Republic’s star, and the other being the Republic’s most wanted criminal, It wasn’t simple. Their relationship hit quite a few bumps in the road, including June leading the Republic to Day’s house, which ended up with his mom getting killed.

Tess’s attempts at winning Day over are manipulative. She gets angry when June is even brought up, and lashes out when Day even seems to like June better than her, saying that she’s responsible for Day’s mother’s death, that she’s done nothing but hurt him, and that she thinks he will betray the Patriots for June. She doesn’t listen when he says that part of the reason he doesn’t want to be in a relationship with her is because she’s more like family to him. 

I think this should be enough of a reason to leave Tess. If this is left unaccounted for, it could very easily turn into an abusive relationship. June, however, is actually kind, albeit unaware of some of the practices of the poor. She doesn’t try to hold anything over his head. She wants what’s best for Day, unlike Tess, who wants what’s best for herself. June and Day are way better for each other than Tess and Day.

What is Feminism? Brianna Gibson

 What is Feminism? 

   Feminism is defined as "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes". It is the act of wanting the rights of men and women to be set equal, not one over the other. It is wanting women to be at the same level as men, not better than, but equal to. Over the years, feminism has grown through political movements, and putting an end to sexism. Though this is the official definition, many women around the world do not understand the exact meaning. 

   Many people around the world choose to believe that feminism is to break the wall of sexism by putting down men as an equivalent to putting down women. They believe that feminism is to help bring up women, and put down all men. Instead of fighting against sexism, they fight against the men who in the past created these ways. Now, why do people do this? Women have been oppressed for decades, and still deal with this today. I feel that women believe that the "wrong way of feminism" is okay, due to the years of oppression that men put women through.  

   Women may implement these acts for reasons such as the counteractive term "Masculist".  I originally thought that this term meant the same as feminism, to fight for equality of genders. This is where I was incorrect. The term Masculist refers to the superiority of men over women, and how men believe that women should stay oppressed, and that women had more power than men in the past. I believe that Masculist and "the wrong way of feminism' are both incorrect, though I do see why women feel this way when reacting with "the wrong way of feminism". 

   To conclude, the 4 principles of feminism are; working to increase equality, expanding human choice, eliminating gender stratification, and promoting sexual freedom. To be a feminist is not to uplift women and put down men. You shouldn't call yourself a feminist and continue to hate on the male gender. I am aware the things that men have done and implemented, but to be a feminist is to help eradicated those ideas, and create a world without sexism with equality among genders. 

When is animal testing justifiable?

When is animal testing justifiable?  (Ana Artz)

    Animal testing is a global issue, but there are specific cases which can be considered "ok". Usually, these cases consist of developing new technologies that will benefit humankind. Such as testing new drugs, treatments, and vaccines. These tests provide crucial insights into their safety before humans are used in trials. Preventing potential harm to humans that ensures only promising and safe inventions are able to further develop.

    Certain scientific advancements other than medicine could also be a kind of special situation when it comes to animal testing. Such as testing levels of pollution and our environmental impact. An example could be if a new (manmade) oil was introduced, which we will call "Bloxorz". You could test the effect of it on animals before spreading its use worldwide. This may, and quite possibly will, hurt the animals but it would be better to test a small group vs. letting it effect bigger wild groups.

    Many believe that even in these tough scenarios alternatives to animal testing should be prioritized. While this is a valid point, some practices need a real life subject to be tested on. Humans cannot fill this role. However, I do agree that strict ethical guidelines and regulations should be put in place. Testing should also prioritize the wellbeing of the animal and to ONLY be used when completely necessary.

    Creating a balance between the need for research and the ethical treatment of animals is crucial for any type of this research to continue. As technology improves, it's important to focus on finding and using alternative methods. However, until these alternatives are widespread, ethical and strictly conducted animal testing can contribute to advancing knowledge and benefiting both humans and animals.

