In Hindenburg’s Testimony, I personally don’t believe he actually gives any realistic reasoning for his opinion. He talks about how the government was manipulative in the way in which they made military decisions, however, he doesn’t actually give any evidence of this. He only really argues that the government restricted their ability to become stricter and more disciplined. One part of the reading that actually made me laugh was reading the lines that said “(Commotion and shouting)”.
Imagine living in a world divided, physically and psychologically, where each side viewed each other as the enemy. The Democratic west and the Communist East both had many differences and, instead of putting aside their differences, they put up the Berlin Wall. The Berlin Wall had not only separated families and friends, but is had caused tension between the two superpowers of the world. However, on June 12, 1987, Ronald Reagan had given his “Earthshaking” speech in the heart of Berlin and demanded that Mikhail Gorbachev to “Tear Down This Wall!” This is viewed as the start of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The repetition of the statement reminds everyone who believes that a communist government is more successful than a democratic form of government only has to go to Berlin to see the drastic differences in development between the communist East Berlin and the democratic West Berlin. Not only is the western portion of Berlin succeeding economically despite efforts from the Soviet Union to stop this, but the fact that East Berlin had to build a wall to keep citizens of East Berlin from escaping to the western part of Berlin in order to achieve freedom is enough evidence to prove that the citizens of a communist country do not want the system once it is implemented. Kennedy uses this appeal to the logistical side of the argument in order to demonstrate the significance of stopping the spread of a flawed political system that is somewhat appealing to some
The Treaty of Versailles created multiple economic problems for Germany, such as inflation and unemployment, by demanding a reduction in Germany trade, reparations, taking away resources and industry. The German were separated from each other due to the Treaty of Versailles taking away Germany territory. An unpopular government was also put into place because of the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler wanted to make
Do good intentions matter, or should people be judged only according to the results of their actions? People are only assessed in consonance to their appearances, and the only person who can truly judge us by our thoughts or intentions is ourselves. Of course it’s only natural to suddenly defend ourselves when we do something wrong by revealing our true intentions, but it’s fairly difficult trying to believe in someone after they do something unacceptable. On 9/11, when terrorists attacked The Twin Towers and The Pentagon, they believed that they were in the right when they killed 2,996 innocent people, and when Hitler believed he was doing the right thing purifying Germany of the Jews, in reality what he did was absolutely devastating, so I think that intentions matter when it comes down to ourselves, but in the end we should be judged according to the results of our actions and who, or what was affected in return.
The Perils of Indifference Analysis Elie Wiesel, in his remembrance speech, “The Perils of Indifference” (1999) illustrates the dangers of the indifference that admitted the horrors of the Holocaust. Wiesel tells his illustration with an emotional tone and supports his thesis by drawing on memories of his own Holocaust experience. Wiesel’s purpose is to bring attention to the people that were treated with indifference in the 20th century, in order to advise the US and people everywhere to do better in the new century. Wiesel is specifically addressing the White House at the Seventh Millennium Evening lecture, but his emotional message is intended for all people, as he tells the consequences of apathy toward others. Eliezer Wiesel was born in Sighet, Romania on September 30th, 1928.
Thus, the protest that child beauty pageants should be banned does not have any logical reasons. Some regulations and some reasons of them are, however, grounded on such ill-founded “theory.” The theory like that generally has characteristics in violation of liberalism as
It says that there are too many selfish people that would not help out other Americans. Another quote that follows the same lines as the previous one is “We refused to leave the problems of chance and the hurricanes of disaster”(Hanes and Hanes 59). This quote further explains Roosevelt 's beliefs on there being many selfish Americans, and that Hoover’s ideas relied solely on the chance of generous Americans. Although Roosevelt and Hoover took two WAY different approaches on trying to fix this economic crisis, they did have the same goal in common, to strengthen America.
(SIP-1) The logical fallacy present is a false cause, as well as a bandwagon statement. (STEWE-1) It can be said that this meme is using a slippery slope, but the fallacy that is better argued here is that it is a false cause. A false cause is the lack of connection between points.
Based on this text I have hesitation in coming to this conclusion. There is nothing in the text to support this idea. Her deduction from this is a bit risky. In general I do not agree with her on promoting strategic-level deliverance as the main strategy in
Freedom is defined as “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.” However, prior to 1989, citizens of Berlin, Germany were somewhat unaware of this concept that seems so commonplace to Americans. The Berlin wall was built through the middle of the German capital, separating east and west Europe. The eastern half was ridden with economic restraint, poverty, and communism, while the western half was quite acquainted with freedom and the pleasures of the western world. Ronald Reagan, the president of the United States from 1981-1989, spoke at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin in 1987, urging the government to tear down the dividing wall and expose both halves to personal and economic freedom.
I disagree with Paley because much of the reasoning 's he gives to his arguments are either false or can easily be refuted. I also disagree with Paley because even though he does follow through to his conclusion, the premises of illogically and indirectly saying "because I say so", when he cannot find a logical answer, is not a valid argument. Much of Paley 's argument to prove the existence of a creator of the universe, or God, ignores many counter-arguments. When Paley begins to explain there being a purpose and function of the watch, which is clearly to tell time, he is also not able to identify as to what the exact purpose and function of the universe is. Paley leaves this issue with the renowned “because I said so”, leaving readers to feel as though they have no choice but to agree.