Final Reflection (forgot on final paper)

Reflection

            To compare my original proposal paper draft to final draft it would be night and day. The first draft was under 1000 words. I had a very weak proposal and one that was unconstitutional which professor Brown did comment on. So I thought of a much better Proposal, one that was possible and allowed a lot of room to work with. I also included actual quotes and a citation page as well. I also took the advice from my partner on a few thing (like actually writing a paper instead of rushing last minute). I also took my own advice from my advice to my partner and followed the actual proposal prompt. I had forgotten it before and it made my paper much worse. I also changed the final part of my paper because it did not match my new overall paper. To basically conclude, I wrote a whole new paper. I built it up from scratch and made sure it the basic prompt.

Commentary on Chris's paper

To start off this commentary I read Chris's paper. He wrote about legalizing marijuana. His paper was done very well, he had a lot of information and a lot of support to back up his claims. He did a great paper but he did not propose anything besides saying it should be legalized. There were a few spelling errors but nothing terrible (just reread the paper and you'll spot them), your paragraph structure was very good. If a skeptic were to read your paper he/she would have a hard time finding a bad thing or argument to against your topic. I suggest you add something about Prohibition from the 20's and how it fail to stay and why marijuana is connected to it (you already listed reasons why alcohol is worse than marijuana). I would also suggest you bring up any past laws that have been appealed since marijuana has been made illegal. Add a few statistics about cost (any and all though you did some already). The big and only real issue I had with your paper was there was no proposal and the structure was different than the "suggested" one. Thats it and good luck, granted you don't need it since you wrote a great paper to begin with. 

Reflection of essay #3

First I changed the basic overall paper from a proposal to an actual ethical argument. Simply I confused the two because of what we were going over in class and followed the wrong guidelines. I then added actual ethical issues like childhood obesity and tried to explain how it is unethical. I also got a few different quotes to explain how childhood obesity is unethical and growing  "Between 2010 and 2020, new cases of Type 2 diabetes could increase tenfold; so could stroke, coronary heart disease, hypertension and arthritis. The number of cases could double again by 2030..." (Begley). This was one example of how I did this. I also expanded my original claim to include the cost of obesity as causing childhood obesity, the high cost of medical bills and possibility the cost of your own life. The only real thing besides rewriting my paper was displaying the problems of obesity instead of fixing it.
 

Man that slap to my face was harsh

1. Is the act of "doing nothing" worthless?
2. Is worth really how you benefit people (I.E. a job or some kind of skill)?
3. If people practice misery and still have a life, is that actually happiness?

I'll be writing about number two. First lets read more articles like that one. This article is something that actually is useful to real life and not just BS academia (which I love but can be too much sometimes). Worth is what you have for society? No. worth is what you make of your self and then you allow yourself to be used or give freely of your worth. Many people are productive members of society but have no real worth, they just exist in society. I know that sounds odd but people sometimes seem like one thing but are actually another. Like me, I am good at my job but hate it. To me I believe that i have no worth (this is purely in just my job and how i perceive myself to my company). They could easily replace my self but why would they? I have experience, i know my job and the customers who come back everyday. If i was the company i would simply fire me and hire someone with a little experience in retail, pay them way less and just continue the process till they get their benefit from the whole process. I'm basically rambling here since worth and benefiting people or yourself are intrinsically infinite. Basically worth to other people will always be different people and that goes hand in hand with the benefits of the same agreement. I agree with the article but he simply does not account for the infinite amount of possibilities out there, granted self improvement will increase the chances to prove your own worth/ benefits to said people. That's enough self help for the week.

