Time to argue....
1. Give us a scenario in which someone is proposing something that you either agree with, or disagree with OR
2. something you are proposing to someone else.
THEN, write a letter making an argument for or against what it is the person or group of people is considering.
For example,
1. You school is considering extending the school day an extra hour.
2. You have just had a birthday, and you were hoping your parents would extend your curfew but they didn't. Argue for a one hour extension.
So, first you need to choose a scenario and tell us what it is, then, you pen them a letter. You must use 5 of the 6 logical means we discussed in this last chapter.
Enthymeme
Historical Example
Comparison
Fable
Maxim
Be creative, and BE SURE your letter is fully developed. (ie make sure your blog isn't too short!)
2. Why you shouldn't buy GMO free food.
ReplyDeleteThere once was an unskilled squirrel who would go out every day and collect acorns, they weren't very big but they were just enough to feed a chipmunk, but not enough for a squirrel. One day he saw a chipmunk running by with two huge acorns in their mouth so he stopped the chipmunk to ask where they got the acorns from, and of course the chipmunk tells him that it's his secret spot. The squirrel then developed a plan to get the chipmunk in his head, he said that the bigger the acorn the worse the taste so, he struck a deal with the chipmunk telling him that his one acorn is better than the chipmunk's two. The chipmunk was hesitant until the friend of the squirrel chimed in saying that he absolutely loves his acorns and that they are healthier because of the spot where he finds them. The chipmunk was then convinced that from then on, he should give all of his acorns to the squirrel for half of the amount given in return. Well guess what, you are that chipmunk and the squirrel is the producer of these 100% GMO free fruits and food. You're paying extra money, or acorns, to the producers because doctors, or the squirrel's friend, says they're better and they're healthier. Guess what? They're not. A fruit is a fruit no matter what goes into how it is grown, even with genetic modification.
Genetically modified means that a plant is specifically bred for a desired trait, or the genes are spliced so that the trait is expressed. Do you eat watermelon, strawberries, corn, peaches, cabbage, broccoli, or even meat? If you answered yes, then you cannot say that you only eat "natural food," when regarding GMO food. This means that you're falling into a placebo effect by claiming that you already feel better, and are benefitting all of those producers that claim to be GMO free by giving them extra customers and further feeding the loop.
It's like saying my Aquafina bottle of water is better than your Dasani bottle of water because my bottle says it's pure water with a perfect taste, water is water it will always be H2O no matter what, which is exactly how GMO free foods work. Almost all foods are genetically modified, like corn it was derived from the plant teosinte. The Native Americans selectively bred it for centuries bringing it to exactly what it is today, and they had absolutely no issues living off of it, so it's just a placebo effect that GMO crops are causing all of these issues, it's just a subject very few people are educated on and it's the easiest target. So, if you're going to say that GMOs are bad you might as well as be biting your own tongue because you're lying through your teeth. This is advice to everyone, don't believe everything you hear.
I do agree with your argument as a whole about GMOs not being bad. But I would question the lines you said about GMOs and nonGMOs being the same. Yes they are both fruit or water, but I think you should've mentioned that GMOs are often different, in a good way. Many GMOs grow bigger, more nutritional, and in harsher climates. While for your purposes, your statements worked in establishing that GMOs aren't any less of a fruit, adding the fact that they can be even more of a fruit could have been good.
DeleteI stated that GMO and non GMO foods are the same because for food to develop to the point it is today it was selectively bred, thus making it a genetically modified organism, so yes they are the same. What you are thinking of is organisms that have had gene splicing in them. "While for your purposes, your statements worked in establishing that GMOs aren't any less of a fruit, adding the fact that they can be even more of a fruit could have been good." They aren't "more of a fruit" they are just bigger fruits, they're the same they're just selectively bred, like every good produced currently.
DeletePreface: I do not mean any disrespect and am writing this with the purpose of arguing a topic, and I figured I might as well have some fun with it.
ReplyDeleteImagine that you have a classmate named Timmy. Everyone knows Timmy is a rather irresponsible and forgetful fellow and there is a field trip permission form going around. On the day of collection for these forms, everyone turns theirs in, except for Timmy. Timmy says his mom gave him permission to go but the teacher still needs to see the signed paper. So, Timmy gives her his paper with a signature that is clearly not an adults' handwriting. The teacher questions Timmy on the legitimacy of the signature but Timmy says that it is his mom's signature and that the teacher should trust in what Timmy says without needing to call his mom. However, because the teacher is a smart and reasonable person, she calls Timmy's mom anyway. And as it would turn out, his mom had never heard a thing about this form and that Timmy had forged the signature. The lesson here is that one cannot simply make a claim and have people believe it is true, they must have some sort of evidence or at the least some good credibility. Timmy, of course had neither, and therefore, no one believed him. Timmy was just a regular kid, saying that his mom gave him permission did not give him credibility. Consider the story of the fox and the goat. Where the fox gets stuck in a well and the goat comes and asks him why he is in the well. The fox says that there is going to be a drought and he's in the well to have water, and then tells the goat that he should come down too. But when the goat jumped down, the fox hopped on top of him and used his height to get out of the well. The fox told a lie and the goat believed him, leading to his downfall. Once again, belief in the words of another without anything to back up the claims has proven to be a bad decision. Now, let's remember the man who claimed that he was the saviour of humanity, the one true god. His credibility?, that his father sent him to. When Timmy said his mom gave him permission, no one believed him. They had to see some evidence for his claim. And even when he showed his teacher the permission slip that was signed, there was no evidence that his mom was the author. But when Jesus claimed to be god and was asked his authority? What could he answer? "Just have faith in God? Believe me dude, I'm legit?" Timmy didn't have evidence to back his claim so he wasn't believed. But when Jesus did it, everyone just believed him because he said so. If they didn't just believe him, they would be damned to hell. What kind of reasoning is this? As the one making the claim, he would have had the responsibility to provide reason for it. But apparently all he had to do was threaten non-believers with an eternity of suffering and they believed him. While my topic is clear, a better point of this is to show the importance of evidence and credibility. As they say, trust can't be given, trust has to be earned!
I'm going to attempt to break this down into the simplest terms possible without going on a rant. Although yes I am not Christian and do not follow any other form of religion, I still have respect for those who follow a theological path. Saying you don't mean to disrespect a person and then blatantly doing so is contradictory, thus your argument should be revoked, but excluding that I will continue. Theology developed over time as a way to understand the world and why certain things occur, from the Greeks, to the Egyptians, even the pagans and modern day Christianity. This was a mean of how to instruct people on the differences between right and wrong by giving them incentives as to why to act a certain way and avoid situations that are detrimental to society. I am going to indulge upon how you said Jesus was just believed, in all honesty at that period of time there were very few believers in Christianity, just primarily Judaism, but for that time it was something new so it was also feared. This lead to Christians being slaughtered because Kings would fear the new ideas and so would citizens. So you claiming he was just believed is incorrect, the reason why someone would believe in a Christ like figure would be because of Judaism as well as a physical figure to look up to, which was another new empowering idea for that time because up until that point they had believed in Gods that they could not see or interact with. The whole premise of hell is to encourage one to do the right actions rather than the wrong actions, a simple way to use logic to manipulate those into doing good deeds. In modern day society society has developed as a whole to become more civilized and more uniform, unlike past Jerusalem. The reason why Christianity is so popular today is because religion has always been used as a way to push people towards the good and away from the bad, thus benefiting society, and creating an ever expanding basis of ideology that is based off of common sense. I do not think that you wrote this for the sake of just writing it, I believe that you wrote this to spite those who follow a religious background, thus perpetuating the idea that Atheists are hostile people here to tear down other religions. If we want progress then we must converse or else everything will be lost and so will society and morality as a whole.
DeleteYour blog is interesting, however, I have some points I wish to discuss. For one, you compare your story about Timmy to that of Jesus. By doing this, you are saying that Jesus has no credibility, and should not be believed that he is truly God. You say that Jesus had no evidence for claiming that He is God. So what of the miracles then? Jesus healed the deaf and blind, He walked on water, and He rose Lazarus from the dead! There are countless other miracles too. You also say that everyone had to believe Jesus or face eternal damnation. Thousands of other people obviously believed something similar to that of your argument, otherwise Jesus wouldn’t have been crucified. However, Jesus rose from the dead, and there are written accounts of this. If this does not signify God, then I’m not sure what does. Now, much of this takes blind faith, I will give you that. However, Jesus gave us piles of evidence to prove that He is fully human and fully God. God didn’t send Jesus to institute a new religion for our salvation without concrete evidence first. Take history for example. We were taught at a young age that Paul Revere shouted, “The British are coming!” Was he videotaped saying this? Was it written down by someone? What if that person was a pathological liar? How do we know that this famous phrase was actually spoken? Where is the concrete evidence? You see, we don’t know that it was actually said, but we still believe it regardless. So why then are we so quick to discredit Jesus as being the Son of God?
DeleteDon’t just take my word for it. I have attached a link to a fantastic video. It’s very short, but it provides more insight to the indisputable fact that Jesus really is God. I highly encourage you to watch it.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y4xacvLUXo
You fall into the common trap of assuming that belief has to be rooted in truth or it is wrong. There are two ways of seeing this; reality is subjective, or reality is objective. There are certain aspects of the universe that are objective, circles are round, the sky is blue, etc. However, there are certain aspects that apply to being human that completely break any hold the afformentioned situation. The most carrying the most impact is the common question of "What is the meaning of life?" Who can definitively answer this? The simple truth is, no one can. There is no right answer. The facts of reality are different from the facts of life. Facts of reality consist of things such as the acceleration of gravity is 9.8m/s^2. This is not the same answer for how we should live our life. The core of being human is finding what gives us the ability to go on. Not everyone has the question of why am I here, but many do. From my limited knowledge of the time, I am willing to bet that when Jesus was alive, there was a cultural shift because not everyone had something to do, or those who did happened to be slaves or they lived in a hell-hole. The very obvious outcome of this is some sort of belief that was relatively common between people. This is not wrong, this is human nature.
DeleteThe biggest flaw in your argument is your immediate assumption that you are correct. You cannot do this in a topic as widely spread as this. You need to step back, take the rose colored glasses off and try to understand why Christianity has occurred, why it exists. The next thing is understanding the difference between the historical significance and the allegorical significance. The story of Noah and the Ark isn't that the earth was flooded and there was a rainbow. The important part was God wiped the earth clean of sin and gave the human race a new beginning. So, once you separate your prejudices from the actual situation, you can begin to understand that you have no clue what it means to be "religious" and that you are, in fact, what you hate. Learn some respect.
Now I am going to attempt to answer all of you without starting a war. I do understand why and how Christianity has happened. It was and still is a way for people to deal with life and have something to live for. And for that, it serves its purpose well. However, I'm not attacking religion as a whole. I am attacking the idea that saying something doesn't make it true. I am saying that Jesus wasn't god because he said so. Even if he was, claiming to be without proof means nothing. So here we are at Sophie's argument about his proof, the miracles he made happen. And this is actually a really good point, that we can't prove the past. Even to Paul Revere, but for that matter, we can't prove anything like that to a non-negotiable answer. Any texts of Jesus miracles have been through several translations and reinterpretations. I will concede that Jesus very well could have been a real person who lived when he's said to have. But the stories of him cannot be used as definite fact. Much of the Bible is understood to be allegorical and not literal. As Bruce pointed out, god probably didn't flood the whole Earth in a literal understanding. But the text it is from would say that if read strictly literally. So, even with written accounts, I don't think that the stories should be taken as fact. So the question about Paul Revere? I can't really say that that story can be completely fact either. However, it is a much easier assumption to make that Paul Revere warned the troops of the Britishs' invasion, something that is very regularly humanly possible, when it was written within the last 300 years in English, than stories of Jesus working inhuman miracles 2000 years ago and in a language that needed to be translated. I am not saying that Jesus wasn't a good guy or that Christianity is wrong, but I do not think that they can be taken completely as fact at face value.
