Rebuttal for Jessica: Pro

In this rebuttal i will be rebutting against Jessica about if Social networks are harmful or not. But for my rebuttal i am saying that social networks ARE NOT HARMFUL. (My link should be right here -->http://socialnetworking.procon.org/<---)

The first point that i think you clearly made was that pedophiles were mostly online right? Well i have to say that most pedophiles on social networks are “43% of online sexual solicitors

were identified as being adolescents (under 18), 30% were adults between the ages of 18 and 21, and 9% were adults over the age of 21” while also in question was this really based off of opinion or fact as I have noticed there wasn’t real support behind that statement.

Another thing was that when i read your evidence... I’ve noticed that it says social networks builds fake relationship... but you can also think of it as helping relationships because you can’t be with the person you want to be 24/7. But with social networks, now you can help build on your relationship even though they aren’t there while making social network a great idea to help build onto relationship when it needs it most.

But there are even greater things about social network such as it “...bring people with common interests together, offer exposure to new ideas from around the world, and lower inhibitions to overcome social anxiety. People who have a difficulty communicating in person are more comfortable interacting via the Internet.” As social networking make people more comfortable and less shy so they are able to share there interest or ideas with whoever is interested in the same things.

Also social networking sites such as twitter was a great help in creating democracy in Iranian, and it was so important that on “...June 2009 that the US State Department asked Twitter to delay a scheduled network upgrade that would have taken the website offline at a busy time of day in Iran. Twitter complied and rescheduled the downtime to 1:30 am Tehran time. “ Even the government said they should wait to do maintenance when it was a major key factor in the protest after the Iranian presidential election.

Should Child Actors Be Role Models?(Pt. 2)

Cons:
(will be adding later due to not enough time and too much homework)

The Color Purple:1

Celie letters to god are just about her day to day life… she probably doesn’t write everyday though because in some of the letters it skips through time probably like 5 days to a month or even a year. She likes to learn but was soon taken out of school because of her dad who impregnated her. It tells a lot about her life. So far in her letters we have learned that she is a lesbian but had 2 children due to incest from her dad. One she thinks got killed in the woods, and the other one given away for money but in other words it seems to be that. Celie is also a good house keeper as it was mentioned so when her sister-in-laws came over to visit saying that she was even better then the last wife her husband had. She also thinks that if she stays quiet and hides in the background she will live seeing that she always gets beat or pushed over. She seems to be good with kids but has no loves towards any of them though but I’m guessing it’s probably just because she never really got to know them but she does love her sister and tried to protect her when she still lived with her dad. We also see that she is a bit jealous of her step son relationship as she sees that the wife doesn’t get beat and is willingly able to fight for her rights. Her beliefs are very strong though, but as some of my colleges said, “she doesn’t really believe in god but is thinking there is a better life in the afterlife” and so she is pushed on through her life, thinking like this, like she will be happy in the afterlife. We also see she strongly believes in god as in each line so far she wrote Dear, God and that he will always be with her. But I think she might just be lonely and so that loneliness made her a bit psychotic or she was probably just brought up like this.

Should Child Actors Be Role Models?

Pros side of this:

Child actors should be Role Models because since they are well known and just about everywhere, they could be a huge influence over the children over the world. So using that advantage to our own, as Gandhi said children are our future we could possibly use them to create a peaceful world by using them to teach of right and wrong and the consequences.

Plus child actors should be role models is that every child will look up to them more often and understand them more better if we let them tell it because there attention will be diverted to the Child Actors and therefore it would be better to have celebrities to tell kids from rights and wrongs and make them understand what to deal with while making it easier to learn for them from a self study on myself. As i would much rather watch my favorite cartoon character tell me about the news then Obama himself.

Another thing is that i think child actors are only bad to the public is because of paparazzi and i would definitely agree that it would be annoying having someone around always taking picture of me. But if celebrities were allowed freedom of privacy then they would be much better role models as we would not know their bad side and let them be without pestering them and destroying a life just because of one video that not only other people do.

