And encountering conflict : it had the same meaning as "taking sides in conflict" right??
Essentially, yes.
Though you should have had a little bit in your introduction to make the focus more on choosing sides than not involving yourself, even if you wanted to. There were more implications of the prompt, but thats fine if you arrowed it down to some specifics; there's no set response for context - you can twist it to your own liking, within reason.
EDIT:
I did this - opened with a quote from Dante Alighieri, the Italian Middle Ages poet: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality."
Then a sentence saying that by being a bystander you are effectively taking no responsibility over the circumstance. Then a rhetorical question: "So, then, must we not only consider the difficulty of remaining a bystander, but also the morality of doing so?" Continued talking about how standing aside is appropriate with others' personal matters, but if there is some form of oppression, imposed on either you or someone who you could help it was your moral obligation to assist these people. (tied the asylum seekers example into my body related to this - On Sep 1st 80 asylum seekers broke out of the Darwin immigration detention centre, pushing through 2 electric fences to do so, and finally sitting on a nearby roof. For these people it was an opportunity to get their case publicised, an opportunity to bring about reform for the deplorable treatment of asylum seekers by Australia. bla bla bla....
i jsut realised i left the last visual out. fml
i circled it and everything... put astriks on it so i would remember to mention it in my 3rd para
but i completely forgot
ARFG
does this comprimise my mark?
frankly, yes. There is a requirement to analyse the visual(s) in some way to an appropriate extent.
EDIT EDIT: No, you shouldn't be disadvantaged significantly as you did analyse an image - I thought that you were saying you left out BOTH images...