LATE LAST POSTING! Eriks comments that will do no good! SRY! December 12, 2007

I chose david luce’s intro and conclusion.

I disagree that many americans believe that a democratic capitalist society is the best way to govern. I would like to see facts or data supporting that idea. I would definately remove the “we”s from your paper and possibly fix sentence structure of the 3rd or 4th sentence in. Lots of the word “Americans” when it’s people are not always to blame. Public opinion needs to be expressed differently then you have it in your paper. I know it’s your ideas, but you should think about your ideas carefully and make sure that they are what you really think. Cultures are all different, but people require structure. I know for a fact that our government is not the greatest in the world unless the criteria for that is our GDP or our greed. Based on happiness the United states isn’t ranked within the top 100 nations. Denmark and Sweden hold top countries. Anywho i hope the paper went well for ya. Sry the criticism was late and not exactly constructive…. I just wanted to make you think a bit.

Ross Thinking About King December 12, 2007

There are so many ideas discussed by King it would be difficult to talk about all of them but there was one that really caught my interest. It was his idea that what affects one directly affects us all indirectly.

Thesis Ideas from Ross December 12, 2007

This is a little late but for my paper I wrote about how human nature is slowing down the moral progression of humankind.

Ross’ Intro and Conlusion December 12, 2007

A man walking down a side walk sees a wallet slip out of a pocket and fall helplessly to the concrete. Immediately an internal struggle erupts within the man. He knows he should yell for the owner to stop and return his leather bound treasure. Upon looking inside, however, the greedy eyes of his nature notice the wallet is full and his decision becomes clouded. Human nature is the greatest antagonist to the moral progression of humanity. The utopian world that humans seek, one in which there is no crime, hunger, or racism is just out of reach, human nature slowing or even preventing its arrival.

 

The man closes the wallet and runs after its owner, returning it to his hand for nothing more than a kind thank you. The progression of human morality is difficult and slow but not impossible. If humans can look past material wealth and physical differences, but most importantly get involved with their world, society will progress at an exponential rate leaving the world a very beautiful place. It isn’t going to happen all at once but rather a series of steps, all that is needed is for someone to take the first.

 

 

Posting15– Response to Mariko’s Intro and Conclusion December 11, 2007

I really like Mariko’s intro and conclusion. When I read your intro I feel it is interesting and it makes me want to read through her paper. This intro catches my attention, in your intro she shows us the same things between humans and what make us different. At the end she gives us the solution. And I agree with your opinion. I think you did a great job in your conclusion paragraph, I also think people should not raise bias just because social status, races, cultures, or religious.

intro December 11, 2007

An age-old theme in all societies is the effect of the quality of one’s environment on one’s life. It is a recurring topic in many pieces of art as well as contemporary films. Through comparing the 18th century engraving, “Gin Lane” by William Hogarth, to the contemporary film, Finding Forester, one finds many of the same concerns that stem from the poverty and decay that the characters are surrounded by in their daily lives.

response to Koosmann’s intro and conclusion December 10, 2007

I really liked your intro it was detailed and really told what your paper was going to be about. But, you need something at the beginning that will catch attention. Maybe a quote or a story that will draw readers in. The conclusion was also good. You do a good job of stating what your paper was about, this is something I struggle with. You didn’t restate your intro which is good.

Response to Christian’s Intro and Conclusion by Cam W. December 9, 2007

“When discussing human nature people seem to start with good and evil. Human nature isn’t the battle between good and evil; it is the instincts people are born with. What defines good and evil is based on the experiences people have during their lives. People confuse human nature and life experiences. How people are brought up makes them good or evil, not human nature. Although human nature isn’t good or evil there are forces in both nature and nurture that affect how a person will turnout. Good and evil is the product of nurture not nature.

The good or evil in a person is not a matter of nature but rather, of nurture. Many evil people can be traced to bad upbringings and a poor environment as a child that causes their evil tendencies. Human nature deals with factors all humans and animals are born with. Instincts make up human nature. People often confuse good and evil as human nature, but it is nurture and the environment people are brought up in that makes them good or evil.”

