The realist outlook, in my opinion, is more from a “present day” or “short term” point of view. Liberalism, on the other hand, seeks to establish perfection through democracy, believing that this goal is perfectly attainable through progress. This outlook is could be an unwillingness to face harsh realities. Instead of focusing on the here and now, it seems that liberalism would avoid it all together and focus on “what could be”. This long-sightedness, however convenient, seems like it would be extremely dangerous because it would be easier to lose control of the situation at hand.
You are an advocate, you take a position and defend it. In this speech, your problem with supporting materials or evidence is not to show its inherent subjectivity, but to show how your evidence has more weight that any that might contradict it” (U.Pitt). Yes the job of the informative speaker can be rather momentous and daunting, but I also believe this is the avenue that allows you to project more of your own personality, and your beliefs, whereas an informative speech you are more confined and not allowed to have any opinion on the topic you are speaking
On the other hand, realism means "the inclination towards literal truth and pragmatism" (ibid). It also means to accept life the way it is, and favour the practical method of dealing with it. This too seems to be a good trait on the outside, but it has some flaws. To only aim for average cuts short the potential of humanity. Just because humanity isn't perfect does not mean it cannot reach excellent every now and then.
Can it be real respect when we are not saying about others or pretend to not know? If we do, is that really for others or is it for ourselves? Don’t ask don’t tell policy can be the one of aggressive policy because ignorance can be more aggressive than physical violence. Now, we have to think again about ‘respect’. What should we do if we really respect others?
The ideas on reform presented in “Civil Disobedience,” though, are often more abstract than what the average person- an average person being one of good conscience and sense, not too radical- would be willing to act upon. Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” effectively argues the aforesaid ideals on governmental reform, but provides an unrealistic model of governmental amendment for the average person to follow. Thoreau begins his argument by stating that he believes “That government is best which governs least” and that he would like to see this “acted upon more rapidly and systematically” (1). He uses this idea as the basis for the remaining segments of his argument, going further to say he believes "That government is best which governs not at all; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have” (1) Thoreau uses this motto in order to convey the point that people should not require an overriding body, but rather, should be able to subsist with little or no assistance. Thoreau believes that government will be unnecessary when all citizens are fully responsible, but in the
Political Correctness hasn’t gone far enough Today im here to talk to you about whether or not political correctness has gone far enough. There are a number of reasons why political correctness hasn’t gone far enough and it is because political correctness protects people that are from a different race, people who are seen different by society, such as disabled people and people’s religious beliefs. Political correctness breaks the barrier of putting people in different categories and instead people become one and they can respect each other’s differences without controversy. Firstly, I would like to argue the fact that people do not have the right to question and judge the identity others have created for themselves. Andrew Bolt, a writer to the Herald Sun writes, ‘Her father was Swiss, and her mother only part aboriginal.
Superson’s goal is to defeat the skeptic and does not believe self-interest is sufficient enough to do so. I understand the approach Superson is making about self-interest but I don’t think she is looking at all aspects of the topic. I think people will always act in self-interested ways regardless of the circumstances; people act according to their dispositions, not by force, unless they are being coerced of course. It is human nature to instinctively maximize our personal utility. We act in ways that we see fit, whether or not an act is considered moral is completely dependent upon the individual.
Assumptions should play no part in critical thinking but unfortunately they do, and often. I know as humans we all make snap judgments, but the idea is to push aside our assumptions and judgments when we think critically. Thinking critically is a skill that you either have or you don’t, the ones who have it will ultimately be the ones to thrive in their respective fields. Though it may be difficult to avoid making assumptions, as professionals we have no choice. We can keep our assumptions to ourselves but unless we consider all aspects of the situation we are not thinking critically.
The adversary system is characterized by party control of the investigation and presentation of evidence and argument, and by a passive decisionmaker who merely listens to both sides and renders a decision based on what she has heard. An ideology has developed that seeks to justify the adversary system, but the adherents have had some difficulty settling on the most appropriate justification. The current ideology extols the adversary system primarily as the best system for protecting individual dignity and autonomy, but some theorists continue to profess the original ideology, which says that adversarial presentation and argument are the best way to arrive at the truth. (Sward, 1989) The most cited assumptions of the proponents of the early
Despite of how influential is our own culture on our beliefs and behaviours we must be aware that we are not coming from the one and only “valuable” culture in the world. People often tend to believe that their own values and beliefs are the only “right” ones as they are embedded in their particular cultures. We must be aware that each of us, each singular culture might shine in a different way, but that does not mean someone else’s light is less bright than ours. We must respect, mind and understand others differences in order to communicate efficiently and realize that these dissimilarities do not makes us weak ,they are actually the source of our strength. Frameworks for cultural analyses In order to acquire better understanding of the different cultures,