ORene

Approving the death penalty to rapists would also give an unmeasurable amount of power to women. Imagine, a woman seduces you and you have sex with her. Later she threatens you and forces you to do whatever she wants. Otherwise she will take you to the court and argue you raped her. Since there are no witnesses there is no way you can prove she seduced. However she can prove your DNA is on her and a lot of other things. Playing her cards correctly she could get you a death penalty. I am not saying all women would act this way. Also I really hate rapists and they deserve to be punished not only in this life but also in the afterlife. However I think death penalty is not the answer because of the several gaps in the justice system.

There is a small village in North Bangladesh. It is called Maghalaya (spelling?). This village is in trouble because wild elephants get into the village and destroy houses on their way. They also occasionate chaos when they pass by the village.Also, there are a lot of wild lions nearby. They often get into the village and cause trouble. Incidents where small childs are killed by lions are pretty common. The village is very poor and expensive counter measures cannot be taken.Ok the problem is:How can you scare the elephants to prevent them from getting into the village. This must be done without hurting the elephants.How can you scare the lions to prevent them from getting into the village. This must also be done without hurting the animals.It must not interfere with the villagers everyday activities.It must not affect the villagers economically.And the method used should be as cheap as possible.So, how would you do it? I want to hear some funny answers

because it is no fun if you agree with everything I say I think you misunderstood it, Christmas and Santa Claus should never be about the presents.

I remember when I figured out there was no Santa Claus, indeed it hurt. However if I had knew there was no Santa Claus right from the beginning it wouldn't have hurt. Honesty from the beginning would have been better. Illusions are good and lies can lead to illusions but so can truths. An illusion based on lies will ultimately fail and hurt you when it does. However an illusion based on a truth will ultimately succeed and become a reality which will grant the person happiness. I favor the ultimate truth even if its a bad thing to say. Do you hate your parents for lying to you about Santa Claus? Of course not!Do you hate them for telling you the truth about santa? Of course not!Would you hate them if they didn't tell you the truth and your friends made fun of you for still believing in santa claus at an older age?

Death shouldn't be taken literally. As long as one person remembers you, you are not dead. People should persevere in order to achieve something they will be remembered for. I like your last phrase "life isn't just about our life". Ultimately I believe perseverance can help a person overcome death. However perseverance can bring a new question ?What is my purpose in life?I'm glad you like my posts, I think my next one will be about Life.

Alienation was proposed by Karl Marx, he tells us how a capitalist society alienates the people. He talks about several types of alienation; Social alienation, alienation from species being, alienation from self and alienation from labor. I will focus specifically on alienation from species-being.Human beings are alienated from species-being when they feel their position is threatened by a comrade. They change their attitude, activities and try to do better in order to ?protect? their position. This applies to nearly all aspects of life; the most common is probably in work. I will exemplify with two real situations in which alienation from species-being can be seen. Also I will explain how and why it is alienation. Yesterday, ?Ajelo? told me that his position in the football selection was in danger because there were a lot of good players so he felt he was going to be a substitute player. Later he said he was going to skip AP Physics class for a week to have more time for training and practicing football. This way he would show the Football trainer that he is a good player and deserves to be in the selection. In this example as we can see, ?Ajelo? started to work harder and longer in order to keep his place in the football selection. He was alienated because he felt someone else would take his place, so he is going to practice more to be in the selection for the Inter-campus games. This is an example of an attitude and activity change to protect his position since he felt it was threatened. But this is not the only situation in which ?Ajelo? has been alienated from species-being. In Tec, they give a scholarship to the best student of the whole generation. ?Ajelo? has been studying very hard all throughout high school. At first he wasn?t being alienated because he didn?t see many of his comrades studying too hard to earn the scholarship. It was this way for the first three semesters. He was the best student for those three semesters. However in the fourth semester, something bad happened, one of his comrades called ?Rob? began to study hard to win the scholarship. ?Ajelo? immediately reacted and started studying even more than before. He began to sleep less and less in order to get better grades. Everyday until now, he has been focusing on studying for at least 4 hours a day. The competence has gotten so tight that ?Ajelo? does not enjoy school anymore. Everything is about winning that scholarship and he has not been the same person since then. As we can see in this situation, he has been alienated. I consider that this kind of alienation is bad because it makes us less human in my opinion. The difference between humans and animals is that humans do certain things just because they like doing it. This is what makes us universal beings. But when you start looking at things with a utilitarian point of view, you start to judge. Who?s better than whom, what?s better than what, what provides you with the best result, and so on. This causes fear and makes people feel threatened, which causes alienation in their behavior and the activities they do. Note: I disguished the names of the people I used as examples because they use this forum they will know who they are when they see this

