【ただひたすら書き込むスレ】

282fad7c 名無しさん 2017-06-10 15:12 返信
氷河期に入社して、中年で首を来らて、どこも雇ってくれない、おじさんからみたら、
羨ましくてしょうがない。
eb42e185 名無しさん 2017-06-10 15:15 返信
>>68a7b2b5
最近は自作ってどうなの? 転送レートが上がって自作は怖いんだけど
f8f4d2d9 名無しさん 2017-06-10 15:17 返信
>>096928a5
50〜1000人程度の企業に応募してるけど、第一志望は300人強
でも電機メーカーだから電気科の競争率高い・・・
203e7577 名無しさん 2017-06-10 16:34 返信
無い内定
内々定
語呂は同じでも意味が違う
30fd391d 名無しさん 2017-06-10 21:39 返信
オープンソースソフトウェアのライフサイクルと同じくらい時期がわからん
90d44ce1 Carloscar [adkins-8312@mail.ru] 2017-06-15 01:04 返信
?Sample essay
The remainder of this essay crafting tutorial is influenced by a short sample 'divorce essay' (about 1,000 words).
To finish all for the associated tasks, it is easiest if you happen to have the sample essay in front of you.
A major change that has occurred while in the Western family is undoubtedly an increased incidence in divorce. Whereas within the past, divorce was a relatively rare occurrence, in recent times it has become rather commonplace. This change is borne out clearly in census figures. For example thirty years ago in Australia, only a person marriage in ten ended in divorce; nowadays the figure is in excess of a particular in three (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996: p.45). A consequence of this change appears to have been a substantial increase while in the selection of one parent families and then the attendant problems that this brings (Kilmartin, 1997).
An important issue for sociologists, and indeed for all of society, is why these changes in marital patterns have occurred. On this essay I will seek to critically examine quite a lot of sociological explanations for your 'divorce phenomenon' and also consider the social policy implications that just about every explanation carries with it. It will be argued that the optimal explanations are to be found inside a broad socio-economic framework.
Just one type of explanation for rising divorce has focused on changes in laws relating to marriage. For example, Bilton, Bonnett and Jones (1987) argue that increased rates of divorce do not necessarily indicate that families are now alot more unstable. It is conceivable, they claim, that there has always been a degree of marital instability. They suggest that changes within the law have been significant, basically because they have provided unhappily married couples with 'obtain to the legal remedy to pre-existent marital problems' (p.301). Bilton et al. therefore believe that changes in divorce rates tend to be easiest explained in terms of changes inside legal strategy. The problem with this type of explanation however, is the fact it does not consider why these laws have changed with the to begin with put. It could be argued that reforms to family law, at the same time given that the increased rate of divorce that has accompanied them, are the product of way more fundamental changes in society.
Another type of explanation is a person that focuses precisely on these broad societal changes. For example, Nicky Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995) argues that increases in divorce and marital breakdown are the result of economic changes that have affected the family. Just one example of these changes is the raised material aspirations of families, which Hart suggests has put pressure on both equally spouses to become wage earners. Women as a result have been forced to become both equally homemakers and economic providers. According to Hart, the contradiction of these two roles has lead to conflict and this is the main cause of marital breakdown. It would appear that Hart's explanation cannot account for all cases of divorce - for example, marital breakdown is liable to occur in families where only the husband is working. Nevertheless, her tactic, which is to relate changes in family relations to broader social forces, would seem to be to be increased probing than a particular that looks only at legislative change.
The two explanations described previously mentioned have very different implications for social policy, particularly in relation to how the problem of increasing marital instability may be dealt with. Bilton et al. (1995) offer a legal explanation and hence would see the solutions also being determined in this particular domain. If rises in divorce are thought to be the consequence of liberal divorce laws, the obvious way to stem this rise is to make them less obtainable. This tactic, one particular imagines, would lead into a reduction in divorce statistics; however, it cannot really be held up as a genuine answer to the problems of marital stress and breakdown in society. Indeed it would appear to be a method directed added at symptoms than addressing fundamental causes. Furthermore, the adventure of social workers, working with the area of family welfare suggests that restricting a couple's accessibility to divorce would in some cases serve only to exacerbate present marital problems (Johnson, 1981). In those cases where violence is involved, the consequences could be tragic. Apart from all this, returning to a whole lot more restrictive divorce laws looks to be a choice minimal favoured by Australians. (Harrison, 1990).
