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

Bwahahaha, this guy is a riot. Please, get a grip on reality.

"Actually, the second isn't implied at all. It is wrong, because the term terrorist cannot be applied to a state. It is also meaningless, because it does not convey any actual information about Israel, or for that matter, your reasons for being critical of it."

This is exhibit 1 of the prosecutor's case against this guy's bedeviling, contortionist behaviors.

It takes a lot of persistence, and painstaking meticulousness to follow his movements, but if you are genuinely interested in seeing the truth, you'll dedicate some deep, unflinching, intelligent thought to what I'm saying; otherwise I would rather you didn't read it at all.

If you can make the commitment though, please, follow me, and I'll show you the way.

First we must go back to his original post.

"I know I shouldn't, but I can't resist . . . "a terrorist state such as Israel" you do know that this is not only wrong but a meaningless construction."

He cannot resist here because, according to him, I've mislabeled Israel as a terrorist state.
Not only is that wrong, but it's a meaningless construction in his own words.

You have to drill through the semantics of the way this guy speaks in order to gain an appreciation for the misrepresentation and trickery that is his calling card.

He says, I quote, "this is not only wrong." ------------------- Let's stop here.

The fundamental question you must ask yourself here is, why is he calling it wrong?

We must, logically, as intelligent people, identify all the possible reasons before we can draw a conclusion.

There are only 2 possibilities here. 2 options to choose from.

Either it is wrong because he personally believes that it is wrong, or it is wrong because it is not correct. Specifically, there are two definitions to the word wrong here.

Something can be wrong because it is not right; again, because it is not epistemologically true.

Also, something can be wrong as a person's opinion of something.

For example, "it is wrong to steal medicine to treat a gravely sick person whom you love dearly."

One is debatable, one isn't. One is an opinion, one is fact.

"It is wrong, the way she treated him." -- "Your answer to the math question is wrong."

So, now that we are familiar with the possibilities, we have a better chance of understanding which of the two "wrongs", he was referring to.

If we can prove that it wasn't one definition of wrong he was referring to, it must necessarily follow that the other is true.

Instead of trying to make a value judgment on which of the two wrongs he was referring to, we prove that he was referring to one, by disproving the other.

So, that said, the only way it could be epistemologically wrong to call Israel a terrorist state is if it [terrorist state] is a meaningless construction. Let's move on to the second part of his first sentence.

"but a meaningless construction." --------------------------- Let's stop here.

Here he introduces, or he asserts that terrorist state is a meaningless construction.

This is good for his case that the wrong he was referring to was the factual wrong, because as I outlined above, in order for it to be factually wrong, the word itself, terrorist state, must have a meaningless construction.

However, he says "this is not only... but"

In English language, "not only, but" delineates a distinction between two separate concepts.

It is borderline syntactically incorrect to refer again to something already gratuitously implied in one part of a "not only, but" statement.

"Not only is driving without a seatbelt sometimes fatal, but it can also cause serious injury."

We tend to call these kind of statements redundant, informally.

If Sean were helping someone revise their essay, the great writer that he is, he would advise them to change that sentence.

Let's apply our understanding back to his original statement.

"this is not only wrong but a meaningless construction."

Remember, we are evaluating the possibility that the flavor of wrong he used in that statement, was the factual sort, as opposed to the wrong that has to do with opinion.

How much sense does it make as a top notch writer to say "this is not only wrong but a meaningless construction.", holding the definition of wrong here as incorrect?

Of course, if it is indeed a meaningless construction, it is incorrect!

This is as far as we can go. We can simplify the options based on analysis down to the following question.

Did Sean, the moderator, an excellent English (English is redundant here, by the way) writer, make an amateurish mistake of redundancy?

Or, can we make the leap of judgment to conclude that, you know what, I don't think it's very likely that Sean would make such a careless mistake.

If you can accept the premise that Sean wouldn't make that grammatical error, you are in effect left with no choice but to conclude that the "factual wrong", does not apply here.

Once you have disproved that it was the epistemological wrong that Sean was referring to, you can immediately conclude that Sean was making a value judgment (an opinion) that calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong.

*In condensed form, if you don't believe that Sean is capable of making such a careless grammatical error, you must necessarily believe that he is interjecting with full license of his opinion.

Now then, to clarify my gripe, it's not that Sean is making his opinion known, it's that he chooses either intentionally or unintentionally to immerse that strong opinion, in a bunch of factual sounding stuff.

You won't here Sean say, "Calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong because, say, Israel must defend itself against people who 'seek to wipe it out"

You won't hear Sean say, "Calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong because, say , Israel 'does not deliberately target civilians"

You won't hear Sean say, "Calling Israel a terrorist state is wrong because, say, 'palestinians are inferior and subhuman"

Instead you will hear this guy assert something very strongly, then watch as he ducks behind a bunch of factual sounding stuff that is demonstrably unrelated, as we have shown in one example, in one sentence here.

