No, the sneaky little bugger that I was (and still am) realized that sources were an escape route from creativity. With enough"tions from other writers, i could fill up an entire paper without coming up with a single original thought of my own. And I was rewarded for. From kindergarten to getting my degree in English Literature, i got an a on all but like five papers. Heres why: a lot of teachers care more about solid research than original ideas. They dont want to see daring and inventive arguments challenging the foundation of everything we hold to be true and arguing boldly for a new worldview. To them, its much more important that you understand the ideas of others and be able to cite them in mla format. But real life is the opposite.
The, view of the, majority is, always, right
It was the correct way to write. Nowadays, most paragraphs should be a maximum of three sentences. Its also a good idea to include some shorter paragraphs with only one or two sentences, using them to punctuate powerful ideas. Its not so much about having a correct length as using paragraphs to give your writing rhythm. Avoiding profanity at all costs i admit it; this is a controversial one. Many excellent writers still hold that profanity has no place in professional publications, while others feel comfortable using curse words occasionally. The rest of us sit around wondering whether its okay to express ourselves that way or not. Well, i think Stephen King says it best: make yourself a solemn promise right now that youll never use emolument when you mean tip and youll never say john stopped long enough to perform an act of excretion when you mean John stopped long enough. If you believe take a shit would be considered offensive or inappropriate by your audience, feel free to say john stopped long enough to move his bowels (or salesman perhaps John stopped long enough to push). Im not trying to get you to talk dirty, only plain and direct. Leaning on sources Most kids i knew hated digging up sources and"ng them in their papers, but not.
You have a bunch of students who couldnt care less about your curriculum, and making them write a paper about the assigned readings is a great way to force them to read the material. Makes sense but it doesnt make it any less damaging. One of the biggest challenges of writing is figuring out what to write. Whether youre writing a memo, an article, or a letter to your mother, the process is always the same: you start out with a blank page, and you decide what to put. Sure, that involves considering what your audience will want to read, but no one but you makes the final decision of what to put on the page. That act of deciding is what writing is all about. Writing long paragraphs Once upon a time, it was acceptable to write paragraphs long enough to fill multiple pages with big blocks of text. Not surprisingly, thats the way most of us were taught to write: long paragraphs, topic sentences neatly organized, lots of supporting evidence in between assertions.
New York times, bestseller List now. Not because they arent good (they were freaking great but because people cant connect with them. By mimicking their style, you might make a few teachers happy, but youre essentially handicapping your writing in the eyes of the public. If you want to make a connection, youre much better off studying hot writers like stephen King,. Rowling, and Seth Godin. Watch what they do, and play with using some of their techniques in your own writing. Yes, youll still be mimicking the works other writers, but at least youll be mimicking something people want to read. Expecting someone to hand you a writing prompt. Looking through the eyes of an educator, i can see why telling students what to write about would be useful.
majority are : Collective nouns in English
None of them are academics. None of them want to read an essay. Personally, essay i think good writing doesnt have to be educated or well-supported or even grammatically correct. It does have to be interesting enough that other people want to read. Much of what comes out of high schools and universities fails this test, not because our students are incapable of saying anything interesting, but because a well-meaning but flawed academic system has taught them a lot of bad habits. Lets go through seven of them.
Trying to sound like dead people. Its a sad state of affairs when the youngest writer on your reading list has been dead 100 years, but thats the way it is in school. I dont know who exactly decides whats worth reading and whats not, but they (whoever they are) believe in reading the classics, and most of those classics are centuries old. Whats worse is that many teachers hold up the classics as examples of what good writing is, and they expect you to mimic those writers with your essays. Sure, chaucer and Thomas More and Shakespeare were the stud muffins of their day, but you dont see them on the.
Not all English teachers abide by this system, but the vast majority. Just look at the writing of most graduates, and youll see what I mean. Its proper, polite, and just polished enough not to embarrass anyone. Mission accomplished, as far as our schools are concerned. But let me ask you something: Is that really good writing?
