9/1(Tue) Six Great Reasons to Never Have Children(H:Wendy)

9/1(Tue) Six Great Reasons to Never Have Children(H:Wendy)

由 Michael-liu » 週六 8月 29, 2015 12:07 am

注意事項：
1. 與會者請自行列印 Questions for discussion。

Six Great Reasons to Never Have Children
by Ellen Walker Ph.D. ( who is a clinical psychologist and the author of Complete Without Kids: An Insider's Guide to Childfree Living By Choice Or By Chance.) 

Most of us childfree adults are used to being asked why we didn’t have kids, but have you ever asked a parent to explain why he or she did? It’s simply not considered polite. As I’ve contemplated writing this blog over the past few days, I actually considered coming right out to parents with the question, but then I realized just how personal and intrusive it would be. Plus, I might be given some of the reasons described below, which in my personal and professional opinion are not legitimate reasons for having a child. Take a look below to see my list of great reasons to not have a child. 

I want to have a constant companion: Children are not a means to friendship. I’ve met too many kids whose parents are lonely or otherwise struggling as well as parents who’ve used their child as a sounding board and companion. Children need to have a parent figure that is focused on giving them the tools they will need as an adult rather than someone who’s seeking a playmate or talk therapist. 

I want to continue the bloodline/name: Who do these folks think they are to imagine that somehow their genes are so superior that we need to keep them around. If we as a society were to decide that only the brightest and best should survive (as Hitler did), we’d likely not be choosing the folks who make these kinds of insane comments. And regarding names, most women lose their maiden name at marriage and don’t get a bit of sympathy for their loss.

I might get pregnant by accident: Over half of all pregnancies in the US are unplanned, a figure that’s astounding considering the access to birth control these days. Getting pregnant with no thought of how this will impact the child is one of the most selfish acts a person can take. These parents are bringing a child into the world with less than a year to ensure that their environment will be emotionally, situationally, and financially stable. We typically spend more time deciding if and where we’ll go to college, what we’ll do for a career, and if we should marry a particular person we’re dating.

I think it will improve my marriage: Wrong, wrong, wrong—marital satisfaction rates actually plummet after the birth of the first child. So, if a couple has the idea that a baby will bring them closer, think again. A child results in less sleep, less sex, less time for the couple to spend together, less money, and less time for friends and hobbies. 

It’s what everyone else is doing (or that’s what you do after you grow up. It’s a natural part of being an adult): If all your friends were jumping off of a cliff, would you join along? The decision of whether or not to have a child is the most important one of our life, and thus parenthood shouldn’t be entered into casually. As with other big life decisions, such as whether or not to continue with school following high school, the path most often taken is not the one for everyone.

So, given all the reasons to not have a child, what are legitimate reasons to have a child? Perhaps the only valid reason to become a parent is that a person truly enjoys nurturing and mentoring and views the huge task and responsibility of being a mother or father to be something that will give them joy and that they feel they will do well with. If all parents who chose childrearing did so with this outlook, then those of us who chose to not have kids would have a much more supportive attitude towards them. 

Session 1 

1. Have your parents ever given you the pressure of having children? If yes, what was your response to your parents? 
2. If you want to have children (or you have already), what are your reasons to have? If you don't want to, what are your reasons not to have? 
3. In addition to the reasons mentioned in the article, what other good reasons can you think of for not having kids?

Session 2 

1. Have your parents ever said something like this to you " I have spent all my life and much money on bringing you up, I have sacrificed a lot for you, so you should do...........for me" Is it sensible for parents to say that to children? What would you respond to them? 
2. Almost all of parents would expect something from their kids. ( to name a few, expect kids to be successful,to be good-looking, to be obedient, to be 孝順, to keep them company when they are old) If you have kids, what will be your expectation to them? (be honest, don't say just want them to be healthy) 


********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:25pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
9:05 ~ 9:25pm Summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements ********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期：列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間：當天請準時於 6:45 pm 到達 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
星期二聚會地點：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. 與會者請自行列印 Questions for discussion。
2. 與會者請務必先看過文章，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。

Read More

08/25（Tue）How to escape education's death valley（Host：Toshi）

Please click the following forum for article:

http://yoyo.club.tw/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3988&sid=a884ee8d3bb7a94857ee945b47b17ec9

Read More

8/22 (Sat.) The Makeup Tax (Host: Stephen)

8/22 (Sat.) The Makeup Tax (Host: Stephen)

由 stephen185 » 週六 8月 15, 2015 10:02 am

(http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ax/400478/)