Where am I? Who am I? Why am I here? Life is wonderful… but why? This is not an existentialist crisis. These are the questions humanity has asked itself ever since civilization began. In order to answer these questions, humanity has invented all sorts of things, religions included. We exist without a reason. There is no proof that there is a God as well as no proof that God does not exist. Yet people choose to believe in Him. The question is why? In this essay I will explain why is God the answer we seek, or at least, why do we think He is the answer. We believe in God because we see Him as the answer to most questions about our existence. First I will start with Thomas Aquinas’ ideas. (Aquinas). St. Thomas Aquinas notices that things happen so smoothly and with such a perfect order that they must have been created by God. He said everything has a cause and, since everything has to come from somewhere; at some point the cause ‘has to be’ God. Now a little bit about Friedrich Nietzsche. (Nietzsche). Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher. He was an atheist. He said that life is meaningless and suffering and that we should follow our own morals instead of following the ones that come from someone else. Now I will explain Sǿren Kierkegaard’s ideas. (Kierkegaard). Kierkegaard believed that life was meaningless unless we managed to get linked to something superior. In other words, unless we link our soul to God, life has no meaning. He also stated that (Kierkegaard) Now I will concretely explain in which aspects I agree and disagree with each philosopher I mentioned earlier. I do believe things happen for a reason. I do not know what the first cause of everything was. I do not know if it was God or just a product of coincidence, nor can I prove either. However I need to believe in something or otherwise my life would be meaningless. Also, everything seems to perfect in this world. For example the human body is so complex and works so well that I become amazed of its perfection. Like Immanuel Kant would say, we can not prove if God exists or not; all there is to it is a matter of faith. That is why I agree with Thomas Aquinas. Nietzsche says God does not exist and that humanity killed Him. He tells us life is meaningless, dark and purposeless. And he tells us to accept it like that. Maybe he could be right. Life can be really disappointing at times, but as a mere human I have no other choice than having faith and hoping for a better tomorrow. However in my opinion he is wrong, because life is beautiful most of the time. It includes a free trip around the sun every year. Personally I do not believe in God, but I believe in Love and wait for a better tomorrow. I agree with Nietzsche, because I think God does not exist. I agree with Kierkegaard because we need to link ourselves to something great, be it an ideal or a God, in order to have a purpose in life. However I disagree with him because I do not believe ‘that something’ is God. In order to have a purpose in life, in order to know why we exist, in order to explain the universe, we need God. So in conclusion: we can not prove if God exists, or not. However as I have stated, we need to believe in Him or otherwise life would be meaningless. God may not be the correct answer to all the questions about existence. However it is the ‘easy answer’ to them. And that is why most people choose to believe in God. So in other words: We believe in God because we see Him as the answer to most question about our existence. If God had a name, what would it be? I do not know, I would call him Life. Comment

