Publish in OALib Journal
APC: Only $99
Pro-relationship behaviors—commitment, accommodation,
sacrifice, and forgiveness—differ across relationships with parents, friends,
and romantic partners. In order to test the extent to which the type of relationship
plays a role in how willing a person is to accommodate, forgive, or sacrifice,
participants were administered a series of questionnaires. The associations of
these pro-relationship behaviors with commitment were compared across
relationships. Although the tendency to accommodate, sacrifice, and forgive in
one relationship was significantly correlated with the tendency to behave
similarly in other relationships, there were significant differences from one
relationship to another. For example, participants were significantly less
likely to sacrifice for a friend than for a parent or a romantic partner.
Conversely, participants were found to be significantly less accommodating for
a parent than they were for a friend or for a romantic partner. Also,
participants were significantly more likely to forgive friends than they were
to forgive a romantic partner. All relationship behaviors were significantly
correlated with commitment across all three relationship types, but the
strength of these correlations was not consistent. This inconsistency is
probably due to the differences in expectations that people have for different
relationships. The friendships of college students are usually temporary, as
friends graduate and move on, whereas relationships with parents last until
death. Although there were inconsistencies, there were many significant correlations
that showed that behavior in one relationship did predict behavior in other
relationships. Just as behavior towards one’s parents was related to behavior
towards one’s friends, it was also predictive of behavior towards romantic
partners. Whether this applies to adolescents from other cultures, and whether
it applies to non-university students, remains to be determined.
paper aims to study the factors of undergraduate students’ WeChat using, and adopts
the structure of close-ended and the Likert-scale five-point measure questionnaire.
We choose 200 undergraduate students as the respondents, randomly from
different majors and grades. The result indicates:
1) almost all of the respondents use WeChat every day, and 18.8% of them
use WeChat more than 2 hours per day. 2) The influence of friends is a major
factor in using WeChat among undergraduate students. The item “Most of my
friends use WeChat and encourage me to use” and “WeChat helps me to keep in
touch with friends” recorded the highest and second highest mean score (4.03; 3.97).
3) WeChat is a good way to release stress and relaxation for undergraduate
students. It brings them more laughter and joy. 4) Family has no significant influence
on WeChat using, and only 10% of the respondents agree with the item “I often
chat with strangers in WeChat”.
Schopenhauer’s stance on suicide focuses on the possibility of achieving freedom from suffering through the denial of the individual will-to-life. Ultimately, Schopenhauer argues that suicide fails to achieve this freedom, primarily because it is an act of will that confirms, rather than denies, the will-to-life. Suicide, he argues, is a kind of contradiction in that it involves the individual will’s willfully seeking to exterminate itself as a way of escaping the wretchedness of willing. While Schopenhauer explicitly states that one possesses the individual right to commit suicide in order to attempt to obtain freedom from suffering, and even admits that he can understand why one would attempt to do so, he denies that there is any possibility that this freedom may be actualized. To take one’s life indicates a lack of awareness (or an unwillingness to become aware) of the futility of the individual will and the experience of the wholeness and totality of will-in-itself. One has the freedom to destroy oneself, but one’s freedom to free oneself from suffering is an illusion. If one concurs with Schopenhauer that suicide should be understood as a futile escape from the freedom of suffering, one cannot deny the brilliant insights of his argument. His is, one the one hand, a brilliant articulation of the function of suicide—placing the act squarely within what one would intuit as its primary purpose (freedom from suffering). On the other hand, given Schopenhauer’s philosophical framework, it negates that possibility and precludes consideration of any others.
Though internet was not commercially available in China until 1995, it has been growing tremendously over the years. At the same time, the Chinese government has never ceased regulating or even censoring internet. This paper provides an overview of the development of internet in China, and the major regulatory schemes that have a direct impact on internet speech. Further, it describes some of the specific measures the Chinese government uses to control the internet: filtering and blocking, imposing liabilities on private parties, access control, internet “police”, and “guiding” public opinion. Finally, it concludes that internet censorship does more harm than good.