I do agree that the government is best which governs least. I think this because if the government just took a step back and dint have such a huge say in things, people would be able to live there lives more to the way they want to live them. The role of the government is to promote the general welfare. The government fulfills this function in many different ways, including monitoring the economy, businesses, and banks; maintaining the postal service, education system, roads, and public utilities like water, sewer, and electricity; regulating the safety of food and medicine. The governments role in relation to an individual citizen, in my opinion, is to ensure their safety and well-being. I think a Monarchy or a type of government with 1 person in charge, would be the government that would most likely command your respect. I think this because if one person is in charge and you disrespect them, they have the power to do whatever they want to you. In a few places with governments like this, if you don’t give them your respect, you may be sent to prison or even killed. The role of civil disobedience today is to create awareness. People are rioting and things like that to raise awareness about a topic. Many times it turns to violence which draws more attention. People may turn to looting and rioting which stirs up coverage from news stations which gives them even more publicity. I think it’s wrong and everyone doing it should be punished but people still do it to create awareness. It is still effective today because when they do these things like looting stores and stirring up violence, they get the coverage they want and they have people hearing about whatever it is they are protesting. So it is effective still today.
Emerson was an inspiration and a mentor to Thoreau. When Thoreau heard about Emerson and his idea of self reliance, he took it to the next level. He believed that self reliance was a state of mind which could only be achieved in nature. Some people may look at self reliance as chopping their own wood or building your own things but Thoreau went and lived in complete secretion in the middle of the woods to test the idea of self-reliance that Emerson was so big into. I also see that the both of them believed that you can make anything happen yourself if you put your mind to it and go do it. Emerson talks about bettering religion. Thoreau talk about people building railroads and things like that. The main idea of the first section of Thoreau’s writing, is sort of hard to understand. He describes everything he does like getting a farm and wanting to live by himself. He talk about how he did all of those things but then he goes on to talk about things that are a little more hard complicated. Like how if men put in the work to build railroads it will make the country better. Well I’m going to be honest I don’t see him out there building railroads, just saying. The main point of his conclusion is to sort of explain his situation. He talk about why he left, which was because he had other things he wanted to do and dint want to waste any more time. he also talks about how he fears that other people walk down the same path day after day and they don’t get to experience anything new. He also says that you should walk to the beat of your own drum and not to conform to anybody else’s standards. Some benefits of doing this experiment would be that I wouldn’t have to deal with drama. I would learn more about myself and could think more clearly about my life. Lastly, I would get to experience all of nature first hand. I would miss my friends, my family, sports, my cell phone and all of social media. I would miss doing all of the things that I do today. I definitely could not do this experiment. Out of everything we have read about transcendentalism, a reader should take out the part that everything happens for a reason and things will eventually line up for you and give you a happy life.
I think AR for honors classes is something that is unnecessary. The honors students are already clearly sufficient in reading because if we weren’t, we wouldn’t be in honors. Kids in advanced classes already have more homework, classwork, projects, and other schoolwork, than other students do. So by adding not only one but two books into that schedule is a joke. Besides, every single marking period you will have AR tests that are completely cheated on. “Hey I’ll pay you $5 to do my AR test for me.” or “Oh I read this book 3 years ago but i still remember it so ill take an AR test on it.” Kids are cheating on them anyway and its not beneficial in my opinion. But for regular students who may struggle in English, I believe one or two books per marking period may help some students. Not all but some. For the beginning of the third quarter, I chose the book “The Girl Who Was Supposed To Die” by April Henry. I selected this particular book because it is a suspenseful, mystery, type of book which is what I enjoy reading. After reading the first chapter, I read that a girl has found herself laying in immense pain of the floor of a cabin. She realizes she had been tortured but she doesn’t remember anything. Right now, the girl is being drug outside where she is going to be “finished off” and that is where the chapter ends. I think the girl is going to fight back and end up killing the guy who was going to kill her. My initial reaction is that this book seems pretty good and I’m going to enjoy reading it. Some thoughts that I have regarding us making a trailer for our book is that it should be a lot of work but it will feel very rewarding when your finished and we present them to the class. Especially if you’re me and you are going to create the best book trailer to ever be made. I am a little concerned on what I am going to use to edit it though because I am very bad at video editing.
My initial thoughts on transcendentalism are total wack. Like I’m pretty sure whoever first came up with this stuff was either drunk, high, or both. I mean just picture it in your head. 5 guys are sitting in a room passing around a joint and one of them goes “yo guys, isn’t it like…crazy that our bodies are like involved with nature and we are just a part of nature that all adds up into like one, big……thing? I mean honestly, that’s probably what happened. But it is actually kind of interesting the way that people did come up with this. Like the example that we feel tired and depressed on rainy days but feel happy and high – spirited on days that are sunny. So maybe we are actually connected to nature somehow. Transcendentalists have a belief that man is naturally good but I would have to disagree with that. I believe man is naturally evil and i think this for a few reasons. First off, think of a lot of high school kids and such. Most of them are very polite and respected because they were taught to be that way but when they are left alone or with a group of other high school kids, sometimes they will make bad decisions which is the evil part of them returning to the surface. If you look at kids with a good home life, most of the time they will still end up doing bad things at some point. And if you look at families with a bad home life, the kids will normally end up doing bad things. Either way, the evil is the dominant gene that shows up more often then good. Good kids will be good and sometimes evil. Bad kids will rarely be good and mostly evil. It shows up either way you look at it. Kids aren’t taught to be bad. Kids are taught to be good but the evil still shows up in almost everyone at some point which proves that it was always there, unlike being naturally good. This proves that all people start out naturally evil and learn to become good. But you can’t influence most people to be 100% good which is when the evil shows up.
