7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(Luis)

回覆文章
Luis Ko
YOYO member
文章: 970
註冊時間: 週三 6月 06, 2007 10:18 pm

7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(Luis)

文章 Luis Ko »

hi, guys, i'm the host for this coming Saturday meeting, Luis. as you can see i have two different topics for the meeting. though i have posted both of them, the thing is, i'm afraid we might not have enough time to discuss all the questions that i would like you to discuss. ok, actually i'm afraid i might not have time to come up with all the questions i want to discuss so, let's see how it goes later. and chances are, since i really like both of the topics, i will save one of them for my next meeting haa~ anyway, welcome to join me this Saturday lo~ :mrgreen:


session one

What Is a Stereotype?
By Nadra Kareem Nittle

Feisty. Seductive. Intelligent. Used to describe individuals, these adjectives pose no particular problem. Used to describe groups of people, however, these adjectives may constitute stereotypes. What is a stereotype? Stereotypes are qualities assigned to groups of people related to their race, nationality and sexual orientation, to name a few. Because they generalize groups of people in manners that lead to discrimination and ignore the diversity within groups, stereotypes should be avoided.

Stereotypes vs. Generalizations

While all stereotypes are generalizations, not all generalizations are stereotypes. Stereotypes are oversimplifications of people groups widely circulated in certain societies. In the United States, racial groups have been linked to stereotypes such as being good at math, athletics and dancing. These stereotypes are so well-known that the average American wouldn’t hesitate if asked to identify which racial group in this country has a reputation for excelling in basketball. In short, when one stereotypes, one repeats the cultural mythology already present in a particular society.

On the other hand, a person can make a generalization about an ethnic group that hasn’t been perpetuated in society. Say a woman encounters individuals from a particular ethnic group and finds them to be excellent parents. Based on her encounters with these folks, she may oversimplify and conclude that anyone from this ethnic group must be an excellent parent. In this instance, she would be guilty of generalizing, but an observer might think twice about calling her conclusion a stereotype since no group in the U.S. has the distinction of being known as excellent parents.

Stereotypes Can Be Complicated

While stereotypes may refer to a specific sex, race, religion or country, often they link various aspects of identity together. A stereotype about black gay men, for example, would involve race, sex and sexual orientation. Although such a stereotype targets a specific segment of African Americans rather than blacks generally, it’s still problematic to insinuate that black gay men are all a certain way. Too many other factors make up any one black gay man’s identity to ascribe a set list of characteristics to him.

Stereotypes are also complicated because when they factor in race and sex, members of the same group may be pegged very differently. Certain stereotypes apply to Asian Americans generally, but when the Asian-American population is broken down by sex, one finds that stereotypes of Asian-American men and Asian-American women differ. Stereotypes involving race and gender may peg the women of a racial group as attractive and the men as the exact opposite or vice versa.

Even stereotypes applied to a racial group become inconsistent when members of that group are broken down by national origin. A case in point is that stereotypes about black Americans differ from those about blacks from the Caribbean or blacks from African nations. Such discrepancies indicate that stereotypes make little sense and aren’t useful tools by which to judge others.

Can Stereotypes Ever Be Good?

Both negative and positive stereotypes exist, but even the latter do harm. That’s because all stereotypes are limiting and leave little to no room for individuality. Perhaps a child belongs to a racial group known for being highly intelligent. This particular child, however, suffers from a learning disability and struggles to keep up with his classmates in school. Because his teacher buys into the stereotype that this child is supposed to excel in class because “his people” are highly intelligent, she might assume that his poor marks are because he’s lazy and never do the investigative work needed to discover his learning disability, saving him from years of struggle in school.

Is There Truth in Stereotypes?

It’s oft said that stereotypes are rooted in truth, but is this a valid statement? People who make this argument often want to justify their use of stereotypes. The problem with stereotypes is that they suggest that groups of people are inherently prone to certain behaviors. Arabs are naturally one way. Hispanics are naturally another. The fact is, science doesn’t back up these kinds of assertions. If groups of people have historically excelled at certain activities, social factors no doubt contributed to this phenomenon. Perhaps a society barred a group of people from practicing certain professions but welcomed them in others. Over the years, members of the group became associated with the professions they were actually allowed to practice. This came about not because of any inherent talent in these fields but because they were the professions that allowed them to survive. Those who spread stereotypes ignore social factors and make links between groups of people and certain skills, activities or behaviors where none inherently exist.

