Most recent edit on 2005-11-20 02:45:05 by EschaTon
Additions:
“The Boondock Saints” is a movie that deals with the issue of crime across the country. In this movie, two brothers take it upon themselves to fight crime. The way in which they do this is by killing the “evil” people in their community. At the end of this movie, a moral question is brought up.[:] [i]s it okay for random people to kill in order to prevent what they feel is evil? This is a very intriguing question, and my plan is to express the different viewpoints as to why it is okay and why it is not okay.
[I think this will make a fine project. The questions being dealt with are interesting ones. Be very careful with the part of the paper where you will attempt to show that "killing evil" is successful at eliminating it, I think you may have some difficulty making a consistent argument here, as there is some evidence that reform initiatives in prisons are working. Also, be careful not to conflate crime and evil, because there are a lot of other reasons people may turn to a life of crime, beyond inherent evil. Ultimately, I see this project being a little bit of a challenge, as you are going to have to be very careful about how you define all the terms you will be using.]
Deletions:
“The Boondock Saints” is a movie that deals with the issue of crime across the country. In this movie, two brothers take it upon themselves to fight crime. The way in which they do this is by killing the “evil” people in their community. At the end of this movie, a moral question is brought up. Is it okay for random people to kill in order to prevent what they feel is evil? This is a very intriguing question, and my plan is to express the different viewpoints as to why it is okay and why it is not okay.
Edited on 2005-11-15 16:27:21 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
Yet another topic...The good copy of my Proposal
“The Boondock Saints” is a movie that deals with the issue of crime across the country. In this movie, two brothers take it upon themselves to fight crime. The way in which they do this is by killing the “evil” people in their community. At the end of this movie, a moral question is brought up. Is it okay for random people to kill in order to prevent what they feel is evil? This is a very intriguing question, and my plan is to express the different viewpoints as to why it is okay and why it is not okay.
I will introduce the paper with a clip from the movie. There is one scene in which the two brothers explain their mission to their friend Rocco. By introducing this scene at the beginning, I will be able to “set the stage.” By showing this scene, the reader will obtain a very good understanding of what the paper will be debating. Following the clip, I will introduce the idea that there are positives and negatives to the Saints’ mission.
Everybody has their own idea of evil. The first problem with the Saints’ mission is that they are killing just those who they feel are evil. I will incorporate an analogy in order to show that evil is all in the eye of the beholder, and a society can only function if there are finite boundaries depicting what is classified as evil. If everybody has their own idea of evil, the society cannot have any consistency.
Another problem with the idea of killing evil is the fact that many consider killing to be evil. The hypocrisy in the actions of the brothers eliminates some of the effectiveness of their efforts. I will use statistics regarding jail sentences for murderers, and show that society considers killing to be a crime.
While there are negatives to this effort, there are also positives. It is good that people take the initiative to correct the problems in society. I will show that killing evil is a successful method of eliminating evil, as long as there is one description of what evil is and there is a guideline as to who is allowed to do the killing. In essence, this is my solution to the problem of crime in society. I will show that killing the criminals is the best way to stop crime.
I will conclude with another clip from the movie, “The Boondock Saints.” In the final scene of the movie, the efforts of the brothers come together when they kill the leader of the Italian Mafia. They express their reasons for killing him and the rest of the “evil” people in the community. I will use this to show that their effort is a good one, as long as it is carried out the right way.
"Boston Police Department Monthly Crime Statistics." 10 Nov. 2005. http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/police/pdfs/july05.pdf∞.
The Boondock Saints. Dir. Troy Duffy. Willem Dafoe, Sean Patrick Flanery, Norman Redus. 20th Century Fox. 2001.
Salley, Mark W. "The root of evil." Denver Post. 10 Nov. 200. ProQuest. 15 Nov. 2005. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=9&did=63608680&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1132087201&clientId=1360∞.
