Sandra Barocio- I really like the way you formatted your answer in the post about whether or not we can be good without god. You didn’t give a direct answer of yes or no until the end of the last paragraph, this helped you keep me intrigued throughout the entire post. It was also interesting because of how you explained different theories of why people act the way they do. Especially when you explained how even though someone could do something bad, in your example it was someone stealing bread, they could always be doing it to help someone or something that isn’t themselves this case it’s their family.
Amity Connolly- In your blog from the 24th I really liked your analogy of how there were layers of how you acted and they came out in different social situations. I think it is a very good way of explaining it and I believe your right in the idea that we act differently depending on the social setting. I also thought asking the reader a question was interesting and a good idea as it really made me think about what the difference would be between seeing you in person and how it would be different than just seeing your blog. In the blog from the 26th, I was interested in how you proved your idea because you did it well buy using your own knowledge of Catholicism and you were able to connect this with the statistic of Catholicism being the most criminal group.
Amara Villa-Rodriguez- I thought your blog from the 26th was interesting as you questioned a lot of things and it really read like a blog. There was no straight answer of yes or no until the end. Instead you questioned whether it was really a religious issue instead you found it was more of circumstantial one. In your blog from the 24th I liked your idea of knowing someone online as only knowing a piece of them. I was able to understand what you meant by this because of how you explained both meeting someone online and in person in the paragraphs that followed.
No comments:
Post a Comment