So, I should argue that Jacoby uses too many his own feelings about the dissatisfaction of imprisonment, which makes his claim weak and not credible. For instance, Jacoby states that “the criminal is out of control.” Yes, it might be a strong and persuasive way to get reader’s attention or even agreement, but it is not impersonal, and it is the claim based on his complaint, dissatisfaction and anger. It is inappropriate that reader can only feel his anger and dissatisfaction about the imprisonment. After all, Jacoby thinks “the criminal is out of control” is not a well-known fact. If
Again, Priestly shows wickedness somewhat detached from its literal meaning and instead shows wickedness in the characters departing from the rule of divine and moral law. Priestly defines wickedness as being behaviour that is seemingly accepted by society, but nevertheless morally wrong. During Priestley’s time there existed a regime of double standards wherein the wealthy were highly respected and the poor were devalued and somehow less human than the upper classes. Priestly not only saw the selfishness in the upper classes, but also the lack of human kindness in everyone. He shows this most clearly in Arthur Birling, Sybil Birling and Eric Birling.
Overall, the sources suggest that Wolsey did genuinely try to achieve justice; however they don’t conclusively state that he did this “for all”. This is shown by the sources through suggesting he aimed to override traditions or laws if meant being more just; it is also shown in the opinions and expectations that others held of him. An argument against him genuinely trying to achieve justice for all is the claim that he punished those who didn’t deserve it, however only source three gives this view and, taking into account the provenance of the source, it isn’t entirely trustworthy. Source one suggests to the largest extent that Wolsey was genuinely try to achieve justice for all, source two agrees to the second largest extent as it doesn’t necessarily suggest it is for all, source three disagrees with the other sources entirely and claims he is definitely not just. One factor that all of the sources agree on is that Wolsey went against law and tradition in the name of serving justice.
Iago who many people perceived to be an honest man when it couldn't be further from the truth and in Othello's cased it proved to be a deadly mistake for trusting him. It is very interesting in the way Iago was able to live such a drastic double life which I will explain in the way he did it by the way he presented himself, what made him so effective at manipulating people, why was his hatred for Othello so strong, and what do characters, besides Othello think of Iago. Iago was able to make create such an elaborate lie and execute his plan because of his pure hatred for Othello, this hatred was so great because there were multiple factors that were causing his ill will towards the Moor. Othello's appointing of Cassio as his lieutenant is what initially triggered these feelings towards him. There were several reasons Cassio's appointment enraged Iago to the point of madness, first Cassio was a Florentine and Iago found it despicable that a Florentine could and would be named lieutenant to the general of Venice.
How does the creature’s desire for help and acceptance remind you of anyone in your own life who has struggled to fit in or find help from others who do not understand that person? Do you believe the creature’s actions toward Victor and his loved ones are justified? You might not approve of the killings, but do they make sense, and should he be blamed for them? Answer: It reminds me a lot of people who struggle to fit in because they will sometimes go to unbelievable measures, like the monster, to fit in. I don’t approve of the killings but it does make sense.
Blow explained that he knew Martin on a personal level and that Martin’s intentions were not serious or meant to be violence. “Regrettable and offensive” (Blow), are both good ways to describe his comments, but I think it’s more serious than that. His comments fueled fire towards encouraging people to make jokes about other people’s manhood. His remarks were homophobic, violent, and unacceptable. The author uses anger as an
The little evidence they had was circumstantial and was hard to believe. However, authorities along with the people did not see any issues with prosecuting fellow members of the society based on this improbable evidence. Their preconceived notions as well as the mass hysteria blinded and clouded their sound judgment leading them to make bad decisions that did not only affect them, but ruined other’s lives forever. In conclusion, Miller’s personal opinions about the McCarthy trials greatly influenced his writing of the Crucible. He saw an undeniable connection between them, two instances where in his opinion pre conceived notions of higher authorities ruined the lives of many people.
Taleb rarely points out data or figures in defense of his arguments and defends the same by saying that it is a mistake to use statistics without logic, but not vice versa. We underestimate the share of randomness in about everything, due to myriad biases we often tend to attribute our successes to our skills and blame bad luck for our failures. Risk taking is described as random foolishness. People are taught to think simple and that simplification is also dangerous. Thus there are two poles, extreme thinkers and simplifiers, both of whom are dangerous.
Although not necessarily influential upon his principles, his priestly status causes him to regret his actions. From this, the message that I received was that his occupation was more of a burden that overlapped with his desires; being faithful to God is difficult when you're a drunkard. Another theme that was presented in the book was how treason was viewed as a crime comparable to murder and thievery. The fact that one of the ideas focused on in the book is the hunt for the priest shows how heinous his crime actually was. It's a strange contrast to the life that I'm used to, seeing as we are protected by liberties that allow us to practice any religion we want without worry.
Ignorance is Bliss Many people believe that more knowledge leads to more happiness. However, the well-known saying "Ignorance is bliss" may be more credible than people think. Many times, people are hurt by the truth. Therefore, more knowledge does not make one happier because the truth can be devastating and have a negative impact on one's life. When you are ignorant, you choose to not recognize that there is wrong in the world or that wrong is being done to you.