DeleteAlso, unrelated to my topic. I would like to speak to Bruce that parts of his response become rather hypocritical when considering his response to Maddie about the death penalty. You told me to separate out prejudice from the facts and that it is wrong to assume that I am right. But you seemed very passionate about your argument against humanity for mass muderers and that lethal injection is even too nice for some people. Killing the killers for what they've done is not much better than their actions. In today's world, there are more civil actions that can be taken to have the worst of people pay for their crimes. Also, Logan, I would urge you to take this stance into account when considering your arguments because you and Bruce seemed rather like-minded about the death penalty, and when you're able to boldly state that some people are less than human, the question of what it even means to be human comes into view, and that, is a question I would ask you to consider.
The problem I have with your posts stems from two parts. First, you begin your posts with
Delete"I do not mean any disrespect and am writing this with the purpose of arguing a topic, and I figured I might as well have some fun with it."
and
"Now I am going to attempt to answer all of you without starting a war."
This immediately defeats its own purpose. The only purpose this servers is to strike more matches under the dumpster fire that this thread seems to have turned into. Stop doing that and people won't read stuff into your post.
Second, you are still missing the point of my analogy of Noah's Ark. Again, it's not that God flooded the earth and made a rainbow, it's that he cleansed the earth. The essence of the story is that everything was reset. It doesn't matter if, instead of Noah, it was the itsy-bitsy-spider. The only thing that matter is that you understand, under the pretense of the Bible and Christianity, that God cleansed the earth of sin and promised to never do it again. Now, for those who don't believe in God, this really means nothing. Most of the Old Testament is designed to preface the New Testament. The New Testament is where things begin to matter to everyone. This is the part where God and Jesus begin to teach their followers how to act with each other. Almost all of the teachings, when broken down and even taken out of context, are universally accepted as the correct way to be a decent human being. All but three of the Ten Commandments are applicable everywhere. The point with this exceptionally long-winded response is faith isn't always rooted in cold hard truth. It is rooted in what we believe in is right, but you seem to suggest that because Jesus said he was God and none else did, there is something wrong. Also, when Jesus was baptized by John, the story goes that the heavens opened up and God said "This is my son, with whom I am well please." If we are working entirely in the context of the Bible, there is no better evidence than this.
The understanding has to be found that it really doesn't matter if the Bible was written by one Chinese man or by a multitude of people acting as conduits of God. The important part is the message one gets out of the stories and cautionary tales. You have to also understand that once you decide to attack someone with a different line of thought, you have to be ready to operate under their rules, because not everyone can operate outside of them. So, the problem most everyone has with your post is that you completely disregard what it actually meant for Jesus to say he was the son of God and went straight to "He was the only one who said it, so it was probably wrong." I can agree with evidence before conclusion, but I also agree with innocent until proven guilty and thinking from other perspectives.
"But when Jesus claimed to be god and was asked his authority? What could he answer? "Just have faith in God? Believe me dude, I'm legit?" Timmy didn't have evidence to back his claim so he wasn't believed. But when Jesus did it, everyone just believed him because he said so. If they didn't just believe him, they would be damned to hell. What kind of reasoning is this? As the one making the claim, he would have had the responsibility to provide reason for it. But apparently all he had to do was threaten non-believers with an eternity of suffering and they believed him. While my topic is clear, a better point of this is to show the importance of evidence and credibility. As they say, trust can't be given, trust has to be earned!"
DeleteChris, this part is just downright disrespectful. You cherry-picked a part of the Bible without giving the back story. Jesus said to believe in him because he was the beacon of righteousness and love in an otherwise dismal time, arguably worse than the period of the Black Plague. Jesus said to follow him because otherwise, they would be lost to actions and temptations that would eventually damn them to hell. It wasn't a recruiting act, it was a warning, just like when your mother tells you to put your seat belt on. Also, this wasn't directed only at non-believers, it was directed at everyone, even the most devout. Again, at the time, this religion was the best thing for the people. You were either enslaved or enslaving and not too many people were enslaving compared to the enslaved. Perspective and time are essential.
"But apparently all he had to do was threaten non-believers with an eternity of suffering and they believed him."
There is so much sass and disrespect in this, I am just going to leave it here to show the essence of this post.
My final point is this. I have responded to Maddie about my response to her first post and I have changed my stance on the topic. Read it and it should clear up my opinion on the matters.
Firstly, there was a kind of underlying point to my introductory sentences, which was to trigger you. I mean, it's not a great thing to do but it is pretty fun to see the results of it and getting you mad about the wrong topic can be a useful strategy in an argument. And I literally started my post saying that I was going to have fun with it. And I am still not intending to challenge the Bible. I was only using your story of Noah to show allegorical and literal interpretations and their differences. And yes, I did cherry pick situations to better show my cause. It's not a noble strategy but it's something that everyone does, whether intentional or not. And I even voiced Jesus as a sort of hippie. I know what I'm saying and for my purposes of proposing a point of view, it lined up. And I know that Jesus was the beacon of light to those people, everything else of the time was pretty dark, so of course he was. And I, of course, consider other perspectives, it is a trait that I would even call myself good at. I just wanted to say that evidence and backing should always be considered when new ideas are proposed and to question an example of this, or lack thereof. I knew that it would spiral like this, that was kind of the point. Disrespecting a religion wasn't the point, but it is what it is, life goes on.
DeleteAnd I had already responded to your correction as soon as I saw it.
I'm really glad Bruce had to further expand upon ideas brought up by him and I during our initial comments and his second going into the third comment perfectly encapsulated what I initially pointed out and had the same interpretation I had to Chris' comment, the issue I have here is with Chris' second comment. He says that he meant to "trigger" us but even if this was his intention he ended up getting Bruce and I angry at a concept polar opposite to his argument making this "triggering" experience ineffective, because as Aristotle points out emotions have to have reason but what Chris did was point them at the wrong reasons. Second, Chris this whole comment is one big excuse and all you end up doing is agreeing with points that Bruce and I bring up. So what's the point of this argument then if after we've broken your character you just give up and say "oh well"? You say that this wasn't meant to be disrespectful, but by you giving up so fast and saying "oh man, you got me" just gives light to the fact that this was a backhanded comment towards Christians. Also, that jab at our comments was a good way to direct the blame at another person, who would normally back down but I have a reason as to why I think the way I do. I regard every person with dignity, unless with circumstances like Hitler, rapists, and child molesters because guess what? If you're so willing to disrespect and hurt a human being then you have a wet noodle for a character. You're just giving into natural instinct to establish dominance over others, which shouldn't be done, you should have a certain degree of respect for everyone unless if they lack respect for others in instances like rape and murder. The simplest way to break it down is that there are certain crimes that as far as I'm concern turn you into an animal, thus destroying the inner humanity we all have. Nice try getting away with that jab though, it was a nice try to deflect the blame onto another controversial subject.
DeleteForgot to include this, but I'd love to see a few more Christian points of view because so far it's just three atheists and Sophie. (Not meaning to call you out, I think it's brave that you're willing to stand for what you believe in, it shows you have a really good character.)
DeleteI wasn't trying to do use the emotion for my topic as Aristotle did, I was using it to make you mad and go off topic, which it has accomplished. And I am agreeing with your points because they're not wrong. As I said, I'm not trying to argue with you or even win. You all make good points to argue but you're essentially arguing at a mirror. I'm not disagreeing with you because I simply do not want to. My whole point is to just bring up a topic and see where it goes. I'm not taking the argument seriously because that's just not how I want to do it. And for me, that's not being disrespectful to the church because I simply do not take anything seriously.
DeleteBut yeah seriously, it's just three atheists arguing at each other about the church. Like, how do we even get here.
Chris, everything in that was an excuse. Nothing you've said has any actual purpose except to exaggerate, which is poor practice and a technique for someone who knows they will lose the fight.
DeleteExcept that I'm not trying to fight, I don't need actual purpose because this isn't even an actual argument anymore.
DeleteThen you've done the assignment wrong.
DeleteChris- you say you need proof in order to truly believe in the divinity of Jesus. What is odd to me here is that there is so much we believe with even less proof. Take most of science for example. Almost all of scientific theories are just that- theories. They can’t be proven to be 100% true and some phenomena only have bits and pieces that can be proven true, but they are still completely believed. Why then is science believed more than Christianity? The proof is already there in the miracles. So if you’re arguing that the miracles in the Bible are too old and mostly allegorical, then what about the newer ones on the Eucharist?
Delete“The most interesting and comprehensive study was done with the Eucharist. It began bleeding when consecrated and part of it became human tissue. After several intense studies, it was found that the tissue was part of a heart, a muscle of the myocardium, the left ventricle, the muscle that gives life to the whole heart and body.
The tissue revealed further that it belonged to a person who had gone through intense pain, experiencing extended periods of time where he could barely breathe, had immense strain put on the heart (both common feature of crucifixion) and had been stabbed in the left side. What was most insane was that despite the fact this should have killed the person, the tissue showed signs of being ‘alive’.
This was evidenced by intact white blood cells being found in the tissue. This showed the heart sample was pulsating as elsewise the white blood cells would have disintegrated roughly 15 minutes outside of a living body.”
This miracle occurred in 1996. There has to be some truth and proof found in these miracles. What of the billions of Christians around the world? What of the million Christians who are martyred for their beliefs? They are burned at the stake, crucified, shot at, and tortured in so many inhumane ways. They didn’t just follow some lunatic. There has to be some ounce of truth in the divinity of Jesus for so many lives to be given in His name. The teachings of Jesus and the miracles aren’t just “stories” as you put it.
I tried to follow along here as best I could but I do not know what I should add. I agree highly on Sophie’s part but sometimes I struggle with my faith too. I am getting confirmed and hope to further my faith but for now I am not going to comment much else about religion because it’s a confusing concept for me. I respect every faith and do agree this was disrespectful in part. Although, if Chris’s point was to show inappropriate ways to argue, then I believe he did a good job. I know that many people including politicians also argue like this and we overlook it a lot. So Chris if you were doing this to prove that many people incorrectly argue, then I believe you used a lot of good concepts to do so. But if you were doing this just to be mean and be disrespectful to others faith, then I have to say I’m not very happy with that.
DeleteI'm not going to comment on anything that has to do with the Christian faith, but Sophie scientific theories are true and are proven to be true through numerous experiments and hypotheses, you're confusing "scientific theory" with a scientific hypotheses because we use the word theory willy nilly at this point, scientific theories are absolutely true and with further evidence is revised you're just confusing it with a hypotheses. At this point in the argument Chris has lost all sense of purpose in this conversation and it has boiled down to I just wanted to mess with you guys, which is weak and pathetic, at this point there's no point in Chris commenting because he's further shooting himself in the foot. I just wanted to add that you're misusing or misunderstanding what a scientific theory is.
