Dissertations / What are the Typical Steps of the Doctoral Process? [2]

Haha, even though I'm a ways off from my dissertation, I still found this post interesting. Thanks for posting.

Writing Feedback / My pet essay [7]

Bwahahaha, Mustafa approves.

Writing Feedback / IELTS Writing Task--Fatherhood ought to be emphasised as much as motherhood [18]

This is unrelated to your revision of your essay, but I reject your assertion that the relationship between a father and his child ever comes close to that of a mother and her child.

They are mountains apart. A child can survive without his father; without his mother he is forsaken to a large degree. This is reflected universally as a creed, and it's why I find it so disturbing that a terrorist state such as Israel would deliberately target a mother or her children.

Men are bestowed with a great strength, and in that they take upon some courageous distinctions. They expect that if something should happen, they take the blow; it comes with the territory.

But a mother, really?

Anyway, Good luck on your writing.

Writing Feedback / Soldiers experiences in Iraq, World War II, Vietnam. [4]

This is a compare/contrast on the soldiers' experiences, not on the wars themselves, the way I see it.

That said, coincidentally we had an assignment to analyze some poems about war, from vietnam and iraq.

Here they are, if they should be of any relevance to you.

Brian Turner "2000 lbs" about a suicide bomber in iraq

Bruce Weigl "Song of Napalm" vietnam

Tim O Brien "Vietnam in Me" My Lai massacre in vietnam (Short story)

Writing Feedback / "Never too Buff"; two examples of thesis statments [18]

"What they are exposed to is a stream of unrealistic looking body images that warp their expectations of what they should look like themselves."

I'm speaking from experience when I say that those body imags are not "unrealistic." They just take a little work and dedication.

Give it 6 months, and with adequate dedication, the proper diet and accompanying fitness regimen, and you can achieve impressive results.

Unrealistic would be if they paraded bodybuilders across the screen.

Bodybuilders in the IFBB, the main bodybuilding league, take steroids, and are incredibly gifted, genetically.

It would be unfathomable for a person to expect themselves to look like a professional bodybuilder.

However, as for the images I presume you guys are talking about; football players, male models, female models for that matter etc., they can be attained from baseline for most people in a year tops.

We are born with our parents genes, we can't change that. But those genes that we have give us an extraordinary range, the limits of which we can only test through work ethic.

That's precisely why I find it so sad when people resign themselves to saying things such as

"oh, the advertisers just flash unrealistic images across the screen to make bucks"

The part about them wanting to make a buck off of you is correct. However, it is in most cases incorrect to say that those images are unrealistic. Will it make you feel better to say that? Sure.

But understand that if you should feel that you want to look like a model or athlete, physically, what's stopping you is your laziness, not that his/her physique is unrealistic.

Essays / political science question -- pick a topic, develop an argument [12]

Well, I don't know that it would be an ad hominem attack against him since we concede his revival of republican politics.

The intention is to mention his copious shortcomings, while at the same time balancing them by saying, look, he did a lot of good for his party (good here, doesn't mean good in the traditional sense. what it means is to further a cause. "The article did a lot of good for his chances of having the cased assigned to a new jurisdiction").

Hitler was an important political figure. He was very successful, and possibly the one of the most influential men in modern history.

So, there's my analogy.

Newt Gingrich is an important political figure. The point is, even and especially, repugnant people can make an impact in politics.

Essays / political science question -- pick a topic, develop an argument [12]

" ' You need to pick a topic you find interesting and develop an argument or thesis. Think of one thing from this list you found most interesting, and think about what you would like to do.' "

Listen pal, it's all here. He asked you to pick a topic that you found most interesting.

I gave you Newt Gingrich, because he's interesting. Interesting is he for the same reason you're drawn to glance at a nasty car wreck, or look in amusement/derision at someone who has broken a universal law or custom.

K. Now what do you want to do with that material?

You could argue whatever you want, but it has to be what YOU want. Look him up, read about him, and form a thesis.

Here are a few examples.

- Despite the fact that someone may be a grossly immoral person, they can still be a successful politican.

- Or: Being grossly immoral is an attribute well suited a politician. That is, the "grossly immoral" comes first, not the politician part. In other words, having immoral qualities actually helps you to be a good politician.

- A person's character and morals should not have anything to do with whether or not they are successful at politics.

K.

Seriously, this is not hard.

Pick any topic -- it doesn't have to be Gingrich.

Read up on it for maybe 20 minutes.

Think for < 10 minutes.

Devise an argument in 1 minute.

Write a paper based on the argument.

Submit the paper here for revision.

Voila. You are all done.

The longest part is in writing the paper. The amount of time you spend on the paper should correlate positively with the seriousness of it, or how well you want to do.

All in all, you should have a paper ready by tomorrow.

Essays / political science question -- pick a topic, develop an argument [12]

I'd write about Newt Gingrich. There's plenty of material to work with there.

For starters, he's demonstrably an insufferable liar, adulterer, criminal, hypocrite, and quite arguably a racist, bigot, and the all around personification of the antithesis of good virtues and admirable qualities, yet he was still a successful politician for a time.

It could be a harbinger to a number of follow-through essays and also the flavor of essay most befitting this circumstance, based on your experience with this teacher.

Essays / Should the policy of supplying textbook for free adhere to colleges? [16]

it's weak.

instead of saying "today..."

prelude with something along the lines of, "it's something young adults have spent half of their life preparing for, but that doesn't make the pain any easier when they finally come face to face with the financial throes of a college education"

it doesn't have to be exactly that, but try to make it better

Essays / Term paper based on "Brave New World, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and our World" [3]

Basically you need to start talking about the relevance of those books in our society today, much much earlier in your essay.

