Christianity and the Survival of What?

I will not discredit my nice teacher for assigning this horrible passage to me. The only thing I liked about this read was the few truths of it. These truths consist of the section dealing with how people sort of view themselves as a piece of the world and their view on their body in relation to their soul. One of the things I wanted to quote I can’t see to find again but it mentioned something about how people that are not in belief of Christianity or any other religion feel that their life is meaningless to the world. I found it interesting that a man talking about religion to of that magnitude would actually know such a thing. In my experience that statement was true but if he was trying to say that was such an awful feeling in life—he was wrong. That is how I feel and I don’t mind if my life is meaningless, it just happens.

Also, the other part I can’t find to quote was the section in which he talked about how people find their bodies to be the “low” for of existence and their souls to the “high” form. This is all but too true but our modern teachings may be to blame. In many movies and everyday life people are encouraged to look for the beauty on the inside of people not the outside. If we were to do otherwise we would be labeled as shallow. Of course, we can simply love people for both beauties but it seems that not all people are justified in that. Maybe the majority of people misinterpreted that part of the Bible.

Unfortunately, that is most of the information that I retained from the passage and I am not even sure if I understood any of these concepts accurately. I felt like I was being preached to the whole time and me being nonreligious it was quite an annoyance. Most of what I read went through one ear and out the other (seems a bit hard since I was reading in my head but still as the saying goes.)I felt there was no need to even try to reread what I didn’t retain.

"The Argument Culture"

“The Argument Culture” was a great read that all Americans should experience for themselves. This passage was all but too true. It is rare to find people that will have a discussion with more than two sides. Maybe our presidencies have some small influence on that in the sense that it is usually a challenge between Republican and Democrat while the other parties are pushed aside into an oblivious world that no voter will ever notice. It seems that people believe there can only be two sides of a debate and when it comes time to choose one they decide merely on opinion and not facts. Also, if a person doesn’t believe in either side they do not look towards a third but to the middle of the two presented.
The example of how people are easily persuaded by questions without realizing it was interesting as well. I had recently read about it in psychology and to see it again in the passage added some emphasis on the reality of the subject. If people can be persuaded without their own knowledge then opinionated headlines have all the advantage in the world. Deborah Tannen said that the media should try and avoid the two-sided agenda of debates whenever possible. That made me laugh because it seems that the media is all about trying to convince us to believe in one side of a debate. She also mentioned possibly have one guest instead of two. This has been done but it only leads to the guest siding with something and trying to shape the listener’s opinion to be the same as theirs.
Finally, Tannen’s discussion of the argument culture and how technology makes it easier to become a part of hit home to me. With internet and texting people don’t have to say a word to be argumentative all they have to do is use their fingers. Chat rooms and websites like Myspace have given people even more to create a two-sided debate about without a doubt. It has created an easily accessible world of strangers to oppose instead of constructively discuss topics with. This Is easily realized by peeking in a chat room. All you see is immature minded people who couldn’t get along even if it was Armageddon. I don’t see this changing in the near future especially with the development of new technology it’s possible to become worse.

"It's Time to Ban Handguns"

Lance Morrow has some good points of view in “It’s Time to Ban Handguns” but at the same time he seemed too opinionated to consider some aspects of the argument. I don’t care for guns, not because they are frightening but because they are one of the many items in the world that should not exist. People argue they are necessary for protection. If they have never been created then why would we need them for protection? They may have been suitable for protection in wars but they should have stopped there. Morrow mentions the good guy having a gun for protection against the bad guy with his own thoughts. The thing about that is if the bad guy hadn’t a gun because they didn’t exist would the good guy still want one for protection against an intruder? There are alternatives such as knives, tasers (may be a gun but with less extreme damages), shirikens, and other items of the sort. Another reason I don’t believe people should find them necessary for protection is because of children. You may be able to hide a gun and put the safety on but who says a child won’t be able to find it and figure out how to use it—on himself. There are precautions but the key to that word is “pre” meaning before or prior to, which the cautions don’t create a completely stoppable boundary.