The popular, the geeks, the darks, the library rats; those are some of the stereotypes that high school students give to themselves. However, every student is unique in his or her own style, and sometimes it is difficult to know in which group they fit in. Consequently, classifying them just like this can be too vague and erroneous. So, how can we classify students without getting this wrong? The solution is very simple. There is something you can easily see in every student: their interest in school. By taking only this into count, students can be grouped in three big categories: the ones that do not care about school, the ones that care too much, and the ones that take it responsibly light. In the first group are those who are careless about school. This one is typical of the darks, the bullies, the football players and the fashion girls, but they are not the only ones. These kinds of people are easily recognizable because they are often wondering about other things, like the party of the weekend, football games or about their couples and they usually put everything before school. Of course, they do not care about class; consequently, they do not pay attention to their teachers, they get distracted chatting or just doing nothing and they do not do most of their school work. Therefore, they do not have good grades, and they often fail. Sometimes they can be a little responsible when they start to care about school, or when they are afraid to get punished; but most of the time they just prefer everything but school. On the opposite side, there are students that care too much about school. Moreover, they tend to be perfectionists. An example of this group is what is called ?a library rat?. It is the typical student that always carries huge and complicated books and that spend most of the time on the library. In most of the cases, these students are the first in the class because of their good grades and their dedication on school. They care too much and they do anything to get the highest grade; they spend hours checking their homework and exams and they try to be the favorite students of the teachers. In some cases, they even renounce their social life to concentrate completely on their studies. It is not bad to get good grades, but these people take this too far. For example, in my school there is girl that is known to be always reading or in guitar lessons. She barely talks, unless it is something relevant to school, and she never hangs out with friends ? if she has any. In some cases, this kind of student can have some social life, but the obsession of getting the best grades often gets them really overloaded and stressed. In the middle can be found the students who care about the school but take those issues light. This kind of student is the ideal one. They do not get stressed about school because they do everything they can and they are satisfied with themselves, but they are responsible enough to do everything and get good grades. I consider myself in this case because I do all my responsibilities and I care about learning, but I also care about my real life, not only about academics. I hang out with my friends, I take acting and singing classes, I get good grades and I learn new things on Internet on my free time. I seldom get stressed with my school projects and I regularly do them early so I can have some spare time. A fairly responsible student is the one that keeps the balance between school and personal and social life. High school students can be quite difficult to classify according to their personality; that?s why classifying them by their interest in school is more effective: the reckless ones, the obsessive ones and the responsible ones. The first ones prefer things other than school, and they get low grades and often fail. The second ones, on the contrary, concern too much about academics. The third ones are the ideal group because they are the midpoint between the careless and the obsessive ones. Considering all the factors mentioned before, I ask you, in which group are you?

The whole town attended to Emily Grierson’s funeral, but did they actually knew who she was? And that was exactly the problem. Emily was a very mysterious lady, with a lot of secrets and eccentricities; it was impossible to know what was going through that woman’s head. But that did not stop the people talking and supposing things about her; “poor Emily” they used to say, and it was impossible not to talk about her due to her weird personality. Emily Grierson not only was a weird woman, but also she was insane. Emily’s family background contributed to make Emily Grierson who she is. First of all, it is implied that her family had once been socially well positioned when it is said that her house was That means her family was wealthy and accepted within the society. But not everything was normal in her family; her aunt had mental problems, giving the possibility to Emily of becoming crazy too, according to what people assumed. However, her father’s death was the most important factor that changed her life. When he died her whole appearance changed; This description reflects how decaying her semblance was becoming. Also, it says that she was the last of her family, being this one of the reasons of her isolation. These situations were important causes of her personality, being the source of her madness, loneliness and bitterness. Another important part of her life is her peculiar relationship with Homer Barron. This relationship was not usual, but it was to be expected considering Emily’s behavior. They first started seeing each other: However, their relationship was not perfect. Later some ladies began saying that their relationship was a disgrace to the town and a bad example to the young people. They even forced the Baptist minister to call upon her; as a result, some kinfolks arrived from Alabama and stayed in her house. Barron and Emily seemed to have a good relationship then; people started wondering if they were going to marry, and they even thought they did. Nevertheless, Barron went away some time later, as well as her cousins. After a few days he came back, but since that day he was never seen again, neither Emily for some months. From that point on, she began behaving ever weirder. She never showed out of her house again, only her servant used to get out to buy some groceries, but he never spoke. She finished her last years without talking to anyone since her broke up with Barron. It can be inferred in the story that she could not stand a normal relationship. First of all, she was a very possessive person. This can be seen when she tries to keep her father’s corpse claiming that he was alive or when she refused to pay her taxes. In the story we can infer that she actually kill Barron because by the time that he left her she suspiciously bought some rat poison, and at the end they find his rotten corpse lying in a locked room of her house with a strand of her iron-gray hair. That means that something happen that made her react like a psycho, and therefore, to poison her boyfriend. Furthermore, that means that she was insane and that she could not control herself. Consequently, she was not able to persist in a good relationship with a man. It can be easily noticed that Emily was not a normal person and that she was a bizarre lady with a creepy behavior. Even though her family had once been a well positioned one, she became lonely and mad at the time that she lost them. She isolated herself from the society, she barely talked to some people and she even became stinky. She could not stand a relationship with a man at the point that she became a psycho-killer. She became even weirder with that last action; she got even older and bitterer. The rest of the people just enjoyed feeling pity of her, but they really did not know her; the only thing they knew is that she was insane, and so she was.