ethical argument draft

Erik Arndt

Prof. Brown

English 1B

April 17, 2013

Obesity: Jumbo sizing America

            Obesity. Just let the word sink in. We have all heard about the growing epidemic that the developed world is facing, and yet we have done little to stop it. These problems aren't yours, they're for someone else to worry about, or are they? Just look around and notice if this disease has spread into your daily life. Perhaps some friends or coworkers have put a little weight on, maybe your kids are a little huskier than you remember, or maybe even you have gained some extra weight? To beat the evil of obesity you must first know what that evil is "Obesity is defined as having a body mass index (BMI) above 30. Overweight means a BMI of 25 to 29.9. BMI is calculated by taking weight in pounds and dividing it by the square of height in inches, and multiplying the result by 703."( Landau). Do you or a loved one fit into this category? Seeing the definition helps to understand how people (even yourself) can be classified or thought of as obese. Many people have slowly become obese over the years and more and more are joining the ranks overtime. This is because people are changing their habits, basically people are eating unhealthy food and living sedentary lives. People need to reform their daily lives and be healthier/ more active if they want to save themselves from high costs of medical bills and help our children live healthier lives.

            The cost of obesity is more than just you or someone being overweight. People need to look to the future cost of what it is to be obese. "Between 2010 and 2020, new cases of Type 2 diabetes could increase tenfold; so could stroke, coronary heart disease, hypertension and arthritis. The number of cases could double again by 2030..." (Begley). People who are already prone to heart dieses and other genetic or family dieses should pay more attention to this information. The simple cost of your own medical bills should make you realize that being obese is not cheap and the dieses mentioned before were not only expensive but also could lead to your death. These reasons are truly important and relevant to our children's lives. "But there is hope, if adults across America would reduce their body mass index, the report said. If the average body mass index were lowered by 5% by 2030, states could save billions of dollars while helping many people. That's the equivalent of a 200-pound, 6-foot-tall person losing 10 pounds." (Landau). See hope and knowing how to beat obesity can happen, we just need to take some baby steps first. The biggest Issue of obesity is children. So many children are overweight and more are sure to follow. Parents are not enforcing their children to eat well, play outside or even exercising at all. How do people not see that children are the future (literally) and that they need to be educated on how to live a healthy life. "A successful approach to reducing obesity and its comorbidities must also embrace understanding of community-level factors including the social, built, and natural environments. These environmental influences interact with a child's diet, physical activity, genetic makeup, and metabolism..." ( Brogan and Partners).

            Most people will say that obesity is a problem but it's not my problem. Well it may not be your problem now but it might be in a few years or even to someone who is close to you. Well obesity is a rising problem but it's a problem we can get ahead of, we just need to take the reins and slow it down. Well People should just buy better foods and stop eating out. Well that would be one big step in helping to reduce obesity but money can become an issue. People can and do live off fast food and because it is so cheap people can spend less than going to a supermarket and buying healthy food. What about working out? I go to the gym everyday and I'm not obese, why can't people do that too? Well not everyone wants to go the gym. Also people can not always afford to go to the gym. This also brings up how people who can afford to go to the gym but don't know how to work out but cant afford a personal trainer to teach them how to work out correctly. We can sit here all day and poke holes in why obesity exists but the real argument is people need to change, Change is scary and people don't like scary. So why would we want change then? Well look at the facts and just see if change is scarier than the really awful realities of obesity.

            To sum it all up for you, obesity is a growing problem and it will lead to higher costs to both you and your family, and this will affect your children's  future and may lead to even bigger issues. The big picture to look at is what will this epidemic bring about? Will this affect me or to someone who I love? Or will this growing problem really make it impossible to have medical care in the future simply because all the medical practices will be busy with all the obese people? Basically look at how will the this epidemic will affect our country as a whole. Will we have a population of people to weak to defend ourselves? Will we be too fat to get out of bed and even clothe ourselves? If that is the case then who will take care of the new generation or will there even be a new generation to be taken care of?