DeleteLogan with your statement that Christopher "just wanted to mess with you guys" is where the problem started in the first place.Therefore, I thank you for pointing it out. It is also exactly what you are doing to Sophie. Sophie has proven to you that their is recent Scientific evidence to prove miracles of Christ. You know what she meant to say. Some scientist devote their whole life's work into things that aren't proven and can't be proven. Yet they still do it. Just like anything people agree to disagree. My overall impression to all of these comments is that you are just trying to get underneath people's skin just to make yourselves feel superior to them. Now let's take a step back to Chris's original blog. He started it off great but then just to toy with the students of a Catholic school he brought in Jesus. Which is also unfair because many of us do not yet know how to properly defend our faith. He could have brought up believing in scientists such as Nicolaus Copernicus who originally though the earth was at the center of the universe. Which we now know was later proven wrong. He also could have brought up us believing in our parents that Santa Claus is real. Which we all know he is not. Yet, so many people believed him because of his credit or their credit. These have both been proven false but Christ has not. Now I have known you since preschool and know that your family has raised you in the Catholic faith so you obviously know Jesus came from nothing born in terrible times to low class people. So imagine a homeless man today saying that he is the Christ would you believe him? Probably not. Like any good rhetor, Jesus built his credibility so people would follow him. Timmy was not believed because no one had any proof and he had zero credit or even bad credit. Yet you compare him to Christ who their is proof that he walked the earth and who established his amazing credit just by living as God commanded. I would also like to remind you that it was not just sunshine and rainbows for Christ. Although many believed in him he was put to death because more people didn’t believe in him. Even though it was a fictional story I bet if it was real there would be some people who would have believed in Timmy like his own mother or some of his closest friends who after the fact could indeed prove that Timmy wasn’t lying with the help of Timmy. Timmy could be Christ but it would be in the completely opposite way than you said. I would like to close in saying that people may think that they know what they are talking about but if they don’t know all the facts it sounds like they are talking strictly from opinions or from a denial of an internal struggle of something that they can’t explain. Don’t bring a sword to a gunfight…
DeleteBruh
DeleteWell then, when I came across this comment, I got the giggles!
DeleteAlso, making arguments for the purpose of folly makes one a sophist, not a rhetorical. And God is real. I know him personally.
DeleteI know it's late but I need to clear this. Anna, I was not saying any of this to be mean and disrespectful, this I stated before I even started. I'm not here to question the existence of god, that's not an argument I'm going to take on because there is simply no end to it. I'm also not here to question religion itself, religion has a big and important impact on society that would, at this point, be difficult to separate. And whether Jesus physically acted out miracles or whether they were allegorical, their impact is still physical, so it doesn't ultimately matter. And the whole idea of arguing without a purpose wasn't intended, it just got there because of where this argument had headed. I didn't write this from the perspective of an atheist who just wanted to attack religion, I wrote it from the perspective of a logic-driven student in a language and composition class.
DeleteScenario: My boss has recently came up with a suggestion that all employees now have the opportunity to choose the exact hours and dates that they are required to work.
ReplyDeleteDear boss,
Working at this age is an opportunity to expand my experience in job related skills, time management, money management, and enabling myself to become a more well rounded person. The high school years are like an interstate, you choose which route you take, sometimes it may be the wrong one and sometimes you will be lost, however, if you choose to stay on the right road, the reward will be worth it in the end. I am currently trying to participate in two varsity sports, work a job, spend time with friends and family, and get good grades in order to get to college. I agree with your suggestion concerning the options of when you work because it allows for me to choose what is best for me and make my busy schedule as easy as it can be. Over the past few months I have worked almost every night for six hours. All people who work too much are more often overwhelmed, therefore I am overwhelmed. Choosing my hours will allow me to know exactly when I am able to do homework, spend time with friends, and see my family. I love working for you because my coworkers are all hard working and sweet people. The story about the ass and the mule explains a situation that portrays qualities of cooperation and further shows that the stronger man or animal should always help the weaker man or animal. Working allows me to help others and when I can choose my schedule
, I am ready and excited to work my hardest to satisfy the customers. For many years in history, a fast paced and busy government has been working hard to get the job done. Although, Some people work in different ways than others. For example, President Lincoln read all mail that was sent to him, however, Obama had men read his letters to him. While both maintained a busy life style and families, Lincoln made time to personally read his letters. Hard work will pay off and lead to the right destination in the end. I appreciate you thinking of your workers and allowing us to now choose the days we work and when. I will more easily be able to create a schedule for everyone around me with little confusion. It’s all about quality of life and finding a happy balance between work and friends and family, said Philip Green. Work hard play hard. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Emily, I have no problem with your post, I just want to congratulate you on being the only one so far to post a non-controversial topic. Keep it up.
DeleteFurthermore, you're even waiting for other people to start posting so you can respond to them so as to not get involved, very nice.
DeleteI completely agree with Bruce's comment. Your maxim at the end of the letter was a nice touch.
DeleteEmily- I noticed how you thanked the reader at the end of your letter, which I something I failed to do. I respect that very much and wish I would’ve included that in my letter.
DeleteI think you picked a very good topic considering your busy work life. You made many points that I myself haven’t thought of. This was obviously a very relative topic for you. Nicely done!
Delete2. Why the death penalty shouldn't be an option
ReplyDeleteNo one deserves to die. Every single person on this earth is made in the image and likeness of God, and it does not matter what sin is committed by what person, by no means, should the death penalty be an option. Pope John Paul II said, "May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished throughout the world." This excerpt from John Paul II uncovers the wickedness behind the entire idea of the death penalty as a whole in a very blunt way, as well as shows the basis of Catholic belief. This punishment is a luxury to the victim because at this point in their life, the two only options are life in prison or death. Why not choose death if you are going to rot in a jail cell anyway? Often times, prisoners that are placed in solitary confinement, which means they are completely isolated from all human interactions and spend nearly 22-24 hours a day in a cell with nothing but a bed and a toilet, find themselves in such a critical state of depression, anxiety, PTSD, and so much more, that they actually want to be on death row. Death row offers inmates visiting hours, yard time, and even television within their personal cells. Therefore, if one is going to die in jail under such harsh circumstances anyway, then why not shorten their stay and take the easier, more enjoyable way out? However, that is not why they are in jail. The inmates are not in prison in order to take "the easy way out." They are there to be punished for their ruthless actions, and that is why life in prison is the better alternative. The typical death row victim will spend an average of 15 years awaiting their death day. If the world is truly concerned about making sure criminals "do their time," then life in solitary confinement is cruel enough and should suffice. The killing of a person is brutal, degrading, and just downright inhumane. It is projected that by 2020, 49 people will be executed due to the lethal injections provided by the death penalty according to the DPIC (Death Penalty Information Center). Some argue that since a death row inmate is injected with a toxic serum such as pentobarbitalIn, midazolam, or etomidate that it is a more "peaceful death," and therefore makes the death penalty more justifiable. If this is so, would it bother us more if they used guns?
I understand where you're coming from, but there is a difference between wanting criminals to do their time, and wanting them to be punished for their actions. There is a multitude of degrees in which punishment is determined. You steal a candy bar from the 7/11, you get a few nights in jail or a fine. You assault someone, you get sued and you get a few months in jail. None of these are even worth batting an eye at. However, what do we do for school shooters? Put them in rehab? Who can guarantee that they'll completely change their ways? No one, and that's the point. The death penalty is design d to keep those who have done mass harm from ever doing it again. You could ask, "Why don't we just lock them up then?" Two reasons; First, they will definitely attempt to convert other inmates. A study was done and it found that the mass majority of people sent to jail for harming another person in some way will leave jail Muslim. This is because Islam is based on retaliation, and they wasn't to get back at their enemies. Second, what if they break out? I don't necessarily mean a full on prison break. What if they abuse the system? Even the smallest misstep by a lawyer can be found and used to say that one shouldn't be in jail.
DeleteI understand that everyone is human and everyone has a right to walk this earth, but once you commit mass murder, you are no longer human and you should be removed from the face of the universe. See Osama Bin Laden, Adolf Hitler. If you can honestly tell me they should be allowed to walk with us, there needs to be some serious talks. They are monsters, not humans.
Also, for some people, lethal injection is too nice, and for some, it isn't. It's circumstantial.
First of all one subject cannot denounced because of one instance or a system of belief. Even though a majority of this nation is primarily Christian they still instituted the death penalty because they know how inhumane some prisoners are. Ask yourself this should rapists, child molesters, mass murderers, terrorists, even those who have committed spousal abuse, should they walk this world? Should they get a second chance to commit the same crimes over and over again? Should we risk the chance of them getting out because a misstep in the judicial system? I sure hope that you didn't answer yes to any of those, because once they commit those crimes they're barely human, they're just human on the outside but once you willingly commit those crimes you turn in your card for being considered a human. That's why the death penalty should be instituted on a case by case basis, as should all legal battles such as abortion. I know the common response to "Well, what if the woman was raped, then could she have an abortion" would be yes, but the legal system doesn't work that way you can't make special exceptions because if you do people will abuse those. Halfway through your argument you change from "the death penalty is always bad" to "It's the easy way out and they should have to suffer a life long prison sentence," but you ignore the fact that it's their life and if they want to end it there's no stopping them, if they can't go peacefully look at all the people who have hung themselves in prison, they got what they wanted. You're also forgetting that if left in solitary confinement for too long they'll be sent into psychosis, making everything for the guards and other prisoners worse. You seem to have this idea that prison is so nice and friendly, in all actuality it is not and if you want to hear for yourself I'm going to attach a link to this comment so you can hear about what happened to this poor man in prison (it is mature, but it is the truth). In some situations the death penalty is too good for a person, such as a mass murderer, and others it's undeserved, but it should be instituted regardless because I know everyone will sleep peacefully at night knowing that there is one less terrorist out there plotting to kill you and your family.
DeleteLink to a man's near life long experience in jail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOnqR2_kODs
Maddie- I completely agree with your statement with two different viewpoints. One being from a Catholic viewpoint, in which I agree that it is not our decision of who lives and who dies. I also agree with you from a logical viewpoint. I believe that the death penalty is the easy way out for most of these horrible people. It makes more sense to punish them with life in prison to force them to always be reminded of what they did and to know that they will never be able to truly live again.
DeleteBruce- You do have well researched arguments, however, I still strongly disagree with your point of view. I proposed the idea of life in solitary confinement. In this prison ranking, the odds of someone breaking out is few and far between due to such extreme isolation. If you are in a 8 x 10 solid cement jail cell with a steel door for 24 hours a day, there is almost a 0% chance of escape. Also, we trust that these lawyers do their best to prevent mistakes, but it is just as easy for them to have a slip up when one is sentenced to the death penalty as well. In addition, if one is in solitary confinement, they have no contact with other inmates, so how would one even “convert other inmates?” Their conversion of Muslim should not serve as a point in the argument if they are spending life in prison. So what if they believe in retaliation? If they never get out then they won’t get to retaliate. Life in prison in the better option because it actually allows the inmates to sit there for the remainder of their lives and inflict self-torture which can be just as brutal as the death penalty and doesn’t strip somebody of their right to life.
ReplyDeleteYou are always human and always will be despite the sins you commit. It does not matter if you stole something from 7/11 or produced a mass murder, you still have a soul and God is still waiting for you. Therefore, going against the 5th Commandment and killing someone, because that’s what they have done, does not justify the cruel act.
I have spent most of today thinking about this subject and I have come to the decision that I will never again post something at 7 in the morning. Having thought through this for almost 13 hours, I have realized that I agree with most of your original post and I responded with exceptionally short-sighted opinions. My arguments of Islam and prison breaks are essentially moot points that carry no real meaning and only apply in very particular circumstances (pretty much only two instances). I have decided this; once it is determined that someone is guilty of the crime committed, in this scenario, murder, they should serve the proper sentence. For murder, I believe they should be locked up for life in solitary confinement. This is because man should not kill man when another means will suffice, confinement. It is not my place, nor anyone else's to decide who is human or not, that is between a man and his god. So, lock them up for life so they can't threaten the rest of the population, and let them sort out the morals with their god.
DeleteAlso, I apologize for any personal attack that may have seeped through my original text. The post was extremely rash and it really shouldn't exist.
Bruce, thank you for saying this. It couldn't have been easy to admit this. So just disregard my one comment criticizing your initial response to this because it is now out of place and unjustified. My apologies.
DeleteI think that we've all overlooked the fact that prisons are currently overpopulated as is and because that people are being let out early or put on parole easier, just thought that I should add that to the conversation. Also I do not think that this should be a specifically religion based argument I think it should stem into the beneficial/non-beneficial parts of society and that this is definitely something that has to be taken case by case. I'm in no way saying every man that has been accused of murder or rape is instantly guilty, what I'm saying is given the evidence and how strong an allibi is as well as the person's character should be taken into account when it comes to the case. I'm going to stick with my initial argument being that certain actions will make you less of a human being because you destroyed not just your life but another's life.
