Response to "Why We Flirt" pg 541

I disagree with this essay that single people and married people are the only ones that flirt. That's kind of dumb cuz i'm pretty sure everyone flirts whether they are single, in a relationship, married, etc. This essay even says that peole flirt sometimes and they dont even know it. So someone that has a boyfriend could be flirting with some other guy unintentionally. Flirting really depends on the "definition" of flirting. I mean someone may think that one thing is flirting when someone else may think it's just harmless casual behaviour. If a girl is laughing and stuff with a guy that doesnt' mean she is flirting or trying to get something fromhim. She may jsut be good friends with that guy and comfortable enough to joke around with him. However i do agree that a lot of people flirt intentionally. Trying to find that someone or jsut a date. It is definitely easy to just go and start flirting with someone. It's definitely human natuer adn we definitely all do it.

Response to "Why We Fight" pg 726

I agree with this article to an extent. i agree with the three things they stated as reasons to go to war. And that the reasons we went to war after September 11th were legit and followed the three rules of going to war. However i think that we just went to war against the wrong country. The Iraqis weren't the ones who bombed the world trade centers, it was the Arabs who did and yet we still went into Iraq and have killed thousands of innocent civilians. The article talks about preventing that from happening and yet we attacked a country that didn't have anything to do with the bombings. The only reason we didn't go to war with the Arabs was because the president has a good relationship with the Arab Prince and didn't want to ruin that relationship because it would screw up everything with oil and stuff. But technically we should have attacked Arabia and not Iraq. Anyway, i am a christian and not all christians take "turn the other cheek" as literal as some people do. I take turn the other cheek as avoid fighting and quarreling with someone if it's not necessary, but obviously if someone bombs our country we're not jsut gonna let them, war is an answer if there is no other option. as long as we do it the right way like it said in the article adn not harm innocent civilians or torture prisoners for no reason.

Response to "When You Have to Shoot First" pg 732

This was pretty sad to read. I mean when you think about something like this it seems so cruel and inhumane to shoot someone who's already injured multiple times to guarantee they are dead. But it's true, what if they had a hand grenade or something, the only way to ensure the safety of the troops is to make sure the enemy is dead. And it was in defense as well since they started shooting first. The other story is a little harder though. Because it wasn't self defense, it was all instinct and whether or not that person was a threat. From the signs, the long coat on a summer day and stuff, i feel that they did the right thing in shooting. However it still seems wrong. But i believe they did the right thing in shooting that man because they may have saved many people from being killed that day on the train. It just stinks that as the last sentence says, "We do terrible things only when it is necessary to prevent something even worse from happening." which makes complete sense, you do what you gotta do in times of need. But i wish there were other ways, however that's life and it's how it is i guess.

Response to "The Butterfly Effect and the Environment: How Tiny Actions Can Save the World" pg 656

I don't necessarily know why but it's hard for me to believe that a little butterfly flapping it's wings can cause a tornado somewhere else on earth. It may be possible ofcourse but just hard to imagine such a little thing can cause such a difference. I get the point though, if everyone did just something a little bit different in order to help the environment it could make a huge difference. However the solutions suggested in this essay are unrealistic to me. First of all cutting out bottled water may help, but there's no way on earth it would ever happen. Not everyone is going to carry a canteen everywhere with them if they need water and if someone is at the store and is thirsty and wants water then they buy a bottle of water. if they had to buy a canteen with water everytime they are at the store it would eb more expensive. Switching to fluorescent light bulbs is a little more realistic but still not everyone can afford to have every bulb be fluorescent since they are more expensive. Same with the LCD monitor, not everyone can afford to buy one of those. The most unrealistic solution to me is "quit your job." Do thye really expect every single human being to quit their jobs and start their own business to help save the earth? like seriously, that's not even possible. Some people are made to have their own businesses and are good at it, but not the whole world. Me myself would be terrible at running my own business because i am not a leader i'm a follower. So that is pointless to me, if they're going to propose solutions they should atleast be realistic ones.

Response to making the grade pg. 194

When it comes to students asking for better grades at the last minute, I agree with this professor on this issue. Once the final grades are posted, they should be the FINAL grades. If professors gave in to all the students who asked for a change of their grade, then tons of students would be getting grades they don't deserve. If they wanted a good grade they should have worked hard for it just like the students who actually got good grades. If you don't work and study, you can't expect to get a good final grade. And that isn't fair to students who did work really hard, and turned in all the assignments on time, that the students that didn't work hard get a good grade. Also, if the students bad grade is going to make them lose a scholarship or cause them to flunk out, how is that the professor's fault. I can see how certain professors are really hard graders, but if you truly made and effort and turned in assignments etc... your grade will be decent. If you don't do any work and expect to get a good enough grade to keep your scholarship or not flunk, it's foolish. The professor has nothing to do with how hard you work or how many assignments you turn in. College is definitely the chance to learn about life. If you don't work hard in college and try to make the professor change your grade for your benefit, then you won't work hard in the real world and you'll try to just slide by. Students need to learn to accept their grade that they worked for and if they expect to get a good enough grade to pass then they need to put the effort in. trying and persuade the teacher at the last minute isn't the way to do it.

Response to "The Matter of Whiteness"

I think that what this is saying is partially true. No one thinks of being white as a race. Technically being white isn't a race. It's just the "color" of people's skin. Someone can have white skin but be a certain race such as Russian, Italian, etc. I think the reason people consider "white" as non racial is because it's the majority. White's are the majority therefore other races are considered the minority. Because white's are the majority no one sees them as a race but as just people like the essay says. Ofcourse all the races that make up the minorities are distinguished by race because they are set apart from the majority becasue of their race. When people are distinguished based upon their race it is because they are different than the norm and it's easy to tell them apart then. If a "black person" is addressed in an article or book or essay as a "black maid" or whatever, then one would naturally assume that the other maids or people in the household aren't black. If everyone was black they wouldn't need to address the one maid based on her race. I think it makes sense that white isn't considered a race. White is the ajority adn the only way to tell apart the majority from the minority is because of race. So other races are

response to "Your Gamete, Myself"

I personally think that if people are unable to conceive or whatever that they should adopt rather than get an egg donor. It costs so much money to get a donor and to adopt. So if someone is going to spend tons of moeny to get a child, why not save a littl child's life or give a child a good home instead of just creating a brand new child. So many children are orphans and it seems cruel to use and egg donor knowing there are so many children that need to be adopted. I understand that maybe they want to see a resemblence of the child in the family or make it easier on the child to be birthed into a family instead of just brought into one. However there are many young children and babies that need to be adopted that would most likely have a better time going into a new family than not having a family at all. Also there is no guarantee the child will look anythign like the parents so why not adopt anyway. I dont know i know there are some reasons that are personal or whatever i jsut think that knowing there are so many children out there that need homes, why not invest in giving them a good life and home instead of just making a new child.