Citation

Begley, Sharon. "Fat and Getting Fatter: U.S. Obesity Rates to Soar by 2030." Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 17 Apr. 2013. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-obesity-us-idUSBRE88H0RA20120918

Environment and Obesity in the National Children's Study

Leonardo Trasande, Chris Cronk, Maureen Durkin, Marianne Weiss, Dale A. Schoeller, Elizabeth A. Gall, Jeanne B. Hewitt, Aaron L. Carrel, Philip J. Landrigan and Matthew W. Gillman

Environmental Health Perspectives , Vol. 117, No. 2 (Feb., 2009), pp. 159-166

Published by: Brogan & Partners

Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25434919

Landau, Elizabeth. "Health Care Costs to Bulge along with U.S. Waistlines." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 17 Apr. 2013http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/18/health/us-obesity.

Do I exist or Do I need to exist?

1. If the author thinks that we need to change how we think, does that make his self needs more important than that of society's needs?
2.Does culture/ society affect one's true inner self?
3. Will the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many ( will the needs of poor people be dominated by the rich )?

Honestly I can't write just about one since this is such a juicy topic. First This might be the first article I have read in this class that got me actually excited. Now to attempt to answer the second one first; does culture/ society affect one's inner self? I'm going to say no. Yes they do really make a person who they are but not what they are. People are animals with animal instincts. No matter what we think about our selves or what other people think, we will do what we need to do to survive. People can go around this and have gone around this but Why have they gone around it? that's the real question, is the true inner self, the primal man being altered by society even existing? Are people's instincts being bred out and becoming civilized through long exposure to society? All I know is that when it comes down to it people are willing to let them selves die for their kids, families, and or anyone "connected to their survival. I don't care what this guy is saying since I believe that any society pushed far enough will revert back to our "original " selves, or true inner selves.

Next Will the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many? I'm going to say yes. People are selfish and despite all this talk on people needing to conserve our resources, or saving mother earth were going to fail. We as a society have changed from back when men chosen by a god, ruled over all of us and now we are free thinking people who only think about our selves. Now everyone is vying for power and we don't care who we have to step on to get ahead. This thinking (and it's not just in the western world) will destroy us and  the world. And who cares? Well that's someones problem in the future. Who cares if I destroy the world in the process, its all about me. Power will corrupt and as we have seen the rich have a lot of power. So will the needs of the poor get ahead of the rich? No simply because their "self" worth has more strength behind it and that will change the "needs" of the poor. and done with this subject.

Lastly to answer the first question, I just love that this guy talked about "Self" and kept referring to himself or how it made him feel. Does he think he has all the answers? Or how about his "needs"  compared to others? I think he should have addressed his own self image in this paper, and that's all.

Vivesection AGAIN

1. Scientist or Christian is there really a difference?
2. What are the long term effect of vivesection?
3. Does morality actually apply when it comes to animals?

I will do this blog on the first question. And as a side note, this will be my second post since I'm doing this all on my phone since my modem fried and this is my only option.

Well is there any difference between scientists and Christians when it comes down to vivesection? I'm going to say no. I generally believe scientists more then Christians simply because they try to deal on facts and I'm just generally against organized religion. But for this issue they are on the same level. Both think that it's okay it just comes down to "morals" and when's a soul actuall exists. Well where does a soul exist? Do humans even have one? Well when I learned anatomy we didn't learn about a certain par of the body that held the soul. So both Christians and scoenttists  are in the dark on this. But does that give them the right to say that animals don't have a soul? I don't think so. I thought this argument was a comets joke and the writer was trying to poke some fun at a certain group of people. Well I think it made both groups look bad and gave basi ally Christians/ scientists an equal footing ( which is why/where both groups are the same ) they thinks they are superior to others. Whether it be with other people or trying to show mans dominence of the earth or god's choi e that we are superior to his other creations. Basically there is no difference, people are people and were are all Terrible. Vivesection is just another exams that shows that no matter what people morally believe, we're all the same cruel kind of being At the center.

Vivesection.

Test blog on vivesection.