My thoughts have drastically changed on the topic of argumentation throughout this unit. We argue every single day and most times we are very poor at backing up what we are arguing. This unit helped me understand what needs to be said in order to win an argument or to make the other person look stupid. The debate really helped because it was a first – hand experience that proved straight to all of our faces how arguments should and shouldn’t be conducted. Most times when people argue, it’s over something small and stupid. One person might say that the answer to number 4 on the test last period was B but the other person says its C. They continue to argue by saying “No, it’s B.” or “No, it’s C” and they don’t back up their answers at all. The way we construct arguments is very generic, we just back up our point by saying it’s right because that’s what we believe is right. We continue to argue that way because we were never taught he correct way to do it but now we know because of this unit. It seems like adults are always arguing too. But you have different types of adult arguments. For example, you have the Facebook mom, who posts at least once a day complaining about the actions of a teacher/administrator at her kid’s school. And the mom that always replies, disagreeing with her. Then they proceed to argue for an hour over something nobody else cares about. You have other adult arguments which are all politics. Donald Trump did this. Hillary Clinton did this. Tomi Lahren this, Cloyd Rivers that. Trump’s a racist, Hillary’s a crook. It doesn’t ever end. I hate politics so adult arguments are annoying. Then you have adult arguments over which of their kids is the best. I’ve only ever heard parents say that the 3rd kid is the best, even if the family only has 1 or 2 kids. Crazy stuff. The best debate in my opinion was Cody’s and Iris’s because both sides had factual evidence and it was funny. (Even though Cody said Canada isn’t real and somehow got a better grade then me). I hope the word limit for this one is 350 and not 400 because yeah I didn’t make it to 400.
One of the most interesting and/or compelling pieces of factual evidence that I found in regards to my debate topic was that in would cost around 69 Billion dollars to fund public colleges for a year. This was a tough question to answer because since college isn’t free, there isn’t much factual evidence on the topic. What made this topic interesting was that it is a very common point used by politicians to gain popularity among the younger generations. It should be interesting to others because it I something that could happen in our future. I did not know this fact before I did my research. The source that gave me information about this fact was The Atlantic in their Business Archives.
Emotional elements to my debate topic is the pride that comes with earning your degree and knowing that you paid for it. This topic activates these emotions in society because people are now always wanting things handed to them so if you pay and work for something, it feels better. My topic was one that i had to spark some emotional appeal in the audience because it isn’t a topic that is often thought about.
Debate about the topic is important because some people don’t know both sides of the story so if you give them that information, they can then form their own opinion. Ethics enters the debate of the topic because if you professionally present the ideas that you believe, people may be more likely to agree with you. One ethical argument against my topic is that if we take money away from the military, it won’t cost taxpayers anything. One argument in favor of it is that college has always cost money so we should keep it that way.
Of the three appeals, logic I think is the most important because it is simply a logical topic. College has always cost money so it should still cost money. Emotion is the most commonly used in human conversation but in a graded debate, logic is the most used. The most common argument for both sides of my topic is how the government is going to pay for colleges. Some say taxes and others say budget cuts.
Since we started our persuasive/argumentative unit of study, I have learned how to properly form an argument without using fallacies and without being roasted. This will affect my future arguments because now I know the proper way to debate someone and win.
My topic for the debate is the con argument for should the government pay for your college tuition? I am arguing that the government should not pay for your college and that you should pay it all off by yourself. This is also my position for this topic so it is going to make it easier for me to debate this topic with my fellow classmate, Chad. Prior to research, I know that at the moment, we are all paying for our colleges by ourselves. Some people may not pay as much because of financial aid and scholarships but in the end, we are using the money out of our pockets to pay it off. When I do a basic google search of my topic, about fifty percent of the results were .com and the other fifty percent was .org. One way I plan to address this topic in a logical approach is to talk about how taxes would increase at a dramatic rate, even for people who didn’t even go to college. Some of these people are barely making by without a college degree so increasing their taxes for something that doesn’t involve them at all, is ridiculous. This could cause those people to be forced to make changes in their life that could even result in being forced from their home. Some emotions that can be brought to play is that of sympathy, anger, and stress. If the government does pay for our college, we would almost be forced to feel sympathy for those who are now struggling from the increase in taxes. Maybe for some of us, we may feel anger because now it is us in that situation and our taxes are increasing. Lastly, people may be feeling stressed because they no longer can afford things that they could have afforded previously.