I think your thesis is very clear. However, your intro and conclusion are repetitive and a bit casual. Aviod contractions (i.e “don’t”) It is not very evident here, and most likely is in the meat of the paper, but what exactly is your definition of instincts? How do people confuse human nature and life experience? Does human nature not define how an experience is perceived? Are humans completely instinctual or do they overcome their instincts? Are instincts involved in human nature, or completely separate from each other? I’m just asking these question in case you were having problems with the length of your paper. I think they will all allow the reader to understand more, but perhaps you already answer these in your paper. Okay, well good luck!

intro and conclusion December 9, 2007

When discussing human nature people seem to start with good and evil. Human nature isn’t the battle between good and evil; it is the instincts people are born with. What defines good and evil is based on the experiences people have during their lives. People confuse human nature and life experiences. How people are brought up makes them good or evil, not human nature. Although human nature isn’t good or evil there are forces in both nature and nurture that affect how a person will turnout. Good and evil is the product of nurture not nature.

The good or evil in a person is not a matter of nature but rather, of nurture. Many evil people can be traced to bad upbringings and a poor environment as a child that causes their evil tendencies. Human nature deals with factors all humans and animals are born with. Instincts make up human nature. People often confuse good and evil as human nature, but it is nurture and the environment people are brought up in that makes them good or evil.

intro and conclusion December 8, 2007

Society contains many good and bad aspects that show us we need government, but what is the best way to govern society? Many Americans strongly believe that a democratic capitalist nation is the best ways to govern people. But many cultures reject the idea of adopting this form of government because they believe that all people should be economically equal or that only one religion should be allowed in the country. In the Middle East, many countries believe that Islam should be the only religion and disgrace America because we allow freedom of religion. Other people believe that Communism is the best form of government because everyone is equal and, theoretically, there are no class systems. Although around the world there are many views on perfect government, America insists that democracy is the best form of government because it allows for independence and for everyone to have an equal opportunity to become successful. But America needs to understand that not every culture is the same, not everyone is the same, and some people simply respond better to different types of government.

America’s desire to spread democracy around the world has simply done just as much damage as the spread of communism from the Soviet Union. Now that America has made the same mistake multiple times of trying to spread democracy, hopefully Americans have learned that not all cultures embrace democracy and capitalism as much as Americans do. In fact the reason democracy works so well in the United States is because we are a diverse culture that teaches at a young age to accept diversity, and the American people establish democracy and capitalism themselves, it was not forced upon us. In the future Americans need to be able to see that the only reason for us to fight a war with the goal of establishing democracy will be to help a group of people already in the process of revolution; otherwise we will end up in yet another quagmire.

Posting 15 December 8, 2007

Mac’s introduction- and conclusion are very well thought out and I enjoyed reading them. I thought that in his introduction he did a very good job picking an opening statement to get the readers interested in what he was going to say. He does a very good job of defining both human nature and human nurture and to help the reader understand what they are he gave a couple examples of both. The conclusion was very interesting as well. He put a lot of good facts that help the reader relate and I liked that. He also brought a little of his introduction into his conclusion which was good. He was careful also to not summarize his paper in his conclusion.

Intro and Conclusion December 8, 2007

            Human nature is a difficult subject to discuss. Like many other topics in the world today everyone feels differently about it. Many people believe that human nature is something people themselves can control. On the other hand some feel that human nature cannot be controlled. Mencius, Hogarth and Hsun Tzu all expressed their opinions on human nature in different ways. Hogarth painted two pictures in support of the Gin Act contrasting human nature of rich and poor people. Mencius and Hsun Tzu both wrote about their opinions on human nature which of course was the complete opposite of each other. It is very appealing to read about people’s beliefs on how human nature can be affected.