You're a pretty good writer but your essay lacks direction. It's fragmented.

Ask yourself, what am I writing to prove?

I mean, as is stands now, you say this is the case, and that is the case, and this is the case, and that is the case, ...

I never got the feel that I could settle down, sit back, and take audience to a compelling, fluid, focused essay.

Your essay suffers from a lack of organization, purpose, and delivery.

Here's one way I might approach this essay.

Start right off the bat, these two books are classics today because ...

Then you weave the modern relevance in, not as a parting conclusion, but as the binding in your essay. At the end, maybe say orwell was eerily prophetic, or the way we are headed today... or we can only hope those books turn out later to be disproven... so many ways to end this with a proper conclusion. It's a piece of cake.

Essays / Essay on 'Power of Organizations'. [6]

If you're going to focus on an organization that should really be feared, why not choose AIPAC, the Israeli lobby that pretty much vets any and every politician and has more influence over US foreign policy at times than Americans themselves.

Essays / Should the policy of supplying textbook for free adhere to colleges? [16]

This is a contentious issue that takes a lot of research.

First you must find out the economics of why college textbooks cost so much, much less why they are not free.

If you are going to choose the approach that there should be cheaper textbooks, be prepared to talk about a hypothetical system which could make it possible to have cheaper books.

If you are going to choose the approach that books should be free altogether, also make sure to devise some kind of plan which you feel might theoretically elevate that notion to the realm of possibility.

This is a lousy, overdone, painstaking topic. You didn't mention what the prompt was, or what kind of paper you are trying to write. In any event, I'm pretty sure this is not even remotely the best option.

Essays / "Why do you slay the righteous?"/ Narrative Essay - Story or Narration? [13]

Your essay is mostly plagiarized from the underground rapper "Immortal Technique's" song, "Dance With The Devil", the lyrics of which are included below.

If it's any consolation, I like immortal technique too.

LYRICS -- Dance With The Devil -- Immortal Technique

(Google the above to see the lyrics)

Undergraduate / Challenging the limits of my intelligence and responsibility - Philosophical Warrior [29]

Who are you kidding here?

"it is"

it < you're referring to as religion being insane.

Don't try to retract your statement now, and turn it into something that is debatable along the lines of a philosophical argument.

I'm making an ad hominem attack against you, in as much as you are calling me an
extremely foolish something believer.

If my end is in being a troll, yours is selectivity at the expense of being at best, disingenuous, and at worst untruthful.

Undergraduate / Challenging the limits of my intelligence and responsibility - Philosophical Warrior [29]

Tyler, there is no vitriol in my words. If anything, I'm a little insensitive, and sometimes I don't say things diplomatically because I was never encultured to do so, nor is it in my nature. Maturity with age will be to my obvious benefit.

But at least part of it is that, at some level I feel like other people are being insensitive in their own right.

When you read what I say, make sure to read it twice, because more often than not it's easy to overlook the point that I'm trying to get across and instead focus on the manner in which I get it across. So, save yourself some unnecessary affront and make sure you understand what I'm saying for what I'm trying to say.

Now then, I'm going to try to make this as clear as I possibly can.

What did Sean really say when he said religion is insane? To you, a person who self-admittedly does not believe in God, it might not be readily apparent.

Religion for many people, me included, is a major guiding factor in life.

When Sean comes out and says religion is insane, he is also saying something else.

Primarily that anyone who is religious believes in something insane. This is a corollary, I'm not making this stuff up and it's not farfetched. It is a direct, unambiguous inference.

So I belive in something insane? That's just the beginning..

Why would I believe in something insane?

It's surely not for a good reason.

Am I stupid? Is that why I believe in something insane?

Am I gullible? Is that why I believe in something insane?

Am I brainwashed? Is that why I believe in something insane?

Or maybe I'm insane? Maybe -- is that why I believe in something insane?

That's just the character attack.

He is more importantly, calling my most personal, cherished beliefs, deranged.

You have to understand -- imagine the most important thing to you, and how you would feel if someone else called it senseless.
I'm realistic though. I realize that you cannot imagine that, especially when I read what you say, when you say that people should not take their beliefs so seriously. I don't think we can have a discussion on this issue at all, without imparting into it the immense disparity in our positions, or being fundamentally unable to recognize where each other are coming from.

Feelings get crushed, people get angry, and the result is not good when you have a volatile discussion on this topic among people who hold vastly different beliefs.

*There is a reason why you cannot state your opinions as fact on this issue particularly. Because by doing so, you precipitate a lot of unpleasant ramifications.*

Nothing else approaches the personal heart and investment that is a part of this for the people who it is a part of this for.

Why do we have to be so upfront? I know at some deep level even without him saying what he did, (that I believe in something insane) that he harbored that thought. But does it make it better or worse to say that to me?

Why can't we just respect that we each have different beliefs and get along?

Yeah, I state my ideas as fact. Not on this issue. Why is that?

"In order to state your opinion as fact on this issue, it is very likely that you must implicitly denigrate and disparage."

On pretty much all other topics, you are able to avoid that toll, or not have it be so heavy.

I never called him out on something before, where it would be justifiable to present your case as fact; you're right, I do it all the time myself, just not on this issue.

Listen, if there's one thing in the world that NO ONE can take away from you, that NO ONE can say they know more about than you, it's your beliefs.

I don't care if you are Nietzsche or Einstein or Aristotle. To me, they got it dead wrong, and that was THEIR disaster.

So look back at what I said.

Why do I object to these things?

