Indian woman pretend to be a Man for dowry

What I listened to / read

 While I was surfing on the internet on Sunday night ,  I found an surprising topic on BBC News . It's "India woman held for posing as groom for a dowry" . Then , I think I should publish this on our IELTS  blog . 

___________________________________ 

What it says

In India , Krishna Sen was arrested for demanding dowry because she has been masquerading as a men since 2014 when she first married. Then ,she separated from her first and married another in 2017. She also borrowed around 850,000 rupee from her second bride and had not return the money.

___________________________________ 

My response 

This was surprising when I first read this news because their marriage's culture is different from Thai marriage. In Thailand ,  paying and accepting dowry is one of normal tradition that the groom's family give cash ,gold or house to the bride's family . But, in India , The bride have to give dowry to groom's family for raising her child and allowing him to marry her.

Ms. Sen can live like  a man , and no one noticed that she isn't male. According to the news , she spoke in a different tone of voice , used man's toilets and mostly had male friend. It's mean that she had to pretend to be a man all the time. These make me really confused about her purpose because she has to spent time at least a year to make someone fell in love with her . Then , she can get her dowry. It's take long time and effort.

I searched on the internet for more information and found that mostly man pretend to be woman on online dating site because women usually trust the same gender . In addition , they can learn how do women think and do . These let them understand their girlfriend. It's also help them to philander when they crush on someone.

Racism, sexism and ... speciesism: A tasty bite

What I read

As soon as I saw the title "Offended by Koreans eating dog? I trust you’ve never had a bacon butty", I guessed what Chas Newkey-Burden would argue in his article in The Guardian. I wasn't disappointed. But he doesn't go as far as he could have. 

___________________________________ 

What it says

Newkey-Burden argues that Western people are irrational when they criticise South Koreans for killing and eating dogs while they themselves are treating equally intelligent animals in the same brutal way before turning them into tasty meals. 

___________________________________ 

My response 

Although Newkey-Burden hints at it, he does not directly state what seems to me a much more serious argument here. We think that racism is morally wrong; that is, it's not OK to say that black people, or Chinese people or Isaan people should be discriminated against because they are black, Chinese or Isaan. We also think that sexism is wrong. For example, it would be wrong to say that a woman can't study engineering because ... she is a woman. Or that she can't vote because she is a woman. In contrast, we discriminate between children and adults for good reasons: four year old children do not get driver's licences because they are not physically or mentally able to control a car – that is a morally relevant reason, so the discrimination is not prejudice.

But what about discriminating between animal species? It can't be right to treat human animals differently to other animals merely because they are humans. That would be exactly the same sort of unjustified prejudice as sexism and racism. We need a good reason to treat animals like dogs, pigs, ducks, cows and other tasty animals differently to human animals. And it is is not at all obvious that there is any such criteria that justifies the common discrimination that humans indulge in.

Newkey-Burden points out in his article that pigs are as intelligent as dogs, so that intelligence cannot be a criteria that justifies treating dogs differently to pigs when it comes to eating them. But although he does not explicitly make the connection, he also cites research from Cambridge University which shows that a pig is as intelligent as, or more intelligent than, a human baby at least in the first years of a human baby's life. So, not only can intelligence not justify treating dogs differently to pigs, neither can it justify treating human babies differently to pigs.

So, is there any significant difference that makes it morally acceptable to treat pigs and dogs, and ducks, and cows, differently to at least some human beings? Can you suggest one?

In case your wondering, I enjoy meat every day: duck, pork, beef, lamb, lobster and others are some of my favourite things. But that's not a good reason to think that my discrimination is not speciesism, the same sort of unjust prejudice as sexism and racism. Do I and my fellow human beings  have a good reason for our discrimination against non-human animals?

Save the Children!

What I listened to

A couple of days ago I read the BBC News story "Is social media causing childhood depression?" and almost decided to blog that (I still might) because I got so angry at the author's uncritical silliness. Happily, a TED Talk appeared on my Facebook homepage the next day. "3 fears about screen time for kids — and why they're not true" was an antidote to that latest silly story about how screens are destroying childhood or even adulthood. 

___________________________________ 

What it says

In her 11:30 minute talk, children's media expert Sara DeWitt presents and opposes with solid evidence from research three common fears that parents have about children, especially very young children, using smartphones and tablets: 1) that they make children passive, suppressing physical activity; 2) that they interfere with learning; and 3) that they disrupt social relationships with parents and others. 