                As many intelligent men in the past felt, human nature seems to have no answer to the way it works. Society from thepast to now has not changed their views on human nature. Hsun Tzu felt that there was really no way to change how humannature works in the future. Mencius felt the exact opposite in that he felt that human nature, if worked on, could turn out to be good if not perfect. Hogarth in his paintings portrays both good and bad human nature. Reading and observing these three different views on human nature basically made the human nature subject even more bewildering.   

intro and conclusion by mac December 7, 2007

Human nature is defined as the shared psychological attributes of humankind that are assumed to be shared by all human beings. Human nature includes some basic things such as desire, greed, love, and many more things.  We can define human nurture in a similar way, it is the psychological attributes of humankind that are assumed to be a result of how one is raised.  Human nurture includes things such as manners, hate, culture and many more things.  Sigmund Freud and Charles Darwin have had great ideas about human kind, such as Freud’s idea of the ego, id, and super ego and Darwin’s idea of polymorphic species.  Human nature and Human nurture are the main things that cause corruption in politics and corporations.  

Human nature and Human nurture are the things we do day in and day out.  They are our desires, our eagerness to please, and our obsessions.  Without nature or nurture the human race would be a mess, but with a population of 6 billion people the desire to be the best comes into play causing corruption among politicians and corporations.  Corruption in both the political and corporate world is an ugly aspect that cannot be stopped. 

Posting 15,Respond to Julia’s intro and conclusion.by Mariko December 6, 2007

I do agree with your introduction. Since human is special compared to other animals, it is hard to deal with. To train human behavior to a right direction, their environment such as teacher and parents plays an important role. As a suggestion, I think there are many ways which can correct human’s behavior. For example, seeing and experiencing other country’s culture might broaden people’s horizons. They never know how narrow their ideas are until they see it. I think you found a good point about how human’s behavior and environment are connected. After I read your essay, I noticed that humans cannot live by themselves.

Respond to Jon R intro and Conclusion-Tommy domingo December 6, 2007

I like the introduction it gets the idea across that music in the past was different than music of today.  The writer gives examples from history to prove his point which is very good.  The intro was easy to read and easy to understand, but it may need a more concrete thesis.  The thesis idea seems to be spread out throughout the entire paragraph and there is not thesis statement to speak of.  Having a statement to end the the paragraph would bring it all together.  Other than that the intro is very well formed.  For the conclusion it seems a little short.  The conclusion is a chance to remphasize the points of the paper and to remind the reader what they were reading about. 

Response to Mariko’s Intro and Conclusion December 6, 2007

I really like your topic.  It is very true to every person.  People are superficial and get caught up in social status and characteristics that don’t matter.  These simple things in life lead us to drastic actions such as wars.  I think you tie your introduction and conclusion together very well.  Your introduction states very strong feelings and catches peoples attentions.  I struggle with both introductions and conclusions and I think you did a great job relating your conclusion to you introduction.

kyles intro and conclusion December 5, 2007

Through out time people have challenged each other, arguing amongst themselves as to whose view is the right and who is wrong. My question, is there a need for this? Does conflict between peoples views lead to any thing positive or productive? I believe that these disagreements can be productive. It is through disagreement that people find a productive resolution to a problem. Opposition in views can advance society and understanding in the world

I view this illusionary display of opposition, as a contributing factor to American success. The ability to voice opinions and differences in a manner that can better society is a offsetting endowment that American citizens have. The emotion to dispute another’s claim can be a powerful tool when used properly. The power to align forces and make a stand against a ruling body is a tool that can help to sculpt a society, or cut it to pieces. The motions of protest must be conducted in a manner that is conducive to a resolution. When it there is a need for a change to be made, the use of conflict and protest can lead to a productive solution. These solutions benefit the people who made the contributions and the future people of their country. Thus, an opposition in views can benefit society, and lead people to better understand their fellow man.    