Wrapping Up

The next time you’re tempted to stereotype a group of people, think about the groups to which you belong. List the stereotypes linked to those groups. Does each of those stereotypes apply to you? More than likely you’d disagree that all of the qualities commonly attributed to those of your gender, racial group and sexual orientation describe you. That’s why it’s important to judge specific individuals rather than the groups of which they’re part.

http://racerelations.about.com/od/under ... eotype.htm


Words that Describe a First Impression
There are many different words to describe a first impression. For example, action verbs describe a first impression nicely. They generate the certain feeling behind the words that are necessary to convey the message. The message, in this sense, is the first impression.

What Is a First Impression?
A first impression is what a person thinks of you when they first meet you. It is the feeling that they get or the initial evaluation that a person does of you when they first meet you. It can be done during a glance, a conversation or even from a distance when someone is looking at your body language. Eye contact or lack thereof can also have an impact on a first impression.

Have you ever heard the saying “It’s not what you say but rather how you say it?” This statement alone speaks volumes and can make or break a first impression. Sometimes the way in which a person delivers the sentence or statements that they are saying is a complete deal breaker regarding the first impression that they give. So you should definitely be mindful of how you deliver your statements.

Describing a First Impression
Words can be tricky, especially when it comes describing the first impression that someone may have of you. This is why it is crucial that you give off the right vibe at all times. You should want to appear professional and astute during the first impression that you make at a job interview. So the descriptive words here are professional and astute.

If someone notices you from the other side of the room, more than likely the first thing that they will notice is your appearance. They will judge you from head-to-toe. Unfortunately most people look for flaws. Have you ever heard that if you smiled, you turn everything around? That means that if initially you are not looking the part and you happen to smile then you will turn all initial first impressions in the minds of people around. One of the words used here to describe a first impression is the word smile.

Standing up straight is probably one of the most important things that a person could do. To stand straight and upright conveys an impression of confidence and bravery. To shrink back, and slouch conveys an impression of a lack of confidence. The descriptive words here are confidence, bravery, and standing straight.

If someone came over to speak with you, in order to convey the right first impression you would need to convey a sense of courteousness and attentiveness. Through conversations people have the ability to say so much through both their actions and their words. So, if you were speaking to someone about your career or life, he or she can pick up a myriad of information by the way that you carry your conversation. It is through the subtleties and nuances of your voice and body language fused with what you say that a person can get a first impression of you. The descriptive key words here are body language, actions, courteousness and attentiveness.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style ... ssion.html



Questions:

1. Do you think first impression is important? Can you imagine what the first impression other people have of you is?

2. What are your first impressions of your group members? Are the impressions the same as what they think of themselves?

3. My impression of people could be my stereotype for them I would say. Can you make any connection between impression and stereotype? Or you can distinguish them?

4. Are you good at observing people? Are you sensitive enough to the environment you are in? How much can you tell, or say, how accurate is the result? Do you think the ability is good or bad? after all, it could turn out to be just stereotypes or what, couldn't it?

5.What would you suggest people do to make positive first impressions, when they are having job interviews, or dating with a girl/guy they like?



session two

The Perils of Being a Good Samaritan in California
By Alison Stateman / Los Angeles Wednesday, Jan. 14, 2009

The Supreme Court of California has ruled that one good deed may very well not go unpunished — unleashing a debate not only on who is a Good Samaritan but also who shouldn't even think about being one. On Dec. 19, the court made a decision in the case of Alexandra Van Horn v. Lisa Torti. The case alleged that Torti worsened the injuries suffered by Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from a wrecked car on Nov. 1, 2004, thus rendering Van Horn a paraplegic. The court found that Torti wasn't protected from legal action under California's current Good Samaritan laws.

Those laws were set in place in 1980, when the state legislature enacted Health and Safety Code 1799.102, which provides that "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission." However, in its sharply divided 4-3 ruling, the high court held that the state statute immunizing rescuers from liability applies only if the individual is providing medical care in an emergency situation, citing the statute's placement in a section of the code dealing with emergency medical services. Torti, who is not a health-care worker, believed she was acting as a concerned friend.

