The argument “a mature person is self-directing, so parents who make all their children’s for them are doing their offspring a disservice” has allot of validity to it, and in more ways than one is true. A child whose parents or guardians make all of his or her decisions for them, are in a way hindering the child because the child does not have the opportunity to think for himself. When that child grows up and needs to be able to make important decisions such as what college to go to, who to marry, or what kind of job to apply for, that child will more likely than not, not know how to properly decide based on the information or facts provided to him or her. For instance if a child grows up and is faced with what college to go to and that child has never had to make any important decision for himself, that child may end up in a college going after a degree program that is not truly what he or she wants to do with their life based on what his or her parent tell them they should go into.
That child has then wasted four to five years of his or her life and has to start all over searching for the proper degree or job where he or she can thrive financially and be happy. There is a minute percent of children who will be able to overcome the mentality of not having to think on his or her own and be able to make the important decisions that need to be made, but at what price? How many times will that child have to make the wrong choice and suffer because they were not allowed to think on their own? The constant failure and rejection could possibly make matters worse for the child, and could lead to relinquishing all hope.
The argument “the Bible can’t be relevant to today’s problems; it was written many centuries ago and is filled with archaic phrasing” is another argument with some validity and non-validity. There are people who claim since the Bible was written over 2,000 years ago that it does not apply to today’s standards, and there are people who say the teachings in the Bible are meant for all people to follow as a general guideline. The argument can go either way, but if you look at what the Bible really is, it is a book with stories, such as a history book, about people who lived 2,000 plus years ago and the things they went through. If you were to say because it was written back a long time ago it does not apply to today’s standards, would be the same thing as saying because our history books teach about Abraham Lincoln and when he lived in the 1700’s, that those stories are irrelevant. The Bible is a book for Christian based people to read, and is intended as a guideline for these people on how to properly live their life.
There are many stories in the Bible that may or may not apply to today’s standards, such as the Old Testament teachings, but that is not to say the entire Bible is not relevant to today’s problems. The Bible teaches not to kill and steal, and if 90 percent of people who are in prison followed these two teachings, they would not be in prison today. The other stories about the people who lived in the Bible days are interesting to some, and not to others, as are most history books ever written about the history of the world. Does this mean we need to stop teaching our children about the history of the world because the teachings in the history books occurred over three centuries ago? I think it just because the Bible represents a faith based book, and that is why it is so ridiculed.
The argument “it’s ridiculous to think that there will be fewer deaths if we ban handguns. Handguns don’t kill people; people kill people” has no validity to it in that an actual handgun itself cannot do anything on its own, it is an inanimate object. A handgun or any other type of gun requires a person to physically pick it up, point, and shoot in order to make it operate; a handgun cannot just fire on its own. When people say that handguns kill people, it is the same as saying that a spoon made another person fat, or a car made another person steal it. These are objects that must have an operator or some sort of life force to operate these inanimate objects.
Did handguns assist in the killing of a person is a more proper question to ask. If a person wants another person dead and there is not a handgun around, that person will be creative and come up with another means to kill that person. Take John Wayne Gacy for instance, he did not need the use of a handgun to murder hundreds of young boys, he used rope and scarfs to strangle his victims. There are people who claim without handguns certain crimes would not take place, and that may be possible, but if the person wanting to perform the crime was adamant on doing it and did not have a gun, that person would use alternative measures to finish the crime.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX