Vivisection

Is vivisection justified?
Do the pain that animals endure, justify the pain elevated to humans?
Do animals have consciousness?

I do think that vivisection is justified but i do think that the author does give a good argument to the contrary side. That fact of the matter is I believe that human life is more important than any other animal life. That being said I do believe that pain should be elevated to animals as much as possible to obtain results in the lab testing. I believe that animals do have a consciousness which is why I do support less pain for them, but at the end of the day human life is more important than animal life. I believe this claim because of the the humans are on the top of the food chain. Do we have the same argument that a loin shouldn't hit a gazelle? No. We have this standpoint that the loin is doing what it can do to survive. Same with vivisection, this is to have the human race, as a species, keep on surviving. I don't think that anyone can disagree with that standpoint in a strictly Darwinism point if view. The idea that it is a moral standpoint of humans is where the author has the upper hand. The being that humans can do whatever they want to animals from a biblical or moral standpoint is definitely flawed. This is where I get my stance that pain should be elevated as much as possible to get the results in the lab. We should look at these animals not as equals but as the fact that no animal really deserves that much pain. Even if a dog kills a man it should not be put to death because of the fact that it is not taught right from wrong in a human sense. Most animals are more of A Social then having constant thoughts of right and wrong which means that they consciously do not have the required method of thinking to better use themselves in a human society. Since they do not have that required method of thinking they do not deserve the pain of animal testing. This comes to the final conclusion of meshing in two ideas of thought that animal testing is justified to keep the species alive, but the animals that endure the testing should have the least pain possible to get the results.

Reflection Essay Two

This essay in my opinion was much easier to write. It was cool to look at a work of writing and be able to defend it and how that writer used different parts of ethos, pathos, and kairos to drive home their argument. This assignment made me a better writer because i was able to keen in on specific things the writer did to illustrate his or her stance so now I can use their methods in my body of work. It not just being able to use their argument methods, its also being able to write in a more proper manner as well and even using that to make better writing for myself. The author did such a great job in this piece being able to relate his experiences with water boarding and bring those experiences to light via an article. Most people would need a studio but this man did it was a paper and a pen or if you are going all new school on me, a computer. The fact still remains that this was a tremendously great piece of work. The emotions that were coming off the paper into my body were amazing and so vivid. While reading this article I actually though I was in the scene of 1984 in which they are in the torture room. All in all I am gad that I was able to write a critique to, "Believe me its torture" because it wasn't just a regular school essay, it was an article with emotion and depth, feeling and darkness, really just a pleasure to read and again doing the critique I was able to enhance my own writing skills for my future life assigments.

Elephants?

Should the man killed the elephant?
Just because something is legal does that make it right?
How does conformity effect everyday life decisions?

Just because something is legal does that make it right?

Just because something is legal it doesn't make it right. People always uses the law for justification for some morally terrible things that they do. It's amazing how it seems like culture defines what is right and wrong instead of set rules that are given to us at birth. For instance some cultures think that is fine and okay to kill dogs and our culture doesn't. Other cultures do not believe in killing cows but our culture thinks that that is totally fine. Killing an elephant to us would be frowned upon yet in some parts of the world it is not frowned upon because of the monetary value of the elephant as illustrated by the story. This seems to be a more deeper issue than just the elephant being killed, it seems like that situation is almost to compare soiecty as a whole. We wake up everyday, put on cloths, go out, come home, sleep, and do it all over again. Our personality almost changes no matter where we are depending on the crowd of people we are with. One probably going out to get wasted with their parents and speak the same way that they talk to their friends. Adding onto that point if someone is in church they are going to dress a certain way and behave a certain way then if they were with friends at a party. It's crazy to see how much influence the people around us have. If a group of people call a certain situation right, that almost becomes right to you as we'll. Thats one of the huge thing that this story is trying to illustrate to us, that just because a society believes one way, it doesn't actually make something to be okay.