Hart (cited in Haralambos, 1995), crafting from the Marxist-feminist position, traces marital conflict to changes while in the capitalist economic strategy and their resultant effect around the roles of men and women. It is difficult to know however, how these an analysis can be translated into practical social policies. This is on the grounds that the Hart program would appear to require on the earliest position a radical restructuring in the economic strategy. Whilst this may be desirable for some, it is not really achievable inside of the existing political climate. Hart is right however, to suggest that a lot of marital conflict could very well be linked in some way to the economic circumstances of families. This is borne out in a number of statistical surveys which indicate consistently that rates of divorce are higher among socially disadvantaged families (McDonald, 1993). This situation suggests then that social policies really need to be geared to providing aid and security for these varieties of families. It is minimal cause for optimism however, that in recent years governments of all persuasions have proven an increasing reluctance to fund social welfare programs of this kind.
It is difficult to offer a comprehensive explanation with the growing trend of marital breakdown; and it is even a whole lot more difficult to choose solutions that may ameliorate the problems created by it. Clearly though, as I have argued with this essay, one of the most useful answers are to be found not inside of a narrow legal framework, but inside of a broader socio-economic an individual.
Finally, it is worth pointing out that, whilst we may appear to be living in the time of increased family instability, research suggests that historically, instability may have been the norm rather than the exception. As Bell and Zajdow (1997) point out, during the past, one parent and step families have been even more commonplace than is assumed - although the disruptive influence then was not divorce, but the premature death of a single or both equally parents. This situation suggests that in studying the fashionable family, a particular needs to employ a historical perspective, such as the possibility of searching to the past in searching for ways of dealing with problems during the current.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Divorces, Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Printing Provider.
Bell, R. and G. Zajdow (1997) Family and household. In R. Jureidini, S. Kenny and M. Poole (eds). Sociology: Australian Connections. St Leonards. NSW: Allen and Unwin
Bilton, T. K. Bonnett and P. Jones (1987). Introductory Sociology. 2nd edition. London: MacMillan.
Haralambos, M. (1995). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives. 3rd edition. London: Bell and Hyman.
Harrison, M. (1995). Grounds for divorce. Family Matters. No 42 pp 34-35.
Johnson, V. (1981). The Last Resort: A Women's Refuge. Ringwood: Penguin.
Kilmartin, C. (1997). Children divorce and one-parent families. Family Matters. No. 48. ( Available in the market On-line )
McDonald, P. (1993). Family Trends and Structure in Australia. Australian Family Briefings No 3. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
9eb28675 名無しさん 2017-06-16 02:34 返信
テステス
839a2bcb 名無しさん 2017-06-16 10:10 返信
>>9eb28675
[[テスト]]
855247cc 名無しさん 2017-06-21 13:30 返信
国民は適切な手続きで法の改廃を直接的ないし間接的に行えるという民主国家
その民主国家で国民の定義は法によってなされるというのは循環論法になるのではないか?
法によって国民が任命され法によって任命された国民によって法としての正当性が認めらえている国籍法
法が不変の真理でない事は法の改廃が行える事で分かるが、という事は本来なら国民として含められるべき人達ないし本来なら国民として認めてはいけない人達が法によって国民として排除ないし任命されていたとしたら?
循環論法によらず"国民を任命する何らかのもの"を認めるというのは、国民よりも上位の何かを認めるわけで民主国家とうものの否定にならないか?
客観的な基準で解決するかな?
でもその客観的な基準は誰が決めるのかな?
ea2ed9f5 名無しさん 2017-06-21 20:58 返信
循環論法という言葉の使い方が意味不明すぎるなあ

ともかく、権利の正当性は現在の国民から国籍法改定によって新たに選ばれた国民へ、現在の国民の権利行使をもって移管されただけだろう
あと「本来」ってどっから出てきたんだ
国民によって決められた法が国民の定義を行う、これ以外に適切な「国民の定義」があるという仮定がそもそも民主主義の前提と対立してる

[0]トップ | [2]ページの先頭 | [6]古>> | 保管庫

ネットワーク利用規約
(最大: 1536KB)
名前:
E-mail:

(【ただひたすら書き込むスレ】/199/0.1MB)

Powered by shinGETsu.