DeleteLogan- I respect your opinion, but I think that this is just something we will never see eye-to-eye on. Your arguments are extremely well executed and I can tell you are passionate about your point of views. However, like I mentioned to Bruce, you always will be a human with a right to life disregarding anything that has happened previously. Most who commit such vulgar crimes have a chemical imbalance or had a rough upbringing as a child, and this causes them to lash out in obscure ways. So are you saying that they are less human because of a life that they did not choose? Everyone is equal in the eyes of God. Also, to add in your comment about prisons being overpopulated, clearly they are not going to give a murderer or a sex offender, that has such extreme charges against them, a "Get Out of Jail Free!" card just because of overpopulation. If anything, these people who "get off easy" are the people who stole candy bars or had a DUI. In my opinion, it is not a religion based argument. Yes, religion has been brought about on some occasions, but I would not say it is truly based on this topic. My point of view will be from a Catholic perspective and yours may not, which is totally fine. In correlation to my Catholic perspective, I also believe that abortion should be outlawed as well because the killing of an innocent baby is wrong on so many levels. Why take someone else's life just because you are scared about what may happen to your own? In addition, I personally do not see where my argument changed. It has been from a pro life standpoint the entire time, and has been projected against the use of the death penalty. As for the video you linked, I did not have time to watch it because I do not have 38 minutes of free time in my day, but prior to this, I have watched a few episodes of the series, "I am a Killer." This show tells the real life stories of people who are on death row and how jail, or life in general, has affected them. Therefore, I think I have a pretty good understanding of their experience. However, I do respect your strong opinions about this topic and enjoyed reading what you had to say.
DeleteMaddie although we have no control as to what happened previously in our life, we have the chance to make a change in the future. Up until this point in my life seemingly everything has gone wrong and every system has failed me, but I wouldn't wish anything that has happened to me on my worst enemy. You decide what you can and can't do and you decide what you will do in a situation. Letting a person's past negatively define them is just giving them justification as to how they act today, which is a pathetic excuse I do not care if you were previously abused or previously raped with that experience you know how it feels so why do it to someone else? Why ruin someone else's life if you know how it feels? It's plainly and simply an excuse in my eyes. Your argument regarding them letting people with DUI's out easy and not allowing rapists out is actually wrong and I have evidence to prove it. In the past two years the case regarding Brock Turner has occurred, was found guilty of rape on an unconscious woman but because of the overpopulation he was only sentenced to 6 months in prison and 3 years probation, but guess what he was let out 3 months into his sentence. Is this just? Of course not, our judicial system is failing us and we're doing nothing about it. Regarding your comment on abortion, you're forgetting about what might happen to the baby's life following birth whether or not they are put up for adoption. If they aren't then they'll be mistreated and if they are then they're entering into a mess and there's no guarantee that they'll end up in a healthy family. I'd know how this system works because my mother was adopted by my grandparents, luckily she ended up in a good family, but the system is a mess and other's aren't as lucky. I think that all of these situations can be argued with the life experiences most of us lack and others are so willing to judge others based on their decision, that's why I'm anti-judgement when it comes to abortion I agree that abortion is an awful thing but if someone wants an abortion they will get one unlawfully and dangerously. So why bother outlawing it and risking hundreds of thousands of women's and children's lives anyway? At the end of the day if someone wants something done they will achieve their goal whether this is safely or not.
DeleteOn this last comment, Logan, you wrote “So why bother outlawing [abortion] and risking hundreds of thousands of women’s and children’s lives anyway?” This is SO hypocritical. Abortion has killed over 56 million babies since Roe v. Wade in 1973. Abortion IS the endangerment to babies and their mothers. The babies die and the mothers are scarred for life. Outlawing it would help so many understand the importance of life. I am nearly positive that no sane women would kill their baby if a law was passed to outlaw abortion. Every child aborted is one less friend, one less classmate, one less person. If people had the option of outlawing abortion before they were even born, there is no doubt in my mind they would do it. If they didn’t, they would would be playing the odds because they could be the next child with their head B R U T A L L Y ripped off their shoulders. “So why bother outlawing it?” Because, Life is precious.
DeleteI understand the sentiment, Regis, but this is not that simple. I've spent about six months debating this topic with myself and I've come to the decision that the government should not determine if abortion is legal or not, only the means by which it is performed. This is due to one complicated reason. Abortion is something with far too many variables to just simply say "no". This is not to say that abortion is fine and dandy, I am saying that in some very particular circumstances, an abortion is the only option. According to AbortionFacts.com, no more than 1% of abortions are performed for life threatening reasons. This means that nearly all abortions are for convenience. The fact that 99% of abortions are essentially for sport is appalling.
DeleteThis leads me to my next point of interest. Downright outlawing something almost always has the opposite effect. A very easy example is the Prohibition. Alcohol was outlawed, so people found other means of obtaining it and tended to drink more. While the comparison is not apples to apples, the essence remains. If we were to outright ban abortions, those who want them will still get them, but it will most likely be in a much worse condition. I would much rather someone have an abortion in a sanitary environment over an alley. However, this is not to excuse abortions or promote them, which takes me to my final major point.
Abortion is, or needs to be, a cultural change. There is nothing the government can do to control it other than make it safer for those who have an abortion of convenience, and even safer those who have an abortion of necessity.
To summarize, abortion methods need to be regulated by the government to make them safer. The abortion mindset is the job of the people to change. You cannot make a general decision because you do risk the lives of those on fringe groups. Outlawing will only make it more rampant and gruesome.
I highly agree on Bruce’s part. He stated it best here. Abortion is in no way pretty but imagine what would happen in women couldn’t get them? You could lose your best friend or a family member if they go about getting an abortion the wrong way. I personally would not get an abortion, but I will not judge someone who does. And no I’m not saying that anyone judges them but I do know people think differently of someone who has had one, it’s just human nature. I know someone who had an abortion a very long time ago, I found out recently but my opinion of her has not changed. She’s a wonderful person and I love her dearly. All I can say is when she dies, God will work it all out for her and I truly believe that. I believe that for everyone because we can never know the whole truth on situations like these. I understand completely that life is precious, but other people have different views and I think that is what makes the world go round. If we didn’t try to examine these situations like we do, everything would just be pushed under the rug. I enjoyed everyone’s arguments and thought they were all very valid too. No one is wrong here, only God knows what is.
DeleteMaddie I completely agree with your blog in every way. If you recall, I wrote a small letter about the death penalty earlier on in the year and I believe that it is never okay to end someone’s life. I believe that responding to murder or any other crime, with murder is never the solution.
DeleteWould you much rather lose the mother and the child due to a back alleyway abortion Regis? Because that's exactly what you're proposing, are you going to hold the dead mother accountable and charge her for having an abortion? Of course not, this is illogical. As Bruce said, when a government intervenes it just causes more issues and the likelihood of more people dying rises. If a person wants to do something then they will do it, plain and simple. If I want a sandwich I'm going to get a sandwich, if I was a junkie and I wanted drugs then I would go to the backalley and get the drugs while risking my life. As I've already stated abortion is absolutely awful and I'm not proposing it's the only way to handle things, but you can't say all women are scarred after having an abortion, because there are monsters out there that aren't, which is awful. The whole argument having to do with one less person is completely ridiculous to argue because you don't know the child that would have been born, what would have led them up to meeting you or would they have died to natural causes or SIDS. There is no way to tell what would have happened to them up until this point and the impact that they would have made because the whole argument is proposed to serve as a mean for rhetorical persuasion, that's why they propose the idea of "Imagine how many of those children could have cured cancer?" It's just a way for you to fall in with their ideas. To break this down, there's simply no way to tell what would have happened to them if they were still alive and there is no way to entirely prevent abortions because again if a person wants something they will find a mean in order to achieve their goal.
DeleteThis piece is actually something I wrote a few years ago and I've never had anywhere to put it, but I think it fits in this thread.
ReplyDeletePremise: Peace is perfection.
Balance Between Good and Evil
Good vs. Evil
Good and evil are fundamental opposites. There will always be light and dark, positive and negative, life and death. This truth create a symbiotic relationship between good and evil that pushes progress forward. I disagree with this because good and evil make each other what they are. Without one, the other is meaningless. Threat is what forced the Roman Empire to become the vast and powerful war machine it was in its prime. Good and evil create a balance that is the driving force behind innovation. On a small scale, competition between companies is what has driven technology to what it is today, lightyears ahead of where it was 50 years ago.
Good and evil are constantly redefined based on current circumstances and mentalities. Therefore, it is hard to define good and evil in terms that always remain constant. The closest one can get is to simply call them opposing forces. A force will always have an opposite, this is proven in modern science as well as philosophical and religious mediums through the vast course of human history. The pinnacle of good and evil is the tug-o-war that is commonly referred to as competition. Healthy competition is just that, healthy. Inevitably , one side will overcome the other, for better or worse. This is not a bad thing in the long run because it forces the other side to reconsider how to approach a situation. The best way to think of this is to imagine Newton’s Cradle. As the ball raises, it brings progress, and with it the potential to fall. When the ball falls, the ball on the opposite end rises and the process continues. Contrary to first thought, the ball falling is not bad. While in the beginning it seems as the worst thing possible, it is actually just the next step in the struggle between good and evil. When the ball is raised, this would be the pinnacle of a civilization, such as the Roman Empire. However, all good things must come to and end. The ball falls, just as a civilization in decay. The ball then hits the first ball in the row, this begins a civilizations efforts to rebuild. However, like the Law of Conservation of Mass states, nothing is lost between the first and last ball. This is the same as the knowledge of the civilization at its height, in a perfect situation. It is retained in the next iteration. The last ball in the row rises, just like a new civilization, and the process repeats. This is the true definition of perfection, a symbiotic relationship between opposites that drive each other forward. Based on this, there will be no end to good or evil, just as it should be. Kingdoms will always rise, and they will always fall. This is a fundamental, universal, truth.
The traditional definition of perfection is something without flaws or defects. While this is true, it is also false. Perfection is the perfect balance of good and evil, a balance found in math and science. The traditional definition of perfection is harmful to humans for two reasons. First of all, perfection is not in human nature. Humans are flawed by nature and nothing about this statement will or should ever change. Second of all, perfection is harmful to progress in general because progress in perfect nor does it want to be. Progress is the process in which one object is designed to be better than the other. In war, this referred to as mutual assured destruction, the guarantee that if one side attacks, the other will also and the end result will be total decimation of both sides. In the cold war, this drive nuclear weapon technology as well as space technology, something that will be crucial in the event of an extraterrestrial crisis. The most important outcome of the cold war was the mass execution of communism, starting with Russia. While there are other communist governments, communism is viewed with immense disgust by educated individuals. The Cold War is a perfect example of how two opposing forces, while at the time horrifying, created an end result that benefited the whole of humanity.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad you included this premise in here, especially because I remember you and I discussing this a while ago and I feel like this will open a few people's eyes on the fact for something to be good there also needs to be a bad and how perspective influences how we view situations.
DeleteAwesome essay, it was extremely good. It was put together well, and I like the topic, as I also ponder stuff like this as well. Love this essay.
DeleteKids in highs school need to make sleep a priority.