A hanging Racism of Hindu people can reach really deep extremes. One of them is the hanging. In the story of ?a hanging?, by George Orwell, is described the execution of a Hindu man in a prison and how is it from the point of view of one of the guards. This story describes his feelings, and it shows that the narrator is not as selfish as he seems and that he deeply has a good hearth. First of all, it can be seen that he actually cares a little bit about the prisoners? lives. In the text he describes how the man looked like saying ?he was a Hindu, with a shaven head and vague liquid eyes?? if he didn?t care about the prisoners he would have done like the other ones, just worrying about how long it would take to finish the job. Also, he did not mistreat the man. He did not insult him and he acted with respect in every moment; a normal guard would have not made that. Even though he worked there he didn?t seem to enjoy taking away prisoners? breath. Secondly, he felt remorse about the condemned man. When they were walking he started thinking indirectly that what he was doing was unfair. This can be seen when he thought ?this man was not dying, he was just as alive as we were?? Moreover, he was thinking about the man the whole story. He was always watching his behavior and wondering about what he felt or why he was so calmed. It can be seen that he was not that bad because of his guilt feelings and his worry about what happened. However, he was confused about his own feelings. First he worked in a very cold and mean job, but deeply in his heart he felt bad about what he was doing. It is implicit in the story the feelings that he had along every moment, and it can be easily inferred that those where not feelings or satisfactions on what he did. In the middle of the story, he just realized what he was doing; ?till that moment I had never realized what it means to destroy a healthy, conscious man.? At this point he felt even worse about himself. However, at the end he changed his mood drastically with the pressure of his group; ?at that moment Francis?s anecdote seemed extraordinary funny?, and he started having fun with the other guards. This behavior was extremely contradictory to the rest of the story. Although, we cannot say that for this he is a bad man, he was just confused about his own feelings. This case is just an example of the horrible hangings caused from racism. Furthermore, it explains it from a point of view that normally is not taken in count: the one of a guard, and his unpleasant experience of killing an innocent man. With the guard?s description of the scene we can see that he is not as bad as he seems to be, and in the deep of his heart he has good feelings, he only doesn?t know what to do with them and he just follows his job and his partners.

