Critique of "To Be or Not to Be"

Jeanna's essay is pretty well written. She mentions the viewpoints that a skeptic would take and counters them as well. The paragraph on Kate Adamson should mention that she was in an extended coma not PVS because skeptics could say the husband could have used active euthanasia and she wouldn't be alive today. Can also expand that the husband didn't even want passive euthanasia let alone push for active because he was pushing for his wife to be put back on life support. There really isn't a big cost aspect from the skeptics view. Can mention that it actually costs less to actively euthanize a PVS patient after a year (or however long the deadline is made) than to keep them alive in the hospital, both out of pocket or from insurance. Possible counter proposals from skeptics would be that if people have the choice of active euthanasia, a lot more people would be "killed" when they could have had a chance to get out and live. Should also put in information for all the guidelines that would be needed to put active euthanasia in action.

Reflection #3

I feel that my rough draft of my ethical argument was one of my best written ones yet. I only received feedback from Professor Brown on my rough draft because due to a series of mishaps, I didn't have a copy of my paper in class when we did peer reviews. But even with only one set feedback, what I received helped me a lot. I was able to turn what I had into a much more structural piece. I took suggestions like "weak transition" and places where more evidence and elaboration was needed and expanded them to make much more sense. My essay had a lot of areas where meaning was suppose to be implied but Professor Brown's review helped me realize that the more I actually spell things out in my essay, the better it will be to understand. I also added more quotes to back up my examples and incorporated them a lot better instead of just throwing them in.Certain areas where rephrasing was needed were changed to flow better with the rest of the essay. Getting help from outside of ones view  is really helpful because they can let you know what the words come across saying instead of what the writer thought they were saying.

Let it be known

Kourosh Abascal

Professor Brown

English 1B

8 May 2013

Let it be known

            “Nearly a decade after the last Al Qaeda detainee was waterboarded, Americans still know little about what the CIA did to its prisoners, or whether it worked” (Dilanian). The Obama administration outlawed the use of waterboarding in 2009 but had since decided that any use of it before will not be punished. As fair as that sounds, it’s not how the government should be run. The Bush administration blatantly disregarded basic human rights and civil liberties and there had to be someone responsible. “Waterboarding is torture. When we use their techniques, the terrorists win. Our reputation is besmirched; our civil liberties endangered” (Kelly). In situations like waterboarding, which has definitely been dubbed as torture, actions must be taken to ensure those responsible are to take responsibility and for the public to be informed on what took place because doing taking these actions is just and an act of hope for the U.S to be able to move on.

            When Obama took office, people expected an independent torture investigation since his platform was ran based on civil liberties. Waterboarding “has long been defined as torture by both U.S. and international law, and by Obama himself. Torture, in turn, has long been defined as a war crime, and the United States is under treaty obligation to investigate and prosecute such crime” (Turley). An outright disregard for these simple rules does not help the United States’ image. Instead of running an investigation, Obama had made a promise that no CIA officer will be prosecuted for waterboarding that had been taken place.

“Though the White House denied the stories, Obama later gave his controversial speech at the CIA headquarters and did precisely that. In the speech, he effectively embraced the defense of befehl ist befehl ("an order is an order") and, in so doing, eviscerated one of the most important of the Nuremburg principles. Obama assured the CIA that employees would not be prosecuted for carrying out orders by superiors. This was later affirmed by Holder's Justice Department, which decided that employees carrying out torture were protected because they followed orders. The administration then decided that those who gave the orders were protected because they secured facially flawed legal opinions from the Justice Department. Finally, the Justice Department decided not to charge its own lawyers who gave those opinions because they were their ... well ...opinions” (Turley)

This all seems like a blame game that end with no one taking responsibility based on a technicality. Someone needs to take the blame and it should be the person highest in command that made the decisions to do such dastardly deeds.