ReplyDeleteNot getting enough sleep is like accidental suicide. You are slowly killing yourself but you don’t even know. I have witnessed many kids in my grade doing this. They are attempting to make more time in their days by staying up until two, three, or even four in the morning. I can see the slow decline of each of their social lives and motivation. On the American Psychological Association website it has been recorded that more then half of the nations fall asleep car crashes involve teens and young adults. If you are a sleep deprived teen, then you have a higher chance of getting into an motor accident. Life is about making choices. If you choose to not get enough sleep at night, then you are placing yourself into danger. You are increasing the chances of hurting yourself and someone else who is also driving on the road with you. I also understand that sleep is a very hard concept for teens. People who take advance classes have difficult time with sleep. It is a very love hate relationship for them. I personally know of people who take these types of classes and love their sleep, but due to the work load they receive, they can’t enjoy the necessity. I understand completely that school and education is highly important, but I do not believe it should have such a drastic effect on your life. I believe students and teachers should go over the work load together and find a way to balance it out. Although I do know that ECC has a high standard for their students, I believe the staff needs to figure out ways to help children get their work done during the day so at night they can get their rest. The fact that most of the kids I know only get about five hours of sleep at night makes me sick to my stomach. Which leads me into the fact that sleep deprived teens typically have more health problems. Reports have shown that people who who get less REM sleep at night have a high rate of migraines and intense headaches. It also has shown more chronic pain in these people. Personally, sleep for me is as important as breathing. It’s a basic living necessity that I do not even have to think about. I put aside time to get my work done and manage an after school job and yet I still get about eight hours of sleep at night. I sympathize with people who have more work and less time to do basic things. I understand that balancing it all out is tough, but you should always make time to sleep and get rest. I believe sleep needs to be a higher priority of high school students.
Your essay was very well put together. The only thing I don't excatly like though is it how you compared it to suicide. It was kind of a little to harsh. Maybe different wording would've made it better, I just read it and was taken back.
DeleteI like how you used a topic that many teens love and don’t get enough of, sleep. I also agree that sleep is like breathing for me too. Very well done!
DeleteI definitely see that now! I was just trying to make some kind of comparison there.
Delete1. The idea that the NCAA should pay student athletes, in which I do agree with.
ReplyDeleteDear NCAA Board,
I would like go start off by saying that I do understand that student athletes are provided with free schooling and rooming at the school they attend and suit up for on the court or field, and that SHOULD indeed be enough for these student athletes. However, this idea was ruined by you, the NCAA, because of how much money is being made off of the broadcast, memorabilia sale, and player likeness of these athletes. (For those of you who aren’t invested into sports, player likeness is the use of a players height, weight, appearance, jersey number, and pretty much everything about a player except the name being used in a video game.) It is just simply wrong and unfair for millions of dollars to be made off of these KIDS without even giving them a small incentive. This situation is like an employee getting paid by the hour for doing the job, but the boss takes all the tips the employee received on his own. If money is made off of the performance and popularity of the players, then the players should receive an incentive from the NCAA. Ed O’Bannon, star power forward for the 1995 National Champion UCLA Bruins, serves as a great example of why student athletes should be paid. When you’re the best player on the best team in the country, you’re obviously going to be a fan favorite across the world. The sale of O’Bannon’s number 31 jersey and his player likeness in the first ever College Basketball video game skyrocketed in 1995. A study on Bleacher Report (sports webpage) showed me that O’Bannon merchandise alone made almost a million dollars in sales for the NCAA, and Ed didn’t receieve a single cent of this money. Take the fable of the lion, the bear, and the fox for example as well. In this story, the lion and the bear do all the work in order to pounce on the prey, but while the work is being done a fox sneaks in and swoops up the prey that he did not work for. The message of this story is that it sometimes happens that one man has all the toil, and another
all the profit. Money is the root of all evil!
This made me think differently about paying college athletes. I always thought that a free education would roughly be equivalent to the amount brought in. After reading this and understanding how much money is made off of a college athlete I can understand why you believe they should be payed.
DeleteMy thoughts on paying college athletes changed after reading this. I always thought it was annoying how people can be good at sports and boom they are rich and get paid so much and free college. However, after reading this I completely agree! Well done!
DeleteI have to say Bryce, I completely disagree with you. College athletes should not be paid. I saw on the news the other day that a D1 football player jumped out of his dorm, the 16th floor of it and died. As something was troubling him. My point being, many of these athletes are not mature enough when they get to college. Just imagine paying Manziel when he was in college. That would not have mixed well. This athletes are not ready to be payed, they need to make it on there own.
DeleteThese kids would only be 18 years old, paying them would take focus away from there academics and cause more failure.
DeleteI agree with your viewpoint, if the money would go directly to the parents and would be spent on helping to pay for costs that are not covered by scholarships. While I agree that students can be immature, if the money could be managed correctly, it would make things easier on the students and their families. Many high quality athletes and their families have spent an enormous amount of time and money to get them where they are today, and it is unjust that they should not be compensated financially.
DeleteDan- it doesn’t matter what type of person they are. If the ncaa is going to make millions of dollars off of someone they deserve to receive some sort of incentive. Whether you’re a crazy drug addict or a saint. Either pay the players or stop selling their memorabilia.
DeleteScenario 1 : I am writing a letter disagreeing with testing chemical products on animals.
ReplyDeleteWe all have our favorite animal, and maybe even that animal could be your pet or something that lives in your backyard. Every year, month, week, and day many animals are killed due to using chemicals and toxins to test cosmetic products on their skin, eyes, or even having them swallow or inhale a substance. By doing these tests, it is kind of like saying that since animals test human products, humans should test dog treats by eating them, because if it’s okay for a human to consume, it’s obviously okay for your beloved pet. Animals are usually forced to eat or to inhale toxins in dangerously high doses which can cause abdominal issues, seizures, paralysis, or in the worst case scenario, death from the products. Sometimes, if the creatures do not react the way the scientists want them to, they are put to death by the experimenter, who is most definitely another form of animal cruelty. PETA, which is the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, say that this kind of testing began back in World War I, and the same type of testing ( LD50 ) is till going on today. This is is a type of Acute toxicity test, which is the most common form of testing, and the most cruel. Animals are force fed, and as the experiment continues, the amount increases. Over half of the test subjects die on average, which can tell us that these products are not good for use for humans. The fable of the the Lion and the Mouse can accurately describe this very wrong thing going on in society today. It tells the story of a lion sleeping in the forest and a mouse wandering around and coming across him. The lion wakes up at the sound of the mouse, and immediately tries to kill it. This is like animal cruelty in such a way that the animals have no idea what could happen at any time, especially when they are about to possibly be killed. Animal cruelty and testing on animals is so wrong in so many ways. Just imagine that your little pup or the cute bunnies you see running around your backyard were ever used for testing with toxins and chemicals, even thinking about can make one person angry. Stick up for that cute little bark, or regret it when you buy that new hair product.
this argument above is mine, I was logged in under the wrong account and did not realize until after I posted it, I’m sorry for the confusion
DeleteI agree with your statements that products should not be tested on animals. Your arguments opened my eyes more to the truths of these tortures. You made very good points and really convinced me on the topic even though I already agreed.
DeleteI agree that yes it is awful to test products on unwilling animals for the benefit of humans, but isn't this the same way we regard livestock? We raise it intending for it to be bought and sold and then we slaughter it for the benefit of other humans. I'm not saying that everyone should go vegan because I feel that a balance between vegetables. fruit, and supplies from livestock are needed, but I feel that if you're entirely against one you have to be against the other. I'd love to hear your opinions on this.
DeleteI agree that having animals test human products is cruel, but this is the most accurate way to test them. Some animals have very similar body systems to that of humans. This allows for results to be produced, that would be as close as we can get without harming humans. Imagine that all of these products are tested on humans. This would result in many dead people. If this was the way things were done more people would be upset then their already is over this issue. This does not mean that I hate animals, but believe this is the best way to test new products without hurting man kind.
DeleteWhy video games should stay a disorder.
ReplyDeleteI love video games. I've played them since Pre-school, when my dad introduced me to a little thing called a Xbox. I fell in love with the thing, and remember playing things like Lego Star Wars, and Madden. From their I got a DS, Wii, 3DS, Xbox 360, and finally my Xbox One. It one of the things I enjoy. It helps me escape from stuff in my life, like if I had a bad day, playing video games is ther to pick me up by having a good game. It's one of those things that sticks with me, and will forever. It also sticks with other people, maybe a little too much. A problem with video games is that they can be addictive. They can be compared to a drug in a way, once a certain person gets on them, it's hard to get them off. We're seeing that with the rise of video games like Fortnite, a massive popular "Hunger Games" like game focused on a younger audience. It's heavily competitive, and highly popular. Streamers of the game are making millions off of it, and it's making kids want to be like that. And because of that, the kids are becoming addicted. It's not a one off thing, too, not just with one video game. In 2012, a man DIED because he played a video game, Diablo III, for 40 hours straight. That's not just playing and using the bathroom and eating too, he didn't eat, drink, or use the bathroom in that time. Like what the heck! If you play that much, and you don't care about yourself, then you have a disorder or disease. You can't tell me that's not. Here's another story: a kid burns himself because his dad told him to stop playing video games. Or another story: a man dies while streaming for 24-hours, for charity. Now looking at these things, you can't say video games aren't addictive. When something takes over you life like that, you can't not say "I don't have an addiction". Video games are made to be addictive, developers have said that. That being said, I see where WHO was coming from when they made gaming a disorder. It should be a case of "everything in moderation". You need to realize "hey, I've been played for like 5 hours, I should stop now, grab some food, and go to sleep". Be aware. It's not that hard, I do it, so can others.
I think it is good you picked a topic you could easily relate to so you can recognize the dangers of it. I agree that many people are addicted but refuse to acknowledge it. Very well done!
DeleteVideo games are addicting. Many people prefer staying inside and playing video games instead of going outside and getting some fresh air and exercise. It is a bit sad when it takes over your life. Your point about taking it into moderation was a good insertion. Good work, Gerg!
DeleteI think when it boils down to it everything can be addicting to a certain extent such as gluttony, video games, and even reading. Ya know, those books that you can't put down. I believe a person's personality plays into how bad the addiction is and their mental state. I didn't know until this year but one-half of my family are alcoholics, thus making me more prone to become an alcoholic because genetically I'm exposed to it. When it comes to mindset there are instances where people can't function mentally without their good ol' cup of joe in the morning, but people disregard this as normal and don't recognize it as an addiction. Regis what you're forgetting is that some people are introverts, like myself, and others are extroverts, like yourself. Social situations might exhaust me and be seen as useless where you might thrive in them. That's where we might not see eye to eye, but if a person enjoys something don't take it away from them unless it becomes detrimental to their health. Gergy puts it best when he says take everything in moderation.
DeleteScenario: I will be persuading someone to join a gym, run, or any other form of physical activity.
ReplyDeleteObesity is on the rise in America, and you do not want to be caught up in this “trend.” Some forms of obesity are caused by a genetic mutation, but these are very rare and can be over come. Many studies have shown that a mutation in a single gene which causes over eating and a larger amount of body fat can form into obesity. After further research, studies have shown that not all people with this genetic mutation are obese, but many live a very heathy and active lifestyle. I am not trying to say that you are obese, but I believe it is not bad to stay ahead of the game.
In today’s world everything is becoming simplified. Robots are taking over human work, cars can drive themselves, and everything you do can be done from your smartphone. All these things are great, but with everything being simplified you are capable of doing anything without getting out of your chair, and if you do not move it is easy to put on a few extra pounds. Think of all the basic, everyday task that you can accomplish sitting in a reclining chair. “The house needs vacuumed, well, I will just let my iRobot clean my whole house, I also need to go grocery shopping ‘okay Google, add frozen pizza to my shopping list.” Google now can go to Amazon and purchase frozen pizza online and it will be shipped to your house in a couple day, and while Google was doing that, iRobot was busy cleaning your house. “Now, I need to call the pharmacy and have them deliver my medication, and since I am on the phone I am, going to call Dominos and have them deliver me a pizza.” Without moving anything but your fingers you cleaned your house, went to the grocery store and the pharmacy, and also made dinner. Do not be lazy, get up and do it your self!
