Pro:
-when you’ve got an accident and are disfigured you could try to get back (nearly) your look before it back.
-when you’re inborn with something (e.g. a hair let): with a surgery you could have a more normal life
-when you’re ill (e.g. breast cancer) you’re able to rebuild parts of the body
-If you’ve got mental or physical problems with your look or get bullied because of it a surgery could help
-when you’re very unhappy with your looking, get discriminated and can’t live longer with your body surgeries could help.
Con:
-when you’re too young and still growing a plastic surgery could destroy your body or cause pain
-it’s becoming normal to have a plastic/cosmetic surgery, but you don’t think about the risks
-it’s dangerous too because there are too many incompetent surgeons who do a botched job
-often it’s just a waste of money (money could be used e.g. for poor people…)
-after a plastic surgery most of the patients have an unnatural look
-young people with surgeries might change their opinion about this decision when they’re older
Additional thoughts:
-plastic surgeries shouldn’t be that usual as nowadays
-people who consider a plastic/cosmetic surgery should be more sceptical
-society should change the meaning of beauty old age should be accepted
-especially teenagers shouldn’t try to imitate their idols
-more working places, more hospitals are built
Anna, Larissa, Ruth
Friday, 28 November 2008
Friday, 21 November 2008
City- or Country-Life?
During your life you get to know many people with different origin, but there’s something all of them have in common: either they live in a city or in the countryside. I think there are many townspeople who are prejudiced against those people who are living in the country and vice versa. Everyone also has his own opinion about each living situation.
In my opinion city- and country life have assets and drawbacks. One important aspect for living in a city is that it’s never boring. You have much more possibilities for example to go out with your friends because there is more public transport, you are very central and there are stores right round the corner. Also you’ve got more chances for a well-paid job in a city than in the country. On one hand it’s more exciting and you can be more flexible, but on the other hand, just to name two aspects, the exhaust fumes and the pollution are always present. In my opinion the light pollution and the traffic noise are as big problems as the safety, especially for children on their way to school.
In the country this danger isn’t as present because of less traffic. Also because of this it’s calmer. There are more beautiful landscapes, too. In a city the skyline can also be very nice, but in the country there’s more nature around you, not just a park or some green space. Even if this aspects sound very good there are also many negatives. Especially for young people the lack of entertainment in the country is much bigger than in a city. To go out or meet your friends you have to get there by public transport, which often is just driving hourly. But not only young people also the grown-ups sometimes have their problems with living in the countryside because of the great distance between their home and stores or the workstation.
Finally I have to admit that I prefer living in the country especially because of the nature nearby and the calmness. The life in the country isn’t that hectic and anonymous than in the city, but I think that’s just a habit because when people move in a city all the noises and the hectic becomes a habit, but right now, I like living in the country.
In my opinion city- and country life have assets and drawbacks. One important aspect for living in a city is that it’s never boring. You have much more possibilities for example to go out with your friends because there is more public transport, you are very central and there are stores right round the corner. Also you’ve got more chances for a well-paid job in a city than in the country. On one hand it’s more exciting and you can be more flexible, but on the other hand, just to name two aspects, the exhaust fumes and the pollution are always present. In my opinion the light pollution and the traffic noise are as big problems as the safety, especially for children on their way to school.
In the country this danger isn’t as present because of less traffic. Also because of this it’s calmer. There are more beautiful landscapes, too. In a city the skyline can also be very nice, but in the country there’s more nature around you, not just a park or some green space. Even if this aspects sound very good there are also many negatives. Especially for young people the lack of entertainment in the country is much bigger than in a city. To go out or meet your friends you have to get there by public transport, which often is just driving hourly. But not only young people also the grown-ups sometimes have their problems with living in the countryside because of the great distance between their home and stores or the workstation.
Finally I have to admit that I prefer living in the country especially because of the nature nearby and the calmness. The life in the country isn’t that hectic and anonymous than in the city, but I think that’s just a habit because when people move in a city all the noises and the hectic becomes a habit, but right now, I like living in the country.
Friday, 24 October 2008
MY OWN STYLE
I want to tell something about my own style, especially about the clothes I wear, which kind of music I prefer listening to, my outlook on life and last but not least I want to say what I am influenced by.