On July 20, Hillary Clinton conducted a Q&A session on Facebook, and Facebook staffer Libby Brittain posed an unusual Q to her:
“Every morning, as my boyfriend zips out the door and I spend 30+ minutes getting ready, I wonder about how the ‘hair-and-makeup tax’ affects other women—especially ones I admire in high-pressure, public-facing jobs,” Brittain wrote. “I know these questions can seem fluffy, but as a young professional woman, I’d genuinely love to hear about how you manage getting ready each morning (especially during your time traveling as Secretary of State and now on the campaign trail) while staying focused on the ‘real’ work ahead of you that day.” “Amen, sister,” Clinton responded, because she’s relatable. “You’re preaching to the choir. It’s a daily challenge. I do the best I can—and as you may have noticed, some days are better than others!” 

It’s too bad Clinton punted. The “makeup tax” Brittain mentioned is very real. Women invest time and money into doing their makeup because it impacts their relationships and their paychecks. And while both genders tend to buy haircuts, shaving cream, and moisturizer, the price of makeup is something men never have to worry about. The cosmetics industry makes $60 billion each year. The personal-finance site Mint claims the average woman will spend $15,000 on the stuff in her lifetime. It also costs time. My weekday morning makeup routine takes 10 minutes. That’s roughly an hour per week, or two full days per year. Last year, the Today show pegged this number even higher, at two weeks per year per woman.

I’ll pause now to address the most common response when this issue comes up: “Just don’t wear makeup!” It’s true that some women never wear makeup for various reasons. Some look better without it than others do. Some object on principle, or prefer to maintain a vaguely earthy-crunchy vibe. Others simply don’t have the time, can’t afford it, or have jobs that don’t involve interacting with others. But for many of us, showing up at the office or a bar without at least a swipe of blush and some mascara results in a day spent being asked if we have the flu. Amy Schumer nailed this phenomenon in her perfectly titled sketch, “Girl, You Don’t Need Makeup.” Its takeaway: The “just free yourself from makeup!” crowd, particularly its male contingent, has no idea how makeup-wearers look after they wipe it all off.

Most women wear at least some makeup, some of the time. The polls around cosmetic use are notoriously bad—they’re often sponsored by beauty companies—but they’ve reported that between 50 and 80 percent of women use it at least occasionally. (According to another survey, though, two-thirds of women wear fewer than three products daily.) When University of New Hampshire student Ann Marie Britton surveyed 137 of her classmates for a thesis in 2012, at least half of respondents said they were “likely” or “very likely” to wear makeup to class, work, a job interview, to socialize, or on a date. “Mascara was used in almost all situations,” she found. But more importantly, women on TV wear it. Many of our moms wore it, as did our elementary-school teachers. Magazines bombard girls with tips on “looking flawless.” That’s just how women look, in the collective mind’s eye: With unnaturally shiny lips and dark eyes.

For men, the closest analogy to being stuck without makeup, for women who usually wear it, is being forced to wear a stained shirt to a meeting. It’s probably fine to run errands in a shirt with dribble of barbecue sauce down the front. (There’s even a country song about it!) But if a man were to arrive at work for an important meeting, having somehow forgotten that his shirt was stained, and finding himself without an emergency clean shirt to don, he’d probably feel deeply uncomfortable. I feel roughly the same way about my five most essential tubes of face-goo.

Makeup, in short, is a norm, and nothing ruins a first impression like a norm violation. Some women contend they only wear makeup to “boost their confidence,” but the reason they feel less confident when they don’t wear it is that there’s an expectation they will. Makeup works by enhancing facial contrast—the color difference between your lips and nose, for example. Facial contrast is closely associated with femininity, and femininity with female beauty, in Western cultures. In a study I reported on last year, both male and female participants thought “regular” women looked best when they applied a moderate amount of makeup. Another study found that subtle makeup made women seem more competent, likable, and attractive. Years of research has shown that attractive people earn more. Thus, the makeup tax: Good-looking men and good-looking women both get ahead, but men aren't expected to wear makeup in order to look good. It gets worse. One study found that participants were more likely to award “prestigious jobs” to women who were made up than to the same women when their faces were unadorned. Male (but not female) restaurant patrons tip more when female waitresses wear makeup.

I know, it’s terrible! I did not make the rules! Throw not your Bobbi Brown eye pencil in my general direction; tweet not your angry tweet at my difficult-to-spell username. In fact, “don't shoot the messenger” seems to be the general attitude among researchers who study the economic effects of cosmetics. “I wish society didn’t reward this,” Daniel Hamermesh, an economics professor at the University of Texas at Austin, told The New York Times. “I think we’d be a fairer world if beauty were not rewarded, but it is.”

