***This post contains language that some might find offensive***
Have you ever used a dating app like Tinder? Well you may want to think twice before trying to find a lover online. I believe that dating apps are dangerous because anyone can lie online. Over the past four years 17 people in Greater Manchester area have reported being raped after using apps like Tinder and Grindr. These apps and websites can set up a major disaster for single people.
Someone and anyone can pretend to be innocent online but can actually be someone they said they are not. In 2014 Warriena Wright was murdered after she used Tinder to try to find a match. She went to her matches apartment and was pushed off his balcony and fell to her death. In 2012 the area had an overall average of 243 sexual assaults and rapes every month. 58 of those were from online dating.
People have taken these apps way too far. In 2017 there was an app created called Yubo. Yubo is a dating app for teens. FOR TEENS! That could easily be one of the most dangerous apps in the app store. There could be anyone say they are a child and tell another child to meet them at their house and easily sexually assault or rape that teen.
But what if these kids signing up for these apps are responsible? Kids should be able to make their own choices. Well even if they are responsible they should not be trying to fall in love with an online stranger. They could get into some big trouble if something went wrong. I also don’t think parents would like the sound of this app.
I think people should be more careful before using online apps and websites like Tinder. They should think before putting themselves out there to strangers that could possibly ruin their life. I also think that dating apps should use more powerful security and background checks before sending them loose. Because anyone can take advantage of another person and sexually assault them.
How The Death Penalty is Necessary
In 2003, 74% of people favor the death penalty for convicted killers. I think the death penalty is necessary. It’s necessary because if a criminal gets life in prison they have their whole life there and can commit many other crimes. In order to get the death penalty, there should be a ton of evidence stacked against you, you confess, or you failed the polygraph test on the questions about killing. Some people think that rapists should get sentenced to death. I disagree because I believe the trade off should be a life for a life, as in you end a life, your life ends.
In 2004, only 65% of Death Row inmates were actually executed. The other 35% got to enjoy talking to their family, laughing, and being free. If we keep the death penalty, the crime rate would not be as high because they would know that they could be executed. Being executed is okay but life in prison would violate the Eighth Amendment which says “no cruel or unusual punishments.” Being forced to die in prison seems pretty cruel to me. It seems cruel because you have to die in harsh living conditions without family, friends, or loved ones with you. I don’t believe that the death penalty is cruel or unusual because dying with a last meal also ends the pain more quickly.
According to an anonymous city official, opponents of the death penalty may say that it can’t be applied fairly. People are wrongly convicted on Death Row so putting innocent people to death is a bad idea. In order to put someone on trial and sentence he/she to death there should be huge amounts of evidence. For example, forensic, geological, and physical evidence can be used in trial. Other opponents think the death penalty is inhumane. It is more humane than spending the rest of your life behind bars. The death penalty ends the pain quickly rather than letting it stretch over a long period of time. Prisoners have to eat disgusting food, prisoners being scared and yelling at you, and guards yelling at you. You have to be more aware of contraband because most people in prison are snitches.
The death penalty should be used. I understand that the last meal will make it humane but I feel like that is too much luxury for a serial killer, a murderer of a politician, or murderer well renowned person. If you are one of those people then you do not deserve a last meal. If you are a murderer of one person, then you deserve a last meal. Unless that person killed a politician or someone famous. Death row inmates are still evil but these people do not affect the whole of the United States.
That is why we need the death penalty and why not everyone should get a last meal before execution. All and all we need the death penalty for murderers so they don’t commit crimes again.
There has been a debate about football players kneeling during the national anthem. People should understand why the players are kneeling during the national anthem. I believe that it’s okay for players to kneel because they have good reasons for doing it. One reason is because they are honoring military veterans. Another is because they are exercising their civil rights.
First, the players kneel in order to honor veterans. Colin Kaepernick, the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, started the protest. When he was asked why he was kneeling, he said that he kneeled because he was trying to show respect for military veterans.
The players also kneel to exercise their civil rights. They are protesting the killing of black men by police officers. Kaepernick also said that he believed that police officers were getting away with murder. This led MLB and NBA players to also protest. MLB and NBA players agreed with the reason why the football players were protesting.
Others believe that it’s disrespectful to the country to kneel during the national anthem. Those people don’t know or understand the reasons why the players are kneeling. Donald Trump started this argument when he said that whoever kneels during the national anthem should be fired. The players already stated why they’re kneeling and those reasons are not disrespectful to our country.
I believe that it’s okay for players to kneel because they have good reasons for kneeling. They kneel to honor veterans and to exercise their civil rights. I think that they should be allowed to exercise their civil rights.
Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3
Just think about how that shampoo you use everyday, probably caused an animal a lot of pain to get it. In 1965, Sport Illustrated published a story about a pet dalmation that was kidnapped and sold into experimentation. That sparked the anti-testing and animal rights movement in the U.S. Animal testing is wrong and humans shouldn’t do it for their own well being, especially sense the product is for humans.
