MARRIAGE VERSUS COHABITATION

Families are the smallest social unit of society and have existed, in various forms, ever since people first started living in settled communities. The decision to spend one’s life together with someone else and start a family is not one to be taken lightly so it is often formalized in a social, legal and / or religious ceremony. This ensures stability, peace and order in society. In the modern world, there are many who feel it is unnecessary to adhere to age the old rules of marriage and who feel that a promise made to a partner is sufficient to make the union binding. Such people feel marriage is a private union and does not concern the state or the Church. Although many people prefer going down the official route and formalize their marriage in the eyes of the law, there is, in fact very little difference between marriage and cohabitation. As a result, it is up to the couple which path they decide to take.

The decision to spend the rest of your life with someone and share everything with him/her is a tough one. Prospective partners may come from very different family backgrounds, may move in very different social circles and may have varying hobbies and interests. This being the case, the chances the marriage will not work are high and divorce a real possibility. Thus, is it wise to tie oneself up in a lot of legal red tape? Is it not better to keep things informal, make each other a promise and stick to it? Does it really matter if marriage vows are witnessed by the state and/or the clergy? Looking at it this way, it is obviously more practical to have a trial period at least to see how things go and then formalize the union at a later date should it be felt necessary to do so.

Cohabitation has often been strongly opposed by major religions and the state on moral grounds in the case of the former, and on practical terms in the case of the latter. Major religions wish to preserve monogamy to maintain law and order in society and prevent moral degeneration. The fear of eternal damnation is thought to be the best way to encourage monogamy and thus prevent debauchery. Yet is instilling fear really the best way to preserve moral integrity; would it not be better for people to uphold accepted moral values in society because they wish to? Assuming that the decision to live together outside marriage automatically leads to depravity is a false argument and completely nonsensical. As for the state, what is practical for the state may not necessarily be right to people who wish to cohabit. Thankfully, this fact has now been accepted in developed countries where the laws are rapidly catching up with social trends. The tax and inheritance laws that are valid for married couples are now valid for cohabiting couples too. The same is true for the status of children. The stigma attached to cohabitation is now a thing of the past in most developed countries.  

To conclude, whether cohabitation can be an alternative for marriage or not is a very tired topic that needs to be shelved. Society has moved on in most parts of the world, and demands have changed. There is no going back so in the words of Bob Dylan, those who disagree “should not block up the hallways” and should “move out of the way”.

IS TORTURE JUSTIFIED?

  There are various interrogation techniques to retrieve the requested information. One of them is torture, which  is the severe infliction of emotional and physical pain or suffering, and it is done to get compliance from an individual whether it is to get a confession, admission, and information or not. According to UN laws,  torture is the only crime that every state must punish, no matter who commits it or where. It is argued that torture is justified because it is a necessary technique to achieve requested goals whereas the others think that torture is unacceptable in any case since it is inhumane and degrading treatment.

  

    Firstly,  proponents of torture claim that information can matter a lot, which leads soldiers or the police to feel they have a right to torture when they suspect an individual of breaking the laws. People advocating torture think that torture is an advanced interrogation technique that is far more effective than others, and the information can be easily extracted from individuals. However, opponents of torture argue that in fact, torture is not guaranteed to be useful in producing accurate information since people will say or admit anything to avoid being  tortured, so the information they provide is unreliable anyway.

  

    Lastly,  proponents of torture assert that in case of emergencies, torture should be implemented to preserve public peace and security. For instance, if a person becomes a threat to public safety, he or she should be immediately arrested, so that officials can effortlessly learn what they want to do in society via various methods of torture like water boarding, mock executions, and so forth. Nevertheless, nobody has the right to deliberately harm other human beings with the intention of causing  physical and emotional pain although they  have committed a major crime because people who undergo  torture are adversely affected  by the experience throughout their whole lives. This is also a crime, and there isn't a person who deserves brutal torture in the world.