I am not saying that this technology is a bad thing, but it needs to be used right. You can use this technology to free up some extra time that can be used to go to the gym or go for a run. Everything is good in moderation.
Today, human behavior is like that of a sloth. People are lazy. They have no motivation to do anything. This is another title that you do not want hanging over your head. By being dedicated to the gym or to running you will build on your motivation, you will get that desire back. I am a runner and I have experience this multiple times in my life. At my job, my employer has been impressed with my work ethic and drive to get things done. I believe this comes directly from running and my drive to become a better runner. I learned to push through pain and hit times I could not even imagine being able to get. By going to the gym or running I believe it will do the same thing for you.
ReplyDeletePicture you are an employer and you are look to hire someone. You have narrowed it down to two people. The first person walks into the interview room out of breath and takes him a couple of minutes to catch his breath before he can begin talking. As the interview continues, you learn that he is extremely qualified for the position and has many years of experience in a similar job at a different company. After talking to his ex-employer, you find out that he was constantly taking breaks and not able to work a full day. The other possible employee comes in next, and he seems in a lot better shape then the last. He is fresh out of college and his only work experience, in the desired field, was a year long internship his senior year of college. While in college, he spent much of his time outside the classroom participating in many clubs and was even part of the school’s club cross country team and meanwhile maintaining an almost perfect 4.0 GPA . Who would you hire? The person you will be paying to take twenty minute breaks every hour or the person who is driven, ready to tackle anything.
As your friend, I want you to live a very happy and successful life. I believe the best way for you to do this is by being active. I believe if you choose to follow this advice you will see a change in your way of life. I know I did when I started running. You do not have to go run a marathon or bench press three hundred pounds, but you need to stay fit. So, get up and get moving!
Why Abortion Should Be Illegal
ReplyDeleteThe topic of abortion has been one of the longest and most controversial arguments of all time. It has always been put into question of when life actually begins, whether it is solely the mother’s body, and many, many more. To put it plain and simply, life begins at conception. Conception is the earliest developmental stage of the embryo. Surely many critics try to argue that scientists are unsure of when life begins, but they are just wasting their breath. They raise questions along the lines of, Is it even human? and Is it alive? The answer to both of those questions is yes. At conception, the baby is a human and very much alive even though they are not fully developed yet. With today’s technology, parents can see their baby before he or she is even born and follow them on their journey of development. They can see babies begin to clasp their hands, suck their thumb, yawn, get the hiccups, smile, and much more. Even with all of this evidence of life, critics still choose to believe there is not life until the latter parts of pregnancy. To be blunt, critics that argue that scientists are unsure of when life begins are utterly wrong and their argument is completely invalid. As a matter of fact, they are not necessarily arguing about when life begins, but rather when a baby actually deserves acknowledgement and protection. They either did not do any research and are hoping no one calls them out on it, or they are just arguing from the standpoint of their own religion, politics, or philosophy. For those who need scientific evidence, a zygote is the first cell that is formed at conception. As mentioned earlier, conception is the first stage of development of an embryo. The zygote is composed of human molecules and DNA, or the carrier of genetic material. The zygote of every human person is unique from any other pre-existing human, which includes the baby’s mother. That undeniably contrasts the attempts of critics trying to say that it is solely the mother’s body. At conception, it is no longer just the mother’s body, she is just like an incubator for the body. She provides the baby with the conditions that the they need to grow and thrive. If the mother does choose to get an abortion, she is essentially murdering the baby. Think for a moment, if the baby in the womb is alive and is fully a human, then killing him or her is just like murdering any other person. This is the perfect example of why abortion should be illegal.
Although hard to believe, some people actually think that abortion is not murder. Abortion oftentimes leaves women feeling an intense sense of pain and regret in realization of what they actually did. For example, a woman named Jamie Berube received an abortion and still lives with the draining regret to this day. She says that she regrets not thinking her decision through more carefully or considering the possibility that she could have been a really great mother. Jamie said, “Internally I felt suffocated by the grip of three thousand hands. How had my life come to this?” Just a short time after she received her abortion, she contemplated suicide out of regret for what she had done. She claims that the presence of her roommate and her reassurance is what saved her life that night. When women go to receive abortions, they are told how much better their lives will be afterwards. They are never told that women who have abortions are more susceptible to depression, anxiety, contemplation of suicide, and drug and alcohol abuse. Women who get abortions are similar to the boy who cried wolf. The boy who cried wolf is a fable in which a shepherd boy tricks the villagers into believing that wolves were attacking his flock of sheep. When a wolf actually appears, the villagers do not believe the shepherd boy. He feels an intense feeling of regret, considering the wolf eats him. Women who receive abortions often feel regret like the shepherd boy. I deeply believe abortion should be illegal, even though it may take a while for a law to be passed to ban them. After all, Rome wasn’t built in a day
ReplyDeleteI liked your view on abortion and I totally agree with it. Abortion should be illegal, all children have a right to life.
DeleteVery well done. I was considering to do this topic as well and am very glad to see what you have done. It is a hard thing to talk about for many so to talk about it and talk about it well is a task on it own. I also just loved your concluding statement.
DeleteI really liked all your arugemnts here but I just can’t say that abortions should be illegal. If you read Bruce’s post and my own our thoughts are put well in there. I think your argument is very valid though and I do not dismiss any of your beliefs. This concept is very difficult and I do not believe we will ever really figure it out. I just pray to god that he takes care of it.
DeleteThis is an extremely controversial topic, in which you did a wonderful job of displaying your side. Although, if it were illegal I feel like people would still work their way around it. Obviously it is illegal to shoot someone, but that does not mean that it does not still occur. It’s hard to determine what will come of abortion. I really liked reading your thoughts on the topic though!
DeleteCarly, I strongly agree with your blog, and that every innocent child has the right to life. Also, I see where Dom is coming from. People will find a way around it, but it could still cut the abortion rate down by millions because half the people are too lazy to find a way around it. If you do not want to have a child, stop acting in such ways that the result is possible. Very well written blog Carly!
Delete1. The idea that all people should stand for the national anthem.
ReplyDeleteOur nation has been through many horrible events, which of many we have been all able to overcome. I was just watching the panthers football game, during the halftime of the steelers game, and saw newly signed safety of the panthers, Eric Reid kneeling during the national anthem. Reid, how is a very good safety, just got signed this past week due to his drama revolving around him kneeling for the national anthem, similar to the situation of Colin Kapernick. If you are in the United States you should be required to stand during the anthem, those who don't shouldn't be allowed to play, therefore Eric Reid should not be allowed to play. The players are kneeling because they feel they are being mistreated by our law enforcement. Birds of a feather flock together, and thats exactly what they are doing. Law enforcement have to make quick decisions when they are in the line of duty, and I do not believe they take "race" in account when making this decision. This people, specifically African Americans are making this into a race issue. Black Lives Matter? No, all lives matter no matter what. Its not Hitlers idea of a superior race anymore we are all equal. Since these people decide to no longer stand, some have lost jobs, such as Kaepernick. However he is still bank rolled by Nike and is supported by them, recently coming out with a very controversial add. I would hope we could resolve this issue, however I don't see this happening, as long as he is in office. He is our President, we must accept that, however there will always be those liberals who will always oppose Trump and want to cause trouble. Since they wont ever cooperate with the fact that Trump is President, there will always be problems with people kneeling for the anthem, and people causing problems with our county. It is time we make AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.
I agree with your point of view on this topic. While there are many problems in our country, we should all continue to stand together for the national anthem. The flag does not represent the flaws in our country, it represents unison of our people and those who fight for our country.
DeleteThe Food and Drug Administration has considered placing more regulations for the sale, production, and use of vapes. These regulations would definitely be beneficial to the many teens who have become trapped in the cycle of nicotine addiction.
ReplyDeleteVaping has become a popular habit among teens in the past few years. Although it is illegal for minors to purchase or own vapes, it has become a common thing. Even though vapes are common, the health risks associated with them are not widely known. Nicotine products are bad for human health. Therefore, vapes should not be used. The average cigarette contains twelve milligrams of nicotine. This does not even compare to the forty milligrams found in some Juul pods. Vapes also contain fine particles that can make their way deep into the lungs; diacetyl, a chemical known to be linked to lung disease; and heavy metals, such as nickel, tin, and lead. The destructive habit of vaping needs to be restricted.
Vapes have induced many teens into its use. It is like the story of the elephant and the hyena. As it goes, an elephant and a hyena were once looking for a waterhole on a dry African day. After hours of searching, the hyena, after discovering an oasis, yelled to the elephant, “I found a place to quench our thirst!” The elephant slowly walked over to they hyena and said, “we cannot drink from this water. It is unsafe. We must continue our search to find a safer place to replenish.” After the elephant made his statement, he continued walking in order to find a safer waterhole. Once the elephant walked out of sight, the hyena, tired and thirsty from searching, tiptoed to the beautiful blue water to take a sip. As his head bent down to take a drink, an alligator opened its jaws and pulled the unsuspecting hyena into the water, never to be seen again. The moral of the story is to not be sucked into something simply because it feels or seems right. Sometimes the best solution is to never start.
Vapes are detrimental to the health and safety of people. Because of this problem, many countries have already taken steps in banning the sale and use of these products. These countries include Brazil, Argentina, Egypt, Mexico, Israel, and many more. The restrictions placed by these nations have caused a major decrease in the use of vapes, which is what is needed in the United States.
Vapes are like guns. They kill people when they are placed in the mouth. They are a poison to society. It is about time for some restrictions. Before restrictions can be made and before someone picks up a vape for the first time, it is important to remember that life is the product of the choices made in it.
I agree with your thoughts on this topic. I think there are many things that people still don’t fully know about the dangers of vapes, just as people didn’t fully know the dangers of smoking for many years.
DeleteI agree with your opinion. I think that vapes are market as harmless which they are most certainly not. I like the story of the elephant and the hyena, and it works well in this situation. Again, great job and this issue is extremely relevant right now.
Delete1. My Parents have just told me they do not want me to play a sport anymore because they think getting a job and working is the best for my future. I need to change their minds.
ReplyDeleteDear Mom and Dad,
Think of something that you do that gives you much joy. Now think of all the positive effects and life lessons you have gained from your love of this activity. My passion that brings me this kind of joy is my athletics. If you take that away, it would be like taking my blankie away when I was a baby because it is what brought me joy and comfort. Kids at my age either work or play sports after school. You guys want to make me work. However, this is also how kids make their friends. I don't want to lose my friends. My sport isn't just "a waste of time". It is a teacher. Sports develop all the things a job can and much more. Sports teach kids the meaning of hard work, how to work with others, and most of all teaches them how to be leaders. Taking away a sport would be like taking away part of my education. You both always talk about all the great friends you met playing baseball and softball when you were my age so you should understand where I am coming from.
Think of the story of King Midas. He became obsessed with building up his wealth and this caused him to lose everything he found joy in. I do not want this to happen to me. I want to put my happiness over material wealth because ultimately happiness is the key to success. I would rather give up having a car to drive than give up my sport. I am willing to cut back on my expenses so I can continue to play my sports.
One final thing to consider is that by continuing to play my sport, I could actually get a college scholarship that could be worth more than I could possibly earn working a part time job.
I know you have put a great deal of thought into your decision but I have also put in a lot of thought into why continuing to play sports will benefit my future. I have my whole life to work but I am only a kid once. Please reconsider your decision. After all, if you aren't doing what you love you aren't living.
Your loving son,
Ben
Ben I thought your argument was very well written. I exceptionally like how you started by putting your parents in the situation. That is a great idea to persuade an audience to do something. Nice job!
DeleteYour argument is very relatable to kids that are our age. Most of our parents want us to work and save up for college, which isn't a bad idea, but like you said, we are only this age once and want to pursue in something that makes us happy for as long as we can. As we get older, the whole aspect of team sports and athletic competition just merge into something that we watch on TV. So why not cherish every moment we have now? This was a very good topic, Ben!
