Minimum Legal Drinking Age Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Minimum Legal Drinking Age - Essay Example The MLDA has proponents and opponents, who hold fast to their respective positions in this debate (American Medical Association, n.d.). Morris E. Chafetz, in â€Å"The 21-Year-Old Drinking Age: I Voted for it; It Doesn't Work,† and Toben F. Nelson, and Traci L. Toomey, in â€Å"The Drinking Age of 21 Saves Lives,† adopt opposing views on this issue. Chafetz argues that the MLDA of 21 â€Å"has not worked,† and is not linked to reduced drunk-driving fatalities (7). He holds that enforcing a minimum legal age for drinking does not take into consideration the deaths caused by alcohol off the highways, and drives teenagers to binge drinking in unsupervised surroundings. On the other hand, Nelson and Toomey take the position that the MLDA of 21 has reduced drinking-related deaths, and decreased binge-drinking in underage college students. Although both authors have credibility and are knowledgeable and logical about the subject, and Chafetz is more accommodating of op posing viewpoints, Nelson and Toomey make a more convincing argument as their stand is supported by extensive references to research studies. Both the essays are authored by writers with impeccable credentials. Chafetz is a credible speaker in the MLDA debate, as he is the founder of the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse and The Health Education Foundation in Washington. His reputation is further bolstered by the fact that he was a member of the Presidential Commission on Drunk Driving, Director and Executive Member of the National Commission Against Drunk Driving and the Presidential appointee at The White House Conference for a Drug-Free America. He is also a Doctor of Psychiatry, with a long history of association with social issues, such as alcoholism and drug abuse. Chafetz’s credentials are more than matched by Nelson and Toomey, who belong to the University of Minnesota’s School of Public Health. Their argument is further supported by a group of academicians and researchers. The reputation of the writers contributes to the trustworthiness of the essays and makes them both credible. Sim ilarly, both the essays are written by knowledgeable authors who make their respective positions clear through unambiguous declarations. Chafetz emphatically states that â€Å"Prohibition – is not working among 18-20 year-olds now† (8). On the other hand, Nelson and Toomey are equally firm in their conviction that â€Å"A drinking age of 21 has led to less drinking, fewer injuries and fewer deaths† (9). There is no room for ambiguity in either essays and the authors’ tones convey their absolute belief in the correctness of their respective positions. Similarly, both the authors display knowledge about the issue being debated. As the founder of The National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, Chafetz is obviously conversant with the issue of alcohol consumption and quotes statistics from his institute â€Å"that 5,000 lives are lost to alcohol each year by those under 21† (Chafetz 7). As a Doctor of Psychiatry, Chafetz also demonstrates know ledge about brain impairment and alcohol dependency, in line with his profession as a medical doctor. Nelson and Toomey are significantly knowledgeable about the effects of alcohol on college students – this is in keeping with their University background.

Knowledge Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1250 words - 1

Knowledge - Essay Example Plato and Aristotle both talk about similar concepts when they describe knowledge. However they look at it from two opposing angles altogether. The same shall be discussed hereunder. In simple words, Aristotle focuses of smaller elements as being integral to the concept of knowledge, while Plato believes that universal concepts are the key to the essence of knowledge. Determining this difference is vital. Plato was of the opinion that belief is to be separated from knowledge on account of its justification. Beliefs, he elucidated, can be there without adequate inquiry or scrutiny into a particular matter. However, the knowledge acquired has to be based upon rationalistic ideas, that are guarded by logic and understanding. This is what would make the same knowledge acceptable to many people at the same time, whilst a belief may well hold true for just a singular person amongst all humanity. Aristotle on the contrary believed that knowledge lies in the understand of smaller factors, which will gradually all add up to join the jigsaw puzzle, and show us the bigger picture. He claimed that by knowing the essence of fundamental principles, one would be able to make sense of what is going on the bigger canvas. Inadvertently, this is a consequence of knowing as to what really can be a basic ingredient within the bigger construct, and then studying the same for greater knowledge. Plato advocates the importance of all-encompassing knowledge, which ultimately gives birth to and yields smaller constructs. This reality can be identified with, and the highest thinking can subsequently be attained by means of knowing what knowledge is. Contemplation gives insight, and ultimately self-actualization. There can be no better strength than realizing one's true potential of existence. All our endeavors or desires primarily follow from the necessity of our intrinsic nature. This concept given by him refers to the identification of the power that the human being yields and associates from within himself, thereby attempting to acquire knowledge at the bequest of all available events. Aristotle on the other hand states that smaller elements combine together to make all knowledge, and therefore understanding should begin from smaller ideas, which may be expounded into complex theories. Whatever one might seek or ask, it is basically a product of how one identifies with the concept of knowledge. The most significant thinking here becomes knowing about oneself. A person, who realizes the details, is truly on the path of acquiring knowledge. If one has the tendency to doubt one's self-concepts, then true actualization of knowledge can never be there. Knowledge starts from knowing oneself - it is only with reference to the same would one ever be able to gather some perspective. "Although he had the idea of constructing a system for deduction, he was never able to construct one. Instead, he relied on his dialectic, which was a confusion between different sciences and methods" (Bocheski, 1951). Mysteries, intricacies and secrets of the finite world can only be known with reference to the person. Therefore, if and when a person appreciates his own personal standing and inception, it subsequently becomes the greatest source of endowment and fulfillment for the person. The fundamental factor here is about insisting on knowing reality as it is. This again is a propagation of the belief that an individual