In the article “Which animals are smartest: Dogs, cats or raccoons?” by Jason Bittel, the conclusion is that dogs are around twice as smart as cats. But I would have to disagree. I think cats are smarter than dogs. There are a few specific reasons that I believe cats are smarter than dogs. First, cats know where their bathroom is. Cats have a litter box that they repeatedly use to go to the bathroom, which is pretty impressive if you ask me. Dogs on the other hand, just sniff out a random spot in the yard and then proceed to do your business. And on top of that, cats will bury their droppings in the kitty litter but dogs just let it sit on top of the ground. A second reason as to why cats are smarter than dogs is the fact that cats always return home, unless the are injured, stolen, or killed. When you let a cat outside, it always returns back to the house. But dogs will sometimes run away and in the worst cases, you may never see them again. A third reason as to why cats are smarter than dogs is that cats are more independent. Research and other recent studies have shown cats and dogs can solve simple puzzles to get food, but when the puzzle is unsolvable, dogs will look to humans for help, whereas cats will keep trying. This proves that cats are better on their own and therefore makes them smarter. Cats will also curl up and purr next to you, their cuteness and how soft they are makes them better as pets and overall! When dogs want food or need something, they bark obnoxiously and make everybody annoyed and put them in a bad mood. Cats on the other hand, will cutely and quietly meow to the point where sometimes you can’t hear them and it is a lot less obnoxious. This is another reason why cats are smarter than dogs. They know that humans will get annoyed if they are obnoxious. An ethical point about the study of cats and dogs is Scientific Integrity. The Scientific Integrity Policy is a hoax and we can’t believe anything they say. All of the studies they do are biased so they don’t properly look at both sides of the study, dogs AND cats. These are the reasons that we all know are true and prove why cats are much, much smarter than dogs.
After doing the Fifteen Virtue Experiment, my findings were what I expected. I ate a lot more then I should have because food is made to be eaten so leftovers aren’t an option. I had one problem with attitude and that was when I was hunting everyday and putting in a lot of time and I wasn’t seeing much. I was getting very frustrated. I had two marks for Order because I am very disorganized an had chores, homework, and other things to do that I struggled with because of my organization. I had one Resolution mark because I also like to procrastinate so sometimes things don’t get done when they need to be. I had one mark for Industry because I needed to study but I didn’t and I was up late Sunday studying. I had four marks for Sincerity. This was a tough one for me because I am in a group chat with a few friends and we basically make fun of each other all the time. Cooper is very easy to make fun of, just saying. I also had four marks for Tranquility because sometimes I can lack some common sense and I feel really stupid afterward. Oddly enough, this always seems to happen when my dad is talking to me. I’m not sure if he is bad at explaining things or if it really is my common sense. He always asks me to do things and I have no idea what he is talking about. He then proceeds to get really mad and ends up yelling at me and makes me feel stupid. I had one mark for Honesty which normally isn’t a problem for me. But sometimes when your hunting, and a deer runs out in front of you and you see antlers but you can’t tell how big, you tend to exaggerate and you might tell people you saw a giant even though it may have only been a decent sized buck. I had 3 marks for Privacy because I always seem to walk into a conversation after it started and I simply ask “Who?” and everybody just looks at me with straight faces. This happens often and it’s very annoying.
Okay, I am going to come right and just say right now that I hate this poem and everything about it. I could easily do 350 words on my initial reaction to the poem because I have so many problems with it. It is without a doubt one of the most, if not the most, confusing poems I’ve ever read. Literally, I have read the poem like 4 times and the footnotes like 6 times and I still only understand the poem about as much as I understand girls. I don’t. Also the poem is like 78 or 3 pages I can’t remember but it’s way too long! Like I told McGarry, this poem is probably super deep and meaningful in some hidden type of way and I’m just too stupid to understand it. Or maybe the poem just sucks all around. (In my opinion, don’t take offense McGarry) Alright, I got that out of my system. Now I feel better. I have literally 1000 questions about this poem as well. Why? Why are you torturing us with this super confusing poem? Why do we have to do poetry in the first place? Why does the poem talk about bears and mermaids and all other kinds or random stuff? Why did you choose to write a poem that is impossible to decipher? I think this poem is about life. The beginning is some philosophical stuff that makes no sense. Then towards the middle it’s talking about being on a stage. That stage is life…maybe? And you are performing. You are doing whatever you want with your life. And then BOOM, BEAR! The bear means death. Death is chasing you around and you are bound by fate to get tired and the bear will eventually catch up to you. Then the person in the poem is hoping to go to heaven and figure out the purpose behind everything and it turns out that heaven isn’t real and he spends the rest of his time searching for an answer and the mermaids are singing, but none to him. Meaning that nobody will give him answers. Eventually he realizes that everything he has ever believed in, was a lie. The allusions like “Thoreau’s quiet desperation” and “dynamo of light” are important because they add more meaning and depth to the poem. They also make it more philosophical which makes the poem harder to understand.