Simon, Stephanie. “Want world peace? Simply learn to fly, residents say / Iowa town, founded on meditation, believes it can eliminate evil.” Houston Chronicle. 7 Oct. 2001. ProQuest. 15 Nov. 2005. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&sid=4&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=3&startpage=-1&clientid=1360&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=83422065&scaling=FULL&ts=1132087898&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1132087909&clientId=1360&cc=1&TS=1132087909∞.
Edited on 2005-11-10 17:28:52 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
"Boston Police Department Monthly Crime Statistics." 10 Nov. 2005. http://www.ci.boston.ma.us/police/pdfs/july05.pdf∞
Edited on 2005-11-10 17:27:22 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
Currently, when a person is found guilty of a crime, the criminal is either put into jail or fined (depending on the severity of the crime). This penalty has not had a big enough affect, because people are still killing and still stealing. I will prove that this system is not working by showing statistics related to the crime rate and jail occupancy. For example, the total number of murders DROPPED to 16,137 in 2004 (Eggen). The fact that this was a decline in the number of murders proves that we have a significant problem in our crime rate.
The movie Boondock Saints proposes a moral question at the end. Is it okay to kill in order to eliminate evil? I will explain my opinion of this question. While I do not think it is okay for random people to roam the streets killing people that they think are bad, I do think that the idea
WORK CITED
Eggen, Dan. "'Violent Crime Declined in 2004; Rape Is an Exception." The Washington Post. 18 Oct. 2005. ProQuest. 10 Nov. 2005. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=6&sid=5&srchmode=1&vinst=PROD&fmt=3&startpage=-1&clientid=1360&vname=PQD&RQT=309&did=912718241&scaling=FULL&ts=1131660427&vtype=PQD&rqt=309&TS=1131660719&clientId=1360&cc=1&TS=1131660719∞
Field, Frank. "The state we're in." ProQuest. 10 Nov. 2005. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=3&did=923469461&SrchMode=1&sid=5&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1131660427&clientId=1360∞
Deletions:
Currently, when a person is found guilty of a crime, the criminal is either put into jail or fined (depending on the severity of the crime). This penalty has not had a big enough affect, because people are still killing and still stealing. I will prove that this system is not working by showing statistics related to the crime rate and jail occupancy. For example,
The movie Boondock Saints proposes a moral question at the end. Is it okay to kill in order to eliminate evil. I will explain my opinion of this question. While I do not think it is okay for random people to roam the streets killing people that they think are bad, I do think that the idea
Edited on 2005-11-10 17:02:24 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
There is a major problem in our society: crime. It is impossible to turn on the news without seeing something bad or disturbing. Every day people are killing, raping, and stealing. Is it possible to eliminate crime? My paper will begin by showing the excessive amounts of crime committed, and then it will prove how crime can be reduced in enormous amounts. The only way to combat crime is to eliminate criminals.
Crimes are committed every day. The media has placed us in a world of fear by showing us what goes on in our communities. I will show how the media has affected us by giving examples as to what a person sees when opening a newspaper or putting on the news on TV.
Currently, when a person is found guilty of a crime, the criminal is either put into jail or fined (depending on the severity of the crime). This penalty has not had a big enough affect, because people are still killing and still stealing. I will prove that this system is not working by showing statistics related to the crime rate and jail occupancy. For example,
The movie Boondock Saints proposes a moral question at the end. Is it okay to kill in order to eliminate evil. I will explain my opinion of this question. While I do not think it is okay for random people to roam the streets killing people that they think are bad, I do think that the idea
of killing the evil is a good one. I will explain why I believe that killing the evil will significantly reduce the amount of crime committed in our society.
Evil is a very subjective word. Everybody can have their own opinion of what evil is. I will explain what I think should be considered evil. Obviously stealing a candy bar from a store has a very different impact than going into the same store and killing everybody in it. I will explain the different degrees of evil, and explain how my solution will affect the different levels of evil.
Deletions:
There is a major problem in our society: crime. It is impossible to turn on the news without seeing something bad or disturbing. Every day people are killing, raping, and stealing. Is it possible to eliminate crime? My paper will begin by showing the excessive amounts of crime committed, and then it will prove how crime can be reduced in enormous amounts.