When I think about my own style, it’s very difficult to describe because I’d say that I don’t belong to a youth group. Some people may think that my look is boring because I look nearly the same all the time, but despite many other teenagers I have my very own style. I’m proud that I’ve found my own style, even if I know that it will change sometime, but now I like wearing trousers, especially jeans, T-shirts and sweaters because I feel comfortable when I wear them, but it’s important that it isn’t that much expensive because in my opinion there isn’t a real difference in wearing expensive trousers or cheap ones. I like wearing nearly every kind of colour, except the ones which are too screaming. Usually my hair is curled and I like wearing a ponytail, especially in school because then they are out of sight during writing. Also I like getting dressed up a little bit, but I don’t do it very often. It’s also very important to me that I wear clothes because I like them and not all the others except me.
My taste in music also doesn’t fit in anywhere because I like several types of music, but this depends on how I feel. For example when I’m happy I want to listen to something which makes me even happier. It’s difficult to tell all the types I like because there are so many, but for example I like rock (also alternative rock) and especially soundtracks of movies like “Amélie” or “Girl with a Perl Earring”. Although I like so many kinds of music I dislike the ones like techno.
My outlook of life is, when I am old, that I am happy about my life and how I lived it and I hope that there isn’t much to regret. I also wish that I will be able to have my own style when I’ve got a job because then people often have to change and to dress like someone who they aren’t.
Until now there were many people, like family and friends, who had an influence over me and my style, but I would say in a positive way. Also many things happened during my life which made me to the person I am.
When I think about my own style, it’s very difficult to describe because I’d say that I don’t belong to a youth group. Some people may think that my look is boring because I look nearly the same all the time, but despite many other teenagers I have my very own style. I’m proud that I’ve found my own style, even if I know that it will change sometime, but now I like wearing trousers, especially jeans, T-shirts and sweaters because I feel comfortable when I wear them, but it’s important that it isn’t that much expensive because in my opinion there isn’t a real difference in wearing expensive trousers or cheap ones. I like wearing nearly every kind of colour, except the ones which are too screaming. Usually my hair is curled and I like wearing a ponytail, especially in school because then they are out of sight during writing. Also I like getting dressed up a little bit, but I don’t do it very often. It’s also very important to me that I wear clothes because I like them and not all the others except me.
My taste in music also doesn’t fit in anywhere because I like several types of music, but this depends on how I feel. For example when I’m happy I want to listen to something which makes me even happier. It’s difficult to tell all the types I like because there are so many, but for example I like rock (also alternative rock) and especially soundtracks of movies like “Amélie” or “Girl with a Perl Earring”. Although I like so many kinds of music I dislike the ones like techno.
My outlook of life is, when I am old, that I am happy about my life and how I lived it and I hope that there isn’t much to regret. I also wish that I will be able to have my own style when I’ve got a job because then people often have to change and to dress like someone who they aren’t.
Until now there were many people, like family and friends, who had an influence over me and my style, but I would say in a positive way. Also many things happened during my life which made me to the person I am.
Thursday, 15 May 2008
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Review
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” is a popular coming-of-age story from the 1990s and was written by Steven Chbosky. The author was born in 1970 and “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” is his only novel.
In the book the main character Charlie is an inconspicuous boy who starts to write letters to an unknown person after a friend committed suicide. In this letters he writes about everything that happens in his life whereby he becomes a kind of an observer and you notice that he’s really for many people a “wallflower”, but not for his friends. During the time he has many ups and downs. His character and behaviour changes especially because of his surroundings, but at the end you discover that most of his behaviour is caused by something which happened in his childhood.
During the book there are many themes discussed, like smoking, drinking, taking drugs, love, homosexuality, removing from the family and friendship. Also abortion, abusiveness and violence of children are a big topic.
The book is very emotional because of the letters which are written privately. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” deals with problems which many teenagers have to experience.
I liked reading the book because it was about an interesting topic and wasn’t hard to understand. At first the book reminded of “The Sorrows of Young Werther” because of the letters, but after some pages I noticed that I was wrong and that the book is different.
