Another Ice bucket challenge..... just kidding, its a post about the ALS ice bucket challenge! (TOK post)

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2014/aug/25/ice-bucket-challenge-drought-henan-california-animal-rights-rice


Another article ripping apart the ice bucket challenge, this article talks about the more serious effects of performing the ALS ice bucket challenge. For those who dont know, ALS also known as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is a motor neuron disease in which the individual loses all control of motor functions in the body. A more widely known person suffering from ALS is Steven Hawking the famous english theoretical physicist who speaks with the assistance of a computer.

In my opinion this article is blowing this problem way out of proportion. They are trying to justify their claims with 1 in a million cases that probably happened because there was no caution practiced before performing the ice bucket challenge. Okay, this article does raise some points about the occuring drought in California, but there is one simple solution to this problem... Donate instead. But who am i to judge this, I was nominated for the challenge, but i never did it. Just purely out of not being bothered to. In a TOK perspective, this raises an interesting question of, is it ethically acceptable to perform the ice bucket challenge and not donate? well for some people, who arent in the most favourable economic situations, the ice bucket challenge is all they can do. They ask that if you dont do it, you should donate 100 USD, considering the main demographic that this is aimed at, young adults and teenagers, 100 dollars is a lot of money. I personally believe that you should do as much as you can without having to go out of your way or affect your life negatively in a sever way at all, and it would still be okay. But those are my morals. Other people are entitled to their own morals and may have different views, which is why this article is a perfect example of people expressing their views on the ethics of the subject. The ALS ice bucket challenge has been and will continue to be a heated topic in the ethics field. I would gladly initiate discussion on the subject with an opposing viewpoint.

TOK post: David Christian: History of our world in 18 minutes

In TOK class we watched a TED talk video by a man named David Christian. Christian is a well known historian responsible for a teaching method called Big History. Big history is a teaching method where we learn history on a large scale, like his TED talk, he covers the entire history of our universe and planet in a quick 18 minute video. While i thought his talk on the subject matter was very interesting and easy to understand, i cant help but think that his approach may be a bid vague. There is so much more history within the gaps of his explanation. So therefore it raises a lot of questions. TOK wise, it brings us into the matter of how do we know that his explanation is the correct one, as apposed to a religious explanation like the universe was created within 7 days. The problem with the theory of the big bang idea is that its only a theory, whereas the religious idea is also just written in a book that was written in more recent history to the big bang. Theres no cold hard factual evidence that something like this even occurred. So the problem it raises is essentially whether it is a true fact instead of theory. Is it okay to be teaching high school students something that cannot really be proven 100%? From my atheistic point of view, David Christians explanation makes more sense and i feel more comfortable believing it, but i would be interested in hearing what other people have to say. Maybe we could discuss this in TOK class one day?

Personal Post: Oscar Pistorius Trial

Anyone that has been following the news in anyway has most likely heard of Oscar Pistorius. If not, let me get you up to speed. Oscar Pistorius has been sentenced to 5 years prison for shooting and killing his girlfriend at the time, Reeva Steenkamp. Pistorius claimed he heard what he thought was a trespasser in his bathroom and grabbed his gun and fired shots through the bathroom door, hitting and killing Reeva. Although this incident occurred back in February of 2009, the trial has only recently ended in recent months. This article was extremely interesting to me as it was such a high profile and intense trial and no one other than Oscar really knows what actually happened. The final verdict delivered by the judge was that although Oscar no doubt shot and killed Reeva, It was unintentional and cannot be considered planned murder.
What i am interested in is how we can justify that someones life is worth five years in prison. It might have been unintentional, but the cost is a loss of a life, and the resulting mourning of the family. How the judge come to the decision to sentence Oscar to 5 years in prison? Do you think this was a reasonable sentence? Does his disability give him an advantage in this trial? This last question is one i would like to address. Oscar Pistorius is famous for being the "fastest man on no legs" or "the blade runner" as he is a double amputee below the knee but competes at a higher level with full bodied athletes. Would his athletic abilities give him less of an advantage over a normal double amputee in the same situation? will he be sentenced to an equal trial to an able bodied individual? Its a very insightful and interesting trial that raised a lot of controversy over his light sentence.

IB post: IB SL Korean B track

Currently in Korean class we began to look at societal issues in Korea and some parts of the world. The main issue we are discussing is the appropriate name for jobs in our current society. some examples of this are like using postal worker instead of postman, as not only men work delivering post, nowadays women do as well. It makes you think about how far society has come in the recent years. This is also a matter or women's rights, as more women are taking on jobs originally dominated by the male gender, hence the names that primarily contain the word man in them. In our Korean class we not only looked at ways to address job roles with a particular gender in mind, but we also learned about the proper way to address people with disabilities. In English it would like the addressing of mentally disabled individuals as "Retarded" over "mentally challenged" or "disabled". In this context its more of an issue of morality, is it right or wrong to address someone who has a mental handicap as "retarded"? The word "retarded" stems back into history, it used to be the socially accepted name for the mentally handicapped, but now as societies are changing and becoming more socially aware and sensitive, names for certain demographics are changing. The same goes for the black race in North America, in the past it was more socially accepted to use the word "negro" to describe a person of African descent. Nowadays the more socially accepted name for individuals of African descent is either just simply "Black" or "African american". I would be interested in seeing where our society moves on from here, as the socially accepted names for individuals, could continue to change and words that originally were frowned upon could become the new accepted word.

"ROA's graffiti rabbit faces removal by Hackney council" Article blog post

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2010/oct/25/roa-graffiti-rabbit-hackney-council

Quick summary:
The article talks about a Belgian graffiti artist that goes by the name ROA, who created a piece of art on the side of a recording studio of a rabbit. The artist allegedly obtained the permission to create the art piece from the owner of the building, however the city council has issued a warning to the owner saying he has to paint over it. Local consensus say that the artwork is not an eyesore and do not understand why it is being painted over. The article then goes on to talk more about the artist himself and his work, and the councils view on the subject matter.

This is an interesting article as it does raise the question whether what the artist did was right or wrong. You may say that he is in the green, because he got the owners permission before painting the wall, but his art is in a public area. The building owner is not the only person who will be looking at the artwork. Although this is a rather small issue in terms of the ethics involved, considering its not an obscene or graphic image being depicted, just a rabbit. It is still a matter of thinking about oneself instead of thinking about the community as a whole. The city council's justification for the request of removal does seem more ethically justifiable, as they asked the building owner to remove the work as they want to "keep hackney's streets clean". But in the end, this article does raise some more questions on ethics. Is it the owners right, as a building owner, to allow whatever he wants on the side of his building? Is the council in the right to ask to remove the piece, even though the public consensus say they like it? Is something okay to get removed just because it doesn't "go" with the look of its surroundings?