  In conclusion, whether torture is justified or not is a controversial issue because of a variety of clashing views. However, when it is considered from a humanitarian point of view, it does serious harm to people, and no  government has  a right to restrict people's right to life. Torture is not a  solution to anything. Accordingly, torture should never be practiced for any reason.

BIOMIMICRY

Human beings have always wanted to find new things that they can use in their lives from the beginning of the beginning of time to the present day, and of course, in the future. Actually, they are not always aware of it  but the answers are already out there in nature. So we don’t have to look for them far away, they are all created for us and waiting to be discovered. This new science is called “Biomimicry” and it is an approach to innovation that seeks sustainable solutions. Thus, there can be no disadvantages, on the contrary, there are lots of advantages for people.

First of all, there is no doubt that Biomimicry enables us to improve existing technological devices in the best way. Consider the Wright Brothers who, in 1903,  invented the first flying machine based on the movements of a pigeon. This move is at the forefront for today’s scientists. For example, the invention of thermoregulation was inspired by polar bears’ fur. Likewise, the owl’s trailing edge fringe has provided clues to producing silent and more efficient onshore wind turbines because the owl is equipped to hunt in silence as a result of its wing structure. Finally, the best example of biomimicry is, I think,  that some bird species plunge into the water without spattering to see fishes clearly and this is a source of information which has been applied  to express trains in an effort  to make them quieter while traveling.

Secondly, Biomimicry can be used not only for technology but also for design. For instance, butterflies’ wing patterns are used in fashion for such things  as dresses, weddings or in decoration like the design of walls, carpets etc. Actually, even some little bugs’ beautiful crustshape is something that has inspired the design of curtains.

To sum up, the most important thing is that people should know a whole sustainable world already exists. We are just now beginning to open our eyes and realize that the questions are all around us. Therefore, we have to ask ourselves “How can we live here gracefully and maintain our lives without new inventions?” In order to do this, we need a way to remind ourselves of the existence of nature.

                                                               NİHAL TEKİN                  

WHAT IS CYBERCRIME?

Although computers and the Internet have made our lives easier in many ways, actually, they both have bad sides. This is because people also use these technologies to take advantage of others. For instance, an increasing number of domestic and international criminal activities are now using the Internet. Therefore, computers and other electronic devices can be tools used to commit  crimes or are targeted by criminals. We call this cybercrime and the real definition of cybercrime is that it is the commission of illegal acts through the use of a computers or against computer systems. However, there is more than one way to describe cybercrime.

First of all, cybercrime can involve identity theft which affects the personal life of the victim on a massive scale. Cybercriminals can do this by entering your personal information and login information such as user names and passwords, phone numbers, addresses creditcard numbers, bank account and other information that criminals can use. As a result, they can steal billions of dollars or important data in the twinkle of an eye.

Secondly, you might think that the only form of cybercrime you have to worry about is hackers stealing your financial information but unfortunately, there are far more concerns than just basic financial ones. Cybercrime can also take the form of cyberstalking, harassment, bullying and even child sexual exploitation and is a security breach before anything else . Moreover, it also includes nonmonetary offenses like creating and distributing viruses to other computers. Thus, hackers can easily access data with the intention of committing offenses.

In conclusion, nowadays cybercrime is increasing day by day in our world and it is impacting our lives. It can take many forms from stealing our information to cyberstalking. Big software providers and security agencies are in a contiual battle to best each other. However individuals should also take logical precautions by downloading the patches that security firms devise, having complicated passwords of more that 14 digits and installing effective firewalls.
                                                                      NİHAL TEKİN

HOW MANY CHILDREN? (A clear 60 on a proficiency exam)

      Overpopulation has become an issue of great concern and controversy all over the world. The increase in the number of people has lead to many problems such as unemployment, low quality of public services and high levels of pollution. Limiting the number of children per family is considered by some to be a way of stabilizing population growth.The number of children a family can have should be limited by law.

     First of all, the number of children a family can have should be limited to avoid overpopulation. Increasing the number of people means increasing the use of power supplies. In other words, people have many needs such as food, safety, transport  and they use many resources to meet their needs. This leads to a reduction of sources of  energy . Access to sources of energy is a veryimportant  issue that can be linked to inter country warfare. Moreover, overpopulation can cause environmental pollution such as air and water pollution. More factories are opened to meet the people’s needs. These factories create air and water pollution with their wastes.

