Topic:The Alligator River Story
This story was rather disturbing. In judging these characters I will try to base my answers strictly on the information provided by the author. I will rate these characters in terms of my respect for them on a number scale from 1 to 5. A number one being the highest down through the number five. My judgement begins with Gregory. The story does't provide much information at all about Gregory. He is Abigail's lover who live directly across the river that devides them. In the story ,his lover, Abigail chooses to have sexual intercoarse with a man to get across the river in a desperate attempt to see Gregory. When she gets there Gregory is hurt and pushes her aside. I believe he in correct in doing so. I give Gregory a one on my scale of respect for realizing that which is most important. I bilieve that a woman that is willing to lower herself to anothers demand in order to see her love, outised of a true emergency, is a woman who would do so in order to achieve whatever else she might desire.
Next I will rate Sinbad. I look poorly upon this man because of his wicked eye in the story. Sinbad saw Abigail in desperate effort to see the man she claims she loves and he took extreme advantage of the circumstance. Sinbad offered to take her across the river only if she agreed to having sexual intercoarse him first. He knew that this was her only way to see Gregory and that in order for her to get what she wanted, she would have to give hime what he wanted. I rate Sinbad with a 5. Knowing that the two were lovers he shamelessly had his way with her knowing the damage it would cause furthur on down the road.
There is another man in this story with whom I am disgusted. His name is Slug. When Slug heard Abigail's complaint concerning Gregorys action's he took the matter into his own hands. The story explains that Slug felt compassion for Abigail. I believe that a more proper way to show his compassion for her would have been to comfort her personally rather than taking her pain out on Gregory. I believe he allowed himself to be used by Abigail. Instead of talking the matter over or simply suggesting forgiveness in both persons hearts heat beat Gregory brutally and solved nothing. I rate him also with a 5.
My father once taught me that a lie isnt just when one distorts the truth but also when one says nothing and avoids the truth. When Abigail ran to Ivan for advice or comfort he avoided the cituation. I do not think he is a bad person for doing so, but I do not respect him for having no insight. I think that some good advice could have turned this entire story around. In fact I think that providing her with a more patient alternative might have saved the relationship between Gregory and Abilgail. I rate Ivan with a 3. I have no reason to dislike this man, yet no real reason to respect him.
Abigail is the main character of the story. She is sad, yet mad, in love, yet seeks revenge on her lover. I despise this woman. First of all things, she lowered herself to another mans will and broke a special bond between her and her lover not to see him, but to have her way. When she was rejected for doing so rather than trying to fix the situation and keep the man she supposedly love, she showed her true feelings and shared the story with Slug. When Slug heard the knews and began to beat Gregory Abigail did nothing but life and take comfort in seeing her once claimed lover take his punishment. I believe she is a selfish individual. I think that the river in this story was symbolic to her sinful desires being the true seperation between her and Gregory. I rate Abigail with a 5.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Tuesday, February 6, 2007
The Majority Rules
Topic: Human Rights vs Majority Rule
It is very difficult to contrast human rights and the will of the majority. In many cases human rights are in fact an interpretation made by the majority. One subject matter commonly argued upon is homosexuality. Most would argue that homosexuality is a natural right that each of us are born with. Others would claim otherwise. I personally believe that homosexuality is an abomination, on the other hand I do believe it is ones right to choose their own preference.
How are we to decide between rights and will? While one might argue it is their right to roam around without clothes, the majority of our entire nation would differ in opinion. Or, that same person might state that revenge on the killer of his wife and kids is his own affair, while the laws of our land state opposingly. Who is to decide whether the will of the majority or the firm laws of our country should reign? I believe that in this situation a decision can only be based on circumstance.
I believe that human rights are derived from an interpretation of our own people. In many ways what were once established human rights, could have very well been a majorities will at the time of establishment. Now the will of our popular folk has changed, so has our rights. The more and more acceptable certain actions become, the more and more they are learned to be natural.
Free will is very well known to be perhaps the most crucial of all human rights. But how far can we stretch this? What can be allowed and what cannot? I believe that our country was built on demorcray and a foundational theory that majority rule. What other way can a sound government be maintained? Human rights are endless. A man is born with the right to do just about anything, but is it right? Is it ok to allow one to do something just because he/she is capable? No, the majority rules.
Many times our country is faced with the question of will. Where do we draw the line? Human rights are pratically limitless, but ones allowance isn't. In saying that the majority should rule I think that human rights are valid to a point, a point to which they harm or upset the majority. I am not the judge the validity of this theory, but I am one to say that since I live in the nation, I will follow this theory.
It is very difficult to contrast human rights and the will of the majority. In many cases human rights are in fact an interpretation made by the majority. One subject matter commonly argued upon is homosexuality. Most would argue that homosexuality is a natural right that each of us are born with. Others would claim otherwise. I personally believe that homosexuality is an abomination, on the other hand I do believe it is ones right to choose their own preference.
How are we to decide between rights and will? While one might argue it is their right to roam around without clothes, the majority of our entire nation would differ in opinion. Or, that same person might state that revenge on the killer of his wife and kids is his own affair, while the laws of our land state opposingly. Who is to decide whether the will of the majority or the firm laws of our country should reign? I believe that in this situation a decision can only be based on circumstance.
I believe that human rights are derived from an interpretation of our own people. In many ways what were once established human rights, could have very well been a majorities will at the time of establishment. Now the will of our popular folk has changed, so has our rights. The more and more acceptable certain actions become, the more and more they are learned to be natural.
Free will is very well known to be perhaps the most crucial of all human rights. But how far can we stretch this? What can be allowed and what cannot? I believe that our country was built on demorcray and a foundational theory that majority rule. What other way can a sound government be maintained? Human rights are endless. A man is born with the right to do just about anything, but is it right? Is it ok to allow one to do something just because he/she is capable? No, the majority rules.
Many times our country is faced with the question of will. Where do we draw the line? Human rights are pratically limitless, but ones allowance isn't. In saying that the majority should rule I think that human rights are valid to a point, a point to which they harm or upset the majority. I am not the judge the validity of this theory, but I am one to say that since I live in the nation, I will follow this theory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)