I found his idea that if guns were necessary to have then handguns were not the specific type that should be used. I agreed with this in the sense that handguns are small and can easily be hidden from the public and pulled on someone extremely quick. The other guns mention, rifles and shotguns, would be a bit harder to hide and less dangerous in that way. Of course, banning handguns would never stop their usage, I agree, because other prohibited objects are still in circulation. Also, creating stricter laws on guns wouldn’t do much because there are people who don’t care about their lives and see jail as no threat-- at least that’s the conclusion I have inferred from the crime rates.

"No Child Left Inside"

“No Child Left Inside” was appealing with the ideas and arguments that were presented. First hearing the title I thought would be just another plan that seemed overworked and improbable to have a positive outcome. As I read into my interest was averted to whether or not they would bring up the issue of obesity in a reasoning of why the plan is important, which they did. I think it would be a good plan to put into action specifically because the obesity problem that has blown up in America. Outside activity, I would think, would be the best way to keep kids at a healthy weight. Though there have been new creations meant to help with this issue not everyone could afford them. Going outside is free on the other hand. Kids should be able to build tree houses or draw with chalk on the sidewalks or where parents see fit. These activities were a part of my childhood and I’d feel ashamed if future generations were not entitled to the same enjoyment. I think “No Child Left Inside” is an important concept that has to be taken into serious consideration. I also found that outside activity helping children with attention deficit disorders interesting. It would be a great help for the children and their school work, then, if they played outside. It seems to give a reverse meaning of no work, no play.

"Problem Solving"

“Problem Solving” surprised me. I started reading the passage figuring it would be just another essay telling me how to learn. In the end it did teach me how to learn in a way but it was extremely helpful. They listed great strategies such as not limiting my problem so I will not limit my solution. They also mentioned having alternative solutions by drawing comparisons and recalling past events. It is interesting how we are to start our problem- solving essays by remembering our own experiences with the problem we chose. This seems like it would be more enlightening than just going straight to the library and opening books. The outline examples will be effective as well as the way of collecting ideas and information that they wrote about. This read was also effective because it actually made me eager to start working on a problem -solving essay. This is most likely because it involves more than just reading and analyzing. It involves interaction with other people and their ideas and solutions as well.
There was only one part of the passage I can honestly say I did not care for and that was under the subject of how to read a problem -solving essay. I was once again told how to read actively by annotation. I’ve understood the concept form “How to Mark a Book”.

"In Defense of Talk Shows"

I found this to be a great passage. It was entertaining to hear someone defend the people who actually appear on the talk shows. Sometimes I sit with my companion and when there is nothing on the television we purposely watch some of the shows mentioned. We watch them primarily to watch how idiotic America is to have such a production even created. I found it a bit ridiculous that someone would waste the time trying to convince people that what is happening on those shows is wrong. The whole thing is quite pathetic. Also, the author mentions her idea of what she would incorporate into her own show if possible. I think it would be the most pointless idea because people already know when someone higher up does something people find unjust. We just use a more sophisticated way about finding this information—the news. I am not defending talk shows because I feel disgusting to be part of this country when I see them. I am also definitely not defending the people who appear on them because I find them lurid and I am disturbed by the fact they would display their depressed life problems to the general public.

"The Whole Horse"

This passage was only interesting because I was able to see someone else’s point of view for believing in such a thing as agrarianism. I was interested in the argument that the author presented as well as some of the solutions that they brought up. I do believe that it would be a challenge for such thoughts as conserving what is barely left of certain lands being worked. I am somewhat against the whole idea of conserving and of the author’s dislike for industrialism.

Industrialism may have been a bad outcome in certain aspects for the land but it was advancement for mankind. Since industrialism we have been able to expand our lives, which agriculture could have never done on its own. The benefit of agriculture was the spawning of industrialism from it in hopes of more efficient ways. I’m not saying burn the forests and build Corporations ‘R Us but I am saying that maybe some things as such are necessary to move forward.

I find that there could be no harm coming from what we have started. If our natural environment dies we will have the technology to create a synthetic one. If everything we ruin destroys the hopes and lives of our future generations then so be it. Our future generations most likely will do the same but it shouldn’t matter because what is the point of conserving? Is it not our destiny to use it all up and then we are done? And if not then what is it? I think it’s necessary to know these questions in order for anyone to be correct about the ordeal. Who are we to say what’s right if everything is all done for nothing? This is not from a religious view but probably one better described as cynical. We are probably making a big deal out of nothing that will be worth while in ten years from now.