Animals shouldn’t be tested on for products that aren’t even for them. 26 million animals are tested on each year for basic products in just the United States alone! They’re used to check safety of commercial products like cosmetics and shampoo. In 2013, The European Union banned the sale of makeup that had been tested on animals
The animal can be very hurt, traumatized and possibly die, they also could be in pain and it’s not even worth it! The U.S. Department of Agriculture breaks down its information into 3 categories: animals that are in pain and given drugs to relieve it ; animals in pain that aren’t given drugs to relieve it; and animals that aren’t in pain. Animals can be scared by testing and be scared around humans and won’t give anyone their trust.
The United States Food and Drug Administration needs at least two species of animal to test their products to determine if they’re safe for humans. In 1975, Philosopher Pete Singer published an article stating that humans are not superior to animals so we don’t have a right to hurt and torture them. Humans testing animals for their own ideas is just wrong. If a human just was taken off the streets and pulled into a lab and tested on without consent, the whole world would freak out and get angry, but animals can’t speak up. They can’t tell you when they’ve had enough or tell you when to stop.
Animal testing has been known to help benefit people’s lives by finding medical treatments and cures. Even though they can help, but not often, the treatments are rarely for animals. If the product was for animals then yes, it is okay to test on them, but in most cases it’s not.
Animal testing isn’t worth it. It may work on an animal, but that doesn't mean it’s guaranteed to work on people. I think people could volunteer to be the test subjects. Animals can’t give consent so we should give it for them.
Video Game Violence
Video games are all fun and games until they start causing violence in the real world. Many studies have shown that there is a link to violence in video games and violence in real life. These violent video games are also setting bad examples across the world and something should be done about it.
One effect of violent video games is that they can make a person think that violence isn’t as bad as it really is. It just sets a bad example for people in general. According to Time Magazine, 90% of the children in the United States play video games. Ninety percent of the games played by these children include mature content that includes violence. Also a study led by Craig Anderson, director of the center for the study of violence at Iowa State University, found that the kids in the study who played more hours of violent video games per week showed increases in aggressive behavior and violent tendencies compared to the children who played fewer hours a week. When asked a question like if it was okay to strike a peer if that peer said something negative about them, the kids who were exposed to more hours of violent video games were more likely to say yes. They also answered that they would respond with aggressive action if they were provoked, even if by accident.
Also many different studies have found a link between violent video games and real life violence. According to the New York Times, when playing violent video games, they can and do stir hostile urges and mildly aggressive behavior in the short term. For kids who develop a gaming habit, they can become slightly more aggressive. Iowa State University had another study in which they had 47 undergraduates play “ Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance” for fifteen minutes. Afterwards they were told to dole out hot sauce to a fellow student who they were told did not like spicy food but had to swallow the sauce anyway. The group who played “ Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance” gave the student significantly larger portions of hot sauce when compared to a group who played a nonviolent video game. This shows that there is a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior.
Some people might say that violence only has to do with the type person playing the game, but just like how some people can influence who you are, video games can too. If you spend more and more time playing the video game, the effects of the game will start to rub onto you just like how someone’s personality can affect yours.
Violent video games can cause violence in the real world. Many studies have shown that there are links between violence in video games and violence in the real world. These violent games also set bad examples for kids worldwide. To keep people from reenacting their dark game fantasies, I think video game stores should be more strict with who they sell their games that contain mature content to. Even though it might seem like just a game, it might affect who you will be in the future.
Not Your Lab Rat
We all love our makeup products and skin care, but what if I told you that your favorite products cost hundreds of thousands of innocent animals their lives. Animal testing is dangerous and cruel. Therefore animal testing needs to be put to a stop.
Animal testing is harmful and even deadly. Every year, more than 100 million animals are killed in United States labs by animal tests. For many of these tests, animals are given extremely high doses of products and chemicals by eye skin contact, force feeding, and inhalation. These animals then experience severe pain all over their bodies before dying or being killed.
Animal testing is also not being dealt with as it should be. There a far too little laws in place to protect animals from these harsh tests. The most relevant law, The AWA (Animal Welfare Act), allows for only the minimalist protection. The AWA only provides protection for about 5% of test subjects, and no protection for the other 95% of subjects.
Yes, some may say that animal testing is necessary to make sure that products are safe for human use, and that is understandable. However, there are more humane ways to test products and drugs, such as computerized drug databases and virtual trials. In many of these scientific trials the tests are more reliable than the animal tests. Non- animal tests are also more practical and cost less. The tests using animals can cost up to millions of dollars and can take up to five years, whereas scientific trails cost a fraction and can be tested in as little as a week.
In conclusion, animal testing is morally unacceptable and dangerous. Also the amount of laws and bans in place are insufficient. Testing by using scientific trials is also a better alternative to animal testing.
Seventh grade ELA students recently completed a public service announcement project that had them research an important issue or movement and create a poster, video, website, or slide show that drew attention to it while encouraging others to participate in a solution. As you’ll see below, the students did a phenomenal job. Here are just some of the awesome results.
Check out this professional-looking PSA for Ebola awareness!
And a very creative PSA about the over-prescription of antibiotics. Note: it’s not an anti-antibiotics ad!