Work Cited: 

https://archive.nytimes.com/learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/when-is-animal-testing-justified/?rref=collection%252Fcolumn%252Flearning-student-opinion

https://animal-testing.procon.org/

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/health_law/publications/aba_health_esource/2022-2023/december-2022/reevaluating-the-practice-of-animal-testing-in-biomedical-research/

Should All Students Be Required to Learn a Language? By Irene Kim

Language Learning by creator

     I was pretty uncertain about my position in the argument when I first read this question and even after I finished reading the following article. Of course, being bilingual has its obvious benefits: convenience and an increase in opportunities, such as easier travel and academic opportunities (e.g. higher chance of college acceptance) (deJong). However, I don't think that all people are the strongest in learning languages. So ultimately, my main question for myself to take a position was "Is it worth all of the time and effort?" because learning a language is a long-term project.

     My approach to my question started with comparing the subject with other academic subjects. Math, for example, is a subject a lot of students have trouble with, yet is still required. This is the same with all other basic classes. However, (thankfully) most of these classes are not required throughout the entire 12 years of school in Illinois. At high school, there are a certain number of required credits for each of these subjects, and it is left up to the student to choose what they want to pursue during the last few years of high school (ISBE).

     I think that this way of exposing students to the basics and then leaving it up to them to choose whether or not to continue is the best solution. No one knows if they have a passion or talent in a subject if they never even learn the basics. Just like other basic subjects, language can lead you to pursue a variety of careers. These careers include those only about foreign language (e.g. translator) but also those that can have a huge advantage with the skill (e.g. flight attendant) (UOTP). Ultimately, learning a new language will lead to unexpected open doors.

     I believe that students should be required to learn a language for a certain number of years and then have it left for them to choose. I think everyone should be exposed to the subject of learning a language during their years before high school graduation so that they have another option they can choose to pursue afterwards. The time and effort that goes into learning a language is worth the advantages and, even for students that end up realizing that it is simply not their thing, having any confident opinion based on experience is important when choosing what to pursue, whether that's positive or negative.

Works Cited

creator. Language Learning. FreeImagesLive, www.freeimageslive.co.uk/free_stock_image/languagejpg.

deJong, Kathy. "How More World Language Courses in High School Pays Off." College in 3-2-1, 2021, collegein321.com/more-foreign-language-courses/#:~:text=However%2C%20most%20colleges%20require%20a,makes%20a%20student%20more%20attractive. 

ISBE. Illinois graduation requirements. 2022, www.isbe.net/Documents/grad_require.pdf.

UOTP. "9 Benefits of Learning a Second Language." UOTP, 2021, potomac.edu/benefits-of-learning-a-second-language/.

How do you feel about censored music

Sarah Bolton

 

Image source: nytimes.com

 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/learning/how-do-you-feel-about-censored-music.html

I prefer uncensored songs. They feel way more expressive, and give off ‘I’m gonna say what I want’ vibes. When I sing along with songs with swear words, I get this kind of thrill. Violent songs are just fun. However, I do not like songs with slurs in them, and If I realize that song has a slur I will not listen to it, as it makes me extremely uncomfortable, and if I listen to it too much, I’m worried it may worm its way into my vocabulary.

My parents don’t care very much about what I listen to, besides the once-in-a-blue-moon check-in. I don’t think they have rules, but I’ve never told them about any of my more explicit songs, and neither has my brother, so I’m not sure what they would think about them. They don’t control my streaming services either. Honestly, I don’t think parents should control teengers’ music choices. Teenagers are old enough to do it themselves.

I think parents should make decisions about what lyrics are suitable for children, but not for teenagers. As said above, teenagers are old enough to do it themselves. Parents are in charge of their children, not anyone else (besides teachers, babysitters, etc.). Music artists can also make those decisions. They are the ones making the song, they can make it whatever they want. 

Many parents are worried that “[explicit songs’] lyrics are obscene, that they incite violence, or that they are harmful to minors”(Fischer). Personally, I prefer uncensored songs. Censoring yourself takes away the expressiveness and uniqueness of your creations. However, censoring a song may “restrict the expression of musical artists who may have valuable and genuine things to say through their art form” (Music).

Fischer, Paul. “Music Censorship.” Free Speech Center, https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/music-censorship/.

“Music.” National Coalition Against Censorship, https://ncac.org/issue/music.