            The public also has a right to know what does go on in our government. Especially when it is things like waterboarding that affects us all as a country. The world views the U.S as a role model and anything we do that can tarnish the United States reputation should be made clear and investigated. There’s a report that was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee that reviews the treatment of the Al-Qaeda prisoners. “After the committee voted 9 to 6 in a closed meeting, mostly along party lines, the Democratic chairwoman, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, issued a statement saying the long-awaited 6,000-page report “uncovers startling details about the C.I.A. detention and interrogation program and raises critical questions about intelligence operations and oversight”” (Shane). Even Senator John McCain agrees that information regarding these events should be made public. “Mr. McCain, who was tortured as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam and has been an outspoken critic of the C.I.A.’s former methods, wrote Intelligence Committee members urging them to “finalize and declassify this report, so that all Americans can see the record for themselves, which I believe will finally close this painful chapter for our country”” (Shane).

The wrongs that we’ve encountered as a country can always be learned from. The public must be informed for the country to move forward. The report that is to be released is a must and will help people really know what is going on in their country. The more we know about our history, the less mistakes we can make in the future. “The report compares the torture of detainees to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. “What was once generally taken to be understandable and justifiable behavior,” the report says, “can later become a case of historical regret”” (Shane).

Critque on "Not a Reasonable Excuse"

The essay starts off pretty strong. Milena touches on background information on waterboarding that people should understand before reading the essay. The first 2 paragraphs she wrote come across on topic and it does get her point out. After that, the rest of her essay seems to go astray from her thesis and becomes a bit repetitive. After reading the whole essay it makes you realize that what the essay is trying to prove is not the original thesis of "... there is no doubt that the majority of the population would agree that tying up someone to a board and pouring water on their face sounds a lot like torture." The essay is to me was trying to prove that waterboarding should not be used. A little more evidence for certain claims would greatly help you improve your ethical argument.

Vivisection

1. Is there ever going to be a right side on the subject?

2. Should we even test on animals?

3. Are there even other ways to test certain products without the use of animals?

2) I will be answering questions 1 and 2. In his essay, C.S Lewis mentions the different views on the rights and wrongs of vivisection. But is ever going to be a correct side. Like he mentioned in the beginning. Advocates for vivisection will show you pictures of those sick and weak so get you to believe that what they are doing is for the better good. It gets you to feel bad and makes you want them to find ways to help those people. But then the other side counters with pictures of abused and injured animals that have gone through testing and then it makes you feel bad for them. They both play on a pathos aspect of rhetoric that just ends up canceling each other out.
I guess the real question remains that if we should even do testing on animals. Even I am torn on the subject. On one side, the help we get from testing certain products on animals makes it many times safer for human use and in turn helps people in a lot of ways. On the other side, I feel as though the torture of those animals that can't really defend themselves of such treatment is completely wrong. I feel as though there should be certain testing that should be allowed for the betterment of mankind. Obvious pain inflicted on the subject should not be allowed. But these are all from my own point of view. I feel as though I am looking at it as a biased point of view because all I can think of is my own dog being a test subject.

Reflection #2

I felt as though it was a lot harder for me to do the final draft since I didn't have student or teacher notes. Not only was the first draft not done to get me a starting point, the guidance and advice of others wasn't available. I felt like that was a bit of a disadvantage that I unfortunately gave myself. I never realized how much help you could get from having others review and read your work. My final draft was a decent start for my rhetorical critique but it had a rough draft feel to it. I know that if i were to receive the advice from both Professor Brown and another student, I would have been able to clearly see past my simple grammatical and rhetorical mistakes.