So, what can be done about it? Workplace policies that allow employees to work from home, where their facial-contrast levels are judged only by their cats, could be an immediate help. So could including more bare-faced women in TV shows and magazine spreads. For more enduring change, women could just stop wearing makeup. But unless we all did it in unison, it’s likely that the holdouts would continue to reap benefits while the au naturel protesters would continue to field questions about their thyroid health from strangers. Or, the country’s only serious female presidential contender could, when asked, speak out against appearance discrimination and gender bias—something she herself has very publicly faced. That kind of response could help change the makeup norm, sister.

******************************************************************************************************************************************** 
Questions 
Session I:
1. What's your vocation? Do most of your colleagues wear makeup? Do you agree that there are implicit rules for looking "put together"(normative beauty) for different industries?
2. Some always wear makeup when they go out. Do you think that they wear makeup to meet general social expectations (a kind of manner) or because of vanity to a certain degree? Do you agree that this make up tax is partially self imposed by women on women?
3. Does wearing makeup promote inequality of treatment in the workplace? Do you consider that makeup is a reflection of appearance discrimination?

Session II
4. Is there any correlation between self-esteem and individual's cosmetic usage and particular habits? Does makeup empower women or it could be detrimental to their self-esteem instead?
5. There seems a trend that female athletes attend track and field events wearing makeup. I also noticed that the members of Korean female volleyball team were all made up when playing games. Do you think that wearing makeup can boost their confidence? Will they perform not as well if being asked not to wear makeup?
6. How do you see the rising movement of male make up? For girls, can you accept that your boy friend or husband wearing makeup? For boys, do you have any makeup experience? Will you try putting on makeup if it makes you look younger or vigorous when you haven't slept well? 
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/1 ... 67482.html)
******************************************************************************************************************************************** 
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。

Read More

8/15 (Sat.) The Language of Lying (Host: Sherry)

Please click the following link:

http://yoyo.club.tw/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3981&sid=edb0e1cd96f43bf45a21ebb6ddef9586

Read More

8/8 Saturday meetimg cancelled due to typhoon

Read More

8/4(Tue.) 1.Dust Explosion 2.Same Sex Marriage(H:Michael)

Session 1 Water Park Inferno

The suspected dust explosion at the Formosa Fun Coast (八仙海岸) water park in New Taipei City’s Bali District (八里) on Saturday evening, that injured nearly 500 people, mostly in their teens and 20s, has left many parents distraught and heartbroken. 

Horrifying amateur video footage showed crowds of young revelers, some dressed in swimwear, dancing in front of a stage and cheering as clouds of green and yellow powder covered them, only for their joy to turn to terror when the powder suddenly erupted into flames, engulfing them in an inferno as they ran screaming for their lives.

Witnesses described the scene at the water park as “hell” when the fireball ripped through the crowd.
“Everyone was screaming and there was blood everywhere. The waterway [used for inflatable boat rides] was filled with blood because everyone was dipping themselves in it,” as they attempted to soothe their burns, said a young man who witnessed the tragedy.
“I saw lots of people whose skin was gone,” another witness said.
“It started on the left side of the stage. At the beginning, I thought it was part of the special effects, but then I realized there was something wrong when people started screaming and running,” a male witness said.
Ambulances struggled to reach the scene and victims were carried away on rubber rings and inflatable dinghies as friends desperately tried to get them help.
Bystanders poured bottles of water on the scorched skin of the injured and trails of bloody footprints could be seen leading away from the stage.

Questions

1.Before this 八仙 Water Park Inferno happened, were you aware that dust can cause explosion? Some people said this is a common sense. Do you agree? 
2.Who do you think should be held the most accountability for this dust explosion tragedy? Event Organizer? Water Park Owner? Government? 
3.What lesson do you learn from this tragedy? 

Session 2 Same Sex Marriage 

Washington (CNN) In a historic 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down same-sex marriage bans across the country.

Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to affirm that same-sex marriage is a right along with the other four liberal justices and read the Court's opinion.
Here are some highlights from the Court's opinion: 

1."No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than they once were."

2."The nature of marriage is that, through its enduring bond, two persons together can find other freedoms, such as expression, intimacy, and spirituality. This is true for all persons, whatever their sexual orientation."

