My topic for the debate is assisted suicide. I have to debate for the con side. This is not my personal opinion on the topic. I believe that it should be legal. If a person is at the end of their life and they are in so much pain and are suffering then I think they should have the choice of whether or not they want to die. I know what assisted suicide is, where a doctor helps a patient pass. I that many people that disagree with the topic are religious and that suicide is considered a sin. I know that one of the reasons the people support assisted suicide say that as you get older it gets harder to do enjoyable things in life. With a basic google search, the definition of assisted suicide comes up, where it is legal (Montana, California, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont and Washington. and the District of Columbia), and that physicians cannot be prosecuted for prescribing medications to accelerate death. For a logical approach, I have read about how only 0.2% of the population was using assisted suicide because of a terminal illness and that sometimes the medication given doesn’t always work. 1,186 people took the drug out of 1,857 and seven of them regained consciousness after taking the drug while one of them was still alive. An ethical approach could be that it goes against the code of healing and that it could force doctors to perform the act without their consent. The role of a doctor is to be a healer and assisted suicide completely goes against that. Some doctors believe that when the healing of the patient is no longer possible finding a way to relieve there suffering should be the priority. An emotional approach that I could take is that when a younger person takes there own life it is terrible and society is trying to figure out a way to stop that so why does it matter if the person is older and a doctor is giving them medication to purposely die? The emotions that I could bring into play are definitely sensitive. There are many approaches to the argument that I could take, but the best arguments have all three so I will try to incorporate all of them into the debate.
This experiment basically what I expected it was going to be like. Of course, I wasn’t going to be perfect the whole time and it was winter break so I wasn’t really in the mood to try and be perfect. I forgot that I even had to fill in the chart most of the days. So, there are some red dots for resolution. I didn’t have any important tasks to do over break so I really couldn’t put in any dots. I also really couldn’t put it any dots for humility because there wasn’t anything that I could brag about. I didn’t have to worry about frugality because it was close to Christmas and I was already getting stuff anyway. I had to put in a red dot for temperance on Christmas because I ate until I felt sick. Of course, there are zero red dots for chastity. Independence and cleanliness were easy to maintain. The virtue that I got the most red dots on was tranquility. Almost all of the dots were because I got annoyed that I even had to do this experiment and fill in the chart. One of the red dots is there because I got annoyed that I couldn’t beat one level of a game that I was playing. So, I learned that I get annoyed very easily and that I forget a lot of the things that I need to do during the break because most teachers don’t give out work during the break so I don’t really think about it. The ethical implications of doing a study like this could be that a person might become more self-conscious. Actually seeing how much you violate each virtue and seeing how imperfect you are could cause someone to feel less confident. People could also become frustrated with themselves for not being more perfect. Also, even deciding what a “perfect person” is, would be extremely difficult. If you asked everyone what the perfect person is everyone’s would be different. People might have some that are in common, but there are a lot of things people would disagree with (ex: Vegans might say the perfect person wouldn’t eat meat; Christians might say the perfect person must be Christian). It is just too hard to get everyone to agree. Even though our class didn’t do the actual experiment I would imagine it would be quite difficult. Having to try and become a master at one virtue each week for thirteen weeks sounds terrible. How would you even decide if you become a “master” at the virtue? Some people might not ever think they mastered a virtue or, on the opposite side of the spectrum, some people might think that they have become a master when they clearly haven’t. I feel like there are too many things that people would disagree on and that it would be hard to figure out when someone is “perfect.” What would be the point of doing this experiment? Not everyone would want to do it so, what would be the point of being the only perfect person in the world?
My first impression of “The Dodo’s Conundrum” was that the format of it was interesting. The way it switched from a ballad to free verse every stanza. I feel like I figured out a lot. I feel like I’ve figured out what the theme is, how the stanzaic form and free verse show the theme, some of the allusions and symbols. Some of the allusions and symbols I’m still a little confused about. I think I could know what it’s supposed to mean, but I’m not one-hundred percent sure. Like, the line from “The Red Wheelbarrow.” I’m not sure what it’s supposed to add to this poem. I think some of the Sound and Sense questions were easier to answer, but not all of them. I felt like I understood this poem a little bit more than Eldorado. For this poem, again I wasn’t sure about some of the symbols and allusions, so I didn’t know exactly how to answer questions about them. I feel like this class has affected the way I read a poem a lot. I used to just not really think about what different things could mean while reading a poem. I also wouldn’t really try to read poems with a rhythm. Now I do both of those things and I subconsciously try to figure out how many syllables are in a line while I’m trying to read it. I also feel like I can just analyze poems better as a whole. I used to be confused as to why one thing meant this bigger thing that helps you understand the theme of the poem. I feel like I understand it now.
