Chemistry and the Environment
24 | 0 | 0
33 | 1 | 0
33 | 1 | 0
26 | 0 | 0
27 | 0 | 0
27 | 0 | 0
28 | 1 | 0
21 | 0 | 0
31 | 0 | 0
28 | 0 | 0
28 | 0 | 0
29 | 0 | 0
22 | 0 | 0
27 | 0 | 0
36 | 0 | 0
38 | 0 | 0
33 | 0 | 0
17 | 0 | 0
32 | 0 | 0
32 | 1 | 0
- 1 of 2
- next ›
I think you have provided a very interesting analysis of the original article and of this conflict as a whole.
In general, I agree with what you have said, except for a few points on which I would like to add another perspective.
First, I don’t really understand the point stating that Israel is more criticized than other countries such as Syria and Iraq even though these two kill many more people. In fact, I don’t know which are the sources used by the original text’s author to say that Israel’s government is more criticized than Syria’s government and ISIS; I mean, aren’t our media constantly criticizing the atrocities committed by Bashar Al-Assad and ISIS for the past few years? Of course, I agree with the fact than the religious dimension of this conflict is present and exacerbate it, as you have argued. However, I don’t think that Israel is more criticized by the global medias because of some anti-Semitism of some sort and I think we need to be careful not to slip on such discourse. I think that the religious dimension is present, but that it happens on both sides; there is probably anti-Semitism among some Muslims, as there is Islamophobia among some Jews. Briefly, I think you agree with me on the idea that this conflict is so contentious not because of a sort of media’s anti-Semitism, but rather because of its origins, which is the creation of the Israeli state, its international geopolitical dimension, its persistence and its religious dimension.
Moreover, I think that we are allowed to criticize one country for the atrocities it commits, even though another country is worse; one does not prevent the other, we can criticize both. I also believe that the author far underrates the number of deaths Israeli government has caused (https://www.amnesty.ca/our-work/priority-countries/israel-and-occupied-p...).
I think we need to recognize that both the Hamas and the Israeli government commit atrocities. It is interesting that the author of the original article develops these atrocities, although he does seem to have his own bias for Israel. However, the problem is that the Palestinian civilians are the first one to suffer from Israeli attacks, while Israel has the means to defend itself from Hamas’ attacks. I think that the Hamas does in fact use human shields to discourage Israel to attack their military bases. It might seem very cruel as a strategy, and it is, but considering the lack of resources of the Hamas to fight Israel, does it really have the choice? I think that the decision of Israel to keep trying to bomb Hamas, even though they know that they will kill civilians by doing so, is very cruel too. Of course, Hamas is a violent organization, but it is also a response to Israel’s violence towards Palestinians. Instead of continuing bombing Hamas and killing civilians simultaneously, I think that Israel, which is in a privileged position, should stop its violent actions and take the lead of peaceful negotiations.
As you have concluded, both sides commit atrocities, but one of the two, Israel, has a privileged position while committing them. I think we must always protect the weaker, and in this case, these are the Palestinians. I hope our governments will soon understand that; I hope the USA will stop financing Israel for geostrategic purposes and I hope the Liberals of Justin Trudeau will stop condemning such pressure movement over Israel as the BDS like they actually do for similar reasons (http://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/02/22/motion-israel-justin-trudeau_...).
Erika, whilst reading the first sentences of your blog submission, I immediately knew that I was going to be taking your side and that we shared a common opinion about the cultural inequalities going on in the United States. I too believe that a big root part of the problem lies in the decreased opportunities and reduced access to adequate education and healthcare, which I believe is in itself an institutional problem (systemic racism). I found it especially interesting that you chose ‘neighbourhoods’ to combine with race as important variables to take into consideration when looking at one’s chances of finding proper employment and success, and I believe this to be entirely valid as environmental factors have been proven to be highly influential in cases of cultural differentiation and discrimination (In minority groups). I believe that this post is especially relevant when I look back at the class material me and my class covered earlier this year concerning systemic racism and how it can directly and in-directly affect people’s lives in such a grandiose manner. In common manner, I also believe that change lies in the way we deal with cultural stigma and how we’ll proceed with reforming the structural problems that cause such flagrant inequalities.
Hey there! Thanks for your feedback, i'll work on making my next reflective essay more coherent with current information! The source itself that I used was provided by the teacher, and needed to be referenced for our assignment to be valid!
Hi there! Thanks for your feedback, i'll work on getting a more relevant source for my article. Seeing as this was a reflective assignement submitted to us by our teacher, we had to use the reference source she provided (hence the outdated source), I also wanted to include my own opinions and observations about the topic and keep it focalised around that; not wether what i wrote was scholarly or not!
The raw sewage dump is a really interesting topic that I feel like should be brought more into detail.
I really agree with your viewpoint. It is unjust that women are put down for their intellect and seen as inferior in the work field. I'm glad that people are noticing this issue and speaking up about it; its time for women to group together and empower each other and rise above the expectations.
I agree with your argument about the dislike button on facebook. But I have to say that it is a inductive argument because all your arguments makes me feel like the all thing is probable, but it is not certain. I am convinced by your argument and in my personal choice I believe it would be true but it is not 100% sure. I do not accept your conclusion because even if there is an argument that demonstrates us it will be true, when you use a relevant figure of authority "Dr. Paula Durlofsky" as an example and that makes your text more convincing, the conclusion is not certain. In addition, your text is based on frequency of occurrence. Maybe if you would have put real statistics and research it would have been deductive. so, I don't accept your conclusion for these previous reasons.
Hi, I found your article very interesting but at some point there are parts that I believe are not clear or complete. When you mention the statements of David Gutierrez, I found it quite vague because I think it can't be true that when you are protecting your skin with sunscreen that you are also destroying nearly "all" life in the oceans. I found this statement not convincing because you are concluding one thing to prove another, I think it is a false dilemma. Secondly, when you say: « ...therefore diminish the risks of skin cancer, "but based on tests", sunscreen users actually have higher rates of skin cancer! », we don't have any proof of those tests. Is there a specific name or specialist that did those tests? Your sentence might be convincing, but I think there is a lack of information here. Maybe I'm wrong but I will consider this mistake for a fallacy of ignorance because something important is missing, such as the name of the scientist or the good authority that made that study. Have a nice day!
There no collaborative classes