       Another issue is about parents’interest. As thenumber of children in the family increases, the care and attention devoted to each child decreases. This means parents can devote more  time to fewer children. Children receive their first and fundamental education from their parents, so the interest of the parents in their children is very important. Some kids grow up in the streets. It is a good thing that children play with their peers in the streets but if parents do not pay attention to their children, they can get close to kids who have bad habits.

       It has been said that children are economic power for their family. For example, for a farming family, children are the workers who will work in the field. For some families also, children are a source of income because they work to support their family financially. However,this argument is not actually logical.As thenumber of children increases, the per capita income decreases. It is easier to meet the needs of fewer children. As the number of children in the family increases, this becomes more difficult. Furthermore, as the number of children increases, the sharing of inheritance becomes more difficult. This sharing can even cause  conflict between siblings.

       In conclusion, laws should restrict the number of children a family can have. Although this seems to be undemocratic,  it is important for the society’s future. The important thing is not  to raise a lot of children but to raise moral and educated children.

MELEK KARAKUZU

THE CAUSES OF POVERTY

Everyone wishes to maintain a certain standard of living and enjoy a certain quality of life in society. At the very least, they wish to be able to afford their basic requirements and pay the bills. In order to do so, they seek gainful employment which they often find but sometimes do not. The lack of regular or an adequate income results in poverty which impacts the individual in question and his immediate social circle and family. There are various reasons for poverty of this kind some of which are linked to the political and economic landscape and some to the individual himself.

The current situation of a country can have a direct impact on the financial situation of an individual. Political uncertainty and/or civil war for example can destroy livelihoods and the customary way of life of citizens leaving them destitute and in need of aid and handouts from charitable organizations. An obvious example is modern day Syria where the civil war has destroyed communities, homes, livelihoods and a whole way of life. Another is Rakhine state which, due to the actions of Myanmar authorities, is being erased and from which the locals have been fleeing to neighboring Bangladesh. Macroeconomic problems in the country can also have a devastating effect on individuals. High inflatio , like in the case of modern day Venezuela or Zimbabwe, can make the salary or wages earned by people completely worthless very quickly. The rapid drop in the value of currency in both these countries has created mass poverty on an enormous scale. In cases such as these, there is very little individuals can do except, perhaps, up sticks and migrate.

Demographics can also be linked to poverty. In most developed countries, there is a smaller dependent population with respect to the working population who are generating an income and contributing to the economy. The dependent population, the children and the elderly, can thus be cared for by the resulting welfare state. Services like education, healthcare, home help and even government housing can be provided for free reducing overall poverty. Not so in developing and especially underdeveloped countries. In places such as these, there is a large young population; in other words, there is a huge dependent population competing for basic services and jobs. That they cannot all be helped in countries such as these which are also wrestling with economic problems and perhaps political uncertainty also goes without saying. The inevitable result is poverty and this is the fate of many youth in third world countries for example. In short, if one is unfortunate enough to be born in countries such as these, one is likely to have to struggle with poverty.

An individual may be faced with poverty for reasons unconnected to those listed above as well. In this age of rapidly developing technology and automation, certain hitherto viable professions are disappearing to be replaced by new ones. Labour intensive work and monotonous routine work is now being done by robots and computers leaving the people who used to do this kind of work without the ability to make a living. There is no call, in other words, for unskilled workers any longer. The sorts of people who are in demand are those with skills that are applicable to the 21^st century. Those who do not possess these skills, those who find it difficult or impossible to retrain and those who are perhaps too old to learn new skills may, therefore, be faced with poverty as there is no longer any call for what they have to offer. The key here is not to be left behind.

