Argumentative Essay on Children Copying Behavior of Adults

Argumentative Essay on Children Copying Behavior of Adults Children have always been copying their parents’ behavior. It is very easy to notice. Three-year-old girl criticizes her doll for the same faults she was punished earlier. She copies not only her mother’s words, but even mimics and gestures. Parents’ behavior is taken for the model: â€Å"I want to do exactly what my mother does†. This peculiarity of children’s personality is a basis of their upbringing. Imitation of parents’ behavior is the easiest and the most natural way for a child to learn. It is up to parents to help their kid become successful and make his/her life better. One of the ways to do it is to be the best role model. Let him copy the better sides of you. Don’t forget that he will remember not only what you do, but what the other adults around him do as well. So, filter your surrounding and make sure there are pleasant and polite adults around your child. Generally speaking, parents wire up their children to take up their lifestyle with their words and actions. From the very first days they lay the foundation of kids’ personality with daily routine, project on them all the mistakes, achievements and victories. Very often a child repeats his parents’ life without even realizing it, even though he is not always proud of what kind of people they are. My opinion is that there is

Definition and Examples of Pejorative Language

The term pejorative language refers to words and phrases that hurt, insult, or disparage someone or something. Also called a  derogatory term or a term of abuse. The label pejorative (or derogatory) is sometimes used in dictionaries and glossaries to identify expressions that offend or belittle a subject. Nonetheless, a word thats regarded as pejorative in one context may have a non-pejorative function or effect in a different context. Examples and Observations of Pejorative Language It is often ... the case that pejorative terms are stronger when applied to women: bitch is seldom a compliment, whereas bastard (especially old bastard) can under some circumstances be intended as a term of respect or affection. Of similar positive status when masculine is dog (as in you old dog!, admiring a rouà ©); when feminine in reference in AmE it means an ugly woman. Witch is almost always pejorative, whereas wizard is often a compliment.(Tom McArthur, Concise Oxford Companion to the English Language. Oxford University Press, 2005)[T]here is a tendency to select our pejorative epithets with a view not to their accuracy but to their power of hurting...The best protection against this is to remind ourselves again and again what the proper function of pejorative words is. The ultimate, simplest and most abstract, is bad itself. The only good purpose for ever departing from that monosyllable when we condemn anything is to be more specific, to answer the question Bad in what way? Pejorative words are rightly used only when they do this. Swine, as a term of abuse, is now a bad pejorative word, because it brings no one accusation rather than another against the person it vilifies; coward and liar are good ones because they charge a man with a particular fault--of which he might be proved guilty or innocent.  (C. S. Lewis, Studies in Words. Cambridge University Press, 1960) Pejorative Language As a  Persuasive  Strategy One important feature of a narratio  is that of characterization of the major players. The use of pejorative language was in order to dispose the audience in a particular direction toward ones own viewpoint and against that of others. Hence we hear [in the epistles of St. Paul] about false brothers secretly brought in who spy things out, or about those reputed to be pillars, or about Peters and Barnabas hypocrisy. This use of pejorative and emotional language is not accidental. It is meant to raise animus against the opposing viewpoint and sympathy for the speakers case.  (Ben Witherington, III, Grace in Galatia: A Commentary on Pauls Letter to the Galatians. TT Clark Ltd., 1998) Euphemisms and Lexical Change There are cases of euphemisms leading to lexical change in the past. For instance, imbecile originally meant weak and idiot meant non-expert, layperson. When these words had their meanings extended to soften the blow of saying that someone had very limited intellectual powers, the original meanings were obscured and eventually got lost. Unfortunately, when we use euphemisms, the unpleasant associations eventually catch up with the new word. Then it is time to find another one. (Surely, a more effective solution to the problem of reducing the hurt caused by using pejorative language is to change the attitudes of people who consciously or unconsciously use such language. Not an easy task.)(Francis Katamba, English Words: Structure, History, Usage, 2nd ed. Routledge, 2005) Rhetoric As a Pejorative Term The art of rhetoric was held in high regard from ancient Greece until late in the 19th century, occupying a prominent position in the paideia, which signified both education and culture. . . .Towards the end of the 19th century, rhetoric fell into disrepute and was no longer taught in the various educational institutions. The word rhetoric received a pejorative meaning, suggesting the use of underhanded tricks, fraud, and deceit, or the stringing together of hollow words, hackneyed expressions and mere platitudes. To be rhetorical was to be bombastic.(Samuel Ijsseling, Rhetoric and Philosophy in Conflict: An Historical Survey, 1975. Trans. from the Dutch by Paul Dunphy. Martinus Nijhoff, 1976)Rhetoric is not a term to embrace lightly; it is too pockmarked by a century in which it has been deemed to be associated merely with sophistication (in the less positive sense of that word), cant and emptiness. It has seemed to suggest a state in which language floats free of its context and th us becomes deracinated, superfluous--perhaps inflated--and ultimately meaningless. This palsied view of rhetoric is not new, however. The earliest recorded pejorative reference to rhetoric in English, according to the OED, dates from the mid-sixteenth century. Plato was fiercely critical of it. It seems that the epithetic phrase sweet rhetoric has been particularly far from peoples mouths in the last hundred years or so.(Richard Andrews, Introduction. Rebirth of Rhetoric: Essays in Language, Culture and Education. Routledge, 1992)