"You're not in your right capacity to speak authoritatively about something that no one can claim with any dignity to be an authority on."

What do I mean there?

People need to form their own personal beliefs. They don't need a moderator on a website for help on this issue. It's irresponsible as a moderator to speak about this topic so boldly. It's way out of line for him, just on this topic, because nothing about it suggests that you adopt other people's beliefs; you form your own.

That is the nature -- it is absolutely personal -- and you need to be especially mindful of that as a moderator who people look to for writing advice. To not be mindful of it is wreckless and an abuse and disregard of your position.

In all fairness, towards the very end I probably said some things I shouldn't have, but I think I showed more restraint than Sean did.

Undergraduate / Challenging the limits of my intelligence and responsibility - Philosophical Warrior [29]

"religion is insane (it is"

"He seems to be one of these fundamentalist scientist types who believes that, just because a story never happened, it isn't true, or that just because something couldn't possibly be true, we shouldn't believe in it."

That's awfully diabolical of you to say. Challenging Dawkins not because he believes "religion is insane", but because he is unwilling to see the worth of something that is "not possible."

What IS possible?

Answer that question.

We don't know 0.01% of what IS possible, so how can you say with a straight face, what is not possible?

It's impossible to know that something unproven to be impossible is impossible. How do you prove that something is impossible? You can't.

If it was as easy as observing something with your eyes and reporting to it, do you think it would be called belief? Where is the test of faith in that?

Belief is in knowing that something which you can't see exists. It's not hard for most people to see a rock and say that there is a rock. It's when you challenge people to believe that there's a rock without seeing it that they get all scared.

I don't want to get started here.
Just wanted to point out the logical error in your reasoning.

Don't alienate people with BS.

You're welcome to tell us your opinion, but don't state it as fact. That's appealing to your authority as a writer, ok?

You're not in your right capacity to speak authoritatively about something that no one can claim with any dignity to be an authority on.

If you must belittle people's beliefs, do it on your own time, not while you have that Essayforum.com tag and people might make the mistake of believing that your nonsensical blabber is any more credible than the next idiot Sam, Sean, or Shaw.

Writing Feedback / "The Right To Have an Abortion" - my argumentative paper [20]

You need to take this one back to the drawing board, or choose a topic that you have the necessary understanding of to make an informed argument.

"Women should be able to have an abortion if they are too young and unable to take care their babies."

So, in short, you admit that this is a matter of convenience. She is not "unable", to take care of her baby. Sure, it may make her life harder to take care of it, and she might have to endure a lot of sacrifice, but in most countries, especially developed countries which I assume the audience you are speaking to resides in, I have never heard of babies dying due to lack of sufficient means. The mother can receive government assistance to help her support the baby, and if all else fails, she can always give the baby up for adoption. This rationale in quotes, is a product of a selfish mentality, which is probably the reason for the dilemma in the first place. She may be too young to care, but someone else isn't. And in another unlikely scenario, she may find that she is unable to care for the baby, but someone else isn't. So, if it is going to disrupt your life so much that you'd rather not take care of the baby, have someone else do it for you. And you can't have it both ways; you can't decide that, oh but I don't want someone else to have my baby, especially at the expense of killing a life altogether. The notion that a mother's self-inflicted dilemma -- not that of killing the fetus or not, which is no dilemma, but the decision on whether she should derail her own fastidious plans, (which probably won't go as planned after all, if history is any judge) for her baby's sake, or give the baby up for adoption, is not an easy one, is true, however, it is entirely of her own doing. Your point is formally deconstructed when we look at the real options, in real terms.

Do we kill your aspirations or desires, or do we kill a life?

"And the right to have an abortion if the pregnency negatively affects the women's or the babies's health."

This point is far, far above the one preceding it, in terms of credibility. If there are very serious risks to the woman's health, an abortion could be justified on the grounds that you choose the lesser of two evils, that is, forsaking the unborn child to save the mother's life. The baby's health is another question altogether. It's no doubt hard to make a decision for someone on whether or not their life is worth living, but I could see how a severe deformity might lead one to the route of abortion, justifiably.

"Having control over their own bodies is an important part of the equal rights that women have fount for."

Look, by all means, having control over "their own bodies" does not extend to the life of the fetus. If we implant an embryo in a surrogate mother, then doesn't she have the right to abort the child, without regard for any preconceived agreements, because she has liberty over "her own body?

"Her own Body" is understood to mean a permanent part of her inherent physical anatomy, separate from an independent life which she has no right to have reign over.

"Another reason that women should be able to have abortions is in case the mothers are too young and unable to take care their babies. Unwanted pregnancies can be very stressful for women. Therefore, if they think they can not give their babies a good life then it is right for them to have abortions."

This is mostly a repetition of the first point, in poor arrangement, due to poor sentence progression mechanics. But you interjected some new things. First you say that "an unwanted pregnancy can be very stressful."

Guess what? Driving in heavy traffic can be very stressful, but that doesn't give you the right to kill every driver and passenger of every car on the highway, or any for that matter.

Shortly after that, I was forced to wince as I read your subjective evaluation of what is a "good life."

Consider this, it's some real Sh**: There are people living in Southeast DC, not more than 15 miles from where I live, who subsist on scraps, and sleep in degenerate buildings with basketball-sized rats, where the sound of gunshots is not at all foreign. Outside, they face the bereft reality that is rampant drug dealing, unconcealed crime and violence, and conditions that to anyone unaccustomed, would be untenable. Yet still, they value their life.

Rene-Thierry Magon de la Villehuchet, he was a french fund manager, one of thousands of victims of the now infamous Madoff Scandal. Why do I say he "was?"