Shooting an Elephant

1. Was he even liked after shooting the elephant?

2. Why do people do things they know is wrong just to fit in?

3. Did he feel as though he did the right thing or felt guilty about it?

2) I'm going to be touching on the question two. I've always wondered why people make certain decisions in life based on how others would perceive them. In certain cases it usually a good thing because if you act as a good person, the way you would be seen is as a good person. But why do people do things that they know are wrong just because they are expected to. In the essay "Shooting an Elephant by George Orwell, he does that exact thing. The only reason he had asked for the gun was just in case the elephant got rowdy and he had to do something. But as soon as the gun was in the picture, the natives around him thought that he was going to kill the elephant just because he had a gun. When he got there he knew that the elephant meant no harm at that point but he felt the "want" from the crowd. He knew they wanted him to shoot the elephant and the pressure is what got to him. Why? Why couldn't he just wait and just watch the elephant until the owner came? Why did he even give in to the pressure of those "lower than him"? We all have had times that we wanted to be accepted by those around us but is going against what we believe really worth it? I can't imagine what his conscious went through from that day forward. Would he doubt his decision everyday or would he stand beside it.

A Small Place

1. Is this essay a message or a rant?

2. What was Kincaid's attitude towards everyone?

3. Am I really to blame for what happened to her country?

2) I will be touching on the first two questions. In her essay, Kincaid mentions the effects that have taken place from tourists visiting her home country of Antigua. Starting off, the essay doesn't really feel like its going in any specific direction. Its felt that she was just talking about tourism. One you get to the second half, you feel the actual bitterness she feels. And once you get through it and reread the entire piece, you start to read between her word in the first half and realize the bitterness was always there. I feel as though Kincaid took a very aggressive stance in her work. She feels that it's everyone's fault that her country is the way it is. She blames tourism and just colonialism as a whole. It makes it seem like this is more of a rant than an actual informative piece. She takes a very "me me me" approach and that might turn people away. But in a way, I started to look at it from her perspective. Sure colonialism existed throughout history and that her native country isn't the only one that went through it but when we think of colonialism we think of back in the 1700's  during our histories own experiences with it. People don't realize that for Kincaid, colonialism was a part of her life all the way until 1981, when Antigua finally did gain their independence. So in a way I can see why she can be so bitter. For her, it might not be "why did I have to grown up that way" but actually "why did WE (her country as a whole) have to grown up that way". It it might not be a complete rant but just to get it off her chest and maybe inform people that colonialism isn't just in everyone's past but it was also many people's present.

Regarding the Pain of Others

1. In what direction was Sontag taking this article?

2. Do we view certain situations different once we see a photograph depicting it?

3. Should we just stop certain photos from being seen by the public?

2) I will be touching on question three. I feel as much as some of the public feels as though the pictures that are released during certain periods and events in our lives are too graphic. Because not everyone knows exactly what goes on during wars on the other side. We go through our day to day errands and think nothing of it. The public needs to see certain pictures to show them whats going on. They are necessary for us to understand. To understand what is going on in the world around us. To understand what others are going through. To understand the joys and pains about life. All that can come from a picture that must be taken and shown to the world.

The issue we come across is the censorship of the media by those that don't want the public to see the photos. They try to protect of the the horrors overseas that should not even be worried about. We are shown issues that aren't that big of a deal and that that's the worst that's going on. This is exactly the kind of behavior Sontag mentioned in her article. We are being spoon fed "it's all ok" lies and that sort of media is not the real media we all need to see. We need to all experience what is going on out there. I've witnessed videos on the internet of beheadings going on in Mexico because of the drug cartel and beatings alike. This sort of behavior is real, and if we keep being sheltered from it, people will never be ready for when they finally do so it.

Essay 1 reflection

Kourosh Abascal
Professor Brown
English 1B
25 March 2013

Reflection

             I actually learned a lot from both my teacher and my peer commentary. Between Mr. Brown's notes as well as Gabe's, I was able to rewrite my essay in a way that actually made more sense. I also had my friend take a look at it and get a 3rd set of comments on it. The great part of all the commentaries was that they all sort of said the same thing in a way. On my actual essay, I condensed my essay but also expanded it. I took out some parts that didn't make sense and rearranged the others to make it flow a lot easier. And for my thesis, I was able to change it up and be more direct with it. I added more quotes and incorporated them much better instead of just throwing them in there. The truth is that after reading my essay with all the commentaries in mind, I was able to see how much work was actually needed for it. They all were able to help me turn it into something I can actually say made sense. The idea of commentaries is actually really helpful and I myself benefited greatly on it.