One more pro for why the only reason Celebrities such as Hannah Montana looks bad... is just because she did drugs which in fact is her own life to choose, and lots of people have done too... but she is now labeled as a “bad role model” is because she tried to enjoy life through drugs, in my opinion the only reason she looks bad is that because some back stabbing friend sent it out to try and ruin her reputation which they have succeeded and because of this i think she has no rights as a U.S. citizen. She does not have the right to have privacy. But one reason as to why i think she isn’t that bad because she only probably tried it or she probably would never have shown anyone or tell them that she does drugs.
(a link i got from Kims which was a great point to explain this if you look at the comments too http://www.usmagazine.com/moviestvmusic/news/miley-bein-edgy-200991)

Death and Balance

You know, no one wants to die... but for me i don’t really mind and sometimes in my state of... mood... i wish for it at times but I’ve always found time to be around it. I only have a problem of how I’m going to die, which i wish would be quick and painless because i don’t want to die slowly and painfully or even watch how i will slowly deteriorate even though it might be painless. But even so we all have this function in our brain that keeps us surviving and unaccepted of death till we can’t take it no more and the end result... being suicidal actions.

Even so i don’t want to die too old either or even too young, the way how i probably exactly want to die is going to be fifty to sixty, being full with expensive and tasty food, and probably dieing in some happy state of sort without regrets. Bit much to ask but that is really the way how i want to die because i don’t want to die with any regrets nor on a empty stomach. But you know, not most people get to choose there death so that’s kind of unfair even though we get to choose how we live.

Just another thing about this is that i wonder what life would be without death, unable to die, to live freely forever... to not be able to be burnt, stabbed, freeze or anything that can cause death. I really do wonder what will happen, it seems sort of interesting and funny, but sad and depressing at the same time because you never know what humans might come up with if such things were too happen and I'm partly afraid of the idealism of that.

One more thing is that i wonder why nature wants us to die, really though why must life end, is it because of balance or what, how do we even know that this is true balance for all we could possibly comprehend... chaos could be balance. But either way the balance of life is very interesting though for you to gain you have to lose so behind every death of a human there is a gain of something else.

Response post to Susan

This is a response post to Susan blog post on what we had discussed during WWII.

Hiroshima. Nagasaki. We're learning about these places and their disastrous histories in (surprisingly)Writing class, as the unit we're studying is peace and how to achieve it and it was used as an example of using violence to achieve peace, since the bombings ended World War Two
What kind of civilization are we, what kind of people, where these kinds of things can happen and we can just move on with our lives?

I agree with you Susan, its total bullsh*t for what countries have done to other countries, but in all ends there is no way to change it, so the only thing we can do is forget about it, it might seem cruel to forget such deaths but the way i see it is what if we forget such disasters... maybe if we can... people won’t repeat it... But that’s a probability that doesn’t seem like it will happen... people find the joy in the suffering of others may it be direct or indirect we all have made people suffer just for the joy.

In my eyes if humans can finally find ways to satisfy our enjoyments or needs less suffering will be caused. But that probably also a impossible feat but either way somehow the human race tries in all ends.

One more thing about this is that i know that the Atomic Bombing of Japan is unjustified since it really killed more citizen then it had soldiers, but you do have to agree Japan sort of started it and so America probably attacked with such bombs thinking of lesser consequences but i still think it was a grudge and really unnecessarily. Though if you think about it, do you think the war would have ended, ended even though we threaten them and showed them the power, they might just looked at death with nothing more than a glance. Even so i couldn’t believe that they had to blow up such cities that consisted mostly of civilians, people who were innocent from the war, such people brought into it in a instant of death and becoming casualties of war.

College vs Elite College

I think the most persuasive debate is the one from Martha O'Connell on What You Do vs. Where You Go. To me the reason why is that i find it that its more in tune with the students... it doesn't just blurt out results of what you will get after a Elite college because not all results are the same and not everyone is the same, unlike the other passages I’ve read... some aren’t even true and they don’t even have a source to what they are saying... so it makes me wonder if they just blurted it out so people will try to aim for Elite Colleges. Another thing is that i like how she doesn’t care about results and shows proof that some famous people are college drop outs. But that is also her fatal point as Cameron pointed out in class that some people will think that’s better and not even attend college depending on luck there whole life. One more thing is that she also talks about how Students should be able too choose there own colleges and not let the parents do the picking for them, I agree on certain points on this but i think if you wanted your parents help that’s fine.

I think the most stupidest debate and least persuasive was the one from Anthony P. Carnevale on Access to Money and Power. From what I’ve been hearing a couple of people agree and one person told me that she thinks this person is too sarcastic, I didn’t really notice it till i reread it again and i totally agree with her but sometimes Sarcasm is needed to draw the attention of a reader, but in this case it’s used in a error manner. The way this person talks is also not focused to an extent of one single point and doesn’t get to the point in anyway possible making it a big hard to understand this persons real goal on what he is trying to talk about. But like i said in the first paragraph this person only said results and data he had probably made up, isn’t very true.