He committed suicide after losing $1.4 billion of his clients' money in the Ponzi Sceme.

He could have still maintained a quality of life that some people spend their whole life dreaming of. But in the end, he valued money more than his life. What life he had was not "good" enough for him.

I make that comparison to show you the extreme difference of opinion on what makes a life worth living, that really, there is no way to determine for somone else, what is a "good life."

"Therefore, it is right if a woman chooses to get abortion in this case."

I've already mentioned how it's largely ridiculous to assume decisions for other people, especially on the most important question of their life; that is, of, their life, I should say.

But suppose even that there is a gray area that "might" justify a woman getting an abortion. The abortion would not be "right." That would mean that doing nothing is wrong. So leave it open for interpretation with a word like "might" "perhaps" "possibly" "could" etc.

What I'm saying is that if the situation might have justified it 99.9% to get an abortion, you cannot go beyond that premise to 100%, and say that it is "right", without first clearly defining the motivating factor in terms of % justification of the abortion. Not only is that impossible to do objectively, it would be hard to do subjectively based on the variability of different health concerns, or risks. Therefore, take my advice and use a moderate word such as "might", "perhaps", etc.

"One advocate of abortion is Stone. For Stone, " death seriously harms the fetus and so the fetus has a right to life"

Advocate means someone in support of. You've misused the word throughout your essay. Take that into consideration when you write your new essay.

It seems that you manage to repeat the weakest, poorly articulated points in your argument a few more times.

In your conclusion, it seems you finally decide to throw the word "rape" into the mix as an afterthought.

That would probably recur many times in the body, if not as early as the thesis, in a well written persuasive essay on either side of this topic, but even more so in support of abortion.

As someone who does not have an expert grasp on the arguments, you need to stick to the more salient points such as rape, extreme deformities, serious health risks to the woman, etc.

Stick to those extenuating circumstances and you'll have a better chance of writing a good persuasive essay.

I hardly addressed the conventions of good writing, choosing rather to focus on the content, but there is also much room for improvement in the intro, body, and conclusion.

The intro has 2 major aspects. The opening sentence and thesis, both of which need improvement. The body is simply your ability to expand on those points, and organize and coordinate your arguments. Your conclusion will summarize why your thesis is right, and memorably no less. It will not include new ideas.

Practice makes perfect.

Undergraduate / My Passion for Fitness and Wellness -- Career Goals [5]

Do you have any passion for those subjects?

Either the answer is a resounding no, or it's exceptionally hard for you to make thoughts become written words.

Here are some parameters that are basic to most essays of this nature, and in truth, at least one of them should be a genuine factor in your consideration. It's a good bet that most people will be unsuccessful if they pick something just because.

Curiousity/Fascination
Innate desire to help."
Functional mastery.
Affluence.

Pick one, or a combination of them, and write a focused, resonant narrative that jingles to the tune.

That's your formula in a nutshell.

Essays / Writing a definition paper -- hard to explain well [7]

You've been assigned to take a common word/phrase CONCEPT* and give it your *interpretation* in the boundaries permitted to you.

If it's definition, you're basically saying that you can assign any meaning you want to any word.

So, by your definition, correct could mean "interesting", Generation could mean "rejuvanate", words with no relation whatsoever.

It's a nice assignment. Really, all you have to be capable of is imaginative speculation.

Assuming that it's an interpretation you are reaching for, I like some of these words.

Belief
Definition
Success
Morality
Essence
Soul
Mind
Name
Religion
Money
Knowledge
Wisdom
Determination
Change
Justice
Unfortunate
Privileged
Intelligence
Assumption
Purpose
Deceit
Me
You
Life
Accomplishment
Disagreement
Chance
Chance 2
Wish
Frailty
Forgotten
Forget
Memory
Feeling
Love
Hate
Bond
Uncertainty
Despair
Hope
Construct
Pawn
Role
Freedom
Standard
Collusion
Enemy
etc
etc
etc

You need to pick a word obviously, preferably one that you hold a unique view of, so you can truly spill your guts and have a great paper. This is a great excercise in thinking. All it takes is a pen and conviction.

Here's a guide to picking a word.

Ponder something which has always perplexed you, and relate it to an abstract concept.

Keep in mind, this is all YOU. It's whatever. No holds barred. It's all out, whatever it is about you, let it through.

Undergraduate / Statement: Studying People my Whole Adult Life [6]

Hey man, I admire the fact that you are taking the initiative to enrich your mind. Most of the subjects you mentioned, and psychology which you alluded to, have a tendency to engross the mind because the focus on the human being invigorates our curiosity, but beware that it takes a steadfast commitment, not a fleeting fancy, to fully appreciate the wonders of our being. Sometimes you may not like what you see, but you have to accept that it's better to know than not, even though at times you might wish that you were stupid and simpleminded. Examine what it is, be strong minded.

So congratulations, but look out now.

Research Papers / Outline for death penalty research paper? [11]

I agree with kevin 100% here.

I could never envision myself using an outline.

The way I write, ideas formulate as I go along and sometimes I end up with a completely different approach than what I had anticipated.

My "outline", or the major points in my essay, don't become clear until I can write freely, with reason, and without any constricting script that I have to adhere to.

Understandably though, for major papers you want to have at least SOME idea of what you will be writing about.

But even in a long paper, I would not premeditate for too long. Just say I want to write about this. Form an opinion, start writing, and soon ideas and topics for paragraphs will pop up in your head.

It probably has to do with how you think. Some people can detach themselves from their writing, but others like myself have to be in the moment.

That said, I've never ever used an outline or formally "brainstormed" on paper, for anything.