Response to Krafts Intro and Conclusion December 5, 2007

I really like the topic of this paper.  I think you use good quotes and you introduce those quotes well, which is something that I struggle with.  You do a good job and using specific examples that we can relate to and I really like the idea that no matter what the laws are, we are going to continue to push and break them.  Your intro really seems to match your conclusion as well.  The only thing I would consider changing is the introduction seems a little choppy and some words like nature are repetitive.  Maybe just consider using a little different wording with the same points and it will really good.

intro/conclusion posting- jon robitaille December 3, 2007

 INTRO-

Since its birth, music has been used to entertain, to persuade and to distinguish between groups of individuals. Historically music was used by the upper class, as a form of entertainment, and also as a sign of education and sophistication. The richer families would send their children to learn an instrument. This would often times cost a significant sum of money, this further helps to establish their dominance in society, because they can afford to send their children to school. However in the present day music represents something very different. Today’s society uses music as an expression. Many people believe that the music someone listens to has a close tie to their personality. For instance it would be a fair assumption in today’s world that if you saw a kid from the country wearing boots, jeans and a cowboy hat that he listens to county.

 CONCLUSION-

Regardless of all this it needs to ultimately be the individual who chooses how to use music in their own life. Music can be used to inspire, to educate, and to oppress, as was the case with much of the propaganda in communist controlled china. Whether or not any one man believes that music should be put to a stop, it will simply live on in the heart and soul of every individual. 

 

harsh December 3, 2007

In todays society there is a lot of frustration, anger, and opinions when it comes to government, government policies, and society in general.  As Americans we live off a constitution that has been set and enforced long before our time.  However, how often do we hear someone criticizing the government, laws, and power.  The American government seems to keep this huge country maintained and governed in a manner that we can all function pretty well in our everyday lives, however, there is always room for improvement and we all think we could come up with something better.  We also are constantly complaining about others, how they act, and for the most part a lot of behavioral issues.  There are sublets of society that account for behavior issues, but what if it was written into the constitution?  Hammurabi’s Code and 17 Article Constitiution compare to our modern society in ideas, but they also can contribute their ideas to a new constitution formed from basic ideas of the United States constitution and made better by these new ideas. These days due to an increasing number of people inhabiting the earth and more independence there is a need to keep a strong outline of power and roles of government such as the United States Constitution.  We simply could not function mostly on moral ethics like the 17 article constitution. 

Hammurabi’s code and Seventeen Article Constitution are two pieces based on former governments and societies.  People actually followed the rules that these essays contained, which may be impossible to follow today.  The United States functions just fine on the constitution already enforced, but everything has room for improvement.  The Communist Manifesto and The Day of the Dead also bring some ideas that would eliminate a huge problem in society, which is the idea of social classes.  However, sometimes it is impossible to change something so implanted in society.  We may like the idea of forcing people to act morally, but under the rights already set in the constitution it is not plausible.  Ideally, a collection of these three sources could create a crime free, more happy environment but to ever use something of the sort would require creating a whole new society that is isolated from any other. 

Post 13 Erik Beil December 3, 2007

Looks like I forgot this one =).

I’m going to post on Gandhi because his piece was what influenced me the most. I believe he was correct in all his observations. Greed in my opinion is definitely a facet of human nature that more readily  effects the rich.  There is definitely more caring done by the impoverished to one another. Another reason I liked Gandhi just as I liked our brief focus on conflict, because of his observation that religion is often superficial. Just as I was writing this I realized that the bible targets the poor and because most of the power and wealth in the world is held by very few individuals, it is a very popular thought. hmmmmm… enough with this post I will consider this further elsewhere.

CM, Development of the mind, December 3, 2007

In the development of the human mind over a specific time period and change in environment, the factor of change in mind will be proportional to the change in environment. In relation to the theory of survival due to adaptation to environment, the mind will be continually adapting to changes in physical and social environment through observation and a process of applying the learned to better its chances of survival or success.

In conclusion, the minds development will be dependant on the factors surrounding it, may the factors be social or physical. The degree of mental development will also depend on the intensity of the environments changes and the tools and skills needed for survival.