Edited on 2005-11-10 16:50:59 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
(Actually it is a completely different paper topic)
There is a major problem in our society: crime. It is impossible to turn on the news without seeing something bad or disturbing. Every day people are killing, raping, and stealing. Is it possible to eliminate crime? My paper will begin by showing the excessive amounts of crime committed, and then it will prove how crime can be reduced in enormous amounts.
Deletions:
Our economy is in a rut. We are spending a significant amount of money in several different places, and we are facing many problems. "Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups (The World Factbook). There is only one way that we can solve several of these problems all at the same time: automatic death at the age of 65. My plan is to discuss many of the different economic issues and prove that this solution will help to solve the problem.
Our economy is over-populated.
Sources
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=7560&Tab=3&TS=1131657206&clientId=1360&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD∞
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=9c8dfb32c5702335dc4123e6d55df2d5&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkVb&_md5=2081f42f848fbbd2cb91a23b6c2d2bde∞
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2003/us-1.html∞
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2003/2116.html∞
Edited on 2005-11-10 16:32:42 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
Our economy is in a rut. We are spending a significant amount of money in several different places, and we are facing many problems. "Long-term problems include inadequate investment in economic infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable trade deficits, and stagnation of family income in the lower economic groups (The World Factbook). There is only one way that we can solve several of these problems all at the same time: automatic death at the age of 65. My plan is to discuss many of the different economic issues and prove that this solution will help to solve the problem.
Our economy is over-populated.
Edited on 2005-11-10 16:24:17 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2003/2116.html∞
Edited on 2005-11-10 16:22:47 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps35389/2003/us-1.html∞
Edited on 2005-11-10 16:17:12 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=9c8dfb32c5702335dc4123e6d55df2d5&_docnum=1&wchp=dGLbVtb-zSkVb&_md5=2081f42f848fbbd2cb91a23b6c2d2bde∞
Edited on 2005-11-10 16:15:53 by VeritasBlog
Additions:
Remixed Proposal
Sources
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=7560&Tab=3&TS=1131657206&clientId=1360&VType=PQD&VName=PQD&VInst=PROD∞
Oldest known version of this page was edited on 2005-11-06 19:13:03 by VeritasBlog []
Page view:
Our economy is in a rut. We are spending money in Iraq. We are spending money to recover from a very difficult hurricane season. We are spending money on welfare. The government is constantly spending more and more money, and as a result, everybody is being taxed. Our economy is not in a good position right now. There is one way to solve this problem: automatic death at the age of 65.
When senior-citizens retire, they no longer contribute to the economy. They don’t work, so the workforce becomes weaker. They have money put in retirement plans, so that significantly decreases the amount of money that is circulating through the economy. The government is forced to fund Medicaid for the elderly, and reap no benefits from this financially speaking. If it were made mandatory that everybody dies at the age of 65, we would not only eliminate the funding for the elderly, but we would also solve the issue of over-population. With the baby-boomers beginning to reach the retirement age, there is going to be an abundance of elderly in our country. Social Security has been a very big issue as of late, because there are not enough young people to support all of the elderly. By instituting a law of mandatory death at the age of 65, the Social Security issue would be completely solved. Our economy would be better off if everybody died at the retirement age of 65.
This seems as though it is morally wrong. It is not in the best interest of the human population to die at 65. While this may be true for our generation, generations down the line would not have any problem with it. There would be nobody living until the age of 90 or 80 or 70. Nobody would know what it is like to have people of this age, so nobody would know the difference. It is like life without the television. Many people say that they would not be able to survive if the television had never been invented. If those people had never experienced the luxury of the television, nobody would know what it is like with a TV in every room, and therefore not miss it. If nobody knows what it is like to live past 65, nobody would think that it is wrong. The only way to ensure that our economy is secure is to kill the population over the age of 65, the only people that are no longer an asset to the community.
*This is a very rough draft. I am still considering changing my topic.*