Child Vaccinations and Public Safety

         

            One rising controversial issue today is whether or not public schools in the United States should require kids to have vaccinations. The reason this topic is now a controversial issue is due to the fact that many people argue there are many harmful side effects to vaccinations. Although all 50 states require children to have been vaccinated, numerous people feel this is harmful to the well being of children.

            The exigence of my research paper is finding the truth about why public school vaccination requirements should remain in place. In order to achieve this, I will demonstrate why children without vaccinations are at more risk of death than children who allegedly experienced harmful side effects that trace back to the vaccine itself. For example, I will reveal why Meningitis is a lot more harmful than anaphylaxis or long-term seizures, which can occur after a vaccination (VaccinesProCon.org). While a seizure may occur after a vaccination, a child has a much greater possibility of surviving it rather than a case of meningitis or measles. Kids without the measles vaccination are 35% more likely to catch a case of measles than a child who is vaccinated (Scholastic.com). I will talk about how the additional pros, such as majority immunity, outweigh certain cons, such as special case adverse reactions. In addition, I will discuss how certain diseases are spread in schools to people do not have vaccinations Finally, I will close my argument by pointing to how child vaccinations protect future generations.

            The audience of this public vaccination debate consists of parents with younger kids, children, and educational authorities. This debate would further strengthen the educational authorities’ stance on required vaccinations because they already support it. This argument is likely to persuade parents of infants who are still deciding whether or not to vaccinate their child. It also might convince a parent to take their child to the doctor’s office to get them vaccinated. This issue does not concern couples not planning to have kids or families that are all mature in age. However, it does concern couples who plan on adopting.

            One of the most important factors in persuading my audience is refuting counter-arguments to the advantages of child vaccines. This way, it will not seem as if the author developed a closed-minded argument based solely on opinion. Here, I will talk about the studies that show a possible correlation between autism and vaccinations (VaccinesProCon.org).

Language in Society

Neil Postman reveals a claim through his philosophy on technology in “The Medium is the Metaphor” of Amusing Ourselves to Death. He feels that there exists a direct correlation between languages and “the content of our culture” in which the different types of languages used are instruments for our desire to express ourselves (Postman 15). Postman defines language as any form of communication, such as speech and visual aid. He effectively argues his claim by showing how “Nature does not speak. Neither do our minds or our bodies or, more to the point of this book, our bodies politic” (Postman 15).  I agree very much with the author’s claim because I feel that the way people choose to express their thoughts and ideas have a great effect on the rest of society around them. An example of this would be the group of people who started to routinely participate in social media. Because of this, other people have discovered the amusement of social media. Now, it is one of the most popular languages, or forms of communication, in the world. In addition to this claim, Neil Postman introduces another idea that gives society’s means of communication in his present day a bad review.

Throughout the chapter, Neil Postman reveals a smaller claim about the flaws of language, which have influenced society as well. “America’s journalists, i.e., television newscasters, have not missed the point. Most spend more time with their hairdryers than with their scripts, with the result that they comprise the most glamorous group of people this side of Las Vegas” (Postman 4). The author makes a good point here and shows his society’s thoughts of how the image of someone is more important than the message delivered. He goes on to give many more examples of this, including business strategies and presidential elections. I agree with him that the image is an effective means of language if used properly but can be harmful to society if not used correctly.

Neil Postman’s argument claims that in 1984, the television medium was the primary influence on “the formation of the culture’s intellectual and social preoccupations” (Postman 9). Although his point was valid in his day, I feel that social media has surpassed television in the culture’s primary medium of communication today. Networks such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram provide ways to express people’s thoughts in a way that television cannot. The reason for this is that social networks are more personalized, meaning that people can choose what they want to browse. Social media is also very popular due to the fact that many people own smart phones, which means that people can access these networks at any time. Unlike television, social media serves as a two-way transmitter, meaning that someone can read as well as provide information to an infinite number of people.

I personally enjoyed reading this article because I feel it is important to analyze how cultures are the way they are. Language is a way to express the nature of something and offers a huge amount of mediums of communication.

            In my eyes, there is no “black and white” scenario when dealing with freedom of expression. This term, presented to Americans by the Founding Fathers, grants people the right to freely express their own opinions and ideas. Although this seems very innocent, there have been an extremely large number of instances where multiple interpretations of this idea have been argued, causing lots of violence and controversy.

            Many people feel that freedom of expression enables them to say or do anything they want, literally.  An example of this would be the burning of the American flag. I disagree with this statement to a certain extent. Susan Brownmiller makes a very good point in “Let’s Put Pornography Back in the Closet” by discussing how something that is not always appropriate, such as pornography, should be censored from the general public’s eyes rather than banned. (Brownmiller 61). That way, people who support inappropriate things such as porn can express their thoughts in a more appropriate environment. This gives the viewers a free choice of whether or not to enter those websites. However, there are many instances where porn is not censored, such as on the television. I believe the industry does not belong on there because in many instances, television involves an audience of multiple people.

            In the article “Protecting Freedom of Speech on Campus,” Derek Bok makes an interesting point about censorship. He disagrees that censorship should prevent people from getting offended but feels that campus police are needed for protecting people (Bok 69). I agree with his views to a certain extent. I feel, in some cases, that offending people can be very beneficial because it can expose someone to a different perspective on things. An example of this would be someone criticizing a southern racist person, arguing how African Americans have created ingenious genres of music and literature that play a huge role in America today. Other times, criticizing people to a certain extent is very harmful to certain groups of society. An example of this is the recent murders involving Charlie Hebdo in France. The people who killed these 12 people who considered themselves Muslims hurt the rest of true Muslims to a certain extent. They failed to realize that these cartoons were only to help educate the public about the silly reasons of pastime war in the Middle East. Their actions added to that of 9/11, oppressing Muslims all around the world.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/je-suis-charlie-charlie-trends-post-terror-attack-article-1.2068780