"Miss Torti is disappointed by the ruling, and we do think it will have negative repercussions here in California," says Torti's attorney, Jody Steinberg. "How it will affect the rest of the country, whether they will follow the supreme court's ruling is yet to be seen." Steinberg warns, "Here in California, one of these days we can have another earthquake, and the question is, Do you want people to help or do you want people to be thinking about whether they're going to get sued?" Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, did not return several calls for comment. Steinberg has requested that the supreme court hear the case again. It will decide whether to do so by March. (Read about lawsuit abuse.)

In response to the ruling, Republican state senator John Benoit of Riverside proposed a bill on Jan. 6 that would extend the statute to include all emergency services rendered at the scene of an emergency, regardless of who performs the deed. "I spent 31 years in law enforcement, and as a highway patrol officer I responded to many, many, many accidents. I was not the first one there. Someone had helped a victim out of the car, out of the traffic lane, administered CPR," says Benoit. "I immediately, upon hearing about this case, was extremely concerned that it would in any way thwart people's willingness to give that aid, because in my experience that would translate into lives lost." (Read about California's looming fiscal crisis.)

The proposed legislation, SB 39, would enact the Good Samaritan Protection Act, which would amend the current statute to define emergency care as "medical or nonmedical." Referring to the current Good Samaritan statute, Benoit says, "If in fact the intention was just to limit it to medical providers providing medical care, that was too narrow [a piece of legislation] in my estimation, and this case shows it. I don't believe that was really the intent, even if it is in fact the way it's been interpreted. If not, it needs to be changed. We need to clarify that, and I thought, Let's move quickly and clarify it." Such proposed legislation would not be retroactive and would have no impact on the ruling in the Torti–Van Horn case. (Read about Good and Bad Samaritans.)

Some legal experts, however, argue that the proposed reform is a bad idea. University of Southern California law school professor Michael Shapiro feels that expanding the current statute to immunize not just medical personnel but also the general public would be a mistake. "I would not favor a law that says, 'Hey, if someone wants to rescue people, let them do it, just don't stop them deliberately, and if they botch it up and if they're careless and stupid, fine,' " says Shapiro. "I don't think that's a good state of affairs. I think a lot of people would be made worse off."

Shapiro says the message of the Torti–Van Horn case is not "Don't rescue, because if anything happens to the person, you're liable." Those who choose to rescue people have always been protected under common law, he points out, provided they act with due care. "If you wanted to rescue somebody, you can go rescue somebody even if you are not a doctor, but if you are negligent and the person is hurt, you're going to be liable," says Shapiro. "Negligent means unacceptably careless. It's not that big of an obligation to put on people not to act in a way that is unacceptably careless even when you're rescuing someone."

Indeed, in its decision, the supreme court made reference to common-law principles, saying that a "person has no duty to come to the aid of another. If, however, a person elects to come to someone's aid, he or she has a duty to exercise due care. Thus, a 'Good Samaritan' who attempts to help someone might be liable if he or she does not exercise due care and ends up causing harm."

Torti's lawyer Steinberg says he and his client aren't counting on the California high court's rehearing the case. Says Steinberg: "It's certainly not common that the supreme court reverses its decision." If the court decides to let its judgment stand, he says, the civil suit will most likely commence in August or September. Steinberg's defense strategy will focus then on whether his client acted reasonably under the circumstances and whether Van Horn's injuries were caused by the accident itself or occured when she was moved.

http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... %2c00.html


Can the Law Make Us Be Decent?
By JAY STERLING SILVERNOV. 6, 2012

Miami Gardens, Fla.

OF all the tragedies wrought by Hurricane Sandy, one has stood out as a horrifying exception to the tales of selflessness and bravery.

On Staten Island, according to several news accounts, a woman named Glenda Moore tried to flee the storm on Monday by driving herself and her sons to safety in their blue Ford Explorer. But the vehicle got trapped in the swirling waters, so Ms. Moore unbuckled the two boys — Connor, 4, and Brandon, 2 — to head for dry land. They got separated from her, and were swept away. Battling water and wind, Ms. Moore frantically knocked on neighbors’ doors asking for help, but her pleas were ignored. On Thursday, the boys’ lifeless bodies were found nearby.

Did discrimination play a role? Ms. Moore is black; her husband, Damien, is an Irish immigrant. In Ireland, Mr. Moore’s family’s priest condemned “the actions of these so-called neighbors who refused to give support to the poor woman,” The Irish Times reported.