3."It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right” 

4."The right of same-sex couples to marry that is part of the liberty promised by the Fourteenth Amendment is derived, too, from that Amendment's guarantee of the equal protection of the laws." 

5."A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education."

6."As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples."

7."Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, their children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated through no fault of their own to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue here thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples."

8. "This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."

Each of the four conservative justices wrote their own dissent but Justice Antonin Scalia's is the most blistering.
1."The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

2."I write separately to call attention to this Court's threat to American democracy."

3."The substance of today's decree is not of immense personal importance to me ... It is of overwhelming importance, however, who it is that rules me. Today's decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court."

4."Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best. The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003.” 

5."Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie. Expression, sure enough, is a freedom, but anyone in a long-lasting marriage will attest that that happy state constricts, rather than expands, what one can prudently say." 


We will have a debate. 
Debate Question: Should Taiwan legalize same sex marriage? 
( I guess most of our members support same sex marriage, so 徵求當反對方的參與者!!!) 

********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:25pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
9:05 ~ 9:25pm Summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements ********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期：列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間：當天請準時於 6:45 pm 到達 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
星期二聚會地點：丹堤濟南店
地址、電話：台北市濟南路三段25號 (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。

Read More

Aug. 2 Movie Outing!

Aug. 2 Movie Outing!

Dear all,

It's the summer blockbuster time, and Lydia and I are thinking a movie outing with a discussion afterwards over afternoon tea or dinner! Care to join us?

I've looked up what's playing this Sunday. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation seems to be the highest rated film out there. So that's our pick.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/mission ... ue_nation/

Join us Sunday, Aug. 2, at 台北信義威秀. 

We're going for the regular movie and not the 4DX version. There's one starting at 11:55. We'll meet at the lobby at 11 am for the tickets (buy our own but hope to sit together). If you have to be late, find us inside. 

Not sure where to eat after that. Suggestions needed! Or we can play it by ear after the movie.

So there you have it. Lydia and I are looking forward to seeing you there!

Kat 

Read More

07/28(Tue)To Fulfill Your Dreams By Basic Income?(Wen-han)

07/28(Tue)To Fulfill Your Dreams By Basic Income?(Wen-han)

由 wenhan1122 » 週四 7月 23, 2015 12:38 am

Dear Yoyo members,

It's my pleasure again to be the host for our gathering held on Tuesday, 07/28. This time, I like to share two interesting topics with you all for discussions. The first one is a sociological experiment conducted in Holland about the basic income theory, and the second one is a finding by Dr. Angela Lee Duckworth for the key to success, given via a short speech on TED. 

The origin of the article, http://qz.com/437088/utrecht-will-give-money-for-free-to-its-citizens-will-it-make-them-lazier/
A Dutch city is giving money away to test the “basic income” theory

Some people in the Dutch city of Utrecht might soon get a windfall of extra cash, as part of a daring new experiment with the idea of “basic income.”

Basic income is an unconditional and regular payment meant to provide enough money to cover a person’s basic living cost. In January of 2016, the fourth largest city in the Netherlands and its partner, the University of Utrecht, will create several different regimes for its welfare recipients and test them.

A group of people already receiving welfare will get monthly checks ranging from around €900 ($1,000) for an adult to €1,300 ($1,450) for a couple or family per month. Out of the estimated 300 people participating, a group of at least 50 people will receive the unconditional basic income and won’t be subject to any regulation, so even if they get a job or find another source of income, they will still get their disbursement, explained Nienke Horst, a project manager for the Utrecht city government. There will be three other groups with different levels of rules, and a control group that will follow the current welfare law, with its requirements around job-seeking and qualifying income.

The experiment seeks to challenge the notion that people who receive public money need to be patrolled and punished, said Horst. The traditional criticism of basic income is that it does not incentivize people to work, and thereby damages the economy.

“People say they are not going to try as hard to find a job,” she told Quartz. “We will find out.” Her view, however, is optimistic: “We think that more people will be a little bit happier and find a job anyway,” she said.

Other countries, including India and Malawi, have tested basic income in the past, but the most famous experiment was one carried out in the Canadian town of Dauphin, in Manitoba. Between 1974 and 1979, The Mincome program gave a stipend to the entire population, varying depending on how much money each person earned.

Evelyn L. Forget, an economist at the University of Manitoba, studied this experiment and wrote a report called “The town with no poverty,” published in 2011. Her conclusion? Basic income reduced Dauphin’s poverty and alleviated several other problems.