Reflection for paper #2

These are the changes that I did to my critique paper from its original draft. First I made sure to hit around the minimum amount of words/ pages to make it a full paper. I also went and changed some much needed grammar changes (mostly quotes and page numbers). I also went back and tried to make the arguments as solid as possible because they were a little to vague before. Basically I used quotes to give details of what I wanted to show and added more emotion to the argument to make it seem more like a critique. Basically I took the comments from Professor Brown and just fixed the problems that he pointed out, I expanded on things that he brought up, or I just deleted/ shortened anything that needed to fixed.

commentary on Essay #2

First off good job on the intro because it drew me in. The summary was very descriptive and it did its job perfectly.  At the end of the summary you asked two questions: "what can we constitute as a torture method? What other method can we use that would be not only a fast and quick method, but also at the most least painful way?". These are good questions but which one is your thesis? Next the paragraph about drowning is very good and puts people in the situation of drowning. The next paragraph is a great continuation of the first and makes for a compelling argument. You seem to be on the right track but you need to add more to the essay. Make it longer and hit about 1200 words (what we have to do basically). Good job so far man. 

eng paper #2 draft

Erik Arndt

Professor Brown

English 1B

March 25, 2013

A Rhetorical Critique of “Is Google Making Us Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr

            The internet, one of man's best inventions of all time or is it? People use the internet every day for everything. This handy new tool we have created can help us with anything like how to get directions to a friend's house or even help with writing a paper. Sure people had information at their disposal through books for hundreds of years but the internet is so convenient. With this new technology will we see changes in people, Not only in people's behavior but also the way we think and compute data?

            Nicholas Carr an author of a few books and writer for many magazines simply asks his readers "Is Google making us stupid"?  Yes the name of the article and question are one and the same, but he also seems to ask a bigger question "if the internet is changing the way we think all together". In this article he has asked many of his enlightened friends if reading is same as it once was, or can they sit down and deeply think about what they are reading or simply pay attention long enough to even read a book, not just skim it (which is probably what you are doing now). He brings up Historical ideas from Socrates to HAL from "2001, A space odyssey" on how technology makes people think. The biggest part of this article is when Google/ the internet is brought up and how it will change over time to serve us. This all leads up to how/what our new technology will do to us.

            Nicholas Carr brings up many questions about the internet and how it affects us on not only day to day but our actual way of thinking in the long term. He brings up many arguments about how people are changing and has many fine examples from friends/ other intellectuals discussing their own experiences about the subject. Carr is unable to give us facts and only just tidbits of historical data on events that deal in the same realm that he is trying to show us. With his personal experience, interviews/ comments from other writers or people in the academic world and historical remnants Carr has shed the first real light on a growing problem in the world today.

            Carr is a man who has a background in writing, but more specifically he has written about our new age and the technology it brings concerning people. He is the right man to bring the evidence forward and get ahead of this soon to be epidemic. He did a great job showing Ethos in his article by adding words from his friends/ associates whom are dealing with the same problem as he is (whether it is personal or professionally). He uses it because it gives him creditability and this seems to be a subject that few people have really looked into (thus the reason to bring it to light).  “When I mention my troubles with reading to friends and acquaintances—literary types, most of them—many say they’re having similar experiences… Some of the bloggers I follow have also begun mentioning the phenomenon. Scott Karp, who writes a blog about online media, recently confessed that he has stopped reading books altogether. “I was a lit major in college, and used to be [a] voracious book reader…What happened?” (pg. 2). This is a good quote and from a very good source. He used his connections to demonstrate how someone who works online has been affected, and he was a big reader and Literature major in college too. This was a good strategy and he used ethos.

            To really bring this idea from simply a feeling to an actual fact (via scientific research), Carr presented evidence to strengthen his argument: “But a recently published study of online research habits, conducted by scholars from University College London… As part of the five-year research program, the scholars examined computer logs documenting the behavior of visitors to two popular research sites, one operated by the British Library and one by a U.K. educational consortium, that provide access to journal articles, e-books, and other sources of written information. They found that people using the sites exhibited “a form of skimming activity,” hopping from one source to another and rarely returning to any source they’d already visited. They typically read no more than one or two pages of an article or book before they would “bounce” out to another site.” (pg. 3). He used Logos in this last quote. The idea that an actual scientific experiment showed that people have changed their reading habits is only the tip of the iceberg. His strategy was perfect in this by giving actual proof of a problem. It was very effective and gave a little background as how long this problem has been building.