In many states, Good Samaritans are protected from liability if their well-intentioned efforts inadvertently result in harm. But the Bad Samaritan, if you will — the callous bystander who refuses to render even minimal help in a dire emergency — goes unpunished. No matter how grave the danger or how minor the effort needed to prevent harm, citizens are not required to provide help.

Perhaps the most famous example of hardhearted indifference to brutality also comes from New York City: the murder of Kitty Genovese, a 29-year-old woman, in Queens in 1964.

Initial news accounts, including those in The New York Times, reported that some 38 neighbors looked down from their apartments but did nothing to call the police or intervene, even while the assailant stalked and stabbed Miss Genovese over the course of a half-hour before fleeing. Subsequent information has raised doubts about the initial accounts — many of the neighbors may not have seen or heard the attack, or realized its severity — but the case prompted hand-wringing about moral decline and discussions of legal reform. In 1967, Vermont adopted a law requiring people to render reasonable assistance to someone who is in grave danger, but the penalty for noncompliance is only a token civil fine.

The issue came to the fore again in 1983, when Cheryl Araujo, a 21-year-old woman, was gang-raped on a pool table in a New Bedford, Mass., tavern while patrons stood by. Minnesota and Wisconsin later adopted laws like Vermont’s establishing a general rescue duty; some states have reporting requirements.

But with the exception of a few jurisdictions, the “no duty” rule remains largely the same as it was famously described by William L. Prosser, the dean of American tort law: “The expert swimmer, with a boat and a rope at hand, who sees another drowning before his eyes, is not required to do anything at all about it, but may sit on the dock, smoke his cigarette, and watch the man drown.”

Of course, some exceptions to the “no duty” rule exist in common law. Police officers, firefighters, doctors, emergency workers and others have legal or other requirements to help, often even when off duty. Motorists involved in accidents can’t leave the scene. Parents, spouses, teachers and employers have duties to protect. If you injure someone through negligence and then don’t help her, you could face higher civil damages. If you voluntarily try to rescue someone, you may be liable if you then stop and the victim is harmed.

The “no duty” rule can be traced to the spirit of rugged capitalist individualism, the Darwinist idea that the common good is advanced through the struggles of selfish individuals. But the law doesn’t just allow moral monsters to act with impunity. Social science suggests it exacerbates the problem. Experiments have long revealed the symbiosis of law and morality: being told that a behavior is illegal makes it also seem more immoral.

One defense of the no-duty rule is that common law exists to prevent people from harming one another, not to compel people to help one another. But modestly impinging on the individual freedom to do nothing seems reasonable when a life hangs in the balance. Such a duty is common in Europe, where some countries have criminal penalties for violators.

A sensible statute might read like this: “Any person who knows that another is in imminent danger, or has sustained serious physical harm, and who fails to render reasonable assistance shall be fined up to $5,000, imprisoned for up to three months, or both.” Civil liability could also be established, as in other countries.

A duty to help would not require bystanders to endanger themselves or provide help beyond their abilities; it could simply require warning someone of imminent danger or calling 911. It wouldn’t bring back the two boys, but it would require us to accept our fundamental moral duty to help those in grave peril.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/07/opini ... pe=article


********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
3:45 ~ 4:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
4:00 ~ 4:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
4:10 ~ 4:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
4:50 ~ 5:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
5:10 ~ 5:15pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
5:15 ~ 5:55pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
6:00 ~ 6:20pm Summarization (20 mins)
6:20 ~ 6:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements ********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期:列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間:請準時 4:00 pm 到 ~ 約 6:30 pm 左右結束
星期六聚會地點:丹堤濟南店
地址、電話:台北市濟南路三段25號 地圖 (02) 2740-2350
捷運站:板南線 忠孝新生站 3 號出口
走法:出忠孝新生站 3 號出口後,沿著巷子(忠孝東路三段10巷)走約 2 分鐘,到了濟南路口,左轉走約 2 分鐘即可看到。
最低消費: 80 元


注意事項:
1. 文章是否需要列印請自行斟酌,但與會者請務必自行列印 Questions for discussion。
2. 與會者請先閱讀過文章,並仔細想過所有的問題,謝謝合作!


