Recent Changes

Friday, June 9

  1. page SahiCK- Should Animal testing be banned edited Should Animal Testing be banned? Introduction: ... be cured before. beffdskore. People are …
    Should Animal Testing be banned?
    Introduction:
    ...
    be cured before.beffdskore. People are
    · Universities
    · Medical schools
    (view changes)

Saturday, May 10

  1. page attiqck Should Zoos be banned edited ... Another mistake many zoos make is separating and isolating pack animals. They are called pack …
    ...
    Another mistake many zoos make is separating and isolating pack animals. They are called pack animals for a reason. When separated from their pride, pack, pod, flock or herd many animals will die. And in many zoos, not only do they isolate them but, put them in cages with concrete floors, and bars. How would you feel to suddenly be taken from your home where you ran free with your family and put in a cage with a cold, hard floor to be stared at by people day in and day out. Most only looking for less than 30 seconds before making some derogatory remark and walking off. This fact has been proved in a study, which was conducted in America. Most people don't care about the animals; they are just looking for another way to entertain them. We have brains for a reason, learn how to use it.
    Aside from being a place of captivity it is also a place where children can see the animal wonders of nature, and learn all about them. Many zoos have captive breeding programs in order to replenish the populations of endangered species. The spotted leopard, the lynx, and the panda are all examples of animal that are kept in zoos, under programs that aim to preserve, protect, and study the species.
    Questions
    Yes
    No
    Total
    Should

    Yes
    No
    Total
    Should
    zoos be banned?
    Do

    Do
    zoos have a purpose?
    Should

    Should
    animals be
    ...
    to live
    Attiq gets head off skets

    (view changes)
  2. page attiqck Should Zoos be banned edited ... Do zoos have a purpose? Should animals be free to live Attiq gets head off skets
    ...
    Do zoos have a purpose?
    Should animals be free to live
    Attiq gets head off skets
    (view changes)

Friday, December 7

  1. page attiqck Should Zoos be banned edited ... be banned? By: Amanda Wells July 10 2005 Everybody seems to think fox hunting is crue…
    ...
    be banned?
    By: Amanda Wells
    July 10 2005

    Everybody seems to think fox hunting is cruel at the moment, but how many of them actively support a much more horrific form of animal abuse.
    It might not sound like it, but I am talking about zoos.
    (view changes)