“The Perks of Being a Wallflower” is a popular coming-of-age story from the 1990s and was written by Steven Chbosky. The author was born in 1970 and “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” is his only novel.
In the book the main character Charlie is an inconspicuous boy who starts to write letters to an unknown person after a friend committed suicide. In this letters he writes about everything that happens in his life whereby he becomes a kind of an observer and you notice that he’s really for many people a “wallflower”, but not for his friends. During the time he has many ups and downs. His character and behaviour changes especially because of his surroundings, but at the end you discover that most of his behaviour is caused by something which happened in his childhood.
During the book there are many themes discussed, like smoking, drinking, taking drugs, love, homosexuality, removing from the family and friendship. Also abortion, abusiveness and violence of children are a big topic.
The book is very emotional because of the letters which are written privately. “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” deals with problems which many teenagers have to experience.
I liked reading the book because it was about an interesting topic and wasn’t hard to understand. At first the book reminded of “The Sorrows of Young Werther” because of the letters, but after some pages I noticed that I was wrong and that the book is different.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Character description
In the book there is one main character, Charlie, who’s a very interesting person with a special character. There isn’t much information about his look, but he was doing sports some years ago. He also made a haircut by himself which looked quite unusual.
At the beginning Charlie is a boy who is inconspicuous and seems to be normal, but often a bit too emotional. After a friend of him commits suicide he starts to write letters to another person. He’s also musingly what Sam and Patrick, brothers and sisters whom he meets, notice, but unlike other people they don’t think he’s strange. After a short time they make friends and aren’t ashamed when he’s crying. Charlie gets to know many other persons and becomes more self-confident. He even stops thinking that much, feels better and happier. Because of them he also experiences a new part of life, learns about love, homosexuality, how to behave during a date, and friendship.
But Charlie’s character also changes and so he starts to drink, smoke, take drugs and lie to his parents. When he hurts his friends because of being too honest they split up, but when he stands up for Patrick who is beaten up, they become friends again. During all that time Charlie has to talk to a psychiatrist because of many problems in the past, but after a mental breakdown they discover that most of his behaviour is caused by his aunt Helen who abused him. Many weeks later his therapy was successful and he becomes happy again.
In the book there is one main character, Charlie, who’s a very interesting person with a special character. There isn’t much information about his look, but he was doing sports some years ago. He also made a haircut by himself which looked quite unusual.
At the beginning Charlie is a boy who is inconspicuous and seems to be normal, but often a bit too emotional. After a friend of him commits suicide he starts to write letters to another person. He’s also musingly what Sam and Patrick, brothers and sisters whom he meets, notice, but unlike other people they don’t think he’s strange. After a short time they make friends and aren’t ashamed when he’s crying. Charlie gets to know many other persons and becomes more self-confident. He even stops thinking that much, feels better and happier. Because of them he also experiences a new part of life, learns about love, homosexuality, how to behave during a date, and friendship.
But Charlie’s character also changes and so he starts to drink, smoke, take drugs and lie to his parents. When he hurts his friends because of being too honest they split up, but when he stands up for Patrick who is beaten up, they become friends again. During all that time Charlie has to talk to a psychiatrist because of many problems in the past, but after a mental breakdown they discover that most of his behaviour is caused by his aunt Helen who abused him. Many weeks later his therapy was successful and he becomes happy again.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
Correction of the 2nd exam
Violence and violence in the media are heatedly discussed topics. In such discussions it’s often claimed that especially children learn about violence on TV.
I totally agree with Michael Medved when he explains the four lies of the media. First of all Medved’s fist mentioned lie by directors is that violence is a part of our life and so it is not bad when it’s shown on TV. Similarly to Medved’s opinion I think that (thank God) hardly ever someone get’s threatened by a rapist or someone else, so to the majority of the people violence like shoot-outs is just fiction. In addition to that directors also claim that violence in movies like “Kill Bill” wouldn’t influence people because it’s made unrealistic which is true, but like Medved I think there‘s still a part of people who get influenced or become copycat killers. Likewise I’m also sure that you know much about a movie even if you haven’t watched it because of the media. Finally, the 4th lie Medved explained and I agree with is that non-violent movies aren’t successful because for example “Finding Nemo” is very popular and I think there’s a way especially for children not to become influenced so much.
