Human Special-nes

you're getting more than you asked for, jon.I ain't even gonna deal with the first paragraph and it's darns and arrogance. half of this is filler. end the sentence at "judge something as human or not". you're right, this is vague. practically everything communicates with other members of their species--inlducing bacteria. so bacteria are now human? congrats, you just defined being human as being practically any organism on this, or other, planet(s). It does not suit your purpose. crap. shitty sentence. you say the same thing twice "defining special is hard, defining special is hard". what is it with filler? don't say "which I will not reiterate". pointless statement. scrath "remember". um, dude. you can't use writing to define humans, and yet you do shortly after this sentence. (yes, in an abstract way--you don't say it outright, but we wrote out the Endangered Species Act).oh, and where's your definition of "special"? you promised it, I don't see it. at least you gave us a crappy one for being "human". wonderful jon, absolutely wonderful. you defined special by being human and human by being special. what circular logic you have. and didn't you earlier say that being human is defined as "communicating"?
now you've contradicted yourself. writing isn't what makes us human, you claim, but then you claim that is makes us special, and because what makes us special is what makes us human, writing makes us human. oops. wonderful waste of time not the purpose of an argument/debate. and again with the arrogance. with as crappy an argument you've put forward here, i'm betting it will be a long time before you prove anyone wrong. thanks for the strawman.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

dude, your just paper sucks. there isn't even a point in it. you give multiple definitions of humans, you contradict yourself, and you use circular logic. I would have flunked the paper.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

quote:

---

I've come to a recent realization that, in case no one's thought of it
themselves, I wish to share with the world. It deals with human beings,
and explains just why we as a "species" are so darn special. Why we are
so much different; so distinct. It's an obvious thing to most people”we
write, we read, we talk, we drive, we use computers, we type two pages
worth of words just for 1% of a grade, etc.”and something that really
requires an understanding. Why did humans get all the things needed to
make us special, whilst the remainder of the world's creatures ended up
with leftovers? To understand this we will have to do three things: define
what it means to be human, define what it is that makes a thing special,
and show how those definitions work in unison to bring understanding to
our unique quality.
Being human”or more specifically: being anything that makes us
not non-human”is a concept which requires distinction, and we must
have a way to judge something as human or not”including everything
that clearly is human, whilst keeping out everything that clearly is not.
The idea of writing as being "human" was introduced above, but clearly
this cannot be used as a definition, for it would exclude all illiterate
individuals who are so obviously human. In fact, any definitions
considering intelligence are faulty, because all individuals lacking in an
area of intelligence would not be considered humans. The same goes for
physical characteristics, where physically inept individuals would be
excluded from the definition. Are humans all descendants of the Homo
sapiens line? I am from a distant planet, evolved from a distant species.
If all this were true, would you stop calling me a human? Would they say,
Just Ramblings: Nothing Special
Nothing Special
2
"Sorry, Jon, but this federal school grant is only available to Homo
sapiens"? I doubt it. For the time being, I'm content defining "being
human" as being anything that other humans as a whole would accept as
human, and in a population-wide sense, being human is simply to do what
a group of "being humans" would do collectively”communicate. I know
this definition is vague, but it will hopefully suit the purpose.
Humans are easy, special is not, and finding a definition that will
fit for that word will prove even more difficult. Remember the things
listed in the introduction”which I will not reiterate”were all considered
things that made humans special. In other words, "writing" was
considered a special quality of something, and”assuming that something
which carries out "special" activities is "special"”that anything that can
"write" is special. Let's take an even better example that I recently
received from a particular individual: "creation of an Endangered Species
List". Such acts are rarely carried out by other creatures”by that I mean
none”and the fact that humans would even dream it up seems alone to
show our special-ness. Though, humans are the only species that can do
this, there are other species that have each their own unique talents, and
might be special depending on our definition. If "running fast" is
considered special, then cheetahs fit the bill. Even something simple such
as "the ability to oink," might be a condition that could be used to
determine special-ness”pigs would be then special.
So why does our wishy-washy definition of "special" often lead us
to conclude our own special-ness? It's rather simple indeed. Writing,
reading, sympathy”Endangered Species List”, math, technology, even
bottled water. These things are all considered to be traits that make
humans the special species, so much more removed from the rest. But
once we see what they are, we see what they say. All of the things in the
Nothing Special
3
list are "what humans do." Since "what humans do"”more specifically to
do what a group of "being humans" would do”is to "being human," we
should be able to set the statements equal to each other, where "to do what
a human does" is the same as "to be human." Where does this fall with
our definition? Well, anyone who would cite the examples above as proof
of human special-ness is erring in that they define special by it being what
humans do. If we say "writing" = "special," and
"writing" = "what humans do," and "what humans do" = "humans,"
then "writing" = "humans" = "special." This logic seems circular at best,
and worst it ensures that humans always end up being special. If we say
"running fast" = "special," and "running fast" ≠ "what humans do," and
"what humans do" = "humans," then "running fast" ≠ "humans" ≠ "special."
It's the human-centred definition of special that leads to the human-centred
idea of human special-ness.
The title says it all; this is merely a rambling. Suppose I could've
written about something else. I do question if I've achieved my goal, or if
I've wasted more time in thoughts than in writing. I've hashed this one
about down the road now and then, and despite the occasional "something
is just fishy about your argument," I generally find it does the trick and
gets those who would disagree with me off my back and out of my hair for
a moment; right before we must disagree again. With any luck, I'll sooner
or later have them all proven wrong.

