Writing for HS, AM (Scalice, '07)
Response to Worldview
Posted by bhuynh at 2007/07/07 21:35:16 PDT
Edited at 2007/07/08 16:26:06 PDT

The Response:

The essay is an interesting read. I didn't understand some of it, incuding the part about Nazareth, and the "words of Ezekiel". It was much more of a rant than a persuasive essay. The author drones on and on about how the rich people drink $100 bottles of champagne, have Hummers and great big mansions while others are suffering and dying. I realize that this is an important issue throughout the world, but I've read one to many articles like this. It merely seems like twenty six different letters rearranged into hundreds of different combinations.

I am not persuaded into thinking that the world is wrong and that we need to change the world. I realize that the world is corrupt and full of selfish dipwads that only want money for themselves, but there's not much we can do. Jose Porfirio Miranda's quote was confusing because I do not know who "Sarte" is. Despite that fact, I do agree with what he says. But as Fromm said, humans are part of the animal kingdom, and we do have some animal-like characteristics, although we have shed most of our instincts away. Miranda's quote is merely an example of how humans compete for whatever we need and want; a distant relationship with animals and their competition for food and water when their population exceeds the carrying capacity.

The Error:

Quote:

$100 a bottle champagne

It should be $100 champagne bottles or $100 per champagne bottle.

Response to Joseph:
I dunno...I was kinda sleepy and yes I realized that it was still 9:20...

2007/07/07 21:56:13 PDT by jscalice

Good find on the $100 bottles.

"I am not persuaded and it doesn't convince me..." What exactly is the difference you are thinking of between persuasion and convincing?

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. - KM

2007/07/08 10:43:33 PDT by fzhang

nice use of dipwads
lol

2007/07/08 17:52:38 PDT by jscalice
Edited at 2007/07/08 17:53:33 PDT

Rants may rave and scream and be utterly unconvincing but they do not "drone on and on." At some point your response is just too cynical. If you found the article to drone, then it is not a rant, is a poorly rearranged series of twenty-six letters. If the author raved and screamed and you disagreed it was a rant and you need to demonstrate why you disagree.

To state that something is important and that you have read to [sic] many articles to care is fairly damning. It is not an admission that I would make in print.

I realize that as your teacher I should welcome all ideas; I do. I will not however wink at apathy and cynicism. To do so would be to encourage your life-long jump into the nothing.

See you in class.

J

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it. - KM

Powered by Io Community Manager