Critical
Thinking
Government
infringement of privacy is distinct from the parent violation of child privacy.
The reason for this is that mostly, parents act in good faith. On the other
hand, the government focused on gaining a political or economic mileage through
retrieval of private data from its citizens or foreigners. Therefore,
government spying is mostly for malicious intentions. This distinction is
important especially considering possible protests to resist privacy invasion.
A
violation of privacy is permissible if and only if the parents are monitoring
the activity of their children. Notably, it is legally sound for parents to
mold the character of their youngsters. The age of information technology and
the internet has dawned, thus at an early age, children can engage in dubious
activities online that can affect their wellbeing (Barnet et al. 5).
Before
installing a spyware, a normal parent may first have to detect an awkward
behavior. If the child spends most of their time online, chances are that
online friends and peers influence him. Therefore, the parent should initiate a
conversation on the dangers of the internet and the sites that should not be
accessed. If the behavior persists, the parent or guardian has a right to make
clear their intention to install a spyware on the child’s computer.
It
is true that installing a spyware signifies a lack of trust. However, it is
necessary to do so if the youngster’s character and manners are threatened by
access of adult. As a parent, I would seek professional advice and guidance
from parenting counselors before acting on my intentions impulsively.
Letter
to the Editor
Dear
editor, I find Cohen ’s story interesting as I had
once faced a dilemma similar to hers. I agree with her idea that parents should
monitor the activity of their children as a means of safeguarding their future.
The immediate impact of spying can weaken the child-parent relationship, but in
the long-run, the child will be thankful to the parent for mending his/her
behavior. Indeed, spying is a show of parental love and tender care.
McGregor’s
Tone
McGregor
uses a thoughtful tone. For instance, he agrees with military policymakers that
the government needs to make adjustments to accommodate female soldiers.
However, she opposes a complete denial of women to take up some roles currently
reserved for men. This demonstrates her ability to reason beyond the
unrealistic demands of activists.
Brass
Ceiling
"Brass
ceiling" is used in the passage to imply the evident barring of women from
taking over some military roles. Often, inadequate excuses are given for male
domination of the military (Barnet et al. 29). As such, centuries of female suppression
have led the society to believe that women's bodies are not ‘built' for the
military.
The
argument against sending women as infantries is ill-informed. It is intended to
divert the public attention from the issues at hand. Women have never been sent
to the battlefield as infantries, thus, it is hard to prove the claims of gang-rape.
Besides, as homosexuality is taking root, men too have an equal chance of being
gang-raped when captured.
Both men and women can pull out
wounded soldiers in an active war situation.
It is ironical to deny women a chance in the frontline due to their body
structure when the majority of male soldiers lack the upper body strength to
accomplish the task.
Soldiers need to be motivated to fulfill their
mission. Promotion of military personnel as per their hand-to-hand combat
participation is necessary due to its symbolic value. It is a reward for
loyalty, obedience, and endurance. Thus, it sets precedence for junior staff to
follow as they advance in ranking.
The
Argument
McGregor’s
argument is inspired by unfairness in the military. The writer asks rhetoric
questions aimed at eliciting a public reaction and outcry. She is a
whistleblower and intends to initiate amendments to male-themed military
policies.
Works
Cited
Barnet, Sylvan, and Hugo Bedau Martin 's.,
1999: 3-30. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment