It’s obvious that his main points had to do with the Five-Paragraph-Theme. But in the lines after, instead of following up on what he was saying, or even trying to prove them wrong, he would change the subject and just put in a run-on sentence or some other form of bad writing. To me, that made his approach look like it wasn’t thought out very well. My next complaint would have to be the points that he made. Even though this wasn’t his intent, they seemed to actually show the Five-Paragraph-Theme in a very positive light.
The surprise was not what I expected. It was horrible because he wanted to kill children and eat them. The beginning was great when he talked about how poor people in Ireland have children and are unable to support them. I’m thinking this story is about how to help poor people with children have a better life. Then, the surprise was so shocking to read.
He is sarcastically calling the government of Ireland to action. They are consumed with selfishness and neglect to help improve their country by taking measures that are more charitable. In an ironic and cleverly delivered twist of words, he elaborates on his belief that the rich people are vulcer’s devouring the land, food and additional resources from the less fortunate people making it almost impossible for them to survive. Many of the poor resort to selling themselves as slaves in order to survive and provide for their families.
The text also gives examples on how the upper class used, “The poorer tenants [who had] something valuable of their own which by law, [was] liable to distress and [to] help to pay their landlord’s rent, their corn and cattle being already seized, and money unknown” (2). The Irish children were used as a commodity; in this case by selling their children to their landlords as food. This approach is still present in the world today and how dominant countries like the United States can buyout other countries for their own benefit. Given such evidence, the economic and social struggles of the lower class can undoubtedly be seen in most parts of the essay. Not only is the Marxist theory fundamental, the reader-response criticism is also essential to the text.
sacrificing the poor innocent babes” (Swift). The poorer citizens in Ireland should have a choice of aborting their child or not. The Author fits this into his proposal as doing Ireland and the economy a favor. There are so many children born to parents who cant afford to feed and clothed them, for economic reasons, aborting a poorer child would be doing less harm then bringing this child into a world of pain and suffering. Swift did not wish to implement his plan.
In Jonathan Swift’s satire, “A Modest Proposal” (1729), Swift makes a wild and far-fetched proposal to the people of Ireland to eat the young of the poor people. He proposes several reasons for this solution to the problem of an over-abundance of poor people living on the streets of Ireland. However, it is the opinion of the author of this review that Jonathan Swift did not successfully answer the question of how to pay for the rearing of the children. Therefore the argument is not truly effective. At the same time, it is in this authors opinion that the solution given within the proposal was not in fact meant to be an actual answer to the problem, instead it was a call to arms for the people of Ireland to begin thinking about the growing problem of the poor, and to perhaps come up with some answers to the problem at hand.
Fern catches word that her father is going to kill a pig because it is the runt of the litter and will eventually be more of a hassle than of any good. Fern cannot believe that her father would do such a thing. She grabs her father and says, “But it’s unfair, the pig couldn’t help being born small, could it? If I had been very small at birth, would you have killed me?”(3) I find this statement to be a very strong quote from the book because it is showing the innocence of a child who cannot understand that because something is so small you would kill it. She is trying to rationalize with her father, which ties in with Piaget’s Cognitive Theory of Development the period of concrete operations.
He states that the worst thing about being poor isn’t because of not having enough food but not having enough money to support him in difficult times. He even motivates himself by thinking “being hungry makes food taste better” (8). The worst thing happened to him that makes him hates being poor is when his family doesn’t have enough money to bring their dog to the doctor. By saying “I want to hate dad and mom for our poverty. I wanted to blame them for my sick dog and for all the other sickness in the world.” Although he doesn’t want to blames his parent and their previous generation to have born in a poor situation, he doesn’t have any order choice.
Unlike Mencian and Zhuangzi’s ideas on following spontaneity, Xunzi and Dai Zhen do not agree that we should trust our spontaneous inclinations. The purpose of this paper is to summarize Xunzi’s ideas on this issue. Xunzi proposed that human nature is bad in Xunzi 23.1, though he sometimes made his arguments seem to be human nature is neutral. His central argument is that people should not follow our spontaneity impulse, as they are not leading you to a good way. One example in 23.4, he said that human Xing is rather selfish, like to get warm when in cold, to get full when in hunger.
These are question's man has always sought to enlighten himself with and there are no true answers in my opinion. It can wary drastically but I will confine myself to the texts i have to work with and what they seem to believe would bring happiness. The first text "The question of happiness" describes brief highs as only a temporary happiness and there for not the optimal answer to our question "These emotions are fleeting, and while they are enjoyable and significant, they are not the measure - or the pillars - of happiness" This text would also have us try to interpret happiness ourselves and not rely upon merely descriptions of the word. "I would first have to figure out what happiness is. Is it an emotion?