Pre-IB English

I think I like that way of thinking better. That we all take care of one another and don't choose which ones we do and we don't.

I can see how denial is related to avoiding atrocities, You lie to your conscious, you feel no guilt, and you prosper never looking back on what you did or saw being wrong.

Everyone has tried many times in their lives to make that happen. Sometimes it works and other times it doesn't. I completely understand where he is taking this.

This also happened in The Lord of the Flies. Piggy both denied taking part in Simon's death and made up something acceptable for the sake of his mental well-being. Again, I'd expect more rational behavior from adults.

This is an idea that will occur a lot through your lifetime, but you have to make the best of it

There is one more. I don't know what it is called. But, there is that one where you refuse to believe that something didn't happen maybe by fear, I don't know? But there is that, denial of what is fake.

I think that this is true, and piggy is the perfect example of this type of behavior

Some might think that taking care of your own child is what you should do, but it's everyone's responsibility. without the perspective and opinions of others you group up ignorant, naive, and narrow-minded, and that is no way for a child to be raised.

This is like in Lord of the Flies. Once Jack separated from the group, the sense of community and order disappeared. What will happen to mankind if we keep on wanting to be more and more independent?

I think that it would be a better society if people would care for other children. I think that many people don't bother to help because they don't want to be held responsible for anything that happens to them. If you saw a stranger talking to your child, you would not know that they are helping your child. You would act defensive and this might be why people don't help as much.

That is how it is on the neighbor islands in some areas. It helps to know there and here that others will watch out for you or someone will always have your back. It just adds another layer of mental security.

I think that it is great how people help out in Sweden when someone is hitting a child. If that happened in the United States or in Hawaii then I think people would just ignore it because they wouldn't want to get involved into the problem.

Sweden is really smart for doing this. It helps the child if there getting beat up by the parents because other people will try to intervene and stop it, as opposed to how here we would most of the time ignore the situation or turn away.

Banning the hitting of a child would only inflate the child's head and cause them to think that they can do whatever they want. I support it because i am a child but i also disagree with it. when i become a parent i would like to be able to discipline my child that way if need.

I personally don't think it is right to stop a parent if the hitting is sanctioned and called for. Of course it the hitting becomes excessively brutal then I completely agree that you should stop them.

I do not think that hitting a child is right.  I think that everyone should step in if they see that a child is being hit.  Just because you are not a parent does that mean that you cant see that something wrong is happening?  I do not think so.

I think Sweden made a good law, considering they were stepping into a fragile topic. Many people oppose to child abuse, yet there are so many people who do it! The law applies to those in public, but the issue is when parents abuse their children at home

It matters what the child does. Some kids just can't listen and it's very annoying. When people talk back to me I feel like knocking them out, but it's not appropriate. Sometimes we need to hold back, but in this case, what is the definition of "hitting"? A simple slap on the face, or a total beat down? If it's just something small, other parents shouldn't have to jump in and save the child. It just matters what "hitting" is. There is wide range for that word.

It's probably easier for a parent, or a bystander, to stop someone hitting a child because they know or have a child. Having a kid and seeing one getting hurt maybe affects parents more. Also, more people may recognize that the act of hitting a younger one (littlun :O) as being a rather bad thing in a civilized community. And so, these hitting scenes are more likely to be reported.

McQuery may have felt shocked by what he had saw, but none the less, he still should have reported what he saw directly to a police officer, as he is still responsible for his actions, as while he did not actively take part, he did not resist either, and so his lack of action also puts him to blame. I do think, however, that this theory is correct, and that McQuery would have been shocked, because I can't think of any other reason that McQuery would not have reported what he saw to a police officer.

Of course he's guilty. If you get into tickle fights with young boys in the shower someone's gonna put two and two together.

It must've been hard for him because its almost like reporting a friend or even a family member to the police. Though I'm not saying what Sandusky did was something that can just be let go

I think that McQueary's case was more akin to trying to keep his organization's slate clean. This is due to the fact that he did report the crime to his superior, but not the police.

As the article states, I think McQueary was doubting himself and Paterno. He couldn't imagine that a close friend of his would do something like that. 