Intro and conclusion December 3, 2007

“Is the nature of a dog like the nature of an ox, and the nature of an ox like the nature of a man” (Mencius 17)? The nature of all animals is the same. This is the nature to survive. Each wild animal has the innate instinct to kill, eat and do what they can to survive just like humans. This is human’s true nature, the nature to survive and do whatever it takes to accomplish that. But, human’s true nature has been hidden and molded by society and law.   

A common saying is rules are made to be broken. Law and government is there to be broken and cause controversy. One of the most common laws broken is the speed limit for drivers. Each state has a different speed limit, and despite how fast or slow it is drivers will go faster. One can receive many tickets and violations, but this will just make them more watchful when speeding. The law and government can set rules, but it is human nature to break them over and over again. Parties and fiestas are a rebellion against the government and law. Fiestas are “a revolt, a sudden immersion in the formless, in pure being” (Paz 349). Fiestas show human nature because people forget about rules and laws. It is here where people become there true selves and show human nature by not following laws. They have there own set of laws. Within these laws people “prays shouts, feasts, gets drunk and kills” (Paz 347). Parties are an example of true human nature, what people will do without laws and government.

PLZ help me strengthen my intro. Erik Beil Post 14. December 3, 2007

    Intro

    [NEED LIKE A NUKE OF AN OPENING LINE If any of you have any suggestions i know i need a better         opening statement (The underlines are other areas I'd like help with)]

…… the term greed must be understood and considered thoughtfully. Greed is the selfish want of wealth, status, or possessions. Conversely the pursuit of these things in moderation is acceptable often even promoted societies of today. This poses the question of: When does human want become greed? The answer lies within human empathy. When the accumulation of possessions removes the awareness of other individuals needs, wanting crosses the threshold into greed. The next logical question becomes: “Why greed?” the answer relatively easy to see in our own lives. Society tells us, through use of advertisements and “reality” television, that money makes our lives easier and along with this ease comes happiness. As with all things in this world, the path of least resistance is often the most traveled. Human wants turn into greed because often they believe that wealth and status will make their lives easier and therefore make them happier. The pursuit of happiness is considered by many as the meaning of life. What these people who feel such need for possessions do not realize is that money does not create happiness. In fact it is quite the opposite.

Conclusion:

Greed controls human emotions and has a negative effect on the world. Want itself has been deemed a good thing, but man has always had a problem with modesty, especially when it affords them luxuries and makes their lives easier. Being uninformed and manipulated makes it easier for humanity to have their decisions made for them. Contrary to societal opinions life is not about a beginning and an end, life is about the journey. Life is moving too fast for appreciation of the things beautiful in this world. Humanity needs to take a deep breath and step back to realize that what makes them happy is not the possessions they have, but the friends and family that care for them.  Awareness of human emotions shows an inherent caring nature within us all, but if greed continues to run rampant in the world, the hope of ever achieving “real progress,” as Gandhi called it, will become harder and harder unless something is done. 

Posting 14 –Intro & Conclusion December 3, 2007

Human nature explained as the set of psychological characteristics, including ways of thinking and acting that all normal humans have. The biggest difference between humans and animals is human can thinking. Human nature should not be bad from beginning, but human nature still has good and evil, because not everyone will become positive after they are learning.  Therefore, there has some way can affect people’s human nature. Living environment and education affect human nature a lot, so human nature should be changeable.

Human nature is not a simple existence. Environment and education can change a person’s human nature by affect. So, it is most complicated thing. Most people will has different standard when they are facing at different event. As human nature is changeable, how we stay good? If everyone practices moral behavior, then it will help us to correct our behavior, then stay good.

Intro and Conclusion Tommy Domingo December 2, 2007

 Intro

When the first Neanderthal walked this earth he was alone, needing to hunt and seek shelter in solitude.  Times were hard for people, but problems such as mass crime and corruption that take place today because of organized society.  People living together with certain rules and regulations were a natural progression of human evolution, but would humans have been better off if they stayed isolated from each other?  Isolated in the way some animals are today only traveling in small groups instead of living in massive cities.  The large organized societies of today’s world actually cause harm to the human psyche and the entirety of humans as a species.