An Ambiguous Contrast of Freedom Freedom is an abstract word with a lot of meanings, one of them is usually used as the condition of being free of restraints (the free dictionary), but it?s definitely depending on the way you look at it. Through the pass of time a lot of philosophers have discussed this topic, but of course every and each one of them at a very personal point of view. Even though some theories are similar, they all have different meanings. Two of the philosophers that talked about freedom were the German philosopher Immanuel Kant and the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, but the one that I mostly agree with is Kant. I?m in favor with the theory of Kant in three points: his view of Compatibilism, his theory of categorical imperatives and in his consideration to intentions at the time to judge. Compatibilism consists in the fact that our destiny is already written, but we also make decisions and can change it. I agree because it is better having options instead of an established destiny. For example, you can choose any religion you want, but according to it your actions change and your destiny also changes. This gives you freedom because you have the power to decide over your life. In addition, categorical imperatives are a solution to the problem of the different morals of people. In order to have a better society, I think we should manage freedom wisely, implementing some values which can be used to guide us without taking out our freedom. Those are values that we follow not only in our benefit, but also as universal rules could create a more civilized world, as he says ?live your life as though your every act were to become a universal law? (Brainy Quote). I also agree with his theory because he considered intentions, not only the results, to judge an action. In terms of freedom this is important because you can adapt the law to every situation, not only as it is written, but also according to the context of every situation. His theory is very interesting and has a lot of similarity on my way of thinking. On the other hand, Jean Paul Sartre is against my beliefs on faith, freedom and God. First of all, he did not believe in faith; in fact, he called it ?bad faith?. I don?t agree because sometimes you need faith to see, instead of seeing to have faith. This is related to freedom because in knowledge is part of your freedom. In this case he says that you cannot believe in something only by faith, but I think that we are free to believe everything we want, even when not having evidence on every belief. A problem with his theory is that faith pushes you to do something greater, and according to his ideas this is not acceptable. Also, in his famous quote ?man is condemned to be free? he saw freedom as a negative thing. In my opinion, freedom is more than just having to make your own decisions, but also having the right to be what you want to be, to think what you want to think and to express yourself without having to follow others limitations. In his theory, he says that it?s easier if something else tells you what to believe and what to do. This may be true, but if we all were restricted to external limitations, how could we make a change on humanity? For him, there is no superior being but the mastermind of a human and the search of the truth. In his statement ?man is abandoned because there is no God? he doesn?t let people to believe in God, which also contradicts himself because he is imposing that idea, although he says we are free to believe in anything we want. I have to say that Jean Paul Sartre has a very strict way of thinking towards every topic that is linked to freedom. Both Kant and Sartre discussed some part of their theory about the topic of freedom. However, their points of view do not get along together. On one side, Kant?s theory is more flexible to every interpretation and more adaptable to every situation. On the other side, Sartre?s is more limited to a restricted understanding that does not goes beyond to what you can perceive with your senses. If we compare both ideas we can see that both philosophers saw life in opposite ways. The theory of Kant is the one that most appeals to me and the way he structures it is similar to my personal view of life. On my interpretation, I think Kant had a very successful life since he had faith in God and universal values, while Sartre was a bit more pessimistic because he felt abandoned and independent from God and all traditional beliefs. That way I can assume that following Kant?s ideas can lead to a successful life. Moreover, I have similar ideas to him, and those ideas had made me who I am and gave me my unique personality. Who do you agree with?

Perseverance is a very abstract word. Some might say it is not giving up. Some others would say it is fighting for your dreams. Perseverance means that and more. It is not only ever stopping your will, but also never letting yourself fall. It means keeping your way even when everything goes against you and never letting yourself sink in desperate actions, but doing what you need to do with constancy and confidence. But in terms of death, what does perseverance means? It means not letting yourself be defeated by death, fight for your dreams and take advantage of your life while you are still living it. Some people are afraid of death. They think their end will be catastrophic and they wait for the moment with fear all their lives. As Dylan Thomas says, wise people wait hopelessly for the moment because they know ?their words had forked no lighting?. That means that their words were not heard and their ideas were useless. Perseverance applies here because those people need to give an importance to their lives; consequently, they should not give up and do their best to make a change and give a meaning to their lives. Moreover, they should not let themselves die, as some people do only because they think their lives have no sense. Perseverance is important here because if those people had it they would not lose themselves to death. Perseverance is not only about doing new things, but also about keep living. When people get older they tend to think over about their lives and what they have done. They might even get depressed about some things they did o they didn?t, but the important thing is to be perseverant and enjoy the good moments they can have. As Maya Angelou says ?I keep on dying, because I love to live?, perseverance is about loving your life and lasting the most you can with the best attitude. What is life if you don?t see it itself as a reason to live? Life is beautiful and it deserves our effort to live it. That?s why we should keep fighting, keep enjoying every beautiful gift we receive everyday: the rise of the sun, the fresh wind in our faces, the comfort of our family and friends by our side, and our breathing itself. Those are enough reasons to keep trying everyday to give the best of us and don?t give up to our life. Death is something we cannot avoid, but what we can do is to be perseverant in our lives. Life is short, so we should take advantage of the time we have and do something with it. It?s a lot easier to die if you do it knowing that your life was worth living it. Persevering means more than just keeping your dreams, but also following them in spite of the adversity. It means standing alive and never surrender to the circumstances. It doesn?t matter if you are getting old or if you feel that there is no reason to live at all; perseverance is the best alternative to use in your life and enjoy it at maximum. If you want to give impotance to your life then the best thing you can do is persevere; don?t leave yourself down in the relentless perish, fight for your dreams and your beliefs and reach your goals, and most important, give the best you can to your life the time you are still in this world.Smile, keep trying and never give up.A good friend once told me "The only true loser is the person who has ceased to fight"Please comment