Although working hours dropped, as skeptics had predicted, it happened mainly among young men, who instead continued their education, and mothers who used the financial freedom to focus on childrearing.

“People thought that it was negative, but men were less likely to drop school, which has an influence in lifetime earnings,” she told Quartz, “and women took longer maternity leaves.”

People who participated in Mincome were less likely to go to hospitals and the town’s health facilities saw a drop in mental-health-related complaints, reducing costs, Forget said.

One substantial difference between Dauphin’s Mincome and the Utrecht experiment, however, is the Canadian program was universal and Utrecht’s will be restricted to those already on welfare.

“What you lose by limiting the program to current welfare recipients is the possibility of making life better for the working poor—people earning low wages in part-time or contractual jobs who sometimes fall between the cracks of the existing system,” said Forget. “When you have a program with more freedom, people have the power to take responsibility for their own decisions and, I think, the outcomes will be beneficial.”

The effect of running a program like Mincome long-term remains unclear—it was ended without any proper evaluation of its results after the Conservative government took over the provincial government in 1977, and the federal government in 1979.

Perhaps Utrecht will offer more insight.

The Key To Success? Grit

Leaving a high-flying job in consulting, Angela Lee Duckworth took a job teaching math to seventh graders in a New York public school. She quickly realized that IQ wasn’t the only thing separating the successful students from those who struggled. Here, she explains her theory of “grit” as a predictor of success. 

Please watch the short video for her explanations
http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit?language=en#t-23594

QUESTIONS:

********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:25pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
9:05 ~ 9:25pm Summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements ********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期：列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間：當天請準時於 6:45 pm 到達 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
星期二聚會地點：丹堤濟南店
地址、電話：台北市濟南路三段25號 (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。

The real peace is not merely the absence of warfare, but the presence of justice

Read More

2015年社慶將在7/25週六中午舉行 YOYO Anniversary Party 7/25

2015年社慶將在7/25週六中午舉行 YOYO Anniversary Party 7/25

由 Stacy Wang » 週六 6月 13, 2015 2:02 pm

今年的社慶日子已決定在 7 月 25 日 中午 舉行
地點：荒漠甘泉音樂音響餐廳 http://www.streams.tw/
台北市羅斯福路三段316巷18號
時間：12:00 開始

報名方式
1. Yoyo Forum留言
2. FB event按參加
費用：（含場地與自助吧）
會員：自費250元，社費贊助300元
非會員：550元

請大家預先保留時間參加哦！
            
We have a GREAT NEWS for the new comers!
Who pay the membership fee at the annual party 
Can join the annual party for FREE!!!
好消息公告！
只要在社慶當天直接繳交一千元的終身會費（當然是沒繳過的新社員）
當天就可以免費參加社慶哦！！！
快點告訴你的朋友們這個好消息！！
錯過這次！下次不知道何時才有！！！！
             
所有報名的朋友請注意！整個活動我們都有事先的安排，也會依照報名的人數規劃
若你當天臨時無法參加，我們之後仍會跟你收取費用！
報名已在7/18截止了喔！
我們知道你真的很想來參加活動，但是來不及報名！
沒關係！
當天1點還是可以來跟我們一起玩！
只是你要自己先吃飽！
然後交費用250！

社慶活動小透露
1. 12:00開始進場與進食
2. 活動將於13:00開始
3. 活動內容：（為了保留神秘感，活動名稱就讓大家先自行想像吧！）
1) Ice Breaker Activity
2) Shuttlecock Time
3) What are you saying?
4) Is it Clay Art?
5) Talent member show time! (JD, Prudence, Tom)
If any one also want do the show time! Welcome to let me know!!!
4. 頒獎活動

Read More

7/21 (Tue.) Robot Security Could Help Cut Crime

7/21 (Tue.) Robot Security Could Help Cut Crime

由 TinaLiang » 週六 7月 18, 2015 6:13 pm

Dear YoYos, 

Here comes the topic for 7/21 (Tue.), Robot Security Could Help Cut Crime. The original article and audio could be found athttp://m.learningenglish.voanews.com/a/ ... 12325.html. Enjoy it~