What's So Bad About Hate

1. What is hate really?
2. Does hate really exist?
3. The does hate seem to rise up the more we try to extinguish it?

"9/11"

1. Did Susan Sontag seem less patriotic after this article?

2. Why did Sontag say she would rather have been in New York on September 11th?

3.What actually is terrorism and will it ever be finished or pleased?


2. I will be touching on question 3

What is a terrorist and what is terrorism? In the dictionary a terrorist is defined as a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. And terrorism is the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes. Those definitions describe dedication is ones cause. People who fight for what they believe in for political purposes. I in no way condone what is being done by organizations like Al' Qaeda or anyone else like them but using that definition, wouldn't the United States also be considered to be terrorist? We fight for political purposes and that's exactly what terrorism means. Each side has their own story but the way the "terrorist" we are describing now are fighting is unjust. They are using the issues in the Middle-East to have a cause. I agree with Sontag that terrorism really has no end. They use the ideas of oppression to justify their cause. But as she said, even if all the wars, fighting, and bloodshed ceased, the terrorist wouldn't.
They feel like heroes. They would feel like their actions accomplished something and that doing it again would help the next cause. That would lead to only to more tiny worthless causes just to get another win. And wiping them out isn't that easy either. Since they are mixed in with the civilian population, taking them out would cause innocent casualties and in turn, the families of the innocent people that died would have a cause. Just like the hydra in Greek mythology, for every head to cut, two more grow in its place. It seems like an ever lasting cycle. Hopefully somewhere in the future someone figures out the answer to stop terrorism before it becomes too unmanageable.

Essay Comment

Authority Accountability and Social Media

The essay is very well written. Gabe uses all three forms of rhetoric but his main approach in his argument is the use of logos. His structure is based off of logic and should be what most people should respond to. He also uses ethos with his sources to back up the claims to have that much more of a convincing argument. There feels as though there might be a bit of pathos used because we all probably do feel less trusting of the government and it might start to make us think about our experiences on the subject. The points he brings up are clear and they all suppose his that thesis that corruption has always been there, it's just more exposed. Gabe's ideas are all organized and split up into paragraphs so each point he has can be expressed without confusion. The argument in itself actually make me think. I never thought of it that the corruption hasn't increased but that we are aware of it. I did read it as a neutral audience and the reasons and evidence Gabe presented were relevant to his thesis. By the end of the essay I believe it did make me believe the overwhelming access we have to different sources such as the media and the internet really do make a difference.

In the 5th paragraph is where Gabe brings up the alternative view that maybe the society we live in is actually what's to blame and there actually is more corruption. I guess one could say that it wasn't fair the amount of backing his alternative view was given. A little more evidence of the opposing view might help make his case stronger when even with evidence supporting the alternative view, his argument triumphs because of how structural the rest of his essay is. The defense he uses for the opposing view he has at the moment is compelling. He stands his ground and says that society now is safer than ever. As of now, any neutral audience would definitely read and absorb the writing and possible be swayed in Gabe's direction. If a little more of a counter argument was introduced, with even more of a defense to make his case, he would win over a bigger group of readers

Believe Me, It's Torture

1. Does Hitchens try to make us feel bad for him because of his age and past?

2. Does torture really work?

3. How is waterboarding all that different than other types of torture.

I will be answering question 2.


To honestly tell you the truth, I don't think that torture even works all that well. Hitchen's article says that we have training procedures of torture for our military that if they get captured and tortured, they would be able to withstand it. Who says that the opposing side isn't doing the same. In the past the United States has militarily trained different countries and group that are now our enemies. One example is Al' Qaeda. In 1970, the US trained forces in Afghanistan to help them fight the Russian threat in that area. And as sure I am that the sky is blue, I'm sure that they also trained them to withstand torture. But even if you did have someone they believe was higher up, they wouldn't spill out any information anyway. They have higher stakes in the cause and obviously have devoted beliefs to get them at high up. They would rather die than have anything to do with halting their cause.