I think most good writers listen to the way english teachers want them to write and think, this isnt real. It has no feeling, no distinctiveness, no oomph. Youre the only person in the world who would willingly read. Everyone else would rather chew off their own eyelids than read more than three pages of this boring crap. Create interesting content people want to read, compare an award-winning essay to a best-selling novel, and youll notice that they are written in almost completely different languages. Some of it has to do with the audience, sure. Its natural to write differently for academics than you would for everyday people. But my question is: who are you going to spend more time writing for? My guess: everyday people — your family and friends, your blog audience, your boss at work, maybe even a letter to the Editor every now and again.
Is the majority always right?
The document was dubbed, "The humanist Manifesto." The first plank of this 1st Manifesto states: "Religious for humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created." The second plank states: "Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged. Humanists updated their Manifesto in the 1970's.) Generally, humanists believe the big Bang (or one of the related reviews Inflation Universe Theories) caused the origin of the universe as we know. Thereafter, humanists hold to the notion that random, macro-evolutionary processes brought forth mankind - "from the goo through the zoo to you" over billions of years. What is good writing? Ask an English teacher, and theyll tell you good writing is grammatically correct. Theyll tell you it makes a point and supports it with evidence. Maybe, if theyre really honest, theyll admit it has a scholarly tone — prose that sounds like jane austen earns an a, while a paper that couldve been written by willie nelson scores a b (or worse).
With unprecedented discoveries in the fields of molecular biology, anatomy, biochemistry and genetics, it has become increasingly obvious that life is spishy the result. The "simple" is no longer considered "simple" at all. For example, we can now view the intricate world of the "simple" bacterium, and realize that its propulsion device alone is more complex than the outboard motor on a fishing boat. Design Theory tells us that certain things, like this Bacterial Flagellum, are "irreducibly complex." Information Theory tells us that design is the result of intelligence. So, if the obvious design of living systems is the result of a mind, whose mind? Ask a humanist, "Is God real?" and you will get a resounding "No!" What is a humanist? A humanist is one who adheres to the humanist philosophy - really an atheistic "religion" built on 19th and 20th century foundations such as the big Bang and evolution. In 1933, the humanists got together and put their doctrine on paper.
at the University of Manchester, uk, agrees, "In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it, and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit with it" a physicist looks at evolution Physics. 31, may 1980,. Evolutionary theory seemed plausible in the 19th century, and even into the mid-20th century. At that time, our knowledge of molecular biology and genetics was very limited. Then, beginning in the 1950's, our knowledge of the microscopic world around us (and in us) began to grow by leaps and bounds. Today, our knowledge of external and internal biologic complexity, engineering, and design is overwhelming.
However, laws such as thermodynamics and discoveries such as galactic motion and proton decay have led scientific authorities to this absolute certainty - the universe at some point began! The implications of these scientific observations have caused atheists to seek out a mechanism by which the universe could have created and developed itself via random chance, without any Intelligent Director. The need for such a mechanism is foundational for atheists, because if they're unable to identify such a mechanism, they must either acknowledge the necessity of a creator God or simply accept the fact that they cling to an unreasonable worldview. Big Bang theory, the related Inflation Universe theories, and. Darwin's theory of evolution. Not if you ask British Naturalist Charles Darwin. In 1859, darwin purposed a mechanism by which evolutionary descent from a common ancestor may be possible without resorting to a creator God. And presentation so began the campaign to exclude god from science.
What is your view of the claim that the opinion of the majority is not
Home is God real? A question of Origins. Surprisingly, this fundamental question is simplistic in nature. It is solved by asking another question, owl "Where did everything come from?" Where did space, time, matter, energy and information come from? Theists have always acknowledged an Intelligent Designer as being the source of all things. Atheists, on the other hand, believe there is no supreme being. Prior to the 20th century, the majority of atheists held the universe to be eternal, without need of a creator.