Are Beauty Pageants explotive?

It's early moring on a Saturday, kids everywhere are just waking up ready to watch their favorite line up of Saturday morning cartoons. Marie, a four year old child, is preparing for her long weekend of make-up, hairspray, and gowns. Marie is one of many children who are forced by over-demanding parents who pressure their young and innocent children into many beauty pageants each year, and its wrong.
Beauty pageants first originated in Atlantic City. It was a marketing tool to make tourists stay in town longer. News struck about this beauty pageant and the local news paper headlined "The next Miss America". As beauty pageants grew popular, a Little Miss America was started for parents who wanted their children in the contest.
The average beauty pageant costs about $655 which includes the formal wear, sports wear and dance. The average cost does not include travel, hotel and food, which can be up to an extra two hundred dollars; and in some cases dresses for formal and sports wear can cost up to $12,000 with a minimum of $1500 . With the vast amount of expenses spent the pressure to win becomes more intense, leaving no room for mistakes. A four year old child should not have to go through the burden of a beauty pageant.
Preparing for a pageant requires time and patience, hair lasting around an hour and forty-five minutes, make-up around an hour, and different performances that require some participants to practice for about seven hours a week. All of this is not healthy at a young age. During these pageants children are judged by the following: modeling sportswear and evening wear, how well they dance, and how much talent they have. They are also judged by their looks how well they perform, and how confident they appear.
Approximately 250,000 children participate in pageants each year. Mothers who have children in beauty pageants argue that their children gains a boost of confidence.When it put pressure on theier children and can cause axiety attacks.

22.does access to condoms prevent teen pregnancy?

Is it really helpful in achieving its main purpose – decreasing the rates of teen pregnancy and venereal diseases?

It seems that after all it turns out to be not all that helpful. The rates are still growing and some really gruesome cases, when teens of 13 or 14 get pregnant increase as well. And the reason, in my opinion, is that easy access to condoms does not cultivate safe sex; it cultivates irresponsibility. In the times when contraceptives were either nonexistent, ineffective or very hard to come by it was not the higher level of morals that kept teenagers from getting pregnant – it was understanding that the consequences of having a good time may be very, very unpleasant. That is, in addition to this kind of things being shunned by the society.
Modern teenagers that are taught from the very childhood that sex is completely alright, no matter in what age, with whom or in what circumstances you have it, that you can buy condoms whenever and anywhere, don’t have such preconceptions. They know that all the negative consequences may be easily averted if sex is safe – but it only breeds overall contempt for the above-mentioned outdated preconceptions and the precautionary measures as well.
Easy access to condoms doesn’t and cannot prevent teen pregnancy, for it doesn’t do anything with the source of the problem; in fact, it only makes it worse. If teenagers don’t understand the seriousness of consequences, nothing short of outright sterilization will help.

11. Are we too dependent on computers?

Since their invention, people far and wide have become increasingly dependent on computers. Computers have found their way into just about every aspect of our lives, and in most cases, they make things easier for us. They allow us to work from home, socialize with our friends and family who live too far away to visit, and they provide an ever-welcome stress relief when we come home from school or work and just want to have some fun. But as we increasingly rely on computers to get through the day, the question begs to be asked: have we become too dependent on computers? Despite the many benefits of computers, there are also a number of arguments against them, one of which is the negative effect some believe they are having on children's education. Illiteracy is a growing issue, and many say that computers are to blame. In the past few years, many teachers have taken to shuffling their students off to a computer to type out short, quick assignments that could easily be written out by hand. While this isn't much of an issue for older students, it is an issue for the younger students who are just learning to read and write. Regardless of how much we're coming to rely on computers, printing and handwriting are a necessary skill to have. But typing out assignments has an affect on more than just the ability to print -- it can also negatively impact their spelling and grammar. While most programs now have spell- and grammar-check, they are not infallible; they cannot differentiate between homonyms and will often times suggest corrections that are not, in fact, correct. Furthermore, information is often more easily and accurately remembered when children have to spend a little time writing it out by hand, rather than a few quick minutes typing away at a keyboard. Because of these factors, computers in school should be reserved for older students, longer assignments, or classes which specifically teach how to use a computer.
Another case against computers crops up when a person's interest in computers goes too far and becomes an obsession. Computers make our lives easier and give us new ways to learn about the things we're interested in. They make it possible to do many things from the comfort of our own home -- we can shop online, keep in touch with our friends online, even go to school online. They make it easier to record and organize information and entertain us with a nearly endless variety of games. However, it's still important to maintain a life outside of the cyber world; a life spent attached to a computer screen isn't a real life. When a computer becomes the central point of a person's life, they undergo a change in behaviour; they become lazy and develop anti-social tendencies, and, in some severe cases, simply cannot function without a computer. It's a common thing to see with children who have been allowed to spend too much time on the computer, watching TV, or playing video games: when it comes time to walk away, they throw temper tantrums. But it's not just a matter of behavioural changes -- when a person can't tear themselves away from the screen long enough to take part in any other activity, it can take a toll on their comfort and health. They may experience weight gain, strained eyes, and headaches, among other unpleasant side-effects. However, it can also be argued that this is not the fault of the computer, but rather the fault of the person.

5. Is torture ever acceptable?

Torturing someone involves inflicting pain and misery on the victim in the hope of obtaining something he or she is unwilling to give up. The purpose can vary from simple cruelty, as when youngsters on the playground torture one of their kind to see the reaction, to seeking information from the victim that may save the life of some innocent person. The current concern with, for example, water boarding falls within the second category.
In either kind of cases torture as a rule must be avoided. That’s just part of civilized conduct. But is it always morally wrong? In very rare cases it would not be. This is when it’s used against someone whose information could save innocent people from carnage.
In a civilized society, however, there is no room for torture as official public policy, even when someone may deserve to be punished for a vicious crime or fails to help the authorities to rescue innocent victims. This latter is, of course, the sort of situation when it is most tempting to make official use of torture. Nonetheless, it would be wrong to make use of the method even then. It is a basic feature of a civilized human community to prohibit the use of physical force against someone other than in certain rare cases of defending innocent people. No offensive use of physical force is justified.