MAY 9, 2015 AT 12:29 PM
As previously commented before this is a controversial topic and subject to argument. The difference to putting an animal down and euthanizing is an animal is a material object that we own and are responsible for. Animals are very intelligent and cognitive beings but not on the level like humans which is why they can be domesticated. And if we want that power over us given to another human being who makes decisions like this for us that is a whole other argument. Secondly, how will you determine if it is appropriate for a person to choose euthanasia? With the number of depressed people in the word you could just make it easy for them to legally kill themselves without considering the option of looking for help. Or an injured person who is depressed by there situation just choosing the easy way out. I can understand some peoples lives may be so incredibly difficult but to me euthanasia feels like an easy way out. How are you going to test against people who are mentally unwell and are making rash decisions on the matter of their life? As I said before do you want to give that power to somebody else?
MAY 9, 2015 AT 12:52 PM
Interestingly put. Having grown up in a small town I am very familiar with stupid teenage drivers. I vividly remember most mondays from year 11 onwards hearing stories of classmates going out to the backroads with friends in their parents cars and driving at 150kph plus and laughing about how they almost killed themselves. So for the most part I agree with you on the raising of the driving age but I do have a few queries I wish to express. Firstly, the statistics of young drivers being involved with crashes, is there a possibility that it could simply scale to the next youngest age? Unfortunately crashing is a factor of driving and I’m not sure raising the age would guarantee the safety of these drivers. A point that could be made is stricter testing. Perhaps between licenses a person needs to complete a certain number of lessons from qualified instructors? Because personally having your license for 6-18 months and with parents of friends teaching you is not quite the safest and most through way to learn.Yes this would mean it costs more to get your license but the benefits would be worth it.
haydenhamilton273 
Good start. I look forward to seeing how you progress. Just make sure you don’t get too personal and loose your way from the facts.
https://davidbrief2.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/counter-who-will-teach-te-reo-tomorrow-if-there-arent-those-of-us-who-can-speak-today/
MAY 9, 2015 AT 11:59 AM
Nicely written David. I was fairly neutral on this topic but your article as given me a reason to be interested in it and see how it could progress. Solid work.
MAY 9, 2015 AT 12:13 PM
Interesting topic. Even though I’m our topics are clashing I can see your point of view on a few matters. Particularly the idea of sampler tracks being released for free and then going out and buying the album. In theory this works well but the problem with society is they get used to having things a certain way, I mean look at how everyone reacts anytime a news program changes the graphic for the weather. If you start giving songs out for free eventually people will start demanding the whole album. People need to realize that music does cost money and although artists make majority of their income from touring, album sales pay their labels and so forth so they can continue to make music. And if we start training artists to release free tracks they will either be garbage and no one will buy the album or the only good songs on an album and people won’t buy albums or singles for that matter because they’re free.