C and D

C

Online chat rooms have also become a great source of communication. Chat rooms provide a break from the school environment, a stress relase, and allow a space to meet new people. By utilizing a chat room you can talk with lots of different people all at once. These people can be from all over the world, or even your next-door neighbor. Pivate chats can even be set up if a user decides that they want to talk to a specific person in the room alone.

D

Clearly dogs are a more suitable and effective alternative to weapons. Dogs served as the preferred alternative to excissive force around housing developments off campus for students attending UCLA. At UCLA, canines were first introduced in 1979 to aid University Officers in protecting the safety of students from nearby gangs. The gangs relocated due to the use of canins. The purpose of canines in the police force is to provide an alternative to excessive and deadly force. It has been concluded by the 6th Circuit Court that, "since deaths are rare in police dog cases, deploying dogs cannot be condemned as deadly force."

Cohesion

*Moore argues that Nuclear energy is the only safe answer to the energy problems. He @[argues] that Wind and Solar power are unpredictable and couldn't be relied on as our main energy source. Fossil Fuels are already expensive and the price will only increase, therefore, they could not be used as a @[primary energy source]. Hydroelectric power sources are already built to capacity, and can't be used as our @[primary energy source]. The only @[power source] left is nuclear energy. He also dispels myths about @[nuclear energy], saying that it is cheap and safe, nuclear waste will not be dangerous for thousands of years, and that nuclear reactors are less vulnerable to a terrorist attack than existing natural gas and chemical plants. @[He] also says that the fact that nuclear fuel could be used to make nuclear weapons shouldn't be used to argue against nuclear energy. A @[bomb] could be made out of diesel oil, fertilizer, and cars, yet none of those things have been outlawed. @[He] also demonstrates how a switch to nuclear energy from coal, could reduces CO2 emissions by 2/3.
This exercise wasn't really very useful for me.

Cancelled the burn

I'm very unhappy with the fact that they cancelled the tiger burn. I don't even understand why they did. I understand their logic behind it, but I don't agree with it. The kids dying in the house fire was a tragic event, but its really no reason to cancel the tiger burn. If we were starting the event this year it would be different, but this is an old school tradition. The kids that died in the fire would have probably atteneded this event if they were still alive (except for maybe the Clemson student, but that's what Clemson's mock cocky funeral was for, which has now also been cancelled), and now that they have passed on they would have wanted us to still be able to enjoy it.
I suppose this next statement may seem a little harsh, but I'll say it anyways. I'm also really angry at the fact that my freshman year I have to miss out on the tiger burn just because a bunch of rich white kids don't know when to put the solo cup down. Yes, I am white, and no, I'm not poor.

Environmental Issues

Kitman makes an argument against the effectiveness of Hybrid cars. He doesn't dismiss them completely, he's basically just saying that they are overrated. He says that people in America automatically assume that, because a car is a hybrid, it will get better gas mileage. This isn't necassarily the case. If you do a lot of interstate driving a hybrid will be worthless for you. It will likely get gas mileage that is much worse than a traditionally built, non-hybrid car. A Hybrid SUV will also not be able to match the gas mileage of a lighter, more compact car. Hybrid batteries can also harm the environment if they aren't disposed of properly.

Kitman also makes an argument against incentives for people that drive a hybrid car just because it's a hybrid. They may not be getting gas mileage thats as good as somebody else that drives a traditional car, but they still get the benefits that are meant for people who are helping save the environment.

Moore argues that Nuclear energy is the only safe answer to the energy problems. He argues that Wind and Solar power are unpredicatable and couldn't be relied on as our main energy source. Fossil Fuels are already expensive and the price will only increase, therefore, they could not be used as a primary energy source. Hydroelectric power sources are already built to capacity, and can't be used as our primary energy source. All thats left is nulear energy. He also dispells myths about nuclear enerfy, asying that it is cheap and safe, nulear waste will not be dangerous for thousands of years, and that nuclear reactors are less vulnerable to a terrorist attack than existing natural gas and chemical plants. He also says that the fact that nuclear fuel could be used to make nuclear weapons shouldn't be used to argue against nuclear energy. A bomb could be made out of deisel oil, fertilizer, and cars, yet none of those things have been outlawed. He also demonstrates how a switch to nuclear energy from coal, could redues CO2 emmisions by 2/3.

The fact that Kitman is a car specialist gives him more credibility, because he seems like he actually knows what he's talking about. Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace. This gives the reader assurance that he really cares about the environment and makes him more persuasive.

Global Warming.

Kluger and Lindzen have two different opinions about global warming. Kluger feels as though humans are causing global warming and that we need to work to stop it. He argues that increases in temerature are caused by an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. He says that the polar ice caps are melting as a result of this warming, whoch could have another affect on temperature. The incerase in freshwater could throw off the gulf stream and cause climate changes around the atlantic area. The decrease in Glaciers on land could expose land thats been covered in Ice for thousands of years. This could increase CO2 and methane in the air and cause a greater temperature change. Lindzen says that its no big deal. He presents facts that don't agree with what was said in Klugers article as far as number go (amount of CO2 in the air, that sort of thing). He also argue that the increase in Humidity in the air could decrease the number of big storms rather than increase it like Kluger said. I found Lindzen's article to be more persuasive, but that might just be because I agree with him. One thing that made Kluger's article less persuasive was that he kept say "the last ice age." This suggests that there have been multiple ice ages, which suggests that there have always been climate changes on earth. This debunks the claim that humans should have to do anything.

Topic proposal

This paper could really go two different ways for me. I haven't decided yet. I'm hoping to write a paper about how violent games aren't harmful and might even be helpful. The one problem with this is that its very difficult for me to find research to back up this claim. I'm going to work to find sources to support my beleifs, but if I can't find them it will basically be impossible for me to write a paper that follows my beleifs. If this paper turns out to be impossible to write, then I will write a paper arguing against violent games. I already have plenty of research to back up this claim, beacause research against violent games is abundant.

IV second time around

I can honestly say that I have no idea what we're supposed to do for this post. It looks like we're just supposed to put exactly what we did last time...so thats what I'm doing...

1. a. Violent games create violent people.
b. Violent games only affect certain groups of people.
c. Violent games don't affect anyone.

2. Right now the dominant perspective is that Violent games create voilent people. This is because the people who believe that violent games are ok aren't vocal about it. The people like Jack Thompson that want violent games to be taken care of are very vocal about it. They take every opportunity to get their opinion out there.

3. I think the view that violent games don't affect anyone should be the main view. If violent games created violent people, I would have already gone on like 20 killing sprees. Jack Thompson uses the fact that school shooters play violent games to justify his claims. This might be convincing if only like 1% of teenage guys played violent games. I think the chances of a non-gamer shooting up a school aren't very good simply because there are less teenage guys that don't play games than there are teenage guys that do. Plus, the people that shoot up schools aren't really very popular to start with. Since they don't have friends to hang out with what else are they going to do? You should be thinking something along the lines of "I guess they'll play video games."

4. There doesn't really need to be a policy to support my views. Really a lack of policy is what I'm calling for here.