If you have read my last post, you will know what has happened recently and what I had to write about. My teacher went online and read everyone's blog who are in my Humanities class. He had a question about my last post and I am here going to answer it. His question was: 'Is strength in this case a positive? Could it be a negative? How?'In my last post I mentioned that different civilizations need different things in order to be strong. I think that in my post I meant strength in a positive way. It would be positive because without strength, how will a civilization work properly and have great resources to run successfully plus work together? For example, I think that a place with no good land to grow food on isn't going to be nearly as strong as a place that has great soil for food and an efficient society.I honestly don't think that there can be a negative thing. It would be a harder life if you weren't be able to get your groceries for dinner in 15 minutes. You would have to work harder and harder until you successfully have your meal. If you have great land and area than I think that your civilization will be stronger and you would have an easier atmosphere to live in. But another argument could be that the people who can get their groceries easily and everything, they still have to work too! On both sides people have to work.
To sum everything up, My answer is 'yes, strength is a positive and not a negative.'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Thanks for the post, Riley.
You need to be careful with conclusions that are so concise because people, like me, might find holes in your argument. You wrote;
"My answer is 'yes, strength is a positive and not a negative.'" Now, do you know of anyone or anytime when someone used strength in a negative way? Hmmm?
Enjoy!
Mr. McQueen
Post a Comment