Rethinking the Five-Paragraph Essay:
Posted on September 30, by Scott Alexander [Content warning: Try to keep this off Reddit and other similar sorts of things. All the townspeople want to forgive him immediately, and they mock the titular priest for only being willing to give a measured forgiveness conditional on penance and self-reflection.
They lecture the priest on the virtues of charity and compassion. Later, it comes out that the beloved nobleman did not in fact kill his good-for-nothing brother.
The good-for-nothing brother killed the beloved nobleman and stole his identity. Now the townspeople want to see him lynched or burned alive, and it is only the priest who — consistently — offers a measured forgiveness conditional on penance and self-reflection. The priest tells them: You forgive a conventional duel just as you forgive a conventional divorce.
He further notes that this is why the townspeople can self-righteously consider themselves more compassionate and forgiving than he is.
Actual forgiveness, the kind the priest needs to cultivate to forgive evildoers, is really really hard. The fake forgiveness the townspeople use to forgive the people they like is really easy, so they get to boast not only of their forgiving nature, but of how much nicer they are than those mean old priests who find forgiveness difficult and want penance along with it.
Whether or not forgiveness is right is a complicated topic I do not want to get in here. You can forgive theft, or murder, or tax evasion, or something you find abhorrent. You can have all the Utility Points you want. The Emperor summons before him Bodhidharma and asks: How many Virtue Points have I earned for my meritorious deeds?
The Emperor, somewhat put out, demands to know why. Of course I have nothing against gay people!
And today we have an almost unprecedented situation. We have a lot of people — like the Emperor — boasting of being able to tolerate everyone from every outgroup they can imagine, loving the outgroup, writing long paeans to how great the outgroup is, staying up at night fretting that somebody else might not like the outgroup enough.
This is really surprising. No one did any genetic engineering. No one passed out weird glowing pills in the public schools. And yet suddenly we get an entire group of people who conspicuously promote and defend their outgroups, the outer the better.
What is going on here? But if the Emperor has curly hair, are straight-haired people part of his outgroup? I want to avoid a very easy trap, which is saying that outgroups are about how different you are, or how hostile you are. Compare the Nazis to the German Jews and to the Japanese.
The Nazis were very similar to the German Jews: The Nazis were totally different from the Japanese: But the Nazis and Japanese mostly got along pretty well. Heck, the Nazis were actually moderately positively disposed to the Chinese, even when they were technically at war.
Nazis and German Jews. South African whites and South African blacks.Argument Topics. 1. Have to be about an issue where people don't agree.
2. Can be disagreements about facts, definitions, causes, values or solutions. Write an essay in which you explain how Paul Bogard builds an argument to persuade his audience that natural darkness should be preserved.
In your essay, analyze how Bogard uses one or more of the features in the directions that precede the passage (or features of your own choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of his argument.
The simplest and easiest to understand of all the arguments ever offered by believers is the Argument from Design. The argument is remarkably simple. Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason.
LISTEN TO RADIO INTERVIEWS ABOUT THE BOOK. NPR's 1A "A Little More Conversation: How Women Talk to Each Other". NPR's WBR The Joy Cardin Show "Understanding the Language of Girl Talk". WNYC's The Leonard Lopate Show "Deborah Tannen on Female Friendships". Why do I need to address the opposing side’s argument?
There is an old kung-fu saying which states, "The hand that strikes also blocks", meaning that when you argue it is to your advantage to anticipate your opposition and strike down their arguments within the body of your own paper.