Most people are not interested how their food has been produced. They only care about how much it costs. How true is this statement? What influences people to buy food?
Write at least 250 words.
Food is the next most important thing a person requires to be alive, after water. The better you eat, the better your body will be and the more effectively you will live. Although the importance of food cannot be denied it has been seen that there are many people who are more interested in the cost of the food rather than how the food is prepared. Although everyone wants to lead a happy life and eat healthy, it sometimes so happens that the circumstances, moulds the way they take decision.
Financial condition is the most important factor for the choice taken. The people who are poor often don’t even get food, let alone of high quality, so when they do get it, they often are only bothered about the money it will cost. Even more the middle class men, although eat healthy and regular food, but they still can’t fudge over the quality of food as it has so happened in recent times that the better the quality the costlier it will be. This trend of cost vs quality has recently taken importance with the population of the world increasing in the past decade.
Therefore while choosing food, there are many factors that come into picture. Firstly, the cost. For example-: a person can easily
give 500 bucks for weekly vegetables but spending 500 bucks on a single meal is not what everyone can afford. Secondly, quality matters. Most of the people do look for good quality food. It is usually the middle of cost and quality that people go for. Thirdly, taste is often considered as it is the only way they can fulfill the palate. Most people have their favorite flavors and spices and prefer eating them.
Overall, quality of food is the one area that often gets neglected in the fight between money and standard of living. Although this trend is changing with the rise of middle class, it continues to be same in the poorer section.
Is freedom of speech necessary in free society? Give your opinions.
Speech is the most powerful tool, mankind can ever get. It were speeches of Hitler that persuaded Germany to fight the second world war, the speeches of Gandhi that ignited the fire amongst Indians to get freedom. And even in modern times, whether it is the win of Barack Obama or Narendra Modi, their speech has a major role to play. I believe a country can truly be considered free if its people have the freedom of speech.
Firstly, freedom of speech gives a sense of attachment with the country. People feel more connected if they have a say in the decisions of the country. Secondly, allowing people to speak their minds helps often helps in reaching better solutions. For example-: in 2006, when Indian government increased the reservations, people across the country came out and demanded that it would be unfair for them. This helped government in realizing their view point. Had there be no freedom of speech, may be the government had regulated it and given rise to a new revolt. Thirdly, a country becomes more democratic if the citizens are free to speak. The main idea of democracy, “a citizen’s nations” gets in acted with freedom of speech.
Although freedom of speech can even turn to a disaster if people are not tolerant. For example-: Often people tend to take someone’s opinion as offend and create issues for the person involved. Freedom of speech comes with great responsibility. The responsibility to accept other peoples’ opinion before they give their own. It comes with an understanding that different people can have different opinions and until they are not harming you, you must allow them to exist.
Overall, I believe freedom of speech marks a free society. The issues involved with it can be fought back only with education and acceptance of diversity.
Some hold the view that ideas and information should be completely open, and there should be no control on what people can read and watch in the media(TV, newspaper, Internet). Do you agree with this view,or do you think that in some circumstances governments should limit the freedom of media?
We are living in the digital world and media has surely become a part of our lives. It could be watching television for news or comic relief or the characters that we accept as our family members. Or it could be reading newspapers for hours or gaining the insights of the world through Internet. We live in an era, where media influences us the most and in such times allowing media to show anything could prove to be disastrous in more than one ways.
Firstly, providing every information to the viewers could prove to spread negativity. For example-: if the media covers every rape or murder and keep flashing it daily, it could bring in a sense of negativity for people who regularly intake it. Secondly, often there is data that is secret to a country’s government. For example-: a launch of a mission to fight back terrorism. Showing such information in media could lead to the doom of the mission, as the information can easily reach to the trouble makers. Thirdly, every information has different aspects to it. What might seem obvious to one, may not be acceptable to other. In such cases, a piece of information can cause riots or issues that could be easily avoided.
Although restricting media completely can cause a loss of contact between the government and people. The sense of democracy may be lost and it could lead to revolutions that may shake the country’s peace. It has been seen that through media people have been able to raise their voices. For example-: When in 2006 the Indian government raised the reservations, people formed groups and stood against it. It was with the help of media that the issue got national audience.
To sum up, it can be said, that media holds a very important position in a nation and it must be made sure that the correct information goes to the country.
Some people think a crime should always have a fixed punishment, like life imprisonment for murder, whereas others think you should take circumstances into account. What is your viewpoint?
Write at least 250 words.
Humans have created human like robots, but yet humans remain humans. Unlike the digital robots, who have a fixed yes or a no; a high bit or a low bit; human behavior is quite complicated. More importantly, the situations humans put themselves into are usually multi-faced. With apropos of this fact, I believe having a fixed punishment for a particular crime, could be unjustified in most of the cases.
Most of the people argue that a crime is a crime and must be punished with full severity, there are always multiple cases to it. For example-: a murder done in self defense cannot be regarded similar to the one done with cruel intentions. Therefore, giving a life imprisonment in both the cases could be unfair to the former. The next important thing to be taken into consideration is the mental condition of an individual committing a crime. For example-: consider a person who gets violent on seeing fire, sees someone lighting the gas and hits him/her. On the other hand, consider someone who out of ulterior motives hits someone. Rather than giving treatment to the former, if a fixed punishment is given, it will only worsen the situation.
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that we live in a corrupt society and the criminals have become more intelligent. Keeping loop holes in punishments help criminals to mold the law in their favor. For example-: a person can claim to be mentally unfit in front of law to get away with the punishment. Even more, often the lawyers and the individuals, for money, change the circumstances in which the crime took place.
Overall, it can be said that fixing a punishment for a crime could be disadvantageous for people who deserve a second call. To overcome the side effects of providing the loop holes, the law must be strengthened and provisions must be made to ensure people are not misusing the law for their own benefits.