Johari Window Free Essays

OB2 – Case Study on Johari Window THE CHANGE AGENT Shweta is the marketing department manager of JK enterprises. She has noticed that her staff seems to be pulling in separate directions and some members have trouble cooperating with others. She feels team building will help her department function in a more positive and productive way. We will write a custom essay sample on Johari Window or any similar topic only for you Order Now Shweta interviews several OD consultants to find the change agent she thinks will be right for what she needs. Shweta decides on Kartik, an organization development consultant that best answered the question, â€Å"How will this change agent build a group into a team? Kartik meets with Shweta to discuss the problems. Kartik and Shweta discuss the problem as Shweta sees it. They discuss specific questions to ask and data that will be collected from interviews with team members. Kartik interviews Shweta’s staff and immediately a number of issues surface that appear counterproductive to effective functioning. Lack of communication is identified as the most serious problem, and many of the other major issues are a direct result of the communication breakdown. Kartik reports the general findings back to Shweta without mentioning any names. After discussing the problem and possible ways to solve it, they decided on the two-day team building retreat. The goal of the retreat is to get the group to work through the issues that are causing the biggest problems. Kartik’s idea about how to approach the retreat is: We will adopt THE GROUP MOTIVATION EXERCISE model. It is quite like looking at the positives of self ; others and not look at the negatives at all. The purpose is to build on the positives and do not discuss negatives as they already have issues against each other. Let them write the name of their ideal colleague stating the qualities because of which they admire him/her. Then they should write their own qualities on a second sheet of paper. Lastly they should make groups and discuss their observations. Using the Johari Window model, what do you think are the benefits Kartik’s approach? Which panes will be highlighted? How to cite Johari Window, Papers