---

it's all filler. filler is used when you've got nothing to say. yes.you're paper still sucks. you can make a much better argument. try to actually respond to my points, instead of evading or answering just one.

never found out the grade I got on this, but I still finished the class with an A-. my other two papers in the class were an A and B. this one was worth over 1/3 my grade.

quote:

---

1^st paragraph
On October 8, 2006, the geopolitical realities of the Southeast Asia region changed forever. North Korea, despite the warnings of its neighbors, denoted a small nuclear bomb. The proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Southeast Asia region (which includes, for the purposes of this paper, North Korea, China, South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan) has led many to believe that other nations in this area will obtain nuclear weapons, and that this will destabilize the region. The election of Shinzo Abe, Japan’s first prime minister born after the war, has also led many to fear that Japan will re-militarize.

​

However, when one compares the historical realities of Europe and the US since the end of the Napoleonic Wars to the situation arising in the Southeast Asia region, it becomes apparent that Japan should both re-militarize and gain nuclear weapons. These two goals will serve Japan in two ways: first, it will increase Japan’s security, and second, it will increase the stability of the region. The US, with its current military operations, would have a difficult time honoring its security commitment with Japan. Also, the US might not be able to continue to protect Japan with the so-called “nuclear umbrella”.

​

This situation leaves Japan without a defense against either North Korean and/or Chinese territorial and economic ambitions, and this decreases its security. The inability of the US to counter Chinese and North Korean ambitions also destabilizes the region by removing any semblance of balance in power. Re-militarization and the acquisition of nuclear weapons will increase the stability of the region by creating a “balance of power” that is noticeably lacking.

​

2^nd paragraph
The problem in the region is the lack of a “balance of power”, a realist concept in which all parties have equal power, or nearly equal power, and this balance of the power is what keeps the peace. This power is generally defined in terms of military capabilities, not in terms of cultural or economic power. Militarily, it is China and North Korea who are the most powerful in the region. The US cannot be included, for although it has an Army division in South Korea, it is unable to use its full might against either nation.

​

China’s People’s Liberation Army includes the army, navy, air force, artillery corps, and the armed police force. Totaling close to three million personnel, it has the largest military in the world, and it has the ability to support its military. China also has roughly two hundred nuclear weapons, a quarter of which are long range . North Korea’s People’s Army includes the navy, army, and air force totaling 923,000 personnel. Unlike China, however, it is much less able to support its military. South Korea has almost seven hundred thousand armed forces personnel. Japan does not even have half of one million personnel, and is constricted by its constitution as to where it can deploy its military Article Nine, of its constitution, actually expressly forbids the maintenance of an army, air force, and navy, and as such, all military forces are considered part of the police force. An amendment to Article Nine of Japan’s Peace Constitution is currently being worked on, so as to allow Japan to have a military more capable of defense.

​

Taiwan has a comparable military, though it is much freer in its actions than is Japan’s. This imbalance is easy to see”should a conventional war break out in this region, North Korea and China have the wherewithal to win without the war being too costly for them. Another question entirely is that of nuclear war. With China and North Korea the only ones in the region with nuclear weapons, Japan has to rely on US nuclear weapons, which it may not be willing to use (China has intercontinental weapons that can hit US soil, and North Korea is attempting to develop such missiles) because of blackmail. Basically, why should the US defend Japan from nuclear attack if it will be attacked with nuclear weapons? Thus, there is a second imbalance. All ten-thousand nuclear weapons at the disposal of the US are useless for Japan. The solution to Japan’s security ills and the instability inherent in this unbalanced system is simple”Japan should re-militarize and acquire nuclear weapons.

---

it's the first two paragraphs in an 10 page paper. notice that's there's actually a clear thesis and a decent introduction. this is much more like college quality writing, jon.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

"Have the Courage to Know!" --Immanuel Kant" . . .and some nights I just pray to the god of sex and drugs and rock'n'roll"--meatloafWant to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

dude. the thread isn't about my paper. my post was about showing jon what a good paper looks like (as compared to his piece of . . . .).have to remember, my paper is also about 3 months old. things change. my research was also quite rushed.

boring beats confusing any day of the week.oh, and you might have to shout a little louder, my hearing's bad.(and who said anything about discussing my own writing? I merely offering it as an example of a good paper. Tal was the one who started talking about my paper, bring it way off-topic. And I wasn't being an arrogant self-righteous little twit. just arrogant)

i think i got the geography from the CIA factbook. possibly from nationmaster. can't remember now. somewhere I saw them included. (but hey, at least I defined the region I was talking about in terms of countries) (good thing this wasn't for a poly sci class, but a writing class).ABE:
not the only one to screw that up. the paper was peer-reviewed by the whole class (of 18). No one commented on that, including the teacher. kinda proves americans ain't so hot on geography, huh. oh well, live and learn.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

I'd hate to see what an "F" paper would look like, if your paper got an "A".