Faq, Help / Is it safe to post my essay here? Or should I be worried about Plagiarism? [175]

it's a legitimate question.

I don't think so, otherwise I wouldn't post material for revision here.

still, I read a plagiarism tutorial and it said that you can "plagiarize" YOUR OWN work if you submit it to two different places.

but I don't think this qualifies as a submission. its explicit purpose is for revision. of course some professors don't see it that way. I wouldn't risk it unless you are sure that your professor is not some weirdo who would like to make your life miserable vis a vis him/her being a miserable person.

your definition is kind of vague, I would play it safe if I were you

Undergraduate / Nanyang: My proudest achievement essay. [9]

1st line - serious writing doesn't acknowledge itself. that's for kids, kids who are discouraged to do it beginning in high school.

..is no doubt. why use the plural, doubts? it obfuscates your writing and sounds awkward. consider why you would use that idiom to begin with, and you'll concur.

2nd line - "land" is weak, it sounds like something a jock would say. in sports conversations it might be well-suited to the topic for the sake of getting the sports signficance across in an uncomplicated manner, but that's not the case with writing.

you repeated "lawn tennis" in close proximity of each other. change the first utterance "I played the best three hours of lawn tennis" to something more universal. how can you describe this without referring to the fact that you are playing a sport?

From here on - your sentences are jumpy, that is, they don't work together or follow in progression from one another.

choose one aspect that you want to describe and devote at least a few interconnected sentences to it.. this will be the story, the body

good luck

Writing Feedback / eating disorders (Anorexia Nervosa), introductory paragraph [10]

bwahahaha, do I understand correctly that newsha31 is an alias of shan?

Writing Feedback / Oh Spring! Where is your sense of humor? [5]

To begin, men, or women with the name john, shouldn't use a word as strong as heartbroken to describe their mental state. Disappointed, sure. Heartbroken I could understand if that was your girl/man (it seems) or something and he described you as all those things before he said he no longer wanted to see you. So the way I see it, it appears you are asking in a writing forum, something for which you should seek the consultation of a psychiatrist if you think it warrants it or the good help of someone who knows you personally.

Second, your heart may be racked by the emptiness, by the word you uttered up there, however, you cannot extend that misfortune to be reality. You can accept that grass is blue, but in no uncertain terms, the grass is still luscious green.

Asking help for your writing is a guise that you conceived to conceal the purpose of what you are asking. It sounds like you have some personal problems that you need to work through.

I'm not qualified to offer you advice that you should take unequivocally, but I think referring back to the insecurity that you mentioned, you have some issues with self-worth. We all need to feel that we matter to someone; it's the feeling that drives us to seek out relationships with other people. Having contempt for other people might be a defense mechanism to deplore what you feel is their callousness. So you seek to build this image of yourself, this impenetrable building.

The building has several dimensions that serve your individual needs. Its height is to show that it is self-reliant and successful and to fill the second need; to draw attention and respect and admiration. Its brick is to protect anyone from seeing through it and exposing the structure for what it really is, a vulnerable house of cards that could fall over.

You have in my opinion, two fundamentally distinct routes that you can take to alleviate your problem.

One is to address the problem, which I think is your issue with self-worth. Believe it or not, we each add something to this world, not because of what we can do, or because of our crude, sanitized abilities, but just because of who we are.

Some people only feel satisfaction from doing something which they are good at.

That's more inclined to the second, far more precarious route of deception, namely self-deception. In order for this to work, you must convince yourself of your importance. How can you do that? You must have people constantly telling you that you are important. In crude form, the overbearingness and pretentiousness is an innate function of this.

However, if you don't refine these feelings into something of a useful form, you risk letting people see you as a bitter, cold, and distant person.

So refine those raw feelings into something which can foster their well-being and also protect them. If you are a doctor, people might say you are entitled to sneer at whomever you want. You can put on this pretense that you are cold and unfeeling, which helps make you feel strong, masks your incredible need for affection, and at the same elicit respect and admiration from others, by being someone who serves a vital function in the community.

As you briefly mentioned Socrates above, you might be aware that he said the following:

"Be as you wish to seem" That's open to your interpretation of it.

Whatever you do, pick a route, #1 or 2, and remain resolute.

Essays / "Driving Under the Influence" - Thesis [4]

Driving under the Influence"

very dangerous" is very ambiguous

besides serious accidents, physical or mental handicaps, it "can also" lead to something else worth mentioning; death

can lead"

Walking outside on the sidewalk can lead to physical handicap and death. I like to leave open the possibilities on matters which are uncertain myself. But you chose this topic expressly as "driving under the influence." We don't talk about driving under the influence because driving under the influence is something that you can do to pass the time on road trips and OH BY THE WAY, IT CAN LEAD TO PHYSICAL HANDICAP. See where I'm going with this?

Unless driving under the influence has some casual use to you, unbeknownst to me, the only reason we are talking about it is because it increases your risk of getting into an accident and being injured or dying.

It's important to understand context.

Imagine you are talking to your friends who "drive under the influence" all the time and think of it as like a hobby or something. You tell them, "driving under the influence", which they think is a hobby, "can lead" to death.

That would work. They are innocent to our definition, our construct of what driving under the influence is.

We operate under a particular, imposed definition of what "driving under the influence" means.

So you must assert very strongly, in specific terms, something about driving the influence as we perceive it. It must take into account OUR perception to be effective.

Our perception of the subject of your thesis actually says more than your thesis itself. That's very weak.

You must consider what makes the assortment of words drving/ under/ the/ influence, a subject in and of itself. Why isn't "licking lollipops by the pool" a valid subject?