給新朋友的話:
1. 請事先準備2~3分鐘的英語自我介紹;會議結束前可能會請你發表1~2分鐘的感想。
2. 請事先閱讀文章以及主持人所提的討論問題,並事先寫下自己所欲發表意見的英文。
3. 全程以英語進行,參加者應具備中等英語會話能力,對任一討論問題,能夠以5到10句英文表達個人見解。
4. 在正式加入之前,可以先來觀摩三次,觀摩者亦須參與討論。正式加入需繳交終身會費 NT$1,000。
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
Michael-liu
YOYO member
文章: 708
註冊時間: 週五 4月 24, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Michael-liu »

I think stereotype is what you judge people of a particular kind in your mind without meeting them face to face, while impression is what you think about people by their looks, dress, and talk when meeting them face to face.
Michael-liu
YOYO member
文章: 708
註冊時間: 週五 4月 24, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Michael-liu »

Thanks to Luis' topic, I googled and learned this impression I never knew before - good/ bad Samaritans
(It is quite happy to learn something new!)

歐美人口語中的「好撒瑪利亞人(the Good Samaritan)」,是來自於一則聖經上的寓言故事。故事裡有一個猶太人被人打劫受了傷,躺倒在地,但當時路過的"高尚人"們像是祭司或是利未人,路過這個可憐人卻不聞不問,這時只有一個身分低微的撒瑪利亞人,不顧社會身分的隔閡幫助了他,最後還出了錢將這個被打劫的人送往旅店安頓了他。

所以這個寓言故事,就讓「撒瑪利亞人」成了「好撒瑪利亞人(the Good Samaritan)」,有了「見義勇為」的意思。一般以歐美社會來說,「好撒瑪利亞人法」也指那些保護那些做好事的人的法律規定。

前一陣子國外新聞報導了拾金不昧的計程車司機,就用了"Good Samaritan"。不過有「Good Samaritan」,也會有「Bad Samaritan」。(如果直接搜尋"Bad Samaritan",你大概會看到某本漫威家的漫畫角色,或是某個叫做"Bad Samaritan"的爆笑美劇,講一群假釋犯與假釋官之間的趣事...)!!簡單說,歐美人士口語說的「壞撒瑪利亞人(Bad Samaritan)」,多半就是指那些冷漠,缺少善心與正義感的舉止或人
頭像
Rock
YOYO member
文章: 2161
註冊時間: 週三 10月 31, 2007 9:03 am

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Rock »

I gues a Samaritan is not necessarily a low born. Jews don't see eye to eye with Samarians because their beliefs are different.
最後由 Rock 於 週三 7月 08, 2015 1:58 pm 編輯,總共編輯了 1 次。
Michael-liu
YOYO member
文章: 708
註冊時間: 週五 4月 24, 2009 6:09 pm

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Michael-liu »

Rock 寫:A Samaritan is not necessarily a low born. Samaritans and Jews just don't see eye to eye with each other.
「撒瑪利亞人」是以色列的一個旁支族群,但不像象徵正統的「猶太人」,撒瑪利亞人自古就與別族人通婚,血統不純,在信仰猶太教時也沒有猶太人嚴謹,所以這導致了過去猶太人蔑視、排擠,甚至仇視撒瑪利亞人,導致這本是廣義上的同源兄弟在古代"互相仇視"、甚至"彼此仇殺"。「撒瑪利亞人」於猶太人就用來表達蔑視和非難的意思。

「壞撒瑪利亞人(Bad Samaritan)」點出了當時的一種存在於不同國家、種族血緣,或是社會地位間的各種歧視問題,不同種族在信仰宗教上可是件大事─猶太教就說猶太人是"上帝的選民",也就是除此之外就低了一等或很多等,若到了末日來臨要逃命的時候,說不定逃生艇還是救生圈,也就因此從頭等艙降去經濟艙
頭像
Wayne
Member
文章: 1500
註冊時間: 週四 5月 13, 2004 10:53 am
來自: Taipei, Taiwan, Pandemonium

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Wayne »

Michael-liu 寫:
Rock 寫:A Samaritan is not necessarily a low born. Samaritans and Jews just don't see eye to eye with each other.
「撒瑪利亞人」是以色列的一個旁支族群,但不像象徵正統的「猶太人」,撒瑪利亞人自古就與別族人通婚,血統不純,在信仰猶太教時也沒有猶太人嚴謹,所以這導致了過去猶太人蔑視、排擠,甚至仇視撒瑪利亞人,導致這本是廣義上的同源兄弟在古代"互相仇視"、甚至"彼此仇殺"。「撒瑪利亞人」於猶太人就用來表達蔑視和非難的意思。