Sunday, November 11

  1. page Is the Death Penalty right or wrong? Tahmid edited THE DEATH PENALTY {http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5c3HUr42O8qk-t6XjYs19WGlEm4sLV_3ML2zH…
    THE DEATH PENALTY
    {http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ5c3HUr42O8qk-t6XjYs19WGlEm4sLV_3ML2zH97qaf8xB5f0&t=1&usg=__iVxTTtyB9X2BCkpwrUIOCxosPlI=} Writerz BloxThe Death Penalty...a topic that is debated worldwide. On one side, there are the people that think along the line {http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQMQ94JFBEM-gl2Z2EAcngqpm3rDJbOiVki5NmUZbgbQpvk7OE&t=1&usg=__dWFR19irvOtLpCxE9FTUg-uYY_c=} He dont approve ur loans that the Death Penalty is good and should be allowed; there are many reasons and they are outlined in the paragraphs below. On the other hand, there are people that disagree that the Death Penalty is right, and again, their reasons are outlined below. Personally, I strongly disagree with the idea that the Death Penalty should be re-instated in some countries; does not the Geneva Convention state that "There shall be NO violence to their life and person, murder of any kind, mutilation, cruelty or torture?"
    Firstly, this wiki will look at arguements for the Death Penalty. If you were to sentence a criminal to the Death Penalty, many things, good and bad, will occur. It will stop the criminal commiting more crimes (i.e. murders, bank robberies, etc); thus, the streets would be that little safer than if the criminal was released or released on terms of a parole. The Death Penalty will also create a crime deterrant; it will discourage criminals from commiting their crimes. Look at this example: China executes more than a 1000 people annualy, whilst the UK does not execute at all. Have you ever heard a major crime being commited in China? It is very rare. Even if it did happen, the criminals would be executed straight away; it then deterrs other criminals from breaking the law. However, major crimes happen in the UK all the time: the Cumbrian shootings, murders happening every other day alongside a lot of others - for a full list click here.
    As well as those above, the family of the victim's grief would finally end if the criminal was executed. Suppose that the criminal in question was convicted of a {death-penalty.jpg} Countries with the most executions (2008)crime such as murder or rape. If the Death Penalty was in place in the country where the crime was commited, such as Saudi Arabia, the convict would most likely be executed, thus ending the victim's family's suffering. However, if it was the UK, the convict would probably be given a life sentence - with the chance of a parole (i.e. s/he will be released early for good behavior in prison). The family of the victim's hardship would never end, knowing that the thug that was responsible for the death/rape of their son was out on the streets of London again. How would YOU feel if the crook that killed YOUR dad was released from confinement?
    And also, isn't justice better served once the criminal has been executed? I mean, the most fundemental principal of justice is that the crime should fit the punishment - it works in a lot of other countries, so why can't it work in ours? In America, if you were to murder you would be executed by electrocution or lethal injection. In Bangladesh, for murder you would be hanged. In Saudi Arabia, you would be decapitated. What I am trying to convey is that if someone ferally kills someone, would'nt it be right to kill the murderer? In a way, we are making the death easier for the convict - if s/he was convicted for, say, using a power drill to drill through the middle of the victim's forehead (the victim would obviously die in agony and excrutiating pain), the criminal would probably, if in America, be killed by the electric chair or lethal injection; if in Bangladesh, hanged; and if in Saudi Arbia, beheaded. The majority of times someone gets murdered, the criminal uses an inhumane method (for example: the power drill method mentioned above) compared to the methods used for the Death Penalty - electrocution, lethal injection, hanging and beheading (amongst many others). The only exception is when an execution goes horribly wrong. (THEN a criminal dies in pain and agony).
    This wiki will now move onto arguements against the Death Penalty. People do not realise that keeping someone in prison under lock and key for life is two to five times cheaper than carrying out the Death Penalty. "How is this?", I hear you say.
    "How is feeding a prisoner and providing all his necessities for life cheaper than getting a whacking great big knife and walloping his/her head off? Or shooting him/her with an AK-47?" There is a simple reason for this: if you did decide to execute someone, you would have to pay for: the court along with the judge, attorneys, court reporters, clerks {http://estb.msn.com/i/D7/3E39B1E6F12A66206F2AC248276737.jpg} Whoa!alongside the endless appeals, not to mention the 15-20 years spent on the death row. All this, with a lot of others; so you see, keeping someone in life imprisonement is much better and cheaper than "getting a whacking great big knife and walloping his/her head off."
    As the world becomes and more civilised, it is slowly moving away from the old "eye for an eye" concept. We, nowadays, regard this to be barbaric and crude. So; the question is, WHY is it still being used in some countries around the globe? There is evidence that the "eye for an eye" system is savage and does not help achieve peace: have you ever wondered why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for so long? It started just after the end of WW2, and it still is going on today; approximately sixty years! If we want any hope of achieving peace, we should definetly start moving away from the Death Penalty.
    My last point is that the Death Penalty is just simply inhumane. Think of it this way. If a victim was murdered, and the criminal sentenced to the Death Penalty, and s/he dies, it does not do the victim any good, does it? It does not bring the victim back to life, does it? No, it does not. So instead of killing another human being, you just sentence him to life imprisonement. Because no-one has the right to kill. We should punish him, yes, but not kill him. (And anyway, there is evidence above showing that it is more expensive to sentence someone to the Death Penalty rather than life imprisonement). In my opinion, as I have mentioned at the start of the article, is that killing is wrong. Abolish the Death Penalty!
    SUR VEY (graph):
    Asked: 12 persons
    Opinions:
    ABOLISH DEATH PENALTY: 7
    By Tahmid Choudhury
    Blox
    (view changes)