A second problem that does arise is the idea that the information you get out of someone is actually factual. It's been said that everyone has a breaking point. But who's to say that the breaking point is just to stop feeling the pain. They would say anything to get them out of that situation. I know I would. If I believed in the cause as much as I think Al' Qaeda believes in it, I would give as much corrupted information to them to completely throw them off the trail. What is actually stopping any hostage from giving that information. That information not only throws the integrator off, but also stops his torture in the meantime. It's a win win for the hostage. Eventually the more false information he gives, the less of a reliable source he becomes and eventually becomes useless.

But with all that being said, I don't actually know what goes on in an interrogation room so things might actually work out differently.

Classical Argument

Kourosh Abascal
Professor Brown
English 1B
20 February 2013

Sex is the new Casual

     Sex. It’s one of the only few words in the English language that catches the attention of so many readers. In today’s society, sex is practically on its death bed.  It has become so watered down that it doesn’t mean what it used to. When I mention the death of sex, I don’t mean that people will stop having it or stop talking about it, but I mean that it is no longer a social taboo in our society to mention it. The generation gap between our parents and us on the subject has become a giant valley that the only one at fault is what we were brought up on. From what we watch on TV and movies to the music we listen to, sex has become a subtle part of our lives. Even children’s shows have little innuendos here and there. As a kid people don’t understand them but when going back to watching them as an adults, people come to realize exactly what they were watching. Kids are no longer getting their information about sex from their parents. The dreaded “talk” that most people talk about is unnecessary. At the ages of 10-12, certain kids are already talking amongst themselves about what sex is and the internet is just a vast ocean of knowledge for them to go through. People are torn apart by the idea because they feel as though society has become smut ridden and dirty. Nothing is pure and innocent anymore in the public eye. Sex use to be a sanctity of marriage and a private matter between couples. Now it’s become a pass time for people running out of things to do. The exposure to sex is so abundant and around us, we have become desensitized on its meaning. The idea of the death of sex isn’t necessarily a
bad thing. What I mean by that is that sex no longer being a taboo could actually be a good thing, but it’s the repercussions that go along with it are what would end up being the problem.

     Our generation has received a tremendous overexposure on sex. We have come to believe that it’s a very normal behavior and that it doesn’t really mean anything. Yes, our parents dealt with sex in their generation, but it was nowhere close to what we’ve got. “Sex makes one generation fearful for the next. It has always been so. And in each generation, there are always those who consider the more risqué edges of the entertainment industry to be going too far” (Bakewell). Our parents might have had their forms of sexy behavior in the media, but unfortunately the actions artists in the media are taking now trumps anything from before. Sex is no longer that big of a taboo like it was years ago. Children more than ever are paying attention to their favorite music artists and celebrities and want to be like them. Although most of the kids listening to music are innocent and don’t realize what the lyrics mean, there is the majority that do and in turn become corrupted in a sense. We have songs like Rihanna’s “Birthday Cake” which is just about having spontaneous sex. And as Paglia had mentioned in her article, Lady Gaga’s songs and well as others have these underlying messages about sex. Sex is all around and the way kids and teenagers are seeing it glorified has become the main problem.