「壞撒瑪利亞人(Bad Samaritan)」點出了當時的一種存在於不同國家、種族血緣,或是社會地位間的各種歧視問題,不同種族在信仰宗教上可是件大事─猶太教就說猶太人是"上帝的選民",也就是除此之外就低了一等或很多等,若到了末日來臨要逃命的時候,說不定逃生艇還是救生圈,也就因此從頭等艙降去經濟艙
The parable of the Good Samaritan is a parable told by Jesus and is mentioned in only one of the gospels of the New Testament, as explained in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_o ... _Samaritan.

As for the Bad Samaritan, it may not be the opposite of good Samaritan. The Bad Samaritan is a fictional character was created by Mike W. Barr and Jim Aparo and published by DC Comics. For more information, refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Samaritan.
Knowledge is power -- when shared.
Luis Ko
YOYO member
文章: 970
註冊時間: 週三 6月 06, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Luis Ko »

Michael-liu 寫:I think stereotype is what you judge people of a particular kind in your mind without meeting them face to face, while impression is what you think about people by their looks, dress, and talk when meeting them face to face.


yeah, i agree with you to a certain degree but, is it possible your impressions of people come from the experience you got before, when meeting those who have similar traits? is it kind of stereotype? just have your say in the meeting lo~

by the way, hope you guys will bring some questions to the meeting yourselves, after reading the articles about good/bad Samaritans for second session haa~ :mrgreen:
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
Iris Wu
YOYO member
文章: 894
註冊時間: 週二 5月 20, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Iris Wu »

What a reading list!!!
The "stereotype" I possess for people like Luis is "People who have suffered like to torture others." Just kidding! :)
The reading materials are somewhat intensive, but the two topics are excellent!

I guess it is possible people could conclude their "first impression" on others by their stereotype, for example, men more masculine are less intelligent, if they did not get chance to observe more on how or what they talked or behaved. Stereotype is something people apply in many things and are not aware of it. It seems stereotype easily becomes prejudice unconsciously, so topic like this is a great opportunity to look deeper into ourselves and examine how open-minded we are.

As far as the Good Samaritan Laws, I think it is a good debate topic. Should people be punished for their good deeds? Should "being careless" go without punishment? I am sure we can all think of many arguments on both sides. I feel sorry for people who need to make a law on this, it is almost impossible to have perfect rules to cover the needs from both sides.
Luis Ko
YOYO member
文章: 970
註冊時間: 週三 6月 06, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Luis Ko »

during the meeting, we tried to describe our impression of someone who speaks and acts slowly. "she/he is a little bit slow" is definitely not a good sentence to say. it somewhat implies they are slow-witted, retarded maybe.

for Good/Bad Samaritans stuff, helping people is always a great thing to do, but then again, be sure you are capable of offering real aid before you take any action, so as not to make things worse and not to get yourself into any trouble. call the police/ambulance might be the best choice if you are not so sure of the situation or, your ability lo~ :drink:
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
頭像
Rock
YOYO member
文章: 2161
註冊時間: 週三 10月 31, 2007 9:03 am

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Rock »

I guess sometimes it's ok to say someone is slow if they are really slow.
圖檔
Luis Ko
YOYO member
文章: 970
註冊時間: 週三 6月 06, 2007 10:18 pm

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Luis Ko »

mm..it's really slow and, yummy, for some tribal peoples in south America.. :drink:
i might be a cynic and, a sceptic as well but, i'm definitely not a bad person!!
Iris Wu
YOYO member
文章: 894
註冊時間: 週二 5月 20, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: 7/11(Sat.) impression/stereotype? good/bad Samaritans?(L

文章 Iris Wu »

In the meeting, I said my first impression of someone was that he seemed to be "slow", I did mean that he didn't seem to think and react quickly at first glance, but later on I realized that he is actually a deeper thinker; he needs to go through his own thinking and reasoning process for many things. So, for this case, “someone is slow”, if we don't take it out of context completely, I think it should be fine. :)
回覆文章