Commentary for Milad Sadeghiyan

To start off I do not think that this essay was a great example of a Rhetorical Critique. The thesis was well stated, but the writing after never really connected back to the thesis. The whole essay really stuck to emotional aspect of Christopher Hutchins article and never really went to anything else. For example there was no mention of kairos anywhere in this critique. The only thing that was close was when he (Milad) mentions that the article was written after the US was been in two wars but does not connect that to write timing of the article. It just felt like the whole time I was reading the critique I felt like the writer was reaching to make his points instead of finding the information for the different topics. Also the critique repeats its self over and over again, and I felt since that was happening it was losing the effectiveness of the critique. Also the author of the critique over exemplified some of the actions that he was saying that he personally was apart of. For instance, the author of the critique states that, "I was starring at the screen of my computer and sweating when he was describing the water boarding part"(critique of Christopher Hutchins). That was an over-dramatization of events and gives the reader a sense of interpreting the article satirically and that can mislead the writers audience. Leading off of that point, the following sentence again makes an outrageous statement, "Even if someone doesn’t believe that waterboarding is not torturing or not harmful, he can’t say he is still right after reading Hitchen’s personal experiences of this dangerous activity"(Milad). The statement here is basically saying after reading this article, a person is automatically going to change their mind no matter what. Making statements that are too general in this kind of paper can hurt ones overall point because after reading a statement like that, the first thing that comes to mind is how can one piece of writing be so effective that it can change ones mind no matter what. So overall things to focus on for the final draft would be to go into more detail about Christopher Hutchins writing and do not just focus on the emotional aspect of it, secondly identify the kairos and use evidence that the article was written in a good timing manner. I know that you have already stated that we are in two wars, but it never connected back to the kairos aspect. Lastly, do not make such broad statements. General statements like the one's identified above will get you in trouble while writing this critique.

Everyone's a Critic

David Harned

Prof Brown

24 March, 2012

English 1B

Everyone’s a Critic

In the article believe me its torture, Christie Hutchins describes his own experience with water boarding and how that if water boarding isn't torture, nothing is torture. He tries to go ahead and bring in the emotion and feel towards water boarding by actually going ahead and having the experience himself. This does give him a great advantage in writing this article especially the logos side of things.

First off let’s talk about how Christopher Hutchins uses the strategy of pathos to appeal to his audience. The fact that he went ahead and was actually water boarded gives him a great chance to bring real emotion to the table. An example that we can dive into is the scene that he paints before he is water boarded, "I was then turned around a few times, I presume to assist in disorienting me, and led over some crunchy gravel into a darkened room. Well, mainly darkened: there were some oddly spaced bright lights that came as pinpoints through my hood. And some weird music assaulted my ears. The outside world seemed very suddenly very distant indeed"(Hutchins). I believe that the author does a great job here of bringing the situation straight to our imagination. I can feel myself in some broken looking building, far away from civilization to where no one could hear any cries for help. This directly appeals to the emotional aspect of the human mind and allows the reader to be in the water boarding room with the author. Another example that Christopher Hutchins describes is the actual torture method, "The inhalation brought the damp cloths tight against my nostrils, as if a huge, wet paw had been suddenly and annihilatingly clamped over my face"(Hutchins). Here the reader can almost feel the wet paw damp on their face and how once a person finally has to breathe in all he or she would take in is water, thus feeling the sense of drowning. Another piece of emotion that he puts into this article is when he almost drowned when he was a little kid and how that relates to the torture room in the book 1984, "I do have a fear of drowning that comes from a bad childhood moment on the Isle of Wight, when I got out of my depth. As a boy reading the climactic torture scene of 1984, where what is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world, I realize that somewhere in my version of that hideous chamber comes the moment when the wave washes over me."(Hutchins). Right he we are able to picture Christopher Hutchins as a kid drowning to the depth of the ocean. Bringing a kid to the equation allows the reader to relate to kids in their life and how terrible it would be for them to drown. Also the fact that he was able to have an actual event happen where he almost drowned as a child gives the reader another dose of realness. If it was a random incident of a kid drowning the effect would of not be as effective because Christopher Hutchins already has credibility as the writer of the article and his experiences hit closer to home and gives the article a real turning feeling. Even having the kid version of Christopher Hutchins reading 1984 is significant because again it gives the reader the segway to look at their children and imagine them in that scenario. Overall the author does a great job of using the pathos strategy in the article.