In conclusion, poverty may be a consequence of the times and circumstances one is living in or of a lack of training and education. The latter can be dealt with through individual effort and determination. The former is harder for the individual to deal with in the short term. The demographics of the country can only be bettered by means of government policy. The same goes for political stability and economic reform. Both need to be tackled on a nationwide basis with the correct government policies. Poverty can, therefore, become a life sentence in some cases, something global charities need to keep in mind.  

TATOOS AND PIERCING IN THE WORKPLACE

People have always worn clothes of one sort or another for protection from the weather, to fit in with the customs and way of life of the society in which they lived and to look good. The type of apparel has always varied across the world in accordance with climatic conditions and what was available in the region. Another common practice to complete the look people desired to achieve for one reason or another was to make use of adornment of various sorts. This often consisted of precious metals such as gold or silver which was beaten into intricate shapes and designs and embellished with precious stones. Jewelry of this sort came in the form of rings, tiaras, necklaces, bracelets and body piercing. The final form of body adornment was the practice of applying paint to the body in the form of makeup and tattoos. These practices have been around for a long time and are part of our culture so to suddenly turn round and declare that piercing and tattoos are in appropriate in the work place is completely illogical.

The use of makeup and body decoration of all sorts, including tattoos, has important cultural dimensions. In many parts of Africa for instance, the application of tattoos is an important part of the ceremony celebrating becoming an adult. The young person shows of both his tattoos and the body scaring he receives with pride. In a democratic country, it makes no kind of sense to argue that tattoos are acceptable for some and not for others. After all, in the global world, the human resources department of any big firm could be faced with applications from all over the world. Telling a qualified person who could be of great benefit to a company to have his tattoos removed and reapply would land the company in court. It follows that what is acceptable for some should be acceptable to all. A company cannot fight long established customs just because it hasn’t seen them very often. Fashion is a global business and is no longer restricted to small areas of the world.

The same is true is for body piercing which, contrary to what some may think, wasn’t discovered by hippies; it was around long before teenagers starting piercing their tongues, belly buttons and noses. The best known form of body piercing is ear rings and even our prehistoric ancestors wore them. There is no country in the world where ear rings are never seen. Telling people applying for a job that they can pierce their ears but not their noses would infuriate applicants from India or the Middle East where nose piercing, “hızma”, has been around for eons. Checking belly buttons and asking people to stick their tongues out during interviews would land the company on the front pages of the tabloids and all over the internet in seconds. The resulting negative publicity and court cases concerning unfair treatment are just not worth the hassle whatever the private views of the H.R. department are. All that has happened in the modern world is that the practice has spread to other parts of the world, something fashion tends to do.

The way an individual decides to present himself to the world is also a matter of choice. People are free in their choice of clothes, the colors and designs they decide to sport and the accessories they decide to complete their outfits with. Some wear jeans, some prefer dresses, others wear suits. Some prefer light makeup; some prefer a lot more and yet others prefer none. Some buy cosmetics, some wear henna and others have tattoos. Some wear valuable jewelry; some wear dress jewelry. Some wear ear rings; others pierce their noses or their belly buttons. Some wear bracelets on their wrists; others wear then round their ankles. People cannot be up in arms about some forms of body adornment and not others; it is irrational to say the least.

There are fields where some body piercing or any kind of jewelry may be inappropriate for various reasons. One such field is medicine: doctors and nurses are obliged to put the safety of patients above all else. You cannot have a surgeon excusing herself because her ring got tangled in the patient’s entrails for example. Hygiene needs to be maintained at hospitals hence the white coats, scrubs, the lack of jewelry and the disinfectant hand-washes. The same goes for the army where the apparel sported needs to be practical in terms of the job that needs to be done, defending the country and fighting the enemy. However, although jewelry may be impractical in both these professions, tattoos create no practical problems in terms of security and hygiene and are, therefore, logically perfectly acceptable.

The world of fashion includes both what we wear and how we accessorize. What aspects of fashion one decides to follow is a matter of individual choice. This choice is determined both by individual preferences and practical considerations. Workplaces would do better to shift their focus to applicants’ skills and talents and what they can do for the company. They should avoid being sidetracked by irrelevant details such as body piercing and tattoos.