Shopping centers, stadiums and universities may soon have a new tool to help fight crime. A California company called Knightscope says its robots can predict and prevent crime. Knightscope says the goal is to reduce crime by half in areas the robots guard.
William Santana Li is the chief executive officer of Knightscope. He says these robot security guards will change the world.
"Our planet has seven billion people on it. It's going to quickly get to nine billion people. The law enforcement apparatus and security apparatus that we have globally is just not going to scale."
Mr. Li says his company's Autonomous Data Machines can become the eyes and ears of law enforcement.
"You want it to be machines plus humans. Let the machines do the monotonous computational heavy and sometimes dangerous work and let the humans do the strategic decision-making work so it's always working in tandem."
The machines are one and a half meters tall and weigh 136 kilograms. They do not carry weapons but have day and night time video cameras able to turn 360 degrees. Mr. Li says they can also sense chemical and biological weapons.
Eugene Volokh is a law professor at the University of California. He says the machines have to be used in the right way. He says some people may become concerned about their privacy, especially in connection with the video recordings. Some people may worry that such recordings will appear on the Internet. Mr. Volokh says it will be interesting to see how state laws deal with this kind of surveillance video.
William Santana Li says there is a long waiting list for the robots in the U.S. At least 25 other countries are also interested in these robotic security guards.
I'm Jonathan Evans.
VOA’s Elizabeth Lee reported this story from Los Angeles. Jonathan Evans adapted it for Learning English. Caty Weaver was the editor.
________________________________________________________________
Words in this Story
stadium - n. a very large usually roofless building that has a large open area surrounded by many rows of seats and that is used for sports events, concerts, etc.
apparatus - n. the organization or system used for doing or operating something
scale - n. the size or level of something especially in comparison to something else
strategic - adj. useful or important in achieving a plan or strategy
in tandem - n. two people, groups or things working or happening together or at the same time
surveillance - n. the act of carefully watching someone or something especially in order to prevent or detect a crime
________________________________________________________________

Questions for Discussion:
Session I
Q1: Do you believe that "Robot Security Could Help Cut Crime"? Why or why not?
Q2: Nowadays, robots can help us in many ways. Please list as many ways as possible that you can think of.
Q3: How do you want robots to help us in the future?

Session II
Q4: Please compare and contrast the similarities and differences between "robots" and "machines".
Q5: Do you support that using robots and machines to replace labor(er)s? Why or why not?
Q6: Please choose a new word that you learn today, and tell us how can you use the word in which situation or scenario.

********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:25pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
9:05 ~ 9:25pm Summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements

********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期：列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間：當天請準時於 6:45 pm 到達 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
星期二聚會地點：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. 與會者請自行列印 Questions for discussion。
2. 與會者請務必先看過演講影片，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。

Read More

7/18(Sat) Kat's Potluck!

7/18(Sat) Kat's Potluck!

由 Gloria Lo » 週日 7月 12, 2015 10:44 am

It’s Potluck Time !!!!!

Date: July, 18, Sat.
Time: 12:00-17:00 
Place: Kooper, Gloria, and Polly’s Home (MRT 中和新蘆線 永安市場站 步行8分鐘)
To bring: A dish or drinks to pass

1. We have a very strict rule for the party: Every participant has to play happily and laugh loudly, or you aren’t allowed to go home. So, please bring your smiling face and best mood on that day. HAHAHA

2. Dear Kat and Lydia will prepare some English games and activities. Kooper and I will play a short video clip that’s fun. We are going to have lots of chats and laughs, and enjoy a very wonderful, sweet, and happy summer afternoon together.

3. If you can join the party on the coming Saturday, please reply on the forum, Facebook, or Line group.Thank you.

4. Most importantly, please bring a dish with you. Sandwiches, salads, finger foods, fruits, meats, vegetables, drinks, cakes, snacks, bread…… are all welcomed. When you decide on the kind of food to bring, please declare on the forum, Facebook or Line group to let others know, to avoid same food. Thank you very much. 

5. Please bring your serving ware (chopsticks, spoon, bowl, cup.......)with you if possible to save the earth and save us from kitchen sink.  

Hope You Can Come



BTW, if you have no idea what the potluck might look like, check out Kat’s previous three potlucks here.

Kat’s Movie Potluck (May 5, 2011) viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3130
Kat’s “Show & Tell” Potluck (May 22, 2011) viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3138
Kat’s “Thank You!” Potluck (June 2, 2011) viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3147


Kooper, Gloria, and Polly's home: 新北市中和區宜安路118巷16號4樓之3
map: https://www.google.com.tw/maps/dir/%E6% ... 2?hl=zh-TW

1.出永安市場捷運站後左轉，在中和路378巷左轉，直走到底會看到八二三公園(四號公園)，不要過馬路，直接右轉，沿公園周邊中安街走騎樓，一直走到全家便利店(宜安路118巷)右轉，再沿118巷往前走到長頸鹿美語和艾佳超市中間。
2.進社區大廳，請警衛協助刷卡，面對警衛台右方電梯，上四樓一出電梯左轉再左轉，看到門前有貼Kooper, Gloria and Polly's Home 的那個門就對了。

Read More

7/14(Tue) Should College Students be Paid for Internships?

