Blog 16

I think that a government that governs least is the best way to run a country, I do not suppose stripping the entire government away but a lot of it. The government should be there to enforce the law on criminals who wish to harm other citizens. The citizens should be able to chose what they do for work, where they live, how they live, etc without government intervention unless that said person has done harm on another human being. The individual citizen should be created equally, and if anyone from any social group commits a crime they should be punished to keep the equality, but keep the laws to a minimum so people are allowed to choose what they want to do. With regulations of course, just on obvious atrocities like murder, or any other form of harming someones body or identity. A government that would command your respect would be a monarchy or a dictatorship because they are often corrupt rulers. A monarch or a dictator would want you to see them as a godly figure and that in itself is demanding your respect, and that is not the way to go for a government. A government should have respect going both ways. You respect the laws and the government will respect your lifestyle whatever it is. Most protests these days do not really hit the mark like they used to, they aren’t really about the same kind of important subjects that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were protesting for. They were protesting for rights for their people, and nowadays we have people on both sides of the political spectrum protesting gas prices in yellow vests. What is more important? The price of gas or the rights of an entire race? And the big difference is that these protests turned violent over not being heard when Gandhi and King were never heard for years yet they never turned violent so protests have certainly changed. At the end of the day the protests in France are taking a step back to the days of the French Revolution and that is certainly ineffective. If Gandhi and King can do this without hurting anyone then they can get their word across that they aren’t being heard a different way. Besides they are just hurting their fellow man in the process.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/12/16/wild-west-era/

Blog 15

To this day I can still not pronounce Transcendentalism, but that doesn’t hold me back from trying to understand what it means. The question is am I really understanding the concept of Transcendentalism the way it should be? After reading Thoreau’s excerpts I can conclude that Emerson and him are very similar thinking men. They both believe that people should not conform to what the general public is doing and be there own person, and they both believe that the true way to gain happiness is in nature. The first part of Thoreau’s excerpt titled “Where I lived and what I lived for” explains where he lived in his life. He explains how he used to live in a house and would browse properties always using his imagination as if he would own all of the properties around where he lived. Then he decided that he would get more out of life if he left his life behind and went to live in the woods. He believed he’d be able to see life more clearly if he would get closer to where life began. “The conclusion” is the second part of the excerpt and explains what he had learned from his experience of living in the woods. The main idea of the conclusion is to explain about how wealth does not determine your happiness and that it doesn’t matter to obtain a healthy soul. The benefits of leaving society for Thoreau is that he no longer has to worry about being an unhealthy man and doesn’t have to worry about anyone’s social status. He can just allow himself to be one with nature and use the experience to learn. The things that I would miss are showers, air condition, wifi, and everything in between. Assuming I am doing away with my cellphone as well I would miss the ability to play music on my own whim. In all honesty I could not do it because like my entire generation I am accustomed to the technology that surrounds my life and if it were gone I would go insane. A modern reader should see that you should not rely on your technology even if it is useful. You should allow yourself to see nature for what it is even if it is just on occasion.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gaming/features/red-dead-redemption-2-extended-gameplay-preview-day-rockstars/

Blog 14

I will probably not think on these arguing techniques for a very long time, nor will I use them while arguing with friends. Mostly because I dislike to argue with people. I do not care for it, but I do understand it a lot more now. And for doing an argument in a class like this again I will definitely keep this in mind and maybe even go back and check the notes we took in class. During an argument between peers I will not put much thought into it because that’s just the way that I am. Making a fool of myself is much more important than being good at an argument I suppose. Or maybe I will keep this in mind and I won’t even notice it. Maybe I’ll stop name calling in an argument because I’ll remember it to be Ad Hominem. I’ll look upon my friends arguments and notice when they say something stupid MORE OFTEN. It’ll be great, i can point out how their arguments are invalid now. And maybe they won’t remember anything and I can knowingly spit out fallacies at them. So many possibilities. Bu will these possibilities be executed? Maybe. With adults i am more serious so then my mindset will be different and I will be willing to point out their fallacies in their arguments because there is something good about proving someone who is older than you wrong. Sure it will ruin their self worth because some high school student knew what Hasty Generalization was. Developing a valid argument is actually a lot more difficult than I thought and that’s why so many people just end up calling the other side an “idiot”, a “tool”, or something more unpleasant. You don’t put much thought into how much preparation is needed and you don’t thing of how important that really is. After you get your sources, you could be well off or you could have gotten bad sources and you’ll have to try to do some more research while you’re supposed to be forming the argument. Or maybe you’re topic is just not as well known so the sources are barren.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AdHominem