It's kind of sad really, that he doesn't have the guts or the fortitude to be a man about his convictions.

Instead he likens himself to "taking the high road."

What a load of rubbish.

He did the same thing in the Religion is insane argument, and thanks to this thread, I've managed to look deep within myself to find what exactly it was that irked me about his response there.

In retrospect, I didn't do the best job of explaining there, but I worked with what I could understand of my thoughts.

Now, with the benefit of hindisight, I know what really upset me about that thread. It's not that he's a moderator saying religion is insane.

"Moderator" was symbolic; my mind's way of grabbing a hold of a vase with some writing on it.

But until I could decipher the code on the vase, all I could say was this is a vase.

And being a prolific arguer that I would like to think of myself as, and some of you have probably noted, I was still able to make an effective argument with the vase alone, without even knowing its true base meaning.

Now, I'm very deeply satisfied to say that I know the real reason that that thread ticked me off; why it irked me.

This guy will "lob the grenade", as I referred to one post earlier in this same thread, and then he will duck and hide behind things like "Karl popper said such and such..."

or "...meaningless construction"

(The "Moderator" in my initial explanation, was a subconscious reference to his use of supposed facts, fake facts, to make his opinion beyond reproach. The moderator stature was akin to the stature of alleged facts by their strength of the irreproachability that they communicated)

Stuff that, if you take the proper time to analyze, is all part of an elaborate ruse to make a potent assertation, then cover it up 6 ways to Sunday with smoke and fog, which accomplishes two aims.

1) It makes the opinion hard to attack, since there is no way to argue against this opinion, because he won't even acknowledge the fact that it is an opinion.

2) The opinion is presented as a factual interpretation/conclusion.

In short, he presents an opinion as the logical conclusion (2)) to some facts.

Then, he makes it so that it is impossible to evaluate the veracity of that opinion (1)).

I hope that, in writing a whole essay about one sentence, written by a Chameleon who has mastered the art of circumlocution, I have helped you to gain some insight "not only" into the inner workings of his mind, "but" also how to analyze and execute the English language, which is what this forum is all about.

Of course, I can dedicate a treatise breaking apart his mindset and trickery, one painstaking piece at a time, but I don't think it is worth the effort, especially when this guy will give you the roundabout, and choose to ignore most of what you say, and I'm sure nobody is interested in overkill. If you are though, let me know. It would be productive as an exercise in mental acuity, analyzing one line at a time, and also I might prove that some of the things he is saying, which I have strong objections to, are untrue.

For example:

- the original purpose of his response that Israel is not a terrorist state as a matter of opinion.
- the other original "purpose" that Israel is not a terrorist state by measure of analyzing the word terrorist state
- his incorrect assertion that I intentionally called Israel a terrorist state to precipitate an argument. On that note, if I could prove that Israel is a terrorist state by fact (which I'm not inclined to do at this point), and that I do not even think of it as the least bit inflammatory to call them as such, this argument would fall. It's a verdict on the ignorance of some Americans that the statement Israel is a terrorist state is even a controversial statement. Certainly, I don't think it to be controversial. It's just true.

- his assertion that I'm needlessly provocative. There is a difference between being "needlessly provocative" and being pedantic and thorough. If I wasn't pedantic, I could not write about the fine tuned intricacies and inner workings of a complex language manipulator.

- that calling Israel a terrorist state is like hurling racial epithets. Again, this is based on the assumption that calling Israel a terrorist state is incorrect, much less the semantics of his twisted words. I had half the mind to start along the track of explaining precisely why Israel is a terrorist state, when I realized that perhaps it would be a difficult task with this guy, for obvious reasons, and also that perhaps first I shoud explain some other things first.

- that I made a pre-fabricated remark about Israel in a thread that had nothing to do with it. The reason this thread even stuck out to me was because of its immense relevance with regard to IDF's intentional, and barbaric killings of women and children; their dehumanization of Palestinians. Surprisingly, this stuff is common knowledge published routinely by the news agency Haaertz, available online to read. In the last few weeks or so, even the American mainstream outlets covered the news of Israeli soldiers breaking with the ranks and confessing how they targeted civilian mothers and their children on purpose. Yet, guess what, few people in America give a lick. I suppose if it was pictures of 4 year old Ashley buried beneath mountains of rubble, instead of a 4 year old palestinian girl, it would prompt some outrage. Part of it is the propaganda machine that is deeply a fixture of those whose interests are tied to Israeli interests.

The rest is his acknowledgment of his habit that he ignores most of what I say that is unpleasant, but true. There are many, many examples of this in his writing. He is discriminatingly selective.