Tuesday, May 31

  1. page cheranck-Should hunting animals be banned? edited Intro:- Animal hunting is an activity involving the tracking, chasing, and also killing an animal.…
    Intro:- Animal hunting is an activity involving the tracking, chasing, and also killing an animal. Hunting is originated in Australia, Canada, plus also some other countries. In Australia, the term also refers to the hunting of animals with fire-arms. The sport is controversial, particularly in the UK, where bans were introduced for Scotland in 2002, then for England and Wales in November 2004. Proponents see it as an important part of rural culture, useful for pest-control, while opponents argue that it is cruel htmldiff1
    htmldiff2and unessessary.
    {http://www.bustersdoghouse.com/images/iStock_000003825763XSmall.jpg} external image iStock_000003825763XSmall.jpg htmldiff3
    YouTube - Fox hunting at snow
    Do you think this dog likes it?
    htmldiff4
    Watch the video:-
    htmldiff5
    animal hunting video
    Arguments for the issue : There are many reasons why animal hunting should be allowed, here are some of the most controversial issues. Shooting them doesn't always kill foxes outright. They manage to get away and then suffer a slow painful death. Killing them with dogs can be more humane. 1,000,000 animals are shot or snared each year. Only 160,000 of them are killed by hunts. People in cities may not agree with hunting, but that doesn't mean they should interfere with a traditional country pursuit. Animals hunters are being picked on and there is no vote on whether we should ban fishing and that is just as nasty.
    Arguments against the issue: There are also many reasons against animalHunting, here are a few. A twelve-year-old girl and her ten-year-old brother were shocked when they saw a dog being torn apart by a pack of hounds in their garden in West Yorkshire. Their father said: 'They said it would have died in seconds, as the dogs would have got it by the throat, but from what I saw it was torn to pieces.' Hunters chase them for pleasure and not because they want to help farmers. They could be controlled by shooting instead. Personal freedom doesn't mean you have a 'right' to be cruel. Living in a democracy means that you have to accept the majority view - we can't all just do what we want.
    x---Q1:- Should hunting be banned? Q1:- Should hunting be banned?
    x---Q2:- Should animals live freely? Q2:- Should animals live freely?
    x---Q3:- Do you think that the people who hunt animals be arrested? Q3:- Do you think that the people who hunt animals be arrested?
    x---Q4:- Do you think that the animals who got injured from hunting should be cured? Q4:- Do you think that the animals who got injured from hunting should be cured?
    x---Q5:- Should people get death sentences for it? Q5:- Do you think death sentences should be given for animal-cruelty? 

    (view changes)
    7:22 am

Tuesday, December 7

  1. page RahimCk Should smoking in publc be banned edited ... Overall i think smokers have a right of smoking because it is not there fault but the drug tha…
    ...
    Overall i think smokers have a right of smoking because it is not there fault but the drug that they love to take in,but they should be aware of who they smoke nexts to and what effect it can cause on that person.They should not litter there cigarette antwhere and put it in the bin instead on the pavement.
    THANK YOU FOR READING (rahim rahamn)8Q
    {ict presentation about smoking.ppt}
    (view changes)
    5:54 am

Friday, December 3

  1. page NeelCK - Are mobile phones dangerous? edited ... = {Neel_cooltext.png} = {presentation on Wiki - Neel.pptx}
    ...
    =
    {Neel_cooltext.png}
    =
    {presentation on Wiki - Neel.pptx}
    (view changes)
    9:04 am

Tuesday, November 30

  1. page NeelCK - Are mobile phones dangerous? edited ... Conclusion: In conclusion, I believe those mobile phones are a great invention which totally …
    ...
    Conclusion:
    In conclusion, I believe those mobile phones are a great invention which totally changed the ways humans deal with everyday situations, but also has raised the amounts of roadside deaths. Without mobile phones our lives would be very simple, we would not be able to make emergency calls outside of our houses easily but the number of roadside accidents would decrease slightly. Overall, we humans are already addicted to mobile phones that the new generations will find it hard to survive without it.
    === =
    =
    =
    (view changes)
    7:26 am

More