7/14(Tue) Should College Students be Paid for Internships?

由 Sherry Liao » 週日 7月 12, 2015 7:49 pm

Dear YOYOs,

On July 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion endorsing a new standard for determining lawful use of unpaid interns. If you are interested in the history of the case, you may like to further read the following article:

Unpaid interns have their day in court—again
http://fortune.com/2015/01/29/unpaid-in ... al-battle/

For the Fox case:
Judge Rules That Movie Studio Should Have Been Paying Interns
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/busin ... light.html

For the Hearst case:
Former Intern Sues Hearst Over Unpaid Work and Hopes to Create a Class Action
http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2 ... tion/?_r=0

However, if you are not so interested in the verdicts on the US cases, it’s definitely OK to join the discussion, if only the recent news report in Taiwan has drawn your attention:

學生問實習沒錢　柯文哲：花時間教你，沒收學費就不錯
http://www.ettoday.net/news/20150710/533042.htm

So, come join us this coming Tuesday and let us have your opinions on this topic!

Why The Second Circuit Made A Flawed Decision In Upholding Unpaid Internships
http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/ ... ternships/
7/07/2015 @ 11:58AM

Search for “unpaid internship” on job listing aggregation site Indeed.com and you will find a staggering 2,300 listings. Among them: “analyst intern” at an outfit in Cambridge, MA called Cloud Spectator, which advises cloud companies on marketing and helps companies choose cloud providers. The analyst job seems central to what the company does. Its duties include assisting in writing reports, researching technology vendors and crafting sales and marketing materials. Great experience for someone who wants to go into the field, but the internship doesn’t pay.

The listing exemplifies pervasive ignorance about the legality of unpaid internships. I shared Cloud Spectator’s listing with Michael Harper, a Boston University labor law professor who has written casebooks on employment law, and he says it’s clearly illegal, given courts’ interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), the law that lays out basic protections for workers, including the requirement to pay the minimum wage. Yet no one has sued Cloud Spectator as far as I know (repeated calls and an email to the head of marketing there were unreturned), and there appears to be little chance that a government agency will enforce the law or that an intern from Cloud Spectator will sue or even complain.

Though there has been plenty of press about whether unpaid internships are legal or fair, these sorts of arrangements are very much alive, especially in the realm of startups, the media, and the entertainment and fashion industries, and they are widespread among non-profits, political campaigns and government offices. Hillary Clinton has gotten heat recently for her unpaid campaign internships, which she bills as “fellowships.” Only government has a blanket exemption from paying interns under the FLSA, says Harper.

The unpaid internship ground has shifted since a plaintiff-friendly ruling in a high-profile case filed in 2011 by unpaid interns who had worked on the Fox Searchlight movie Black Swan, which grossed more than $300 million. First the plaintiffs, including Eric Glatt, 45, who had done everything from drafting cover letters to picking up a non-allergenic pillow for director Darren Aronofsky, won at the federal trial court in New York. Then Fox appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is one step down from the U.S. Supreme Court. The appellate court also took a case brought by Eden Antalik, who was trying to get class action status to bring a suit on behalf of many former Fox interns.

The case was terrible publicity for Fox. It was also bad for other media and fashion companies with internship programs, and a flood of more than 35 suits were filed challenging unpaid internships. There was considerable fallout, including Condé Nast suspending its internship program altogether. Condé Nast is now reportedly planning to start a six-month paying “fellowship” program similar to programs at Buzzfeed, The Huffington Post and Wired. According to the LA Times, all of the major Hollywood studios now pay their interns, including Lionsgate, which switched to a paid internship program from an unpaid one last fall. In fact Fox Searchlight paid its interns before “Black Swan” went into production. It was the production company handling the movie that didn’t pay, though the plaintiffs argued that Fox Searchlight sanctioned the practice. According to the LA Times, many small production outfits still don’t pay their interns.