Out of all the poems that we have read, I think that I liked Eldorado the most. I think I liked it because I understood it the best. The other poems we read as a class were just parts of the poem and not the whole poem so, I don’t think I can say if I liked or disliked any of those poems. I didn’t really like any of the poems that I found on my own. I just thought both of them were fine. That they were just more poems that I had to read. I didn’t find them to be that interesting. I liked Eldorado a lot more than the other poems. I guess it helped that you read it out loud because then it was easier the figure out the rhythm. I figured out the importance of the shadows and how they switch meanings every stanza. I also got the meaning of the poem very easily. I feel like I got the theme of the poem or I at least hope I got the theme of the poem. I think I just like poetry that’s easy because I don’t like to be wrong. I don’t hate poetry anymore. I don’t love poetry now like I’m gonna read poetry on my own. We haven’t written any poetry yet and I hope it stays that way. I may not hate reading poetry anymore, but I will probably still hate writing my own. Writing poetry is still my worst nightmare. I can analyze other people’s poetry, but I don’t think I could write a good poem by myself. Poetry is not the “monster” anymore and I’m actually very surprised about it. I hated poetry so much before this and teachers always say well after we do it in this class that everyone would like poetry and that is never true. I still don’t like poetry, but I don’t hate it as much as I used to. I just don’t want to write my own. I know that’s probably going to happen and it’s going to be absolutely terrible.
For my first initial concept of the story, it was going to be set in the year 2019 because I thought it would be the easiest for me to write about, but there wasn’t anything that I thought that happened this year that connected to my story. So, then I found something that happened in 1973 that connected to my story, but I wanted the story to take place a few years after Alexandra’s father fakes his death. So, I decided to make the story set in 1978. To be honest, I don’t really like my story at all. I still like the concept of it, but I don’t like the way I wrote it or how the story develops. I don’t like the symbols. I think that my characters are boring and that my story is just very boring. I just need to add more to it. I think I got inspiration from The Devil and Tom Walker. In that story, there was a lot of exposition before it got to the action and that’s how I structured my story. Other than that, I do not think there is anything else from The Devil and Tom Walker that I took inspiration from. I didn’t take model anything in my story after the book I’m reading, Etiquette & Espionage. There was nothing in the story that I read that grabbed my attention and made me think that it would be cool if I did the same thing in my story. I didn’t think anything in the book I was reading would work for my story.
I started a new book called Etiquette & Espionage. It is about a fourteen-year-old girl named Sophronia who does not have proper manners and causes a lot of trouble for her mom. Sophronia likes to take apart machines to see how they work. Her mother, Mrs. Temminnick, decides to enroll Sophronia into Mademoiselle Geraldine’s Finishing Acadamy for Young Ladies of Quality. Soon Sophronia figures out that the academy is not exactly what she expected, unfortunately for her mother. The school does teach proper etiquette, how to dance, and dress, but it also teaches how to kill, create diversions, and espionage. I have not been able to read much of the story, but based on what I have read so far I probably would not take much from this book to use in my story. First of all, the book is set in the Victorian era in Britain where my story starts in America in 2019. Etiquette & Espionage has supernatural creatures like vampires and werewolves so, I do not think that I would be able to get inspiration from the conflicts because my story is more realistic. I have not read much of the book, but it seems like most of the characterization is shown by the characters’ actions which is what I would want to do in my story instead of the character just saying how they are. I feel like it would be boring if the protagonist or one of the other characters said how they were.
The setting in A Thousand Pieces of You is very important to the story. Marguerite Caine and Theo has to travel through dimensions to find Paul Markov. Depending on the dimension they travel to they have to figure out what life their other self has and what their other self acts like. Because the characters have to change how they act with each dimension they go to it reveals how the characters are by showing if the character has trouble acting like their other-self. Also, sometimes the characters will talk about how different their lives are from their other lives. For example, the first dimension that Marguerite and Theo end up in is a futuristic London. In this dimension, Marguerite’s dad, mom, and sisters are dead so she lives with her aunt. While in Marguerite’s normal life only her father is dead and she lives with her parents. Also, in the futuristic London setting the Marguerite likes to go out, drink, party, and she wants to become a fashion designer. While in Marguerite’s normal life she likes to stay in, paint, and she wants to go to an art school. When normal Marguerite starts to figure out how the other Marguerite acts it is hard for her to change how she acts. Also, she had to go out to party and Theo had to find her and take her back to where the other Marguerite lives. When she gets home she immediately throws up and has to take a shower. Theo’s life is also very different in that dimension. Other Theo lives in America and has never even met Marguerite. Also, normal Theo and other Theo are addicted to drugs, but in the futuristic London, the drugs are very different and much stronger. So, Theo doesn’t have a good reaction when he takes these drugs and end up having to lay his head on top of Marguerite’s lap for a long time.