Another strategy that the Author demonstrates is the fairness to opposing views and also showing that he is a credible person to be talking on the subject.  First off he gives instant credibility by stating that he will indeed be water boarded, "Exploring this narrow but deep distinction, on a gorgeous day last May I found myself deep in the hill country of western North Carolina, preparing to be surprised by a team of extremely hardened veterans who had confronted their country’s enemies in highly arduous terrain all over the world. They knew about everything from unarmed combat to enhanced interrogation and, in exchange for anonymity, were going to show me as nearly as possible what real waterboarding might be like"(Hutchins). This article isn't just about a man who has testimony from stories of random people this is a story of his actual experience with water boarding. Although this is all well and good there are some problems that I can see about his credibility for example Christopher Hutchins is 59 and the people who are going to water board him state that, "Waterboarding is for Green Berets in training, or wiry young jihadists whose teeth can bite through the gristle of an old goat. It’s not for wheezing, paunchy scribblers"(Hutchins). Although this is a dent to his credibility it gets enhanced by what he says later in the paragraph, "I had had to produce a doctor’s certificate assuring them that I did not have asthma, but I wondered whether I should tell them about the 15,000 cigarettes I had inhaled every year for the last several decades"(Hutchins). This really almost blows his credibility right out the window which is a shame because he brings so many good points in this article, and the fact that he goes through the actual experience of water boarding gives him almost all the creditability he needs. Navigating from the creditability standpoint to seeing if he is fair to the opposing side it seems like Christopher Hutchins does give the other side a chance to bring in their augment. For example, "When contrasted to actual torture, waterboarding is more like foreplay. No thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack. Can one say this of those who have been captured by the tormentors and murderers of (say) Daniel Pearl?"  It's important to bring the other sides position to appeal to them from that standpoint. It is also important for the author to respond to that claim and he does by relating Abraham's Lincoln's moral stand point to water boarding by saying, “'If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong.' Well, then, if waterboarding does not constitute torture, then there is no such thing as torture."(Hutchins) and also that, “Water boarding is a potentially dangerous activity in which the participant can receive serious and permanent (physical, emotional and psychological) injuries and even death, including injuries and death due to the respiratory and neurological systems of the body"(Hutchins). Here the reader can see that although it isn't any thumbscrew, no pincers, no electrodes, no rack; they are still physical, emotional, and psychological injuries to the person being water boarded. At the end of the day Christopher Hutchins does a great job of using ethos to appeal to his audience.

Another point to be made is the author uses the strategy of logos to persuade his readers to agree with him. The evidence that the author has in the article is quite remarkable and is intensified by the fact that he gets water boarded himself.  Also he can justify his claim very easily because he is justifying himself, not someone else's story. He does a great job of incorporating his experiences to the facts of what water boarding does.

Lastly the article has a great sense of kairos or appeal to timeliness. This article was written at the height of the water boarding debate and had a perfect kairos level. If the article was written right after 9/11 then that would kill all of his arguments because everyone would be so focused on the inability to relate and show compassion to the victims. Although we have the same arguments, we have a much different result based on when the article gets released. For example if another 9/11 happened tomorrow by Middle East terrorist, it would not be a good idea to go ahead and write an article about how we are winning the war on terror. The fact that Christopher Hutchins waited years after 9/11 to write this article shows his readers that he has a great sense of kairos.

In the article, "Belief Me Its Torture" Christopher Hutchins does a great job of pathos, ethos, logos, and kairos. Pathos by using descriptive language in describing his water boarding experiment, ethos by being creditable and giving the other side a chance to bring up their points, logos by justifying his own experience of being water boarded, and kairos by waiting years after 9/11 to give respect to the victims. Overall the article really has a great argument on how water boarding is torture.

