Blog Post 11

Juan: so...you didn't get belligerent right off the bat huh?
Angie: Nah, I'm a very composed and competent pixie when it comes to these things.
Juan: Ah
Angie: Met a guy
Juan: A common enough occurence
Angie: Really tall but not that tall
Juan: (whispers) dark, tall, and handsome.
Angie: He was wearing these really tight clothes
Juan: How tight was he?
Angie: Huh?
Juan: Never mind
Angie: You trying to be clever eh? Trying to be unassuming. Well, that's admirable but this guy took a different approach. I liked it. I mean, i saw through his strategy because he was, like, trying to, like, fucking oblieterate the way I was cloistered around my friends.
Juan: Is he a second order vain person?
Angie: (ignoring) He had really green eyes and, I don't know, he looked really, like, sizzling fucking fresh.
Juan: did I ask how he looked like?
Angie: He was like, I don't know, Jackie Chan Drunken Master at first...I mean they all were but after a while he was talking about, like, all the nuances of his major and shit. It was really interesting. Everyone else was like Goofy except without the charm.
Juan: Your favorite movie is Grease.
Angie: Plus he was really hot. He had this, like, crystal cross and shit. A rolex...
Juan: Really?
Angie: I don't know...it's kind of blurry.
Juan: You've been kind of negative so far.
Angie: No, dude, he was, like, fucking cute and smart, like, in more ways than one. I mean, he really sold me. I mean, it's organic for me to be apprehensive afterward but, like, if I see him again I'll probaly, y'know, pursue.
Juan: He won't be the same person if you see him again
Angie: what do you mean by that?
Juan: Don't be niave...it all relies on the context.
Angie: Fuck the context...Chemistry is chemistry.
Juan: Didn't you fail that class?
Angie: Fuck you.
Juan: Ok, I'll just leave you to your opium fantasies now, peace.

The flaws of a group debate.

Large group debates are a cumbersome debacle. The one we held in class recently met the requirements of a cumbersome debacle. The problems with group debates (especially large ones) is that an oligarchy quickly forms. Those in the oligarchy are the ones usually scoring up the word count not neccasarily because they are right or even cerebral but because they are most personably assertive. Proffessor Bogacka gave incentive to the groups by openly declaring extra credit to the one who wins the debate. However, debates are tricky affairs that are often used by educators to clarify arguments and not distinguish which position trumps the other. In both of the groups in our class, they were many that remaiend quiet, cowed almost. There were others who loudly (Myself included) argued their views (murky views). The reason why the views were murky was because we were assigned to believe in positions that we did not have the freedom to choose. How can one believe in a position through arbitrary circumstance (a flip of the coin or the whimsical decision?). It's like telling rabid aboritionists to argue for stem cell research or else they'll lose their households. I suspect that people did not take the debate seriously. Or else they saw at as a redudant excercise to be tolerated but not all celebrated or even considered as applicable to their daily lives. Who won the argument? It's hard to say. There was ample amounts of duplicitious on both sides. Determining the winner is as arbitrary as picking a side. The debate left me unsettled and unsatisified. Why should I care? It's just a limitied excercise, right? These debates are fraught with fallacies and outspoken viewpoints that insist upon themselves to the point where things are right because they sound right. Right? And why does one engage in debates? To gratify ones one ego? And why should an individual be so invested in a frivilious debate? That kind of conduct is loser-ish. The oligarchy usurps the group and points are almost always fallible. Unsatisfactory conclusions and people flinging extrinsic arguments back and forth. Is that a debate? And why type a blog post about it? What function does it serve? Well, this is, ultimatley, a request to the proffessor to either dole out extra credit to both groups or none at all. I proport none at all.

Revised Mid-term

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bTN5T7VzX1W1BCl2cDbJRjJwUM_4F6OS5Q5Qj85hZVc/edit?hl=en#

Blog Post 9: Fathers paradoxes and contradictions.

Single matriarch households are on the rise. The chances of the average married couple divorcing is officially likely (over 50 percent). The brain can function with only one hemisphere; it can compensate. So can women raising their children all by themselves. Development in the most base sense can be fostered by shelter, nutriments (food and water), and a sensible amount of education. People can compensate. But single parent households should not be glamorized or even set the example. It should be the last resort. When done right, two parent households (mother and father) improve the development of their offspring. "when done right" is helping the next generation with love and benevolent family values. Family is strong. It is stronger with a father and a mother.

Revised annotated biblography

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jx3b-nBK-mGsA0mx2zUoAKPQ_3Bg-KhfHwPgdSCw2jo/edit?hl=en#