I guess, at last I have this guy nailed down, like a screw into what was once the interior of a helium balloon, and now all the air is rushing out.

It's simple. This guy says he doesn't like to opinionate. It's true; you'll never see him articulate an honest opinion on anything that matters. He is too clever; too shrewd.

He won't lower himself to my standard; my harsh, bitter, scathing, and not that it should matter any, truthful standard.

It is beneath him to state his opinions and give his reasons. Instead he will work his web as I described, and somewhere in there if you look closely enough, will be his opinion as a mash-up of fake-factual rhetoric.

I feel I owe an apology to the creator of this thread for it getting so far sidetracked. It was not my intention to leave that comment for any other reason than the sake of it.

Only in the "creative people argument topics" thread, did I hope in any way for an argument, because that is what the purpose of that was about.

Sean is of course partly responsible for starting an argument that I can honestly say I didn't want, at that time, in this thread.

That being said, I'm glad for the result of this thread nevertheless, because I got an answer and a lot of insight.

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

"*sigh* I know I shouldn't, but I can't resist . . . "a terrorist state such as Israel" you do know that this is not only wrong but a meaningless construction."

Sean, why is it that you say that it's "not only wrong", but a meaningless construction?"

Those are two separate concepts. One is that the term terrorist state is meaningless, and the other that it's wrong anyway to apply that term to Israel, even if they could possibly, correctly be labeled as such.

In playing devil's advocate, interpreting what you say there, it is possible that it is "not only wrong" / "but a meaningless construction", in one fell swoop, the former as a result of the latter.

But for a skilled writer like you, there is much room for doubt that you would repeat a concept that is implicit, in a redundant manner more to be expected from someone who is new to learning English, than from someone who helps others with their English. You didn't say "it is wrong on the grounds of it being a meaningless construction", as I'm sure you are capable of doing.

Let's try to untangle the hidden meaning here.

"Prostitution is not only wrong, but it's illegal."

Now we are getting somewhere. We have the same format, except in this case, more people have the capability to understand what is being said.

They would glean from this sentence, much as I gleaned from the sister sentence in your response, that the speaker's agenda is twofold.

One, to make a personal opinion on the matter, and two, to argue from a position of indifference supported by prevailing rule and notion as a means to distance one's self from the issue in question and give the false appearance of disinterest and technical correctness; merely observing and commenting as a logician might on whether or not an argument is in its correct form, as opposed to the judging the actual content.

Essentially, you mix opinion into the equation surreptitiously, not to mention in close proximty, to presumed facts.

Why must you duck behind a pretense of unattachment and correctness in the interest of form, in order to, almost undetectably, interject a strong modicum of your personal opinion?

It's an unscrupulous modus operandi that I have noticed in your writing.

Sean, you do realize what makes computers different from humans, right?

It's really all or none. If you want to project the image of neutrality and impartiality, do it all the way through, for your own sake; for the sake of openness and honesty. You're really tying your hands though, because it's not at all hard for a trained observer to spot when and where you step out of line, from the self imposed confines of your square.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't speak your personal opinion; on the contrary, I'm urging you to speak whatever is in your heart, and don't be afraid to consign it to its correct origins [from your heart].

Most people manage to reconcile life inside of the square with life outside of the square, but it seems that the same cannot be asked of you; the reason why for which, I have in mind a few possibilities.

If you choose to portray yourself as unaffected and immutably entrenched in the good soil inside of the square, then by all means, stay in the square.

Do not, when it suits you, venture outside of it to lob a grenade, then scurry back inside.

That is, in a nutshell what you are doing.

I can't speak for whether you do it intentionally, or unwittingly as a sign of deviance from a rigorous coping method that you've decided to carry with you, and has in kind, become a part of you.

Honestly, I hope you do it purposely, because from a mental health vantage point, that is more desirable.

Another thing I've noticed is that, hypothetically, if I went on now and tried to debunk your logic on whether or not Israel is a terrorist state, which I'll leave at an impasse because >>>>, you will disregard everything I've said prior to this sentence, skirt the issue, and pick and choose which aspects you will respond to.

So, for that reason, I'll leave you nothing more to reply to than what I've said heretofore.

Good Luck.

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

"First off Mustafa, I would like to say, You state,"It would be unfathomable for a person to expect themselves to look like a professional bodybuilder."

- I suppose you can fathom it after all if you are an optimist.

"My essay, is on the perception young boys have on these images, which they idolize. They are very impressionable and vulnerable at this age. You also mentioned that the International Federation of bodbuilders take steroids, they do? because it's banned, they are illegal."