War Photography

Should war photography be taken and seen by mass public?
What are the benefits of war photography?
Is war photography art?

Should war photography be taken and seen by mass public?

I believe that yes we should all be able to see what is going on in the actual war zone, even if that means humanizing the enemy we are fighting. The fact of the matter is we aren't just fighting a distance species from the planet XyeShje we are fighting our own kind, humans. We are so desensitized when going into war. The media and government paint the picture that the enemy is pure evil and will do anything to harm you, and usually that is not the case and war photography brings those things to life. It allows us to relate the the enemy at a pure human level and allows us to feel some amount of compassion for the men and women of other countries that have perished by the blade of war. I have the opinion that war should always be the last step for any situation, for any country, at any time. War at its roots is evil, sick, and dark and the American public is not always as keen to that observation. If we all knew that our brothers and sisters were dying for something that could of been solved diplomatically, then our opinion on any war that we ventured into would of been greatly changed. War us sometimes necessary, but only should we rarely used. If we as a society can see the dark side of war that is brought out by war photography, I think that world would be a better place.

Hate?

Can we ever define what hate is?
Should hate crime laws be in place?
Are hate crimes an epidemic in the United States?

Should hate crime law be in place?
I personally think that hate crime laws should not be in place. I believe that hate crime laws actually keep in standard that there is a difference between people of different color or backgrounds when in reality we are all human. Why should we have a law that makes it so there is a difference between human beings? The moment when those diff ended are so blurred to the eye, that is when racism will end. Also hate can be loosely defined and someone can receive a feloney crime for something that was purely motivated by outside circumstances. An example of this is the story of the gay man and the grass clippings in the article. That man was probably going after the gay man not because he was gay, but because he sprayed him with a hose. With all that being said no one can 100% know what his pure motivation was and it is not up to a judge to figure that out especially when it is so hard to see in this situation. I do think that in some instances hate crime laws may give the lazy racis the point of where he does not want to commit the crime because of the punishment but at the same time we are losing that opportunity to preach that everyone is the same rather than different. If i was a kid and stumbled upon hate crime laws I would be confused. For example if white little mike hits black little bobby in the sandbox and he gets an extra 10 minutes of time out because the kid that he hit was black, little mike would think that for some reason bobby is different than him and that is not a good thing for actually fighting discrimination at the whole.

Commentary for Matt

Here we have an essay that is well spoken but does not include substantial arguments for the opposing side in this essay. I, being a person of the opposing side, was not convinced that the Internet was "changing the way i think" because they were barley any examples of what the Internet was doing to me to suggest that. Most of the essay was concentrated on how teen bullying has now transferred to the Internet and is a real problem. I thought this was a great point, but did lead in to the original argument of the Internet being a doomsday for everyone. The beginning was actually going great, but then the essay took a sharp u turn and from then on did not come back to the original point. Some tips for you Matt would be use some language to get your audience who are on the fence to join your side. For example, "social media has allowed to connect people around the world, but it has also allowed groups to connect together to bully other kids." Although I still think you need to think long and hard if you want to keep the "bully teen approach" ,because I did find it interesting, you are just going to need to change your thesis to match what is going on. The whole argument just seemed a little to far fetched for me. I understand your points because the style was fantastic, but if you are going to talk about how we are going to live in a disaster because of the Internet, explain how teen bullying is going to make the world into chaos. Also I would recommend using the route of how the Internet is changing the way we think because I thought you were definitely onto something there and I think that you should build your thesis around that point not this doomsday approach because the thesis as it stands now seems to make people who are on the fence that much more skeptical about your argument. However, if this was an article for a magazine with an audience that was already on your side then this was a home run, but since that is not the case for this essay I again stress that it should be looked over in another context again. One part that was very fascinating was the introduction all the way till the thesis so I would advise to keep all of that! Lastly, if I were in your shoes I would bring some more evidence, maybe some case studies on how the internet changes our brain and decreases our patience. Overall great piece to read, but needs a little touching up if you want to get people who are on the fence. Thank You!