            Lastly Carr takes a personal approach at the encroaching problem, by telling us how it makes him feel and how it affects his personal life: “I can feel it, too. Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think. “(pg. 2). This is pure Pathos, his strategy here is plain and simple: get people to relate to how he feels. Yes he does write for some magazines that are for the more “thought provoking mind” but his quote can be felt by everyone. His strategy was effective in my opinion simply because he brought thoughts and feelings to his side.

            The article “Is Google making us stupid?” is a thought provoking and makes people rethink how and what they do online. Yes his argument is flawed simply because of the lack of data but this is just the beginning to introduce people to a new problem. Did people believe the first reports on smoking? No they did not, but look at how we view smoking now (not so good now). You might ask if he is qualified to write such a piece, well he is a writer with a unique perspective on this subject, he has written several books about technology and people. This is better than most people and it’s a new idea with this new techno age were in. Lastly He has put personal stake into this issue (as seen in the last paragraph) and basically made this issue known.

Regarding the pain of others

1) Does a picture do more damage then a bomb?
2) should photographers be on the battlefield? (or some kind person or device that records events on the battlefield?)
3) Should there be pictures of dying/ dead people? And does the place or person really matter? (this includes if the people were enemies, "friendlies", or if it was shot in America or Africa).

What I got from this article is simply censorship. How, and, whom and where does not matter; just do people have a right to censor photos of people dying.Its the message being sent to our enemies/ show the people we are strong (from the military) and how people feel about what they see in the picture (whether it makes them sad or sick, or maybe they see someone they knew and they want it taken down). If you hadn't guessed it i'm doing the third question, I just feel that this was the biggest issue of the three questions. Regardless of what we want or want people to see, people will see it. Our world is changing very fast and technology will make most censorship impossible. I'm not trying to say that censorship is wrong or right but should the pictures be taken in the first place and why the whom/where is important. People are dying all the time, it should not matter if the person is in Africa or America or anyplace else, death can happen anywhere anytime. Should there be records of the dead from battles? Sure, records are good for a lot of reasons just don't abuse them. Basically if people take pictures of dead or dying people I just hope there is a reason for it, and they do not exploit the dead for their own ends.

Reflections on essay #1

I will keep this post nice and short:

I changed my first essay from the original draft to the final paper by drastically changing the thesis. The first one was good but I had a lot of information that I thought was important to my paper and I originally did not give it justice with my original thesis. I also added more detail to the reformation part of the essay and gave a bigger voice to other side of the argument. I did forget to change the title which I did not think about till after the paper's submission. But besides all that I believe that my paper demenstrated the basic ideas of my original draft just with a better center overall.

I hate writing about hate.

1. Does hate have a real defined definition?
2. Is hate impossible to overcome in our "new world" of fairness and understanding?
3. Does the use of the word "hate" in everyday context allow "hate" into our lives?

First off i'm doing question #3: Does the use of the word hate in everyday context allow hate into our lives? Well i'm going to say yes just to make it interesting. The first thing I thought about with this article was why the word hate? The article seemed more about racial or group hate than the basic behavior of hate. Everyone uses the word hate for everything: "I hate vegetables", "I hate my boss", "I hate you!". Everyone is guilty and the author did not bring this up. If we start using this word as kids and people don't tell us that hate is a bad thing, then won't people continue to us it and let it evolve into something else? If hate is everywhere and in everyone then if we use it everyday affairs, will it ever leave? The author did bring up hate as a survival mechanism, but do we still need this to survive?  All I can say is this a hot topic, but not for the right reasons. When we hear "hate" we think of racism or being mean/ hurtful to others because of who they are, where they're from or who they choose to be with. I think hate is associated with all those terrible things but "hate" is different things. A child hates eating vegetables, and tells everyone that he/she hates eating vegetables because they taste "yucky" but is you asked the same child if he/she hated the next door neighbor what would she say? yes or no? and why does he/she hate her neighbor? Possibly the neighbor was mean, or smelled funny, or maybe the child does not like the neighbor because they have different a skin color or married to someone with the same gender. This is just one example of how "hate" can have different meaning and those different meanings come from our daily lives. 