Now defendants in intern cases have scored a victory in the Second Circuit, in a striking decision that tosses out accepted law on the issue and makes up its own standard for evaluating such cases. Until now, it’s been accepted wisdom that the legal standard was one derived from a 1947 Supreme Court case about railroad brakemen-trainees. The key to that ruling was that unpaid trainees couldn’t displace full-time employees and their work couldn’t benefit the employer. Then in 2010 the Labor Department put out a six-part test, saying that unpaid internships had to satisfy each part: An unpaid internship had to be like the training the intern would get in an educational environment, it had to be done for the intern’s benefit, it couldn’t displace regular employees, it couldn’t give “immediate advantage” to the employer, and the intern had to understand that he wasn’t going to get paid and he wasn’t going to get a job at the end of the internship.

In the ruling last week, the court wiped out that standard and applied a totally new test, a requirement that the “primary beneficiary” of the internship must be the intern rather than the employer. The judges laid out a list of seven things to consider, emphasizing that the internship should tie in with the intern’s formal schooling. The ruling seems to open the floodgates to internships that deliver school credit, a factor that was irrelevant before the ruling. Ross Perlin, author of a book on internships, argued eloquently in the New York Times that “these very same institutions have been complicit in the internship boom by ignoring abuses, requiring internships for graduation and charging students for academic credit when they go off campus to do unpaid work.”

B.U.’s Harper says of the decision, “Its reasoning is made out of whole cloth.” Agrees Suffolk University law professor David Yamada, who wrote the first law review article on unpaid internships back in 2002, “All the factors they drew up were really without legal authority.” In fact the judges cite no case law for their checklist. “They apparently decided to invent something new here, which is surprising at the appellate level,” says Yamada.

The second part of the decision may be the most damaging to the cause of advancing intern rights. The judges refuse to certify the Fox interns as a class, making it less likely that other intern plaintiffs will try to bring class action suits, which are a lucrative incentive for plaintiff lawyers who normally take a contingency fee of a third of an award or settlement. A lone case claiming a summer’s worth of minimum wage is hardly a motive for a lawyer to pursue a claim. The court ruled that each individual intern’s situation at Fox was too different to lump them all together as a class.

The ruling sends the Black Swan case back to the district court for a decision, where it’s likely that plaintiffs Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman, who aren’t seeking class status, will prevail, since it’s clear that the primary beneficiary of their work was the production, not them as interns. It’s tough to argue that emptying the garbage and fetching a pillow is educational. It’s also doubtful under this ruling that internships like Cloud Spectator’s would pass muster. But the ruling paves the way for employers to make deals with educational institutions for school credit, perpetuating a system that exploits student labor, takes jobs from would-be entry-level workers, favors the privileged who can afford to make no money and flouts the basic tenet of the FLSA, that people who work deserve to get paid at least a minimum wage.

Questions for Discussion:
Session I
Q1: Do you think college students should be paid for internships? Why or why not?
Q2: If you are a leader of a team and your team has been assigned one or several interns, will you train them or ask them to run errands and things they couldn't mess up? Will you give them actual work to do even though you know that they are untrained? Would it be different if you know they are paid/unpaid?
Q3: If you are a student, will you accept unpaid internships or volunteer work in exchange for on-the-job experience? If you feel the work is mindless or menial, and is without academic or training component, will you accept it for a line in resume or a potential connection to a future job?

Session II
Q4: Do you think college students should complete an internship as a graduation requirement for their degree? Should schools negotiate with employees for workplace experience program to let students get paid when they also earn school credits? 
Q5: What is the main purpose of internship? Will you accept an unpaid internship at Google? Will you accept an unpaid internship at Uni-President? Why or why not? 
Q6: Should government intervenes in unpaid internship? If you were the policymaker, what would you do to maintain the balance of power between capital and labor?
********************************************************************************************************************************************
Agenda:
6:45 ~ 7:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
7:00 ~ 7:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
7:10 ~ 7:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
7:50 ~ 8:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
8:10 ~ 8:25pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
8:25 ~ 9:05pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
9:05 ~ 9:25pm Summarization (20 mins)
9:25 ~ 9:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements

********************************************************************************************************************************************
聚會日期：列於該貼文主題內
聚會時間：當天請準時於 6:45 pm 到達 ~ 約 9:30 pm 左右結束
星期二聚會地點：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. 與會者請自行列印 Questions for discussion。
2. 與會者請務必先看過演講影片，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。

Read More

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

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~  


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/understandingrac1/a/WhatIsaStereotype.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-and-usage/words-that-describe-a-first-impression.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/article/0%2c8599%2c1871331%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/opinion/can-the-law-make-bad-samaritans-be-decent.html?_r=1&module=ArrowsNav&contentCollection=Opinion&action=keypress&region=FixedLeft&pgtype=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。

Read More