Originally Posted by Mohammed Uzair

Brother i think you have slightly misinterpreted it. I think this topic actually meant that third world countries suffer from multiple basic issues such as health, poverty, education, sanitation etc and feminism, in true sense of word and spirit, comes very low in the priority list to the extent of irrelevance. Hence, it is not really an issue of the third world countries. In short, more urgent issues that threaten the stability and existence of third world countries do not afford them with the luxury of debating or tackling gender inequality.

Originally Posted by noorullain

Hi, story for interruption, but it just appeared to me absurd, (and need to clarify, sorry if it sounds stupid thou), is it suggested here that the paper setter and the paper checker are the same persons always?
From the answer above it seems yes. As it says while attempting the essay against we need to keep in mind the person who made the paper, is most probably in favour of the said topic himself so we should keep this in mind. Is it true that the same person will check the papers too? or is it equally possible that the paper checker is an entirely different person and has nothing to do with the person who suggested the topic.

Though i agree that for the said topic there's no point going against but i really didn't get the reason explained behind it :/

Originally Posted by noorullain

Aren't the both interpretations almost the same? sorry I'm confused. Also what I understood when i first read the topic was that "Feminism: A Global Issue or Merely a Third World Issue?" Kindly correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by PartyPooper

Remember, Pakistan is not famous for producing independent, free-thinkers. Going out of the box here potentially puts you out of the race.

Originally Posted by noorullain

Aren't the both interpretations almost the same? sorry I'm confused. Also what I understood when i first read the topic was that "Feminism: A Global Issue or Merely a Third World Issue?" Kindly correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by ADIL KHESHGI

Agreed!



I think state should appoint only those candidates who give preference to the state's interests over his/her own, right! A free mind should not have any place in an environment that is controlled by laws, rules and regulations as free minds won't care about them. Always remember! state is an interest group, just like a political party, if you agree to its policies and method of work then you can join otherwise you should have no place in its services. And that is what these commissions do: search for 'suitable' persons through competitive exams, a capitalist state can't empower a communist person to run its administration much like a theocratic state empowering an atheist...... Regards

Originally Posted by ADIL KHESHGI

Agreed!

I think state should appoint only those candidates who give preference to the state's interests over his/her own, right! A free mind should not have any place in an environment that is controlled by laws, rules and regulations as free minds won't care about them. Always remember! state is an interest group, just like a political party, if you agree to its policies and method of work then you can join otherwise you should have no place in its services. And that is what these commissions do: search for 'suitable' persons through competitive exams, a capitalist state can't empower a communist person to run its administration much like a theocratic state empowering an atheist...... Regards

Originally Posted by PartyPooper

Independent and free thinking individuals in state services are a blessing for the state itself. They can improve the conditions of the populace that will ultimately contribute to the betterment of the state. For what is state in itself if not the individuals that have come to live together for mutual good.

Those states that have recognised this fact are now developed and civilised. And, on the other hand, the states that are adamant on narrow definitions of state-interests (dictated by an intelligentsia comprised of average minds and closed-thinkers) are stuck in the dark ages.

Originally Posted by Mohammed Uzair

What makes you think that a free mind wouldn't care about existing laws and regulations. Having a free mind is not tantamount to having a rebellious mind or inclinations. In fact, an indoctrinated mind or soul, who has been consistently fed erroneous ideas, is more prone to encroach upon the rights of other people. And may struggle to reconcile his idea of life with that of the society. Free mind, on the contrary, is flexible and driven by reason. Trust me friend, State needs latter not the former.

Originally Posted by fawadhash

Salam, someone knowledgeable please clarify this ambiguity. I had always thought that it was "ok" to go against a topic as long as it was justified to write against a topic. I was going though past thread of Essay 2017 paper for sake of nostalgia and I saw someone mention there that "you shouldn't go against the topic", unless the Essay is expressed in the form of question.

So, my essay topic was "feminism is not really a third world issue". I argued against it saying that "feminism is really a third world issue" or important third world issue. Was I wrong to go against the statement?

Someone knowledgeable please clarify this so aspirants don't commit mistake, if it really is mistake, in future as I couldn't find a thread dealing specifically with this subject. If it is ok to go against a topic, when is it justified? Although, I saw an outline by Sir Bilal on the same topic and he also went against the topic, I thought I should create a thread to have a complete sense of when it is right to go against a topic and when its not.