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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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!

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.

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.