Torture

How can someone justify drowning someone?

Is the information that one gets out of water boarding reliable?

Should the US use water boarding as a technique to get information?

I believe that water boarding should not be used by any American to get information out of anyone. If we hold ourselves to the standard that we as a nation are against torture then how in our right minds can we stand by waterboarding? This technique has been used on so many in the last decade and it really goes against everything we stand and fight for. There is a reason why a cop cannot search one's home without a warrant, or arrest someone and take them away with out a trial. Even though it was the best thing at the time we have set a precident because we know that that value is important enough to keep. Shouldn't we do the same with torture? That value on another person should stay the same with lines at home in the United States. It isn't just the fact that we are drowning people, its the fact that we are drowning our values and to me that is just real not okay with being an American. Having said all those things i know that I have not been on the front lines of battle and I cannot speak for our military on exactly what needs to be done. Maybe we can only allow waterboarding on occasions in which there in an imminent threat but there is still that slippery slope on which our ideals slide away. To conclude this we need to really as a nation decide what is more important, the fight against terrorism of the fight for our ideals, the war against the evil, or the war against ourselves? Those questions need to be answered in a thoughtful way of seeing the whole picture, not just stopping terrorism or defending our freedoms but everything that goes along with that.

Essay! iGeneration

David Harned
Prof. Brown
19 Feb, 2013
English 1B
iGeneration
Is Generation Y the Generation of I? Scholars, Authors and even musicians have debated on this issue over the last 10 years. Some have pointed out that this new generation of people being swarmed around in technology has made us more and more detached from each other rather than bringing us together. Others have said that this new media has indeed given us the opportunity to share personal information with loved ones around the world with a click of a button. The main question to hone in on is; since this generation is so tapped into technology, will we slowly lose our ability to interact with each other on a personal level?
In answering this question it is important for us to recognize the important key topics to effectively get to the right response. First off what has the internet done to actually bring us together? One important aspect to focus on in terms of this first point is Facebook and other social media companies. Social media has given this generation a unique opportunity to post, share, and bring personal information to any friend at anytime. Although this seems like a no brainer to say that the internet allows us to communicate with friends more so it actually strengthens our ability to interact with friends on a personal level, but we need to ask ourselves the question, what information are we really sharing and is it really a true personal relationship between person to person? The fact of the matter remains that we share a lot of pointless information on social media sites and the information that we post actually is slanted to ethir makes us seem cooler, or more valuable then we really are. People actually get more depressed seeing all these posts because they think that their friends are actually having a great time, all the time. One stat that was gathered by all twitter stated that, "85 percent of women are annoyed by their friends on Facebook". This constant feed of fun posts leads the person to feel like their life should be a constant life of stimulus when in reality that is unreasonable. Relating this point to our original question of, is this new wave of technology making us lose our ability to get to know each other, this fact does support the side that it indeed is making us lose our ability to accurately get to know each other but that is just looking at the internet and ending there instead of looking to what the internet prompts us to do.
The opponents of this new technology fail to see that although people cannot gain a lot of real insight from the random posts, people can meet via online interactions to then meet up in person. "One-in-six people met his or her spouse through an online dating site, falling shortly behind through work/school or through friends/family" (source sundial). This addes up to millions of people meeting through online dating sights in which people share information (slanted or not) and actually meet up in person to go out on dates and get married. Marriage is an instituion where one is going to get to know someone the most! These people would of never got to know each other with out the internet and this is a huge proponent on how the internet is actually allowing us to know each other personally at a higher rate. People who are not strong suited at picking up a friend or mate in public situations now have a home via the internet. This facilitates personal relationships and gives people a chance to get to know people from anywhere, with out having a skill for starting conversations with people they do not know. It isn't just dating sights that allow people to get groups together to meet in person but cell phones and social media as well. As we discussed before posts, pictures, and comments aren't a real great tool to get to know someone personally, but messaging people via email, texting, or social media is, but only to a certain extant. For example, someone who is off to another country can keep in touch with someone or someones that he or she met before leaving. Giving that person the opportunity to get to know that person more effectively by email, facebook, etc, without even being with in 3000 miles of that person. I do personally think that the best interactions are when a person can see the other person and actually read facial expressions. Now in this 21st century world we do not need to be in the same room to do this. Skype and other companies have allowed us to video chat people anytime all across the country and most of the world. This has to be the most damning piece of evidence into the argument of the people who think this new technology is making us lose the ability to get to know other people on a personal level. Most of the arguments consist of well its just data its not like you can see the person, get squashed by this new invention. The rise of Skype has grown rapidly in the past five years and, according to statisticbrain.com, "consist of over 31 million people." Skype has even integrated to Facebook so now one can Skype video call with any of ones Facebook friends. According to business week, "Facebook has over 1 billion users" and out of those billion, millions chatting everyday. The list of video chatting is growing as well, and with the growth of face to face interactions via the web I do think we gain more ability to know one and other. Right now we only have these programs and devices for people who can afford it at the right price, but I believe that as time goes on these tools will be second nature to us as cell phones are now. I also believe that if we were not meeting the people we interact with online in person or video messaging them then the internet would damage our ability to get to know people because one can not read emotions through a text message but through a video camera, yes, i believe one can.
This all sounds well and good but the last part that we need to delve into is which is greater? The Facebook post and pictures that make life seem like a constant stimulus which in turn is a negative onto the psyche, or the burst of new technology that unites the world.
At the end of the day we have two sides, one that figures that this new technology erupting from the birth of the internet is making it so people lose their ability to to get to know people and the other stating that this new technology has at least kept the abilities of people to get to know other people with some saying that is has even has improved people getting to know other people. We can now access any friend from any part of the whole with a phone call, a Facebook message, or even a Skype video chat. We will see later how all this new and brilliant technology serves us, maybe we will turn into the computers we cherish so much, or maybe we will be able to truly get to know other cultures, ideas, and feelings with a click of a button.