___________________________________ 

My response 

From the start, I liked DeWitt's presentation: she tells us that most American adults check their phones within five minutes of waking up, and that already had me hooked. When she went on to say that they think smartphones are necessities, I was definitely in the group of "they". I realised this a couple of years ago when I was in Australia for my annual visit to family and friends there. Naturally, I had my smartphone with me, and I thought I could get by with the wifi that abounds throughout Sydney and my family members' homes, but it wasn't enough! I needed full connectivity all the time, so within a couple of hours of landing in Sydney, I ran into a store and bought a SIM card that gave me 4G access for the next ten days. Relief! And if smartphones are essential for adults, why would we think that they are not also important for children, who do live in the same world that we adults do?

I can understand the fears of parents and others, as can DeWitt, who sensibly takes those fears seriously before showing them to be greatly exaggerated. When I'm on the BTS, I often do a quick count, and it's usual that about 60 to 80% of people are staring at their smartphones. But then I remember back forty years or so when the workers on my school bus had their heads buried in newspapers or stared blankly out of the window. I can't see how focussing on a phone screen is any less sociable than either of the other two behaviours, and just as people used to make conversation about what was in the newspaper on paper, they now do the same about the news in the online newspaper. The difference is that the smartphone version is much more convenient than carrying around a great pile of dead trees.

Of course, any technology can be used in helpful or harmful ways, but trying to stop kids using smartphones because it might interfere with exercise, with socialising or with learning is like opposing the use of paper and pens because some kids will use them to draw cartoons instead of listening to a boring teacher lecture instead of engaging the kids in active learning. Paper and pens were a great technology last century, but one of the things that struck me when I watched Michael Sandel's lectures on justice at Harvard University was the large number of students taking notes not on paper but on screens, and that was some years ago now.

Yes, children do need to be saved – especially from well-meaning adults who are wrong.

What I listened to / read

After class, I thought about last week. It was a very busy week and it had many problems. Sometimes, I wonder why somebody can do many things in the same time but they still have time to gym or travel and whatever they want. I just heard a speech that it would be an answer. "How to gain control of your free time | Laura Vanderkam" 

_____________________________________________ 

What it says

In the clip, Laura Vanderkam talks about time management and how to do that. She says we don’t build lives we want by saving time but we build lives we want then time will save itself. The key point to manage time is the way we treat our priorities as the equivalent of emergency situation and she also guides us to make a three-category priority list: career, relationships, ourselves, it is very helpful.

_____________________________________________ 

My response 

Well, I am a person who always say I have not time to go to the gym or to do something. I did not realize what is a problem but after listening to this clip, I know the reason immediately because I did not set it into the piority list and I think I am a mobile addict too. Sometimes, I think I just see little things in facebook but the truth is I lose more  than one hour for nothing.

Actually, I always make a priority list but just for work. I have never made a list for relationships or myself before because I think they are unimportant but I may try it next time. The speaker tried to tell us about how to saving time to do something by compare the priority list with the broken water heater. (I think it means an emergency situation.)  So, if you want to do something, you just put it in your list and do it.

Took selfie and died

What I listened to / read

        I chose to read  " Bangkok woman killed taking selfie on train tracks " because this topic was really shocked me. I've never heard about anyone died from try to take selfies . Then , I read this news to find what did it happen and how.  

___________________________________ 

What it says

      Early on Thursday morning at Samsen train station , BKK woman died later at hospital after taking photos with an approaching train. Her male friend sustained severed injured . Look back to January 2018 , a man died after trying to film a video of himself and incoming train in India.

___________________________________ 

My response 

         In 1685 , the first camera was designed but the first photograph was clicked in 1814. Then , the camera have been improved continuously . At the present , this device is popular in every ages of people. We use this device without realizing of it's main purposes . For my opinion , the main purpose of cameras is preservation of history but nowadays we use it for showing our luxury or chic lifestyle .
We try to get greater selfie photos without noticing that selfies can be dangerous and fatal.

        After reading this news , I searched on the internet and found a lot of related news . Since we have mobile phones that come up with a camera , the number of died people from take selfies has risen. The reason of dead by accident is not a modern device but it's because of our cautiousness.

In addition , we do passionate by amount of likes on Facebook or hearts of Instagram . It's lead us to be in harm situation by ourselves. 

         I didn't count this situation as accident because we all know the apparent cause. So, we can avoid and stay away from it. I feel regret to died and injured person and I'm also hope that it'll not happen again.