Law and Constitution free essay sample

The advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages† Discuss (40) The fact that the issue of the UK’s need for a codified constitution has managed to remain relevant despite centuries of prolonged deliberation, is not only testament to its importance as an issue but equally so to it’s significance and how it could potentially affect the UK as a whole. A codified constitution is a constitution made up of a set of laws that an individual or set of people have made and agreed upon for governmental use and is most importantly documented in a single place. In theory, the documentation of a codified constitution appears to make minimal difference to the executive and judiciary system, however, in common practice the advantages of a codified constitution in present day UK in regards to the executive, judiciary and society as a whole do not outweigh the disadvantages. This is due the fact that many of the issues which point toward the advantages of a codified constitution, such as modernization, rights and adaptability also reveal distinct social and political disadvantages to the incorporation of a codified constitution; ultimately the use of other tenuous links fail to alter the fact that the advantages of a codified constitution do not outweigh the disadvantages at the present moment in time. One of the primary hindrances in regards to whether the advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages is its sense of a lack of social mobility and a failure to adapt, which in many ways branches into the topic of modernisation, whilst also begging the question as to whether or not modernisation is worth taking when bearing in mind the potential extent of governmental paralysis in which it creates in relation to the legislation process. This in affect further prohibits the extent in which the Legislature can maneuver, which as previously stated undermines it’s power of legitimacy. In regards to adaptability however, the fundamental premise in which the implementation of a codified constitution is found wanting is it’s rigid nature in terms if natural progression. This is in sharp contrast to the current uncodified format of Britain’s current constitution which has used its flexible nature to allow natural adaptation to the tune of social change. So, for example, the non-political role of the monarchy has gradually evolved and adapted for over a century showing that odernisation must not strictly take place in the form of a codifying the British constitution. Similarly, Parliament has rarely experienced any dramatic changes to its powers and procedures due to no dramatic need to do so, however, it has still adapted itself to the progressive nature of modern government cautiously, rationally and of course progressively, in both past and present, once again highlighting Britain’s need to continue on this trend of gradual adaptation whilst als o not compromising on the concept of modernisation. Ultimately in practical terms in regards to the issue of adaptability, the documentation of a codified constitution would stifle a fundamental aspect of the current British constitution weakening the view that the advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages. The rigid nature of the constitution as well as being clear in the aspect of adaptability is similarly mirrored in it’s black and white viewing towards declaring the rights of those residing within any given area, in this case the UK. In many respects it could be viewed that the black and white nature of the constitution could be beneficial and remove any grey areas that still remain within the British Judiciary system in particularly in relation to rights. The creation of a codified constitution potentially entails the entrenchment of The Human Rights Act (2000) to protect the rights of citizens within the UK. The codification of the constitution could lead to the rights of those within the UK taking some sort of tangible format, and during a time in which fervent interest in rights is groomed along by those who seek it’s entrenchment, there could potentially be some reasoning behind this being an advantage of codification as well as the prospect of enhanced patriotism. Although, with multiculturalism so prominent within the UK it is difficult to imagine enhanced patriotism being of significant importance. What must be said though is that in anyone’s mind the preservation of the rights of citizens is a firmly reassuring idea. Furthermore, It could be argued that the Human Rights Act does not go far enough as by preserving parliamentary sovereignty and making parliamentary legislation an exception to it’s jurisdiction, the act fails to deal with the fundamental issue in the British constitution; that is, the enormous power of central government and its complete control over parliament. This, in the eyes of cynics at east, feeds into the argument of codification as had the Human Rights Act been binding on parliamentary legislation, it may have represented a major check on governmental power. However, what must be said is that however weak cynics may sight the Human Rights Act and view codification as some form of panacea, there are a few cases of practical evidence to show otherwise with the anti-terrorism legislation of 2004 a primary example which contradicts claims that the Act is weak, this, despite the fact that the issue of Human rights in relation to the creation of a codified constitution and its advantages does on the whole seem a credible one. A final point in regards to this issue would be where the creation of a codified constitution would leave Common Law. Common Law is a system in which law is derived from previous cases in court and is adapted upon. This of course brings together the previous topic of adaptability in regards to Human Rights, making one wonder whether there would ever be minimal adaptation to Human Rights through common law or any issue in the constitution for that matter. However the common misconception that no amendments can be made to a constitution is void; however a significant amount of time and money is usually the cost. This plays into the fact that there is a minor issue with codification in this particular branch of Human Rights, however this issue is not representative in the wider picture as a whole, with Human Rights a credible advantage of codification when weighed against its disadvantages. What must not be forgotten in all of this however is that the nature of the current constitutional format is relatively democratic and whilst in theory the transitional period may run smoothly, the change to a codified constitution may in fact be disruptive to the political process which may indirectly hinder the manner in which democracy is used within the UK in the short-term. However, by the same token, it could be claimed that the codification of a constitution could create clarity in terms of rights linking into the previous topic whilst not only aiding the entrenchment of key concepts in relation to democracy such as rights but creating a plausible argument in favor of the advantages of a codified constitution in regards to the current system. Ultimately though whilst a plausible argument is created in favor of the statement that the advantages of a codified constitution now outweigh the disadvantages is created, it must not be overlooked that there would undoubtedly be a potentially damaging transitional period, and this coupled with the fact that so many of the arguments in favor of a codified constitution seem mainly plausible in theory as opposed to practice equally re-affirms the idea that the advantages of a codified constitution as of now at least do not outweigh those of the current system. Therefore, when all is weighed into consideration the advantages of a codified constitution cannot be considered to outweigh the disadvantages as of now due to numerous flaws, as well tenuous links. Whilst the constitution may be amended similarly to the US and in theory appear to represent an element of stability, the fact that there has only been 1 amendment in the last 20 years, whilst many of its amendments have been due to prominent political issues as opposed to smaller yet highly relevant social matters, is equally as damning in its refusal to keep pace with an ever changing western society. This is highlighted in terms of entrenchment, which aligns society with concepts which in truth are redundant but are upheld purely because of entrenchment, bringing to light the fact that in the short-term modernising the UK in the form of a single document is not worth having it lost in archaic doldrums that will almost certainly hinder society in the long-term. The issue of short-term and long-term is similarly mirrored in regards to the transitional period bound to ensue once codification takes place. This ultimately begs the question as to whether or not the many of the tenuous advantages of codification really supplement the political imbalance and dysfunction that will likely ensue in the short-term especially in an era in which the public’s sense of patience justifiably wears thinner and thinner. As well as this, the inception of devolution and Blair’s Labour Parties other constitutional reforms post 1997 are representative of the flexibility of the current constitutional format, and as of now have made the need for codification ultimately superfluous, as opposed to pre 1997, as in reality the advantages of a codified constitution do not outweigh the disadvantages, and in truth; never will.