In Response to Courtney's post...

She asked the question, "If a person is spoiled throught their childhood, does that mean that they are going to act spoiled in adulthood?"

I have heard of many instances where children are completely spoiled by their parents and get what they want and eventually as an adult they are going to act all high and mighty to try to get what they want because thats how it was during there child life. So therefore I agree that people will act spoiled when they become adults because they have been exposed by their parents giving them almost everything they wanted without much punishment. When people are children they don't understand the concepts and reality of life that they can't get everything they want. That is the parents job to teach them about displine even it may require some harsh attempts like yelling and grounding them. Either that some parents are too afraid of discipline or just too lazy to care about discipline are major factors towards children being spoiled. So therefore, when children are apart of that kind of life style for most of their childhood then there is a very high chance that that child is going to act spoiled when their an adult.

If all parents disciplined and didn't spoil their children then do you think that the world would have better appreciated people rather than alot of spoiled, snotty and uncaring people?

In Response to Nicole's post...

In her post, she was talking about people trying to change them selves all the time and some do and some don't. Her question was "Is this a cycle that will never end?"

In my opinion, I think that the cycle will never end because no matter how hard people try to change themselves, they are who they are and that can never change.

When I mean "people change" I mean completely changing every aspect about them. Most of the changing in people we see today are either physical and emotional changes that shape a few of people's characteristics and personal traits. I believe people can change their attitude, the way they look, and the way they view certain things. Sometimes even when people try to change themselves, they can't because it's just who they are and thats all there is. Even when people change a few things about themselves doesn't mean that they changed who they actually are. So therefore, people trying to change themselves will be a never ending cycle.

If everyone was perfect as a person would changing themselves still be necessary?

In Response to Kolb's Question...

In one of his posts, he asked the question, "Do you think there are more good people or bad people in the world?"

That is a really good question but I do not think that there can ever be an answer or sraight answer because for one there are so many people..approximately over 6 billion and the fact of the matter is that people always change. Some people could always be good or always bad, most likely in our world people tend to be good and bad all the time, whether its big or not.

Despite of my little comment, but in my deep opinion, I think that theres a possible chance that there are more bad people in the world because being and doing bad is more easier than being good and moral. Since most people don't like working hard for a living they slack and find it easier to rob, cheat and violence to get what they want.

Do you think that if you did bad things all the time and never got in trouble would be a good quality towards your life?

Moral Rules Are For The Best

In the readings about Hobbes and Rousseau, Hobbes believes that people are better off living in a world with moral rules than without. I believe his theory because living in a world without moral rules would be a mess and chaotic. Moral rules, especially rules and laws supported by our government helps maintain a better society. It limits on what people can do and protects other people from harm and injustice. An example would be someone trying to rob a bank for money, people do not usually rob banks because they know that they would be punished by the law. I also believe that there's no such thing as a perfect society, there are few cases in which people rob banks and do other wrong things. The main idea is that people are better off living in a world with moral rules than without because with no moral rules everything would be in chaos.

Do you think people could live in a world without moral rules such as laws provided by government?

In response to one of Bryan's posts...

He posted the questions, "Do you think it's better to be a realists or an idealist?" and "Do you find it interesting that the occurence of mood disorders is alot higher in economically developed countries than other countries?

In my opinion, I think it's better to be an idealists especially in this society today because everything doesn't have to scientifically proven to make a point or pass judgement on things. It's also better because it allows you to be more open to new things and ideas rather than just accepting something for the way it is. If the world wasn't idealistic at all then I believe that everything would be very closed minded and boring because people wouldn't believe or look in to new ideas about things in life.

I find it not just interesting but not too surprising that other countries have a low occurrence of mood disorders than developed economies such as our country. The fact of the matter is that the more developed economical countries; people have less economic and war problems so therefore they will have alot more time and things to do and have than other countries. Since people have more values and goals they keep on stiving for that which mostly leads to unhappiness. In situations like these people don't usually appreciate what they go through to achieve their goals in life beccause theres many and also don't normally appreciate what they have because there always getting more by having alot of money. So therefore, unhappiness and lack of appreciation can lead to mood disorders.

In countries with not too good developed economy have low occurrence of mood disorders is because since they have less, they appreciate what they have and are able to be happy with it.

If money is able to get you good and valuable things, why can't people be happy with that?

Aristotle and Science

Aristotle believed that things are scientific which is when something is able to be investigated through research and experiments only if one is able to make causal claims about that thing. A random event defies this criterion as it is random, and it is therefore not possible to make causal claims about it. For instance, to make predictions about how it will occur or behave in the future; it is impossible to make such predictions about such a phenomenon because it is, after all random; free of patterns, laws, rules, etc. Honey-water, by virtue of having been illustrated repeatedly to be an effective treatment for fever patients, and which by all accounts should be assumed to remain an effective treatment, is non-random; it follows a specific pattern, that of mitigating fever symptoms. Thus, although honey-water is man-made, as a solution, sugar and water, it possesses its own particular emergent properties and always, or for the most part, serves as an effective treatment for fever. So therefore, Aristotle believes that everything is about science.

Do you think that everything should be based off of scientific research for the proof of something's cause?