DeleteI agree with your argument. This issue is a very common one for kids our age. If you think about it, if you decide not to go on to do anything professionally with sports, high school with be the last time you really play organized sports like this. There really is not anything quite like it is in high school. I also liked the maxim you added at the end.
DeleteScenario: My friend, Gwen, is going to get cosmetic surgery to change an insecurity that she has concerning her appearance.
ReplyDeleteDear Gwen,
As one of your closest friends, I am proud to say that I have known you for a long time. I do not think that you should go through with getting cosmetic surgery. This is a lot of money for something I can assure you that, in absolutely no way, shape, or form, you need. You are still a young adult that has better things to do with your money than splurge on this unnecessary surgery. Rather, you should be saving this money for your future.
Let us assume that you did end up getting this surgery. The one insecurity that you were focused on may go away, however, there could be something new that you were not really focused on before that now starts to bother you. It could begin a snowball effect where you just want to get more and more insecurities on your body “fixed.” If you get one thing changed, then you will want to change more. Eventually, you may not even recognize the person looking back at you in the mirror. This could lead to a change in personality and you could lose the real you completely. This may be an extreme of this situation, but this kind of thinking, that you need to change, can be caused by a mindset that beauty is only skin deep. You are searching for happiness through physical appearance. This type of happiness only lasts for so long. True happiness is found in the inner beauty of a person through their kindness and goodness of heart, and ultimately, God.
In any surgery, there are always risks. Some of the most common complications in cosmetic surgery include hematomas, nerve damage, infection, and scarring. It can sometimes be as severe as losing your own life. Why should you risk your life for an unnecessary procedure? I understand that some people may completely hate a feature about themselves on their body and they may think that the risk is worth it. The way I see this issue is the lack of love for one’s own self. This person has not truly taken the time to love themselves for who they are and learn to accept all their imperfections. As children of God, we are all perfectly imperfect. We were all created in God’s image the way that He wanted us to be. Why should we be able to play God and decide how our bodies are supposed to look? Is it because we want to look like someone else? Is it because we are not considered beautiful to some people? Rather, I think we should learn to love ourselves for who we are instead of conforming to our society’s idea of what perfect and beautiful look like. Our world makes it seem like if we do not look a certain way, then, we will have less worth than someone who is seen as “prettier” than us.
Throughout recent history, there have been many people who have gotten hooked on and have become obsessed with cosmetic surgery. Two commonly known cosmetic surgery addicts are Pixee Fox, 26, and Justin Jedlica, 35. Together, they have had over three hundred and fifty surgeries and have spent over $500,000. They have devoted their lives to living as real life Barbie and Ken dolls, which has destroyed their real life relationship with each other. There are also always cases where surgeries can go unexpectedly wrong. Even if everything went according to plan, the patient may not have gotten what they in vision and have instant regret.
Having cosmetic surgery is like having a renovation done on your house. You might be happy after it is done and think it was a good investment, however, you also start to realize that other things need to be redone as well or that everything else in the house is outdated compared to the new renovation. The only difference between the two is that you could eventually buy a new house, but you cannot buy a new body. Just because you think another person looks perfect, does not mean that their life is actually perfect all around. All that glitters is not gold.
Your friend,
Emily
I liked your maxim at the end, I think it fit really well here. I also liked all of the points you made here. I think it would’ve helped if you added alternatives to her getting the surgery. For example, when you said, “the way I see this issue is the lack of love for one’s own self” I think you could’ve added a way or two that she could boost her self love and self confidecne. I don’t think your post lacked from not having this and it was still overall really good.
DeleteAbortion is murder.
ReplyDeleteThe definition of murder is, “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.” The definition of abortion is, “the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy.” There are obvious similarities between these two definitions. A major argument pertaining abortion is whether or not the baby is a human life. A simple answer to that would be yes. Human life begins at conception, and if a human life is terminated then it is murder. Plain and simple. Another view that comes along with this arguments is whether or not abortion is morally wrong. To this I would also say an obvious yes but I know a fair amount of people that would say no. Some reasons they would have for saying no are, “it’s just a bunch of cells”, or “it’s not like they’ll feel it.” Both of these statements are wrong. I already mentioned that life begins at conception; when the sperm and egg cells combine to form a zygote cell. Fetuses can feel pain beginning around 8 or 9 weeks gestation. Most abortions are performed at 15 weeks. So yes, that baby can feel what is happening to them. Babies can especially feel the abortion when it is a Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) These types of abortions are performed up to 18 weeks. In a D&E abortion, forceps are inserted into the uterus, dismembering the baby. A synonym of the word dismember is ‘butcher.’ Yet, this isn’t murder? What about a D&X abortion, which is even banned in the United States, in which the baby’s brain is punctured so that it collapses and can be removed from the mother. I don’t get how this can be justified. Between 1970 and 2014 there were 44.5 million reported abortions. In 2011 there were 730,322 abortions reported to the CDC. Yet, in the Civil War there were only 620,000 deaths. That’s one hundred thousand less! Many people say that the child’s life would’ve been even worse had they been born; however I don’t see how. There are many alternatives to abortion. Such as adoption. Adoption is a beautiful thing. I know many kids, including myself, whose lives have been changed through adoption. Yes, there are cases where a child remains in the system until they age out and those are terrible situations as well. The system is corrupted and can oftentimes be a bad situation. Other times, children are given a second chance at life. Giving a child a chance through adoption is obviously a better choice than giving them no chance at all by killing them. The pain a child would have to endure in the system is nothing compared the pain they would have to deal with that comes from being aborted. Trust me.
Lake I enjoyed reading your blog for many reasons. As we know this is an issue going on. I thought you did a great job providing your opinion but also your knowledge. Being factual can help people think a certain way. Nice job!
DeleteWow, I love your topic. I liked how you did not just keep it to abortion methods within the United States. You also brought up alternatives to abortion that I feel is very important. Many women have abortions because they feel lost and that they don’t have another option. Tying yourself into it was also good because it shows that you know a thing or two this subject. The only thing that I would comment on would be when you were mentioning the different methods of abortion. There is also a method called saline abortions that actually chemically burn the baby. Including when a baby can feel pain is also good to show that babies can feel pain. You did a fantastic job!
DeleteI also really enjoyed how much of the facts you put in this. It gives me a new light on abortion. I still struggle personally with the concept though, but maybe I can better understand it by people like you who have the facts. I’m still sticking with my opinions though and like I said in another comment, I believe differing views is what makes the world go round. I don’t mean to offend anyone but am just stating my thoughts.
DeleteScenario: Are school uniforms necessary?
ReplyDeleteIn my own personal opinion school uniforms are necessary. There are three main reasons why every school should have uniforms. The first reason is you will only be judged off your personality. School uniforms help to limit distraction while enhancing your education. The last reason is it makes the students life less stressful in the morning.
Bullying is a well-known issue throughout the world. Many people face hardships everyday due to others putting the other down. School is a place that students come to learn. This should not be a place where students are constantly being bullied off of their looks. Nor should it be a place, to “one up” each other based on style. In 1222, a school in England put uniforms into place for these exact reasons. Who knew these issues were happening centuries ago. Enforcing a school uniform would allow students to only be looked at based on their personality. It would also allow everyone to look the exact same, therefore, no competition will be taken place. Personality is a trait that everyone can control. What you wear, is often out of a persons control.
Having a school uniform can improve learning by reducing distraction, sharpening focus on schoolwork, making the classroom a more serious environment, and allowing students to perform better academically. Most public school that do not have uniforms, still have certain clothing policies to abide by. For example, shorts during the warmer months must be a certain length. These are enforced to allow students to focus on the correct things during the school hours. In schools where there are uniforms, this is all eliminated. Yes, there is a dress code but it’s minor things. An example of the clothing policy in a uniformed school is your skirt must be no more than 4 inches above the knee and all socks must be gray, black, maroon, or white. If a person walked in to class wearing a very extravagant outfit everyone would look at that person, different from, if someone walked in wearing the same thing as everyone else. Uniforms allow everyone to focus on the reason we come to school.
Lastly, students tend to think way to much about what they need to wear. If everyone had a uniform they would know exactly what they were wearing in the morning causing less stress upon the individual. I remember talking to one of my friends that attended a uniform-less school, even she said she wishes she didn’t have to pick out clothes in the morning. In fact, she even did a presentation on it for a class. This time of picking out clothes could be used to study for a test a little more or double check the essay they wrote. Uniforms may be expensive for the first year but after you buy the main pieces, you may only have to buy a few polos, new socks, and one new pair of shoes. This is unlike others who buy new outfits every year. Uniforms save money and stress.
Plaid skirts, knee high socks, and a white polo is not the first thing you would pick out to wear on your first day of school. Yet, if everyone was going to be wearing that, you wouldn’t even think twice about it. All academically successful students, wear uniforms. Therefore, school is not a fashion show, wear the uniform and gain some knowledge.
I liked how you chose this topic and I found it interesting to read your post. I definitely think that students are more comfortable knowing they won’t be made fun of for what they’re wearing. Reading this makes me wonder where you stand on dress down days.
DeleteLauren, I enjoyed what you wrote. As a student that struggles a lot on what I am supposed to wear, I myself like wearing a uniform. I liked your historical example that talked about even in 1222 people were being bullied for what they wore. I also thought it was good that you talked about the price of buying new cloths is much more expensive than wearing the same thing and just replacing some items. I thought your maxim was hilarious. I know many people are against uniforms but you did a great job holding your end of the argument. Good job.
DeleteThe material you incorporated into your blog was nicely organized. The examples you provided definitely gave me a better understanding for the reasoning of wearing uniforms. There is one part that a disagree with in your blog. In the second last sentence, you said, “all academically successful students wear uniforms.” I do think there are people who are academically successful that do not wear uniforms. Other than that, good work!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteScenario 1: I am arguing against my friend Gina on the matter of the sanctity of marriage.
ReplyDeleteDear Gina,
I want to go over the point you gave the other day about the sanctity of marriage. Take this story for example, there was an crocodile and a little plover bird. The crocodile was lonely so he often wondered if he would ever find someone. The little plover bird thought the same thing. One day the plover bird noticed the crocodile and flew down to him. They bonded over the fact that they were looking for someone to share all of their good and bad times with. They realized what they were looking for was right in front of them, they needed each other. In nature the plover bird cleans the crocodile’s teeth and the crocodile allows the plover bird to eat what is in his teeth. They help each other and create a bond, similar to that of a married couple. The couple were made for each other, to assist one another, and to be with each other in good times and in bad. Divorce started when Moses, the man in the Bible that led all the Israelites out of Egypt, noticed that men were killing their wives so that they could just get a new wife. Even though murder is obviously the wrong answer in every situation, divorce is not the right way to go either. God’s plan was not to have divorces. Divorces were just made up by Moses. Jesus said in the Gospel, “Because of the hardness of your hearts he wrote you this commandment” thus stating that it was a compromise but not what God wanted. The Church has found multiple ways to keep couples together. They even have couples who are thinking of marriage take a compatibility test and take classes. Todays readings at Mass talked about how God saw everything as good, but that man was alone. God created women to love men and therefore men had to love women. Marriage is like a circle, never ending. That is why a husband and wife wear wedding bands, to remember that they are one and never can be disconnected. If someone does not understand the purpose of marriage, then they should not marry. Many people get married but they do not really understand what they are signing up for. Marriage is a lot of hard work and should not be treated like something people just do because they are “in love” in the moment. Marriage also should not be used to cover up an unplanned pregnancy. Many people today get married just because the women got pregnant. Marriage should just be reserved for those who actually are willing to give their lives for the other person. True love speaks louder than words.