- I'm all for your essay so you can achieve a good grade and excel academically, however you should also consider on occasion, how important it is to you that you excel personally. A lot of people like easy professors, easy classes, and the easy way in life. Many people would take you up on the offer to give them $5 million on the condition that they should never think or work hard ever again. In fact, I don't think it necessary that you stipulate for them not to challenge themselves, they are capable and willing to take that track all by themselves if given the means to do so. What am I saying? Hold on and let me refocus so I can get back to the particulars. Right. I guess the question is, Would you rather get an A and learn nothing, or get a B and learn something? Would you rather be rich and retarded, or capable and modest?

Have you ever heard the saying "An unexamined life is not worth living?"

Take it to heart.

Now then, let's suppose that young boys do idolize these athletes and muscular male models. Why is that a bad thing?

Would you rather young boys idolized morbidly obese, wider than tall, on the verge of heart attack, unhealthy people?

Granted, if you take fitness too seriously, that can be unhealthy too, but that's true of almost everything. All things in moderation, I would rather aspire to be fit than to be unfit.

Yes, young kids are impressionable. Yes, they are vulnerable. But to what? Don't skirt the issue, this is not half-speak.

Yes, professional bodybuilders take steroids, growth hormone, diuretics, and sometimes they will get pectoral and calf implants, and even inject oil into their delts and arms to make them appear bigger.

It is irrelevant. Most young teens don't look up to bodybuilders. I'm aware that steroids are illegal. Again, it is irrelevant. I chose that example to show something that if it were true, there might be just cause for concern, but it is not the case.

Really though, it's not even necessarily a bad thing to look up to bodybuilders as long as you don't emulate the unsavory aspects of the things they do to look like they do (using illegal, dangerous drugs).

You also mention that these body builders are genetically gifted, if so, then why take steroids?
Steroids alter your DNA among a whole list of other crippling and possibly fatal occurances.

- Steroids are associated with adverse effects on your health; I'm aware of it.

- I don't want to get started here. There is a common misconception among people who do not work out themselves, or people who like to marginalize others to make themselves feel better, that steroids will do it all for you. That couldn't be further from the truth. There are enough amateurs who take steroids in heaps and bust their balls working out, but they don't look like anything close to professional bodybuilders. The fact is, it takes a dozen plus years of training 6 days a week (sometimes twice a day) at an incredible intesity, eating several thousand calories daily, avoiding 80% of foods which are not conducive, getting adequate rest, having some of the best genetics in the world, and yes, taking steroids, at least for IFBB pros.

I do agree that you can obtain a great muscle toned body, by working out, but not the extreme images and unrealistc images that are portrayed.

What exactly do you mean when you say "muscle toned?"

The average person can add roughly, and I mean very roughly, 20-30 lb of muscle to their frame above their normal body weight, and at a body fat of 10%, without dedicating their life to being big, or putting unnatural substances in their body.

Just to put it in perspective, that's enough muscle to get you noticed by 9 out of 10 people without even trying.

Oh yeah, what are these extreme and unrealistic images that are being portrayed?

Care to give me some examples?

Each to their own opinon, but first, do some research, be informed of the dangers.

I dare say I've done more research than you, and I've seen and experienced these things firsthand, more than you.

What are the dangers? It makes for great comedy when an uninformed person tries to shock and awe a veteran.

Kind of like the lay person who has been inundated with a lot of misinformation and hysteria about something, and they meet their match in a person who is actually well versed in the realities of this thing. They shout, It's DANGEROUS! or, It has DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES!

If you wait them out and stand your ground, slowly they come to the realization that

a) they don't have any proof that this thing is bad
b) it is not bad
3) they've been misled to believe it is bad

in the order of first realization.

You know what? A fast metabolism doesn't exactly run in my family's genes.

But I wanted to see for myself, if really I was limited by something I had no control over. The answer was a resounding no.

Here's a link from when I was 16 years 7 months old, after 5 months working out.

It doesn't show me at my peak, and since then I 've come off a long way because it didn't appeal to me to continue with the same amount of dedication. Once I've proved to myself that I can do something, I don't find much fun in doing it. It's kind of a dangerous trait because sometimes you overestimate your abilities and write something off as doable, when it might not be.

Look at the picture and take my advice.

img401.imageshack.us/img401/2503/1485232orig.jpg

Push the boundaries, and think for yourself.

If you let other people think for you, tell you what is possible and what is not, and tell you what's the case and what is not, you risk abdicating your soul and never seeing reality or even at least coming to terms with it on your own.

If you go by convention, convention has it that you'll be a conventional person.

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

Yes, in retrospect, I would focus on Gingrich's successes and not his personal failures.

It is a political science class, so the teacher probably doesn't want to hear you rip a politician.

If it was any general writing piece though, I think what I suggested would be appropriate.

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.