Violence and violence in the media are a real problem, like a theory says, but there are also other ways how you can become violent. First of all I think it can be learned by watching TV or by grown-ups. I also think that violence can be inborn, but in my opinion in most cases violence is the result of frustration because frustration often leads to aggressive behaviour.
I believe that violence caused by these three arguments can be reduced especially among children. First, a child should grow up in a non-violent family where the parents have a good relationship to the child. Second, a child shouldn’t be punished physically because violence leads to more violence. Finally I’d say that children shouldn’t watch TV because there’s too much violence on it.
Concluding I would say that especially children are impressed by Idols or TV, but if the violence and the length of time a child is allowed to watch TV is reduced, maybe there wouldn’t be so much violence.
I totally agree with Michael Medved when he explains the four lies of the media. First of all Medved’s fist mentioned lie by directors is that violence is a part of our life and so it is not bad when it’s shown on TV. Similarly to Medved’s opinion I think that (thank God) hardly ever someone get’s threatened by a rapist or someone else, so to the majority of the people violence like shoot-outs is just fiction. In addition to that directors also claim that violence in movies like “Kill Bill” wouldn’t influence people because it’s made unrealistic which is true, but like Medved I think there‘s still a part of people who get influenced or become copycat killers. Likewise I’m also sure that you know much about a movie even if you haven’t watched it because of the media. Finally, the 4th lie Medved explained and I agree with is that non-violent movies aren’t successful because for example “Finding Nemo” is very popular and I think there’s a way especially for children not to become influenced so much.
Violence and violence in the media are a real problem, like a theory says, but there are also other ways how you can become violent. First of all I think it can be learned by watching TV or by grown-ups. I also think that violence can be inborn, but in my opinion in most cases violence is the result of frustration because frustration often leads to aggressive behaviour.
I believe that violence caused by these three arguments can be reduced especially among children. First, a child should grow up in a non-violent family where the parents have a good relationship to the child. Second, a child shouldn’t be punished physically because violence leads to more violence. Finally I’d say that children shouldn’t watch TV because there’s too much violence on it.
Concluding I would say that especially children are impressed by Idols or TV, but if the violence and the length of time a child is allowed to watch TV is reduced, maybe there wouldn’t be so much violence.
Friday, 22 February 2008
Essay
Violence is a common part in the world, but you also can watch it in several films, even in children’s films you can see violence and I wonder if such films can influence our society.
To start with I want to recur and say that there’s even violence in many children’s films. Indeed there are also other non-violent films which are very successful, but there are more violent films. Many people say that these violent films may influence people, especially children and teenagers. Examples are that some pupils or students who want to copy a film get disabled or a violent movie is an impulse for gun rampages.
But in contrast most of these violent movies, like “Kill Bill”, are so unrealistic that a normal person wouldn’t try to copy it. The majority of people don’t get violent just because they had watched a movie. What I also think is that we don’t turn into a non-violent society just because people can’t watch violence in films because there is so much of real violence in the world which isn’t caused by movies.
At least I would say we shouldn’t ban these movies, but we should think about the age limit because children who watch violent films mostly don’t understand that a movie is just a fictitious story and they don’t know how to cope with. But even if we raise the age limit we wouldn’t turn the society into a non-violent society.
words: 242
To start with I want to recur and say that there’s even violence in many children’s films. Indeed there are also other non-violent films which are very successful, but there are more violent films. Many people say that these violent films may influence people, especially children and teenagers. Examples are that some pupils or students who want to copy a film get disabled or a violent movie is an impulse for gun rampages.
But in contrast most of these violent movies, like “Kill Bill”, are so unrealistic that a normal person wouldn’t try to copy it. The majority of people don’t get violent just because they had watched a movie. What I also think is that we don’t turn into a non-violent society just because people can’t watch violence in films because there is so much of real violence in the world which isn’t caused by movies.
At least I would say we shouldn’t ban these movies, but we should think about the age limit because children who watch violent films mostly don’t understand that a movie is just a fictitious story and they don’t know how to cope with. But even if we raise the age limit we wouldn’t turn the society into a non-violent society.
words: 242
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