Bibliography


" Skype Statistics | Statistic Brain." Statistic Brain | Numbers | Percentages | Financials | Rankings | Statistic Brain. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2013. .
Benett, Shea. "Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram – Social Media Statistics And Facts 2012 [INFOGRAPHIC] - AllTwitter." mediabistro.com: jobs, classes, community and news for media professionals. N.p., 1 Nov. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. .
Honigman, Brian. "Brian Honigman: 100 Fascinating Social Media Statistics and Figures From 2012." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. N.p., 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. .
Katz, Joelle. " For newer generation, online dating becoming the norm | Daily Sundial." Daily Sundial | Breaking CSUN news and information.. N.p., 4 Feb. 2012. Web. 16 Feb. 2013. .
Vance, Ashlee. "Facebook: The Making of 1 Billion Users - Businessweek." Businessweek - Business News, Stock market & Financial Advice. N.p., 4 Oct. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2013. .

Lady Gaga

1. Was Lady gaga actually a product of the corporations?
2. Is what Lady Gaga does sexually liberating for women?
3. Is what Lady Gaga is doing good or bad for America?

3.

In my opinion I think what lady gaga is ding is actually good for america as a whole. Yes i do believe that she is actually a product of the corporations and the labels to sell tickets and records but she actually does give hope and joy to a lot of people! Her messages of loving yourself and think of oneself as the star has inspired people to go farther in life and trying to be happier. It seems that the author was way more concerned on the originality of Lady Gaga than the positive outcomes that she brings out from her music. Before Lady Gaga no one was singing for the "weird" "nerd" "different" people out there. It was all towards what was supposed to be normal in our society and Lady Gaga broke that threshold. Now kid and people have a star to look up to that is "just like them" they can finally relate to someone who is famous and did it by being themselves. Although like i said it is kind of all smoke and mirrors but at the end of the day as long as the people can get someone positive impact from it I do not think it's that big of a deal. In the end i do believe that the author had some bias because of her glamorous ideals of Madonna and how Lady Gaga is stealing from Madonna, to actually look into what Lady Gaga has done for Americans and people across the world. Lady Gaga is a figure that preaches the importance of loving one's self, "treat yourself like a damage good" Lady Gaga says and although her music is sometime vulgar at times who are we too judge if she is creating the death of sex if Lady Gaga herself is positively changing peoples life's.