susan sontag's 9/11

1. Does the author have a right to be so harsh on event she was not even present for? (she said she was in Berlin, and observed the entire event via CNN/ t.v. )
2.She describes how people in office/ any influence in the U.S. were basically telling people that we are still strong and everything. Why does this topic matter more than say the people who lost their lives or our countries immediate response to the attack?
3. How does the author come up to the conclusion that the attack was based on our "modern world" and not  "righting the wrongs to the Muslim world"?

The question I will be attempting to answer is the the first one. Basically I can understand that people judge and decide to pass judgement on an issue or event. We all do it and I to have done this. But for this topic I found the Judge (aka Susan Sontag) a little to harsh in her judgement. Apparently she was not in New York when the terrorist attack occurred, she was in Berlin. That right there sends up red flags in my mind. First I think to actually to get the feelings of what happened you would have to be at the event or in the same country to get the true feeling of what is going on (people need to see and experience other people with the same risks/feelings. To give an example, when the tsunami hit japan a couple of years ago people here felt sorry for the tragedy, but they did not really FEEL the actual event). She experienced the entire event from a dark room in Berlin (that's across the Atlantic and no where near the event). I do give her credit for going to the event's site when she got back to New York, but she really did tale the argument a little to far when it came to how we were dealing with the issues. Overall she basically stated that our officials and people in high positions were glossing over the "real" facts and telling everyone it was OK  but how do you treat people normally when a tragedy hits? People generally tell people "it will be OK" or "stay strong". She was looking at an upclose and personal attack on the U.S. but from far away and in an unattached fashion, I understand why she did it, but I believe it was way to harsh since she was experiencing it from far away.

Essay #1 peer commentary

Commentary #1

First off the focus of your essay is great. It is a huge subject and you should easily be able to find/ discuss sources. Your intro was also very good, it drew me in and illustrated a scene in which most people today have experienced. Now if I were to improve upon your essay I would say you need some statistics or some kind of quotes. The idea of technology as “a gift from us to us” is a great line. Maybe try to say something about how people with different phones (smartphones and non-smartphones) like a percentage or how many people have phones now versus ten years ago.  Another thing I really liked about your essay were the situational examples that you gave (great for confirmations). Now definitely use some stats here where you mentioned People possibly getting hit by a car or hitting someone or something with a car (that would also be great for confirmations). From what I have read I do not see any real Refutation part in your essay, but it is just a draft so I’m sure you will be fine when you go back and fix it. The conclusion was put together very well. I think you wrote a great ending and with the use of emotion, I’m sure it will hit its mark. So basically from what I read you have a good argument (just need info to back it up/ spice it up), the intro/conclusion is very good, and the only thing you really need is a Refutation section.

torture article

1. Should torture be described by the tortured or the one who tortures? (in this case because the one being tortured has a way out).
2. This article is meant to bring attention to American torture, but does this article counteract the real message.
3. Should the military release "inspiring formation" from its captives or people they are questiong?

People experience things differently. Some people can accurately describe what happened to them selves while many can not. More people who experience things from a distance still can not accurately describe things. Now if you signed yourself up for a "torturing experience" could you actually go through it and actually experience it? Well its my opinion that the author did not actually explore the ideas behind "safe torturing" and that his experience was not truly experienced. I understand that the author tried to have a real experience, but his details on the "softness" or "safety" of his experience ruins it all. I appreciate the experiment but in my otion it was not successful.

essay #1

Erik Arndt

Professor Brown

English 1B

February 20, 2013

The Internet: Creating distance among people far and wide

            People all over the world get up and turn on their computer before anything else, and why? To check their mail, see the latest post on Facebook, maybe check the news or even to just to twitter about a dream they just had. The internet is great for many things and lets people around the world stay in "contact" with each other, but does it really? The internet brings the world to our fingertips, but man is not united; instead in this golden age of information makes more people isolated every day.