I really enjoyed reading your blog. It is something I agree with very much and I’m glad you decided to write it on this topic. I especially found interesting your reference to Moses and the institution of Divorce so the wives wouldn’t get killed.
DeleteI agree with your stance on this issue. I enjoyed the Bible references as well as the symbol of the circle of the wedding band. Marriage is not taken very seriously in today’s world and I am glad that you addressed this.
DeleteScenario: The Elk County Catholic school system has chosen to switch to a block schedule
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, choosing to switch our current system to that of a block schedule would be very beneficial to the way we learn. Not to mention, it could change the way students view school. A block schedule would allow the students to focus on a few subjects at a time, making the class load seem easier when it is really just as much as a normal rotational schedule. School is similar to a sport. If you practice too many skills all at once, you will get too overloaded with new information and eventually start playing the game sloppy. Likewise, if you try to learn too much information at one time, you will become mentally overwhelmed and start producing sloppy schoolwork. Not to mention, a block schedule will make managing activities easier. If you only have half of your classes on one day, the homework load would be lighter and relieve a lot of the stress from the students. If the students are overwhelmed, then they will start to become lax on their schoolwork in favor of activities. Therefore, students put most of their energy into activities.
Ridgway Area High School effectively uses the block schedule as a means for their students to learn. Their students seem to have high grades as well as success on the athletic field without compromising one or the other. This way they get the best of both worlds without facing so much stress because of their heavy class work. Following the example of Ridgway Area High School could add to both pur academic and athletic programs. If there is a block schedule in place, there is less daily stress. Therefore, the Ridgway students are under less daily pressure and stress.
A block schedule could help to maintain more focus in a class as well. With less classes each day, students can better focus on a few subjects each day rather than all of the subjects at once. This would provide them with a better understanding of the subject, which would make studies in college possibly easier. A block schedule could be a huge benefit to the Elk County Catholic school system. It’s time we make a change for the better. A consistent process produces the best success.
1. Donald Trumps proposal to put guns in the hands of teachers.
ReplyDeletePresident Trump:
I am writing this in regards to your interest in allowing teachers to bear arms in a school environment. I disagree with this belief as I believe it proposes more risks than benefits. There is the possibility that students could access them, that they could accidentally discharge, or that a teacher may shoot an innocent bystander by mistake. I believe that more risks would come from this than benefits.
I understand that many states have already adopted laws allowing teachers to bear arms in a school environment. However, I also understand many problems have risen because of this. A teacher in California mistakenly shot his gun through the ceiling while demonstrating firearm safety, causing three injuries among students from falling debris. This is not the only instance of injuries from teachers having guns. While I believe most teachers have their students best interest, putting more guns in a school is a bad decision. If America wants safer schools, then they should work to keep guns away from schools. Therefore, teachers should not have guns in school.
The elephants were the leaders of the village. All of the animals looked up to the elephants, and the elephants took good care of the animals. The animals had such trust in the elephants, that they put them in charge of the magic stone. The magic stone had the ability to make threatening animals disappear. Although the elephants were responsible and trustworthy, the magic stone was difficult to manage. One of the elephants mistakenly made an animal disappear. The animals then realized that the elephants could not control the stone. Many teachers have spoken out saying that they do not wants guns, because they do not want to take on the responsibility of bearing one. In addition, not all teachers would be responsible with their guns. Teachers having guns is like adding fuel to a fire. Putting more guns into circulation just makes more potential issues arise.
Gun violence is an important issue, and it should not be ignored. However, I disagree in the thought that giving guns to teachers would solve the problem. Many believe that if you can’t beat them, join them. However, this is far from true in this situation. Adding more guns to a school environment will only create more problems.
President Trump, please reconsider your thoughts on allowing teachers to bear arms in schools. There are other ways to stop gun violence. Please think of the effects of this idea for some time. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bailey Bauer
I 100% agree with your thoughts here, Bailey. The improper use of guns has become quite the uproar in recent times. Everyone makes mistakes and teachers do not need to be put in the spotlight for taking control of the gun and students. I enjoyed this a lot.
DeleteA law should be be made requiring children to be vaccinated.
ReplyDeleteOnce there was a town where every child was given a magical sticker when they were born. Now this sticker could do great things, it could make sure a child would never suffer any hardships. Children would not be abused, neglected, or suffer from any illnesses. They would be able to have happy, fulfilling childhoods and grow to become upstanding adults. There are no major downsides to this sticker. However, some people heard that the stickers were not magical at all, and may harm the child. They stopped giving their children the stickers, and slowly the children began to suffer harm. This is the exact situation that America is in the the issue of vaccines. Vaccines, have been shown time and time again to be a great help to children and to public health in general. Unfortunately, some foolish people have decided that they know better than doctors and qualified health professionals and stopped giving their children vaccines, causing an increase in entirely preventable illnesses. It seems like every few months a new headline states that there has been an outbreak of a disease, such as measles, among young children. Look at the situation that Elk County Catholic is in right now, with our outbreak of whooping cough. Though we may laugh and call it “the whoop”, whooping cough, measles and other diseases are very serious, indeed. Those diseases can course permanent disabilities, and for infants and those who have compromised immune system, the effects of the disease could be ten times worse. For the sake of public health, all children that are able to be vaccinated should be bad there should be a law to enforce vaccinations. Not getting vaccinated is like playing with fire, sooner or later somebody is going to get burned. It may not be child whose parents have chosen not to get them vaccinated, it may be an infant or a child who is so ill that they cannot receive vaccinations. Now some may point to the incorrect information that they receive on vaccines causing autism. That is completely untrue and has been disproved several times. Even if vaccines did cause autism (which is not correct) , would the parents love the child any less if the had autism? No, they would not. All parents who listen to those fools who believe that vaccines are harmful are fools themselves. People should trust their medical professionals and get their children vaccinated if possible, and a law would ensure that. Parents should also not listen to those who doubt the effectiveness of vaccinations, as one fool makes many fools.
Initially, I thought that I would disagree on your option pertaining to his scenario. However, your fable persuaded me otherwise.
DeleteShould homework be assigned?
ReplyDeleteTo whom it may concern,
Although homework is not a necessity, nor is it considered enjoyable, I strongly believe that it still should be assigned regularly. Students have many classes in a single day, along with this they have many different subjects to comprehend daily. All of this new information is oftentimes overwhelming and difficult. Therefore, teachers often assign homework assignments in an effort for their students to fully grasp the information that they went over in class. Additionally, many classrooms contain an abundance of students per class, along with a limited time period to teach a lesson, because of this students may not have the opportunity to ask questions that they may have during the lesson. Homework assigned that night allows for students to test their knowledge and discover their weaknesses relating to the topic.
Despite the fact that homework is a useful learning tool, it may also depend on how much homework teachers decide to give their students. Homework at times can be stressful and time consuming. Hence the fact that many teenagers do not receive their recommended amount of sleep. During the 1940s the ideas of how education should be taught was dramatically shifted, this was about the time when homework was originally being given to students. However, in many cases, schools either give homework to their students or their students don’t preform as well as others. Homework is similar to water for runners; water fuels runners and prepares them for races, just like how homework prepares students for quizzes and further lesson plans. As long as students don’t procrastinate, homework is very beneficial. Don’t do tomorrow what you can do today.
1. ECC is considering getting rid of the uniform and switching to normal attire.
ReplyDeleteDear Elk County Catholic School System,
It has been brought to my attention that you are considering changing the dress attire for the entire school system. Having attended a Catholic school my entire life, it only seems reasonable to stick with having a set uniform for the students to wear. I feel as if it gives students a sense of relief, that they might not even realize, because they do not have to worry about buying enough clothes for the different seasons, picking out a new outfit each day, or even being judged for a certain piece of clothing they feel fits their style. Having students wear a uniform eliminates an array of issues just in itself. A fable from Aesop about a fox and a cat describes the cat having one option when put into a situation to escape enemies and the fox having hundreds of options. The cat was successful in which it escaped from enemies, but the fox failed because it could not decide amongst its various options. Better one safe way than a hundred on which you cannot reckon. Wearing one set uniform diminishes the idea of “attack” from enemies, rather than determining which clothes an enemy might “attack” someone else for wearing. Different students have different styles, of course, but this does not mean that everyone will accept those style choices of others. What one person finds no issue with, someone else might. For example, segregation of race or ethnicity can relate to this situation. Someone of Italian descent might not think anything of their sort, while someone else might not accept the lifestyle or choices of Italians therefore resulting in discrimination or judgment. Do not get me wrong, I think clothing is a great way to express oneself, but not everyone can open their mind to the various choices and be accepting. A great expert from Matthew 7:1-5 can compare to this situation, in which it states: “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” Either people are accepting or they are not. Most of the time they are not. The lack of acceptance is quite unfortunate but, I believe it is better to keep the uniform rather than having students wear their own choice of clothing.
Another point I would like to address is the statement of uniforms. Students who wear uniforms stand out from those that do not wear uniforms. The uniform is a representation of ECC; it shows that the students belong to the school. Rather than wearing normal clothing, a uniform gives a student the responsibility of acting accordingly as it reflects the school. Another point includes utilizing a school uniform and what it has to do with school safety. Some argue that trespassers on school property can be more easily identified if students are wearing clothing that is uniform in style and color. Also, school administrators spend a considerable amount of time on discipline each day focused on student violation of dress code. Requiring boys to wear properly fitted pants, polo-styled shirts, belts, and standard shoes would address the wearing of inappropriate printed t-shirts and poorly fitted pants, for example. Such as requiring girls to wear pants or skirts, standard shoes, and polo-styled shirts would address most concerns about clothing that reveals too much. Although, this is not to say that there will not be concerns with uniforms such as skirt length, lack of wearing a belt, or untucked shirts. There is a greater chance of dress code violation in wearing normal attire, rather than a set uniform because not everyone is wearing the same thing. Having students stick with the uniform is a better choice all around. Keep the uniforms, even if some outsiders might criticize students for wearing them. After all, attending a Catholic school is a privilege therefore the uniform is just as much as one. What separates privilege from entitlement is gratitude.
DeleteCurrent student,
Dominique Wells
Most people would, I think, would disagree with you on this topic at first glance. However, after reading your arguments, I agree with you. I never thought of how many more issues would be presented rather than solved if we were allowed to wear regular clothes.
DeleteTopic: Other kid’s parents give them weekly allowances, and I think it’s ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteSo there are other peers of mine whose parents give them monthly or weekly allowances for simply doing chores around the house, for doing nothing, or maybe some other wacky reason. What have we actually done to deserve this allowance though? Absolutely nothing. Okay, yes I understand that we may need money sometimes if we’re going out with our friends or something like that, but maybe just once in a while.
Think about our parents and grandparents when they were our age. Most of them were nowhere near as privileged as we are today. They weren’t given cellphones, they didn’t have their own cars to drive around, and they definitely did not get to play video games for hours on end. These are just a few examples, and yes, I know that they do not apply to everyone, but there are many more that very well do. They did just fine without all of the privileges we have. Most of them spent their time working to help pay for their own families.
Our parents, nowadays, work to earn money and support our families. We, as children (most of us) do not work. Therefore, we should not get paid for doing nothing. The money that the parents are giving us could be going to college funds, they could be saving it for us for a later time in our lives, or they could be saving it to use it on themselves. After all, the hours of work that they put into making money compared to the effort we put into doing a simple chore such as cleaning the supper dishes, mowing the grass, or even feeding and cleaning out the cage, litter box, or bowl of our pets is out of this world. And we expect to get paid for it.
If you’re a working teen and make your own money, that’s a different story. Like I said earlier in the blog, this may not apply to all, but to the ones it does, we need to stop expecting for things in life to be given to us and start working for the things we want.
I love this blog, Stephen. I absolutely agree with you on how it’s ridiculous when kids get paid for doing chores. I think most people would agree.
Delete