You need to put yourself in other people's shoes, imagine yourself in their position.

What do they think? What do they feel? How do they feel? What are their motivations? How do they think? Why do they think that way? etc etc etc

Analyze people critically, answer some basic questions. It will help you become a stronger, better apt person who can understand and cope, if not deal with almost any situation imaginable.

That's my best recommendation, above and beyond tying your shoelaces.

Poetry / Neruda Poem, a reply to the author [5]

Haha, sorry if I gave the impression that the poem is mine?

I just wrote the reply. That poem was written by Pablo Neruda.

Research Papers / The Psychological, Physiological, and Neurological effects of Marijuana and Cocaine Use in Humans. [34]

I just garbled up some crap and sent it to him. I can't stand citations. Especially all the different styles. Put a . here and a . there. Give me a break. Hopefully he won't look very closely at that page.

Research Papers / The Psychological, Physiological, and Neurological effects of Marijuana and Cocaine Use in Humans. [34]

neither of you caught "green" in the second paragraph. Haha, I was giving props to black people too!

whenever they mention slang for weed they never say "green" or "bud" or "purp", at least not in any writing

the prof mentioned something about cse, that's all I got

Writing Feedback / Essay on a personal challenge at school [5]

1st line - lackluster opening sentence.. "I had to deal with the situation" < we understand that at some point you felt you had to resolve this challenege, that's implied. So what are you telling us?

2nd line - all the sixth graders... to see if they

poor intro all aroud, no defined objective, just straight into your detached recital.

even if you are working under a word constraint, you should have some closure in your conclusion

speaking of which, the conclusion becomes awkward and confusing. this might have something to do with informal terms and tense problems.

Writing Feedback / "Green Jeans" / "The love of my life" / "Fathers" - rhetorical essays (finals) [9]

Are you serious? I have 3 sisters and enough [white] female friends.

I can't imagine any of them would be interested in these essays.

If by "younger" you mean hopeless, "single" you mean single for a reason, and "women" you mean gay women for all their functionality, you hit the bulls eye.

Research Papers / The Psychological, Physiological, and Neurological effects of Marijuana and Cocaine Use in Humans. [34]

ahhhhhhh, good stuff. If it takes a pretext to make your spine show, I'm all for it.

Personality baby, I can't stand people who are not hyper opinionated..

I've incorporated much of what you said, with the exception of the first paragraph that I'm debating whether or not to drop.

Also, I'm on the prowl for amplifiers and redundant phrases, both of which are just part of my writing at this stage.

I have to issue a few clarifications.

"While a psychologist... that was after reading a bunch of journal abstracts, the language has an influence on you like an accent in a foreign country. That reminds me that I have to read some challenging books to help better my writing skills.

"the aging process.. actually, at the time I felt it was important to add the bit about hastening the imminence, so in some way it must be relevant from an accuracy standpoint.

Ostensibly. That was my first attempt at using the word although I've encountered it many times in reading. I always thought it meant something like perceptible. In any case, you have to misuse words a few times before you can understand and get a feel for the proper context for its use.

Undergraduate / SBU Essay - An Intellectual Experience [5]

Here I am laughing aloud because I cannot fathom the thought that you would stay up the whole night mystified about a play.

That is my point actually. You cannot have that much genuine passion. I don't know you but it looks like there is a lot of unabashed posturing in your essay.

exhibit 101: "having gotten over our initial stunned silence"

So much so, that I'd be interested in reading about your reaction to a near death experience for my own intellectual experience..

Much of your essay is recapping a play when you should really be reflecting critically on your thoughts, on your growth.

Like Tyler said, this play has undoubtedly been reviewed extensively so your recap is unwarranted because the interpretation you offer is probably already someone else's property.

I would ask simply: What does this essay tell us about your personal reflection that cannot be looked up in a review, much less be unique?

Research Papers / The Psychological, Physiological, and Neurological effects of Marijuana and Cocaine Use in Humans. [34]

that concludes this thread, there is nothing more to discuss because I won't be writing about what we have discussed because it's too time consuming.

Research Papers / The Psychological, Physiological, and Neurological effects of Marijuana and Cocaine Use in Humans. [34]

I think I've found what my problem is in making you understand. I keep pointing out relevant stuff, but stuff that deviates from my most important assertion. First in response to Kevin, I didn't mean that you shouldn't try drugs for non medical purposes. The pantry and cupboard remark is just my vague way of saying the following:

*Your motivation for trying drugs, I think, will determine in most cases if it becomes a habit, and should also probably be the deciding factor that shapes the verdict on whether or not your use is in good faith, or if it is a futile attempt at escapism; an attempt that in good fortune, is many times discontinued, but appears to some people like a fleeting glance at sanity, and in desperation they pursue it, completely oblivious that they will walk in place, treading those first few steps of "harmony" time and time again, until they realize that there is no point forward in the route they have taken, and usually by that time, it's of coure too late to back out of the dark and destructive tunnel which they have entered, and the door closes on them.*

I don't know but you seem to think that I'm one of those people who accept what they are told and stick to it regardless what the circumstances. You think I read books and monograms and pontificate on things which I've never even seen firsthand? On the contrary, I'm hesitant to comment on something that I haven't seen or experienced in some form myself, which should tell you that I've abused drugs, by my own definition before.

I've tried lsd, mdma, speed, oxycontin, percocet, and cocaine, all once, and marijuana at least 5 times on different days.

I went in with a clear purpose to chronicle each drug to make a personal guide to their effects for my use, in a safe, mitigating environment. Also, of course I wanted to see what was so captivating about them.