Conclusion

Societies should not be abolished and people be sent back to a much simpler time, but only that society has many negative effects that people need to become aware of.   Maybe in the years to come the public will take control worldwide and have more of a say in how controlling their society becomes.   People should be controlling society not society controlling its people. There is no doubt that people will continue to live in organized communities for many years to come.  People need to know that societies have repercussions’ that can affect people in a negative way.   

posting 14 mariko December 2, 2007

                 People in the world are same human in terms of the way they live such as breathing, eating, and sleeping but there are a lot of differences between humans for example, social status, races, cultures, and religions. Sadly, these differences seem to prevent people from getting along with each other. Since there are these differences everyone has different strong idea and background. As a result, people start war by killing a lot of innocent people, and hate each other. However there is a way to resolve and overcome each difference. The way is to communicate and understand each other. Eventually, people need to be able to regard these differences just as characteristics through interaction such as looking other environment, obtaining common language and conscious of human being equality.

 

                              Appearance, what people believe in, and what kind of culture people belong to is characteristic of each person. Since these differences are just their traits, it does not deserve to any discrimination. Moreover, since everyone has unique and different idea, there are no defined best values in the world. Thus, it is erroneous to define that one country is developing and the other country is developed society, because this definition is the view of people who value richness. Wealth is not always the best status. People who are well-off might feel sorry for the people who spend life as self-sufficient. However for self sufficient people, their life is prosperity. In conclusion, there is a difference between human in how they think and what they value according to the differences: social status, races, cultures, and religions, but people should not forget that these are just characteristics and do not have to raise bias because they can overcome them by strong and deep interaction.

 

 

Posting 13 by Cam W. December 2, 2007

Is it necessary for a government to control every facet of its citizen’s lives? Perhaps, but has this always been the role of a government? Supposedly, before the time of Hammurabi, most forms of government involved the rulings of individual magistrates according to their own discretion. Hummurabi’s code was one of the first documented forms of government. He established a list of laws that totaled around 230, each quite consistent with the others. Though the punishments are viewed as harsh, the crimes defined are rather modern including “medical malpractice; lawsuit abuse, corporate negligence, and judicial malfeasance” (80). It seems that when people are aware of the exact form of punishment they will receive for their crimes, it helps establish consistency, hence government. Government and laws are there to provide a consistent model over a large scale of crimes in order to protect humans essentially from themselves as well as providing a means of compensation when a person is wronged, according to said laws.

 

Most governments in the world are undoubtedly oppressive, but a government can never be perfect because as stated before, a population of imperfect people has to be in position to govern. Still, there will always be a need for direction in people’s lives, even when that direction seems oppressive and excessive. It is indeed necessary for a government to be intact for a society to overcome basic human nature, if basic human nature is in fact inherently evil. Rather than have random persons of power decide the fate of an individual, it is the government’s job to rule, and rule fairly over people. However, it is not the government’s job to completely control humans or their lives either. So while the role of the government is to protect and ensure happiness as well as keep order and peace, it is not necessary for the government to control every facet of its citizen’s lives.

Posting 14 By Jennifer Intro and Conclusion December 2, 2007

Human nature is something that you are born with; it is the idea of having feelings and emotions.  Humans are conscious and aware.  We have morals, and can tell right from wrong.  We are aware of death, and have specific traits that separate us from other animals.  It is human nature to become more civilized, and have governments and religion.  Human nature is the basic psychology of all humans; it is the psychological and social qualities that characterize humankind, especially in contrast with other living things.  Humans are inherently good natured, but our human nature can change if it is not properly taken care of.

Human nature is inherently good.  Humans must continue to practice good and positive actions to continue to have a good nature.  Good nature is something you are born with.  Having a good nature will then in return shape you faith.  When man’s nature turns evil, it is due to the lack of nourishment it receives.  Turning to an evil nature is something you learn.  Your human nature starts by being good, it is up to you what your human nature will become.