From what I have read from A Thousand Pieces of You there is not a lot of humor. I think that it does not have a lot of humor because it is more about the science, Marguerite figuring out her feelings, generally just more serious topics. There is a lot about how Marguerite’s sad that her father’s death since it has only been a couple days and people do not joke about the death of their family. Marguerite is trying to figure out her feelings about everything. There are moments where she wants to find Paul and kill him and there are other moments where she is thinking about how they could have had a relationship. The only thing that I think might have been humor was after Theo used drugs, because apparently he is addicted to them, and the drugs were stronger in that dimension so he said, “That was a good trip.” I think that there hasn’t been that much humor in the book because I have not read that far into it. I did not really find that funny because of how the book was going so far. The only way that I could think that this book could have humor is if Marguerite and Theo find Paul, but it is not the Paul from their dimension and then Theo has to stop Marguerite from murdering the wrong Paul. Which I still think is not that funny. It is very hard to add humor to this story because of the main topics of the story because the story is not funny. With the book including the topic of a recent death and a person avenging that death, I do not think that many people would find any jokes related to that to be funny.
In A Thousand Pieces of You, the main character is Marguerite Caine. So far the way the author has revealed the character is by what she says. She’s really determined to find and kill Paul Markov to avenge her father. When Theo tells her that he’s gonna go after Paul with one of the Firebird prototypes Marguerite immediately tells him that she’s going with him. Then when she gets to the new dimension she writes down really big on a brick wall, KILL PAUL MARKOV. Marguerite tells the reader about how she’s different from the rest of her family. She likes to paint and is into art while her parents are physicists and are making inventions that are changing the world. She knows somethings about science and traveling to other dimensions because she was home-schooled by her parents. I feel like I haven’t actually learned that much about any of the characters. Another character in the book is named Theo. The author reveals his character with the things he does and what Marguerite says about him. Marguerite mostly talks about how much of a flirt Theo is and how he flirts with every girl he sees. Theo is the person that starts this mission. He’s the one who said he was going to go the Paul first. Which shows how much loyalty he has to Marguerite’s parents. Also, when Theo and Marguerite find out they are in the same dimension, but Theo is in America and Marguerite is in England. So, Theo buys a ticket to the next flight to England. Then, Marguerite has to go to a bar and drink a lot because she has to act like the Marguerite from that dimension and Theo finds her and takes her home. Then the next morning he makes Marguerite’s aunt and her blueberry pancakes. Which shows how kind he is and that he’s a good friend. To be honest, the author hasn’t revealed much about the characters. I even looked up reviews of the book and thing that most of the people complained about was the characterization. I hope that I will at least learn a little bit more about the characters.
The book I am reading is called A Thousand Pieces of You. After I read the summary on the back of the book I thought it sounded really interesting and decided to start reading it. It’s about a girl named Marguerite Caine who’s parents are brilliant physicists. Her mother’s new invention called the Firebird allows people to travel through dimensions. When a man named Paul Markov murders her father and steals her mother’s invention Marguerite and her parents’ assistant Theo decide to use prototypes of the Firebird to track him down. Marguerite doesn’t plan on just tracking him down she plans on killing him. The book starts right when she jumps into another dimension. She is in a dimension where her family lives in England and doesn’t know how much time she has until her consciousness leaves that dimension. Marguerite isn’t into science like her parents, even though she was homeschooled by them, she is more into the arts and plans on going to Rhode Island School of Design in the fall. I’m more into science than painting so I can’t understand how she could want to go off to an art school when her parents just built a device that lets people travel through different dimensions. Also, I think it’s insane that she’s traveling through different dimensions trying to track down and kill her father’s murderer even when she knows there are billions of dimensions and almost impossible to actually find Paul. She also left her mom alone on the day of her dad’s death. This probably made her mother even more upset because she just lost her husband and now she doesn’t know when or if she’ll see her daughter again. Now I’m going to go back to talking about how many dimensions there could be. In a study in 2009, “Stanford physicists Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin have calculated the number of all possible universes, coming up with an answer of 10^10^16” (Lisa Zyga, phys.org). That’s not all, “the scientists explain that it would have been even more humongous, except that we observers are limited in our ability to distinguish more universes; otherwise, there could be as many as 10^10^10^7 universes” (Lisa Zyga, phys.org).