            The world has never been this well connected before. People around the world talk all the time now through many different social network devices but how does this affect the individual behind the screen? " After drugs and alcohol addiction, if the world is facing any new type of addiction disorder, then that is Facebook addiction. This is a kind of Internet addiction, but social networking site influences such that people goes mad behind it" ( Das, pg. 225).  people believe that being social and having friends now can be entirely done online. People don't want to deal with real life situations, struggles or challenges. People want to get the same benefits but not do anything in return for them. How often do you call a friend? or how about visiting family? Now that the internet has come people don't need to go visit friends or family they can just go online and see what everyone is doing. " A survey conducted among 1000 people across United States to find people‟s addiction to social networking sites, finds 56 percent users check Facebook at least once a day. And 29 percent can stay only few hours without checking their account" ( Das, pg. 225). Social networking sites have become a serious problem in this new age, and it's creating a lot of barriers (not just distance) between people. Another fun problem arising is when you think your phone is vibrating but it is not, it's called " phantom-vibration syndrome" (Biali). This is a bad sign for anyone who thinks they hear or feel something when it's not really there. Besides these problems sitting at a computer (which some experts say is about 8 hours a day for most adults now days, which can lead to health issues) we have people who use the internet/ social networking sites to steal information, hurt people, and to take advantage of people in any way possible.

            In this fashion people prowl the web and look for people to steal from social networking sites are perfect for this. "A report by Daily Mail shows “crimes associated with the networking site have increased by as much as 7000 percent in some area  – including cases of murder, rape, pedophilia, bullying, assault and burglary” ("Facebook – crime," 2010)" (Das, pg. 225). To most people that's a huge jump in crime rates. We as a people should see this information and try to fix this problem (probably by not posting everything on the web), but because the internet makes us feel safe we think that will never happen to us. It's a vicious cycle that keeps biting people because they refuse to see the signs.

            Another huge issue in the internet era is content, and how people perceive it. Facebook has a lot of different content on it, some funny and some very inappropriate. There are some lines that should not be crossed but people do so anyway some such as "  ...images currently appearing on the site include a joke about raping a disabled child, a joke about sex with an underage girl and image after image after image of women beaten, bloodied and black-eyed in graphic domestic violence..." (Bates). These terrible ideas and images appear online (and in this case Facebook) all the time. The company will not get rid of these images because that would be censoring and they seem to believe that in this case should be debated and make people change as a whole (on this topic I do agree with, to change the internet you have to change the people not always the site). But these problems seem to stem because people who do these things anonymously.

            People will do anything as long as they won't get caught doing it. The internet is great for people who believe this and actually do this. Granted many people act or are forced by companies to be anonymous for their own safety.

            "Internet search companies say they protect their clients’ privacy by encrypting personal    information and by using numbers instead of names to give their users anonymity. The problem is that anonymization is not always effective. AOL user number 4417749 found             this out the hard way in 2006 when AOL decided to publish online a list of 20 million        Web searches, including hers and those of 657,000 other users." ( Lloyd).

Most people understand that they need watch what they say and do online. This is why privacy and anonymous listing is around. All of my arguments have flaws, social media creates a lot of problems for people (divorces, theft, and even psychological issues) but on the flip side it does allow people to come together around the world and see other perspectives. Now crime is rampant and needs to fixed online, but crime also happens offline too. Yes people have always stolen and will always do so but the internet takes it to another level (just as the gun did with armed robbery). Lastly content should be monitered or at least be at least tasteful but everyone has their own taste and as I say "to each their own".