     The death of sex as a taboo isn’t a problem. The problem lies in how people are interpreting the change and what they take from it. Through music and movies, sex has become this fun act that kids, teenagers, and young adults think they need to experience. Music, as previously mentioned, is a huge part of everyone’s lives and it can influence people. We also have movies like “Friends with Benefits” and “No Strings Attached” where the main premise is the idea of having sex for fun and have no need for a relationship. Although the movies may take a turn for the better and show that the need for a relationship is there, they still bring up the fact that sex can be tried for just fun. The idea of an open relationship is more prominent in our society today than it has ever been before. It may have existed before but it was probably kept secret and was not put up on a pedestal. The sheer fact that we now have movies based on this social faux pas proves that the death of sex is here. With sex becoming so casual, problems come hand in hand. STD’s have become so prominent in today’s society because of all the sleeping around. The risk of contracting one has become a big problem because we aren’t grasping the idea of using contraception. Not only does that help the spread of STD’s but it even has worse repercussions. The worst part of it is that the teenagers of the younger generation are the ones that are making the mistakes. There are 16 year olds that are getting pregnant and they aren’t even with the father anymore. We even have shows like “16 and Pregnant” that once again make it seem ok to make these childish mistakes. These easy outs are what make the death of sex so negative. Other than our society making it ok for this to take place, we now also have the option of abortion. In the past it used to be illegal but now it seems that it just makes for another out. Relationships have become diminished and not as important. Marriage is also no longer special to most people. People don’t wait and make sure what they have is special anymore because they will always have that easy out.  The idea of divorce in today’s society has become so accepted that working through a marriage is the hard way out and it would just be easier to get a divorce. In the past if someone got a divorce, the family was seen as a dysfunctional one and in a way shunned. Now it’s a part of life that it’s like joining a club. Even with all the evidence that’s leading up to the end of sex, there’s still those refusing to believe our societies change.

     Not all of us are accustomed to change in society, especially those regarding sex. People still try to defend the fact that sex is still a taboo and should not be spoken about but with the way things have gone in our society, there’s only one way to view it. I’m in no way arguing that
the death of sex is here or not because it is. There’s nothing we can do about it. Doesn’t matter how people view the subject. The fact is that the death of sex is now our new social norm. People may say that through parenting and religion we may still be able to keep sex a social taboo. The fact of the matter is that for the younger generation, media is playing a lot bigger of a role than religion and parenting. It’s all around us and through the internet, movies and TV, it spreads faster then anything any of our previous generations have seen before. 

     The death of sex is here. It would just be easier for everyone to accept it instead of opposing it. The only downside with the death of sex is the negative connotations that come with it. The idea of an open relationship has both weakened our marriage system but also caused damage to the dating world. What needs to be done isn’t the need to go back to the way thing were but to instead improve the way we are headed. Sex is here and a bigger part of our lives than we have ever imagined. The only thing to do is try to take a positive step and help fix the social issues it has brought up like in marriage, teenage pregnancy, and how our kids are reacting to it.

Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex

1. Why does Paglia just mainly belittle Gaga with what seems like personal attacks?

2. Does Lady Gaga feel as though she really needs the "costumes" to keep her fans?

3. Is Lady Gaga really to blame on the death of sex?


2) I will be addressing a bit on every question

I as read Camille Paglia's article, I felt as though she really didn't have much of an argument. In my opinion, Paglia kept attacking Gaga as if it were a personal vendetta. I had to read the article twice to look past it and try and understand what she wanted to say. In a way, it may not have been personal, but as we all know who Lady Gaga is, she does seem to be the perfect poster child to use.

Gaga's appearances is quite unique to say the least. From her shows to being out in public, she gives a new meaning to the word weird. The approach Paglia took may be a personal attack but given the situation, she had no option but to use Gaga. Paglia tries to undermine Lady Gaga's accomplishments to mere nothings when in fact Lady Gaga has earned her right. I in no means would consider myself a Lady Gaga fan but the success she has achieved was all earned. I myself have even been a victim of her music that I spent a good 2 weeks having the song "Cherry cherry boom boom" suck in my head. Other than her catchy songs, the outfits she wears may be over the top and the performances she puts on during her shows might be different but in a way, she has to do it that way. The way the music is set up these days is completely different from back in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The internet has made it so simple to listen to music, it's ridiculous. And not just that, most people just go on youtube or download their songs instead of purchasing. Not only does this not get the artist money, the music industry starts to suffer as well. It's because of this that artists have to put on the shows that they do. They have to sell music as well as entertainment in their concerts since the music is so easily attained. An artists needs to be know to be successful and the biggest way to be known is to stand out and be different from other artists around them.