Some people tell you to follow your feelings, instinct or passions. Some others say you got to think things before doing them. This topic is about passions, I've always believed following your passions is better than following your reasoning. However on the last days some stuff has been going on and has made me re-consider it. Is passion really better than reason? Is it really worth it? Eveline was leaning her head on the window, wondering if her decision was the best. The plan was to go away to Buenos Aires with her boyfriend Frank, but she wasn’t sure about making such a big step in her life. Moreover, Eveline’s is a sign of weakness. First of all, she didn’t even know what she really wanted. On one side she wants to be with her family and keep the promise she made to her mom. But on the other side she wants to leave out of that broken home. Moreover, she doesn’t even know if she loves her boyfriend or not, she only likes to feel that somebody cares about her. She was really undecided about which life she wanted as well as the decision that would be best for her. Another sign of weakness is that she made a decision and then drew back. She was already decided to go with her boyfriend to Buenos Aires but at the end she couldn’t stand her position and she ran away cowardly. If she had been strong she would have thought with her brain before doing what she felt. However, she was not strong enough to stay firm in her choice. Finally, she was not even able to keep a promise. She promised to her mom when she was about to die to keep their family united; however, she ignored her promise and tried to leave her father. Another promise she made was with her boyfriend Frank. She promised him that they would go together to Buenos Aires, but at the last second she regretted it and she ran away. In every moment she just showed that she was not strong enough to make good decisions. First, she did not know what she wanted. Secondly, because of her weak sense of will. And finally with her incompetence of keeping a promise. She just showed that no matter what happens, this is not going to change.I'd like someone to post an argument in favor of passions. I am starting to think logic and reasoning is the way... :S Is passion just a weakness?

Honesty is a very abstract word. It is defined by the Merriam-Webster online dictionary as “adherence to the facts; refusal to lie, steal or deceive in any way.” But, what ‘honesty’ exactly means? Some would say that honesty means not telling lies, not committing crimes or being coherent with your actions and your values. I agree with all of them. Honesty is a manifestation of the truth, and the facts behind are just a consequence of being honest. In a simple sentence, honesty is not only telling the truth, but also living the truth.Honesty is based on the truth, and the most general sign of this is not telling lies. Even the most simple and “inoffensive” lie could become problematic. For instance, my friend Tania was preparing a surprise party to her boyfriend, so she asked her friend Lily some borrowed money. One of those days she was thinking out loud that she had to pay $500 dollars, but she forgot that her boyfriend was there. When she realized that he was listening, she nervously finished her sentence saying that the money was for her mom. If he had asked her mom about the money, he would probably had doubt about Tania. That would probably caused him to start wondering why she would had lied about that money; consequently, they might have had some trust problems and they might had broken up. On the other hand, saying half-truths is not being honest either. It is not the same if a 17 year old girl says “mom, I am in Ana’s house”, than saying “mom, I am in the house that Ana has in Las Vegas”. Saying the first one will probably make the girl’s mom to freak out when she discovers that her immature and unconscious daughter is not where she told her. As a result, when the daughter comes back, her mom will not trust her anymore. The key of trust is honesty, and honest people always watch that their tongue speaks only truth.But honesty implies much more than just not lying; it is also living according to the law and the good values and principles. That includes not stealing, cheating, corrupting or doing any dishonorable practice. An example of this kind of dishonesty is when a student cheats on an exam. By simply copying answers from a schoolmate’s exam the student is practicing dishonesty. Dishonesty also appears in something really simple that can be seen in the urban buses in Culiacan. Most of the drivers have a young boy by their side. That boy stays in the bus and goes everywhere for free, he just have to skip the detector that counts how many people get in the bus. Furthermore, when a lot of people are getting in, the boy sometimes covers the detector with his hand so the driver can get more money without being noticed by their supervisors. That kind of actions are not written in any official document as illegal proceedings, but it is known for all people that they are unethical. Honesty implies the fact of not doing those immoral actions and doing the right thing, even if it is more convenient to do the opposite.Even though the last arguments are very important, the most important expression of honesty is to practice this value each person to their inside. People that deny themselves are just getting in bigger problems, only because of their lack of honesty. For example, in the movie “School Ties”, David Greene is a Jewish man studying in a Protestant school in the fifties. When he got in that school he oppressed his own beliefs so his friends would not notice he was a Jewish. At the beginning he gained the respect and popularity of his school mates. Unfortunately, when they discovered his lie they felt betrayed for his deception and his denial of himself. Since then, not only he became discriminated for his religion, but also he lost his friends’ trust, respect and regard. The last example shows how can you lie to yourself affecting others, but you can also lie to yourself affecting only you. That is, for example, when you are in love with someone but you don’t admit it. By doing this you can lose the love of your life only because you did not dare to recognize your own feelings. Honesty includes not only being honest to other people, but also to ourselves, by not denying who we are and what we feel and believe.Honesty can be perceived from different outlooks; it can be seen for the lies you say, for the actions you make and for the way you behave. Honesty is more than just saying the truth, is living a way of life that tends to go for what is good and correct; is doing what is right and just. If honesty did not exist, relationships between friends, family and loving couples would be full of distrust and uncertainty. Honesty is what keeps people together, is what makes them trust in each other. Furthermore, honesty is the absolute expression of truthfulness in our lives, and what makes this world to have faith on itself.What do you think? Do you agree? I'd like to hear your opinion