What I found varied depending on the drug I used, but the one consistency was that there were definitely some appealing characteristics, especially with mdma and cocaine, but then a "comedown" or cash that should indicate to any educated person right away, one, this cannot be sustained, two, the secondary effects make it not worth using.

What came as a complete surprise to me was after using mdma, my attitude and personality actually changed to be more altruistic and I found myself thinking about people and things in such a positive light that I had never seen before. I was myself in a few days after that.

I ended up arriving at the conclusion that any positive effects drugs are rooted in self-interest. Second, that people who use drugs non-medically, have to be willingly crazy to believe they have much value.

- There is a very good reason that the effects of drugs are so sorrowfully temporary. It is inherently stupid, unnatural, and unattainable to try to change who you are fundamentally by becoming intoxicated. It should be self-evident when the vast majority of drugs lead to rapid tolerance and the effects are shortlived for mere hours following use; they cannot offer any sustained value.

- The favorable effects of drug use on your personality, they make you "less critical", etc etc, have their own problem in my opinion. They emanate from euphoria and bliss, and so they are incredibly selfish and vested in self-interest. Hedonism cannot yield any virtue, even hedonists will admit. When you are feeling the best you have in your life, what reason do you have not to treat others well? It's all about you, a turpitude that is mind-bogglingly damaging and causes far too many problems, probably if one had to choose, the biggest reason for drug use.

-* So I find it hard put in words, to relay, how preposterous I think it is that people would appeal to hedonism and essentially, cosmetic surgery on the soul, to try to find the answer in life. It shows a weak will, feeble character, and a diseased mind that so many people follow this convenient, dead end trap-route.

- I respect what I perceive Sean is saying though, in a limited sense, because there ARE some people who might abuse drugs from the outset, knowing full well not to expect much from them and relegating them to their rightful place as a terrible scourge. It's only when this understanding falters, or when it escalates as it often does, to even the tinest hope that drugs have something intangible and of worth to offer you, that you are letting the drugs abuse you and not vice versa.

Writing Feedback / "Green Jeans" / "The love of my life" / "Fathers" - rhetorical essays (finals) [9]

I think all in all, you have a distinctive writing style that's not painful to read, which is good because that's the most important element of an essay.

At the same time, I think it's safe to say that you're a bit too candid and portray yourself as somewhat neurotic. We all have our idiosyncracies but sometimes it's best not to mention them in all their glory, or at least try to streamline them so the reader doesn't become uncomfortable and feel as though they are too familiar with you, if that's possible just by reading your essay.

Give it your style with a few quirks, but don't make it more personal than it has to be, especially because some professors will judge what you say subconsciously and it might adversely affect your relationship.

I'm going to be honest myself, I feel that your first essay is not only insipid, but worse, redundantly insipid.

Your second essay probably has the best stuff but you need to develop a stringent cable-wire that carries it all the way through. You could very easily start out with your father who abandoned you, talk at length about how it affected you personally. Describe what you thought would be your lasting impression of men, then devote a section to your fiance and all his good qualities and how he changed your outlook on men. Then bring it back all the way around and show how men are treated unfairly in court on issues of child custody etc etc. It would be an accurate depiction of the court system and you could depict some unique aspects that help us to see that. In the end, point out the ex-wife, the villian, highlight the great man among a group of great men you didn't knew existed, and you have a pretty tight essay.

Your third essay I rank as 2 out of 3 because it is a major life event and salvages what would otherwise be another essay 1. We need to feel that we didn't waste our time reading these essays. Believe me when I say it's better to emphasize a good theme with little detail than vice versa. Your profesor will regard more highly an essay that shows critical thinking skills and analysis as opposed to one that spews at the mouth. The point in writing these essays is to develop your ability to convey your important thoughts and ideas to us. It is not something where we necessarily want to hear about unimportant details that are loosely scattered about with no rhyme or reason, and we end up feeling that we didn't enrich our minds but instead added more pointless traffic to our short term memory. Unless it is a narrative essay, and you can make things really interesting for our leisure, my opinion is that it's best to stick to a "thesis" and push that thesis no matter what it is. We will probably be compelled to think about your thesis, whatever it is, and that's more than you can say for reading an unimaginative crack at a narrative.

Research Papers / The Psychological, Physiological, and Neurological effects of Marijuana and Cocaine Use in Humans. [34]

Let's try bullet points. If you have an objection to what I say, just point out the bullet.
Here we go.. You like to simplify things, so I've simplified my points in such a manner that is more compatible with your views.

- Drug use for "social purposes" is non medical, therefore it is drug abuse. There is nothing to talk about. It is drug abuse.

- There is a medical distinction between addiction and dependence. Call it pedantic, I could argue for a long time the monumental differences, but inevitably you will hijack the argument and turn it into something way departed from what it was originally. So, we'll leave it at that first sentence. Addiction and dependence are medically different, and I think we'll have to leave it to the PhD's and MD's on that.

I'd be willing to bet dollars to doughnuts that if we took a survey of people on the street, the first thing people would admit to thinking of when they heard the word addict would be drug related and in line with what I was talking about. Stop making idealist jibes and try being realistic for once. However, since this is not black and white to your liking, I've "de-bulleted" it so it can be stricken from the "record", or your consideration I should say.

- I'm going to neglect almost every other point you make about sugar and video games and so on because it wouldn't conform to the high standard that is required of a bullet. We are talking black and white here, Sean here. In an earlier post you mentioned the respective "addiction" rates for marijuana and cocaine. If I recall correctly, it was 1/7 and roughly 1/3 respectively.