Market Place of Shadows :o

Why do people think diversity is just making sure different races or sexes are put together in group?

Does the net promote diversity?

Does the government as whole need to bring diversity in congress?

Why do people think diversity is just making sure different races or sexes are put together in group?

This is the main key that we as a nation need to narrow down to and discuss. I, with out telling too much about myself, am very involved in the business world and talk in meet with the top CEO's in the US and they all have the same consensus that diversity is not just hiring an African American its about hiring someone with different experiences as a whole. Wether that be someone who is an African American or a white person it doesn't really matter and those who focus primarily on race are missing the bigger picture. For example this year the main topic for people getting into Harvard is low income areas. Harvard wants a more diverse campus and is not just doing it by race but by getting people who have some sort of different life then the norm of Ivy League college students. I for one own a corporation and when i get my team together to brainstorm on an issue it's not just 4 people from south Orange County it's someone who grew up poor, another who lived a middle class life from the east coast and then a person who lived an elite monetary lifestyle. Things do not just have to be a monetary diverse setting to be successful its all about the experiences that one faces to make each person diverse from the next. We as a nation need to remove our walls when it comes to this issue. Our groups, communities, businesses, governments, and country will be better if we can just get to the main tone of what being diverse is all about. If we can do that as a whole then the world will be a better place to live in but we must keep diversity to a certain extant. As pointed our by the author , we cannot have a productive discussion on climate change if the people in the group do not think global warming exist. That is not shutting down a group of individuals its just keeping the discussion to be productive instead of dysfunctional. This alludes to the congress in the United States, they are so far apart on issues that they cannot have a proper discussion on how to actually help Americans. In all we need diversity to make the world a better place, and education about diversity is a great start.

English 1B
"Google"

Why should we care that information we take in through the Net is wide and not as thoughtful or deep as regular written material such as books?

Why is Google advocating that we should expand the net and thus expand our artificial intelligence?

Would having a machine that could be attached to the brain in which people can access the worlds amount of data be beneficial or harmful?


In the 3rd question posted above, "Would having a machine that could be attached to the brain in which people can access the worlds amount of data be beneficial or harmful?" We would first have to see the total impact universal information actually gives us. For the sake of this hypothetical scenario lets assume that everyone in the US can obtain this product and use it to a certain extant. The first situation that comes to mind is that everyone can view information easily and this almost gives a fairer chance to everyone because now everyone won't have to go to a great school have the "best way" to learn something. Also the avg "IQ" for the lack of a better word would in theory be higher because everyone has easy universal access to the worlds information. Now this is all jolly and great but we still need to highlight here that this is an example in which the "machine" is used for good not evil. The fact does remain that having control over the "machine" gives a lot of power to an individual or group and if the previous years of human history has taught of anything its that Humans have an unconscious lust for power. Imagine the money one can make if they controlled the machine, they could sell ads, products, etc. In addition, they could manipulate people's minds in the case of mass propaganda like in the Novel 1984 where the whole society is watched and taught to worship the government through media. That is an actual possible future in having a machine that has so much influence and data behind it. So in conclusion to this whole debate it comes down to not just "Is having a machine like device that could attach to the brain beneficial or harmful" but, does one have the faith in humanity in its self? Do we fear that our own species would manipulate its own people to gain further power and profits? Or do we see our society as people in which the greater good always defeats the lesser evil and that bringing knowledge to all would create a better world? The answer to those two questions will be the answer to this debate.