Music artists don't just wake up and decide to become famous. They draw on their inspiration from others before them. When Paglia compares Gaga to Madonna I can definitely see the resemblance but Lady Gaga took it to a whole new extreme. Madonna may be have some wild things in her time but its just the day and age. In my opinion, Lady Gaga in no way is even remotely responsible for the death of sex. People may watch her videos of bondage and disco sticks and not see it sexual but its not her fault. Today sex has become such a regular topic that it's no longer weird for everyone. It's become to common that I don't even know if parents have the talk with their kids anymore. I saw a picture a while back and it was a father sitting down with his son and he says "Son, I think its time we had the 'sex' talk" and the kid replies, "Sure dad, what do you want to know?" That picture portrays our culture so well it's actually pretty sad. I'm all for being able to speak your mind and saying what you want about whatever topic but when it starts to seep into the younger generation, there has to be a line somewhere. Paglia has a point that the idea of sex has become watered down, but it's in no way Lady Gaga's fault.

http://tinyurl.com/aalqkkx (just for laughs)

A Marketplace of Echoes?

1. Is everything so divided as Weinberger makes it out to be?
2. Is the idea of "forking" causes us to become more hard headed and set in our ways?
3. Does narrowing down diversity in groups involve some discrimination?


2) I will be addressing the second questions

Every right minded individual in the world has an opinion about something. Doesn't matter what the topic is, if they've heard about it, they have already formed one. With the internet how it is, information is available for anyone to look things up. There is forums about everything from cars to horses, you just have to look in the right spot. Once you find what you're looking for you set up your thought or start reading other peoples ideas. If those ideas mirror the ones you already have, you have found a new home to discuss how you feel on a certain topic.

I feel as though with people fork off, they start forming their own "cliques" online, they become very much set in their ways. They get into discussions with like minded individuals which then just reinforces the way they think. The more people get told that the way they think is the right one, the more they ignore other opinions because they've gotten use to being correct. People especially don't like being told they are wrong so when someone enters a discussion and completely undermines everything you have thought and believed on a topic, it throws you for a loop. Other than the rare case of that happening, people tend to stay in their comfort zone and not venture into uncharted territory. It's like if a crip was to walk into blood territory and start shouting out what he thought of them.

Weinberger was correct in his idea that a moderator is necessary. It stops the discussion from taking a childish turn for the worst. Discussions online eventually sometimes become personal and sometimes steer off in an off topic direction. With a moderator, discussions on a neutral ground can take place and hopefully reach a better understanding on the topic at hand.

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

1. Would the replacement of our brains with artificial intelligence cause for a halt in creative and revolutionary advancements?

2. Is the change in our brains really a bad thing or does it just lead to a new and better way of thinking?

3. Is google actually making everyone stupid and lazier or is it just a handful of people?


2) In response to question 3, it makes you wondering if it is really google that is the main cause of our problems or if its just the people. I myself have become victim to just skipping through links and websites to find certain information I'm looking for but it hasn't effected my attention span. When I come across an article or passage online that I find interesting, I can easily sit there an read it. It's not the way we're getting the information but how we deal with the convenience. Everyone reacts differently to everything and there is no reason why this situation is different. We have certain people that just memorize information and then regurgitate it back on paper and are then done with it. The medium isn't the problem but instead it's the way we use it.

After reading the article, I both agree and disagree with Carr. I feel as though Carr looks at the situation as the worst possible outcome. He makes it sound as though the change is not a good thing. As mentioned in the article, there has been many instances in which people have been sceptical about the advancements occurring during their time. With that being said, Carr still does have a point. People today have become spoiled by the amount and immediate availability of information. It has become a double edged sword in the way that since there's so much information to go through, we don't have time to look through every since one so we end up just skimming and moving on. And when things are so easily accessed, we tend to just read what we need and then forget it right when we're done. There's no need to have to remember it because it can just be looked up again. We need to move away from abusing out use of google. It's a great source for information on anything you need. But in the process of searching and reading we need to absorb and retain the information.