A Slander is a short story that reflects the behavior of society concerning on the public image. In the story, Serge Kapitonich Ahineev is an important writer gathering with other important people. He got into the kitchen with Marfa, the cooker, to check the sturgeon, and amazed by the delicious smell he smacked his lips emitting the sound of an ungreased wheel. Suddenly, he heard a voice on the next room; it was Vankin, wrongly interpreting the noise he just heard and making up a story about Ahineev kissing Marfa. He got out of the kitchen with the anxiety of what is people going to say and started telling everyone what has happened. Soon, other people knew the event, but as a wrong explained gossip. Even the headmaster talked to him about the rumor, and what is worse, Ahineev?s wife got mad because of the gossip. This story shows how Ahineev, and the rest of the people, is dependent on people?s opinion. On the first place, Ahineev was a well-recognized man trying to fit in society?s standards for him. It says he was a school master when the headmaster was scolding him. Consequently he had to keep a good reputation and an unimpeachable profile. Also, it mentions at the beginning of the story that he ?was marrying his daughter to the teacher of history and geography.? That means he wanted to get related with high positioned people, instead of running the risk of becoming related to someone in a low class. In the story it is clearly implied how much he cared about the public image he had towards the society and how well positioned he was in it. He cared too much about the opinion that society had about him. This can be seen when he said ?the beats will go and talk scandal. He?ll disgrace me to all the town, the brute.? He immediately freaked out and started telling everyone what had happened, and started to call Vankin a ?queer fish.? Moreover, when he realized that everyone was aware of the rumor he felt like his world was tuning upside down, or as it says ?like a man scalded with scalded with boiling water.? Ahineev was a very dependent on society man, and society?s opinion had a considerable role on his life. Ahineev was so dependent on society that he did not even care about others as long as he kept his good image. When he tried to save the situation at the beginning he did not mind to insult the cooker, as he describes her ?the woman is a perfect fright, like all the beasts put together.? He preferred disgracing an innocent woman before letting the gossip spread to the rest of the people. Furthermore, at the end he went to Vankin?s and started offending him, without having any basis to incriminate him. It was clear that Ahineev would rather walk over someone else than putting himself on risk of being marked by the society in a wrong way. Serge Kapitonich Ahineev was a high positioned man with priorities on society and his concerning on people?s opinion makes him dependent on it. He was a good recognized man and he wanted to get related only with people as high-class as he was. Moreover, he wanted to keep untouched his image as an important man of society; he did not care at what price, he only wanted to fit on a good level of the society, no matter if that meant passing over someone else. Ahineev?s dependence on his public image lends him to go further than he ought, causing his own public disgrace.