Do you HONESTLY think 1/7 people who drive, will be seriously injured or impacted in a life-changing auto accident?

Even though, unfortunately this doesn't conform to the bullet standard (most things don't) I still have to mention it; but don't get all ruffled, it will be stricken from the record, you can disregard it and be confident that you are not obliged to take it into consideration.

I've tried time and time again to avoid pointing out the direct, quantitative and qualitative damages that result from drug use, because that wasn't the approach I had in mind when I began. (see most people contend that the problem..) I tried to point out the broader reasons, but in the interest of shortsightedness, which is a recurring theme around here, drug use can be tracked back to too many problems for someone to argue in its favor. I understand and appreciate that there are actually people out there who use drugs responsibly and limitedly like they would any product in their pantry or cupboard. But these people are overshadowed by others who can't and don't use it for the purposes they do. For that reason we have to lump them in there as part of the problem. What is the problem?

-10's of thousands of people die from alcohol related crashes each year.
-The economic cost of drug users who cannot contribute to society, and instead make themselves a drain on society. We are talking the productivity, health, and other losses that add up to 100s of billions of dollars annually in the United States.

- The emotional and real suffering that drug users and their families must deal with.

These three points shut down your rebuttals categorically, and that's just a bare minimum so I can preserve the white space.

On a side note. I think I've concluded that I'm going to have to focus only on the physiological and neurological effects because I only have 3 or 4 pages to work with

Research Papers / The Psychological, Physiological, and Neurological effects of Marijuana and Cocaine Use in Humans. [34]

Are you trying to back me into a corner by using a loaded, limited word like addict that has a stigma which is pretty much universal, so what it does here is diminish my points by arousing feelings of antipathy to patronization?

Or are you misinterpreting what I'm referring to when I say drug use, and just as importantly, why I say drug use, through no fault of your own, but my own ineptitude in defining things clearly and comprehensibly (which is good, because that's what we're here to work on) ?

I think you would be wise to understand why I didn't mention the word addict in my opening paragraph. First of all, in a drug using society such as America, the word addict applies only to a limited number of people, if we are going by what the word really symbolizes. As I've already mentioned, it has an incredible stigma, which for a lot of people conjures up mental images of a raggedy unkempt person in the back of an alley shooting up their smack next to a homeless guy.

Addict doesn't begin to define the issue at hand because it precludes many drug users who also have a problem, and who don't happen to fit the definition/label of an "addict."

Again, in your last post you are not only missing the gist of what I'm saying, but also you are oversimplifying, marginalizing, and perverting what I mean so it sounds like something a junior high kid or elementary kid school could understand.

"Oh, addicts are bad." - that's what joe in the 8th grade can surmise

I'd be happy to point out something that is simple at face value. I don't feel the need to overcomplicate and belabor petty things because it only obscures the point and in most cases it is transparent.

My contention here:

- Addiction is a limited word AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, it has a medical distinction from dependence. Addiction is when you will stop at nothing, and bear just about any consequence to satiate your compulsion, until the next time. A dependence, in order to function in your newly adapted state, is not as serious, and even though it may be quite bothersome and cause disruption, it can be worked through more easily than addiction.

Drug abuse can occur in one use when you either use too much of a substance, or use it for non medical purposes.

Do you see Sean, how drug use encompasses all those facets without precluding one to the detriment of another?

Your post on "making judgments" refers only to drug abuse. But in any case, surely I can pass judgment on drug abuse alone when it has been proven that it can lead to dependence or addiction.

That's just the route of taking the most precaution, but drug abuse can be harmful on its own merit, with just one use. People die through overdoses and deadly interactions between different drugs.

But to be fair, as I outlined in the beginning, I really hoped to point out that I'm not dogging drugs because of the risks, but I am trying to shed some light on the psyche's of people who are dependent, were dependent, or are on the route to becoming dependent; people who ever worried about addiction at some point, people who became addicted, people who were formerly addicted. Even to some extent I'm including drug abuse although it's harder to ascertain, because even though it might not even lead to a second instance of abuse, the motive for using it the first time could well be rooted in the same reasons as people who have progressed to further, more chronic use. The statistics on addiction will not reflect the mind of a person who was discontented and decided to use drugs, became scared as hell for some reason, and decided not to use it again. So, I'm purposefully not going to define who exactly I'm talking about because we just don't know peoples motives all the way through. However, If I'm pushed hard enough, I can defend myself and give reasons why I'm not going to limit my scope. This is a dynamic issue which has no concise answer. It's not as simple as "it's obvious addicts have a problem."

On that point, somehow you fail to address the problem which I tried explaining numerous times (feel free to scroll), and make it all black and white instead.

We are not only dicussing addicts, but also we are discussing the people who may have been on the road to dependence but maybe suddenly never used drugs again. Sure, they may have averted the more serious fate, but we would like to know what enticed them to use drugs in the first place. So in my opinion, the very broad class of drug users, is parallel with the very broad class of people who probably face the same demons that I described above, but don't necessarily meet the same fate as an "addict" per se.

Why would I include those people if they never progressed to a dependence or addiction? Because many times their drug use has a common reason and less importantly for our purpose, but pragmatically (to appease the dedicated scientists and "black and white" posterboys), carries serious health risks much like their peers' use which emanates from dependence or addiction.

In short, I can isolate and decry drug abuse which I'm entitled to, but I feel that it's harder to make salient points due to the possibility of varying motives, even though my suspicion would lead me to believe they're not AS varying as I grant for arguments sake.

So the only solution I have is to be accomodating to everyone and say "drug use", and if I'm forced to defend that term, I am well capable of doing it.