            Despite all the logic and all of the resources we have available to us we are misusing the internet. People have a right to use the internet as they see fit but people need to show some kind of moral backbone when they post or talk about their views. Civilization has come so far in the last couple of years. We need to stick to those ideals and prove that we can carry the mantle that is the Human Race. Whether online or offline people should try to be tactful but strive to bring change to their world.

           

Works Cited Page

Bates, Laura. "Does Facebook have a problem with women". The Gaurdian. February 18th, 2013.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2013/feb/19/facebook-images-rape-domestic-violence?CMP=twt_gu

Biali, Susan. "Too much time online makes you moodier, lonier and obsessed". Psychology Today. July 31st, 2012. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/prescriptions-life/201207/too-much-time-online-makes-you-moodier-lonelier-and-obsessed

Das, Biswajit, and Shankar Sahoo Jyoti. "Social Networking Sites - A Critical Analysis of its Impact on Personal and Social Life." International Journal of Business and Social Science 2.14 (2011)ABI/INFORM Global; ABI/INFORM Global. Web. 20 Feb. 2013.

Lloyd, Seth. "Privacy and the quantum internet". Scientific American. October 2009. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=prviacy-and-the-quantum-internet

Lagy gaga and the death of sex

1. did the author of this article put to much personal feelings into her argument?
2. can the author really compare the present singers vs the older singers?
3. are the ideas of sex and death truly skin deep? or at least appear to be coming from lady gaga

I will choose the second question. I understand that people always judge new music to older music. but is this comparison really fair? I don't think that this is fair at all. If Elvis was around he would not be selling the same as he did back in the 50's (if he started now and did the same music). People still compose and play classical music but are not appreciated as they were back hundreds of years ago. Music regardless of what it is meant to describe or state a point is art. Art can be seen in some many ways, and I think the author of this article gave her opinion about her views. She also said many things about my generation that are simply not true. If she wanted to make a compelling argument she did, but to me her argument was just wrong. Using pathos, ethos, and logos we can see she created a compelling argument. She tried to use ethos but her sources are skewded toward her opinion. Her pathos was aimed at a different generation from whom she was wrtiting about. and her Logos was very one sided. She did well when creating an argument but for me I just want the truth and none of this crude overstating of music/ art.

"a marketplace of echos"

1. How much diversity is right?
2. Is diversity really necessary or is it just an on again off again hot topic?
3. What is the solution to these "Echo Chambers", if there even is one?

In response to the third question: What is the solution to these "Echo Chambers", if there even is one? First off, this question is necessary because it is one of the underlining problems stated in our reading. People have gathered together, traveled together, and even died together because of their views/ opinions; so why not sit around and discuss topics together online? The underlining issue of these "Echo Chambers" appear to be people who have the same likes/dislikes, and its great that people can have that. The Problem is that they all have the same ideas (generally speaking of course). So my answer to this question is why do people care if echo chambers exist. This same Phenomena happens all the time and has been for hundreds of years (faiths, nations being built, clubs, etc). Should we find a way to make people find new thoughts and ideas? The world is very diverse, the world shaped us, so why don't we shape the internet as the world shaped us?

Is Google making us stupid?

1. When your born and what tools you have effects how people think and do; so does the author's generation (and any generation before his) only have this problem?
2. Do people really read on the internet? Or what we associate as the internet?
3. Does historical evidence have a place in this discussion? This is a "new" way of thinking/ reading, can you really connect it to the past?

People and how/when they grew up is becoming more and more relevant when it comes to "technology". Like my first question said "do people of different generations have this same problem"? Well I believe this question is very important and I do believe that the author tried to connect the past to the present but did not do a very good job. People grew up with very different forms of technology, what was impressive 50 years ago is now just garbage. So with that now in mind we can see that people build them selves around certain ways of thinking and problem solving, what my parents did and what I do are very different. Basically I believe that the brain builds its self in one way (and can rebuild its self and adapt to different situations) but when it goes to re build its self does the original wiring affect the new wiring?