THis shows that some people like to ignore the bad things even though they are fully aware of things like this 

I agree with this quote because you can't stop what you already did. You have to accept the fact that you did it because denying what you did makes everything worse.

I agree with this because if you see something so horrible right in front of your eyes, your going to tell your self that it wasn't real and that you didn't see it. This is just the way people are.

However, the denial of things is what causes us to loose many of the things in front of us.  If we are able to deny what we have seen, then we believe that maybe we can make it further.  Buy by simply denying the truth, you are only postponing the inevitable.  No matter how hard you try, someone will find out eventually.

WTF they did that to a two year old?

How could anyone do that to a 2 year old? Thats sick minded?

Does this mean parents neglect what they know will help thier child?

Does this mean if socity didnt help anyone everyone would be standing on the side watching

When humans are encountered with something they don't know how to handle they try to rationalize it b making it seem right and sensible even when their mortality says it isn't.

Humans are masters of twisting and manipulating the truth.  Fact is, it's one of the things we do best.  Even the most righteous person has "sinned" in their life.  In order to tell a perfect lie, you have to believe it yourself.  When someone recounts this story, they will truly believe in what they saw.  Making it impossible to know whether or not it was true.

I think that maybe the level of trust has gone down in the community and nobody know who to trust anymore with these new issues.

Does this show that children are more likely to make wrong decisions later on in life if they had been abused as a child?

I agree with this statement because the witness might see the crime or the situation in another perspective or view. I see that not only can the witness minimize the crime but might prove the crime of the person innocent.

I think this statement depends on the person. Like if you saw a person cheating during a test, I'd say 50% would tell and the other 50% wouldn't. Is it your moral to stop the cheating? Or is the person who is cheating threatening or a friend of yours? 

This is just a form of denial, since, afterall, it's denying that a crime happened by replacing the scene for something else.

I can't believe some parents would be in that much denial.

I believe that this can be true depending on the situation of how bad the crime is and the child's behavior around their parents. If the crime is bad and is surprising to the parent then they might not believe that the child did that crime because they think that the child will never do that kind of thing.

Penn State sort turned a blind towards the scandal

I can imagine the kind of neglect these teens can receive because the parents will leave the teen in the program where the teen is wondering, "what have I done wrong, or why am I here?"

I'd think that they would want to fire both the coach and Mike McQueary: the coach for not enforcing better moral values, and Mike for committing the crime of not contacting the police. In fact, I see no reason at all to keep Mike on the team at all from what he just did.

I don't understand how the "working of a major college football team" are "hidden". Could someone explain? 

I think they are trying to talk about all the behind the back deals that are made outside of the publics eye. For example Penn State. When Mike saw the child rape in 2002 the Penn State office kept it away from the public. "Hidding" it. While they keep their dark secrets away they go on like life is normal. We get all of our information from news channels, internet, etc. If major college football team keeps everything under wraps who knows?

How can people be so heartless? To stand and just watch a stabbing, or worse turn away and not do anything about it is even worse and that just shows our true selves.

Standing there doing nothing is almost as bad as killing the child themselves. How would they sleep at night thinking they could have saved her life by one phone call but didnt??!!

I think that they probably did call the police and also if you intervened, you could go to jail, get stabbed or even die. The bystanders didn't know the circumstances of the attack so I suppose that is why they didn't intervene.

Those people who turned away should either have heavy hearts or none at all. The death is on there shoulders as much as the killer

How can a person just stand there, watch a helpless person get stabbed, walk away, and not call the police or even try to help that person?! Our society is becoming very selfish and heartless.

The norms can be important, but when it comes to this stuff like watching a murder or witnessing a rape, you are actually JUST AS BAD as the murderer or the rapist, because you could be the difference between what happens and what can be prevented.

However, it is also the same psychology as if you were the victim.  You don't tell the police for fear of it happening more often, or much more worse.  Morality isn't as much of a factor as the primal instinct of survival

This would be the right thing for you to do because it is a little ten year old boy getting beaten up

At first i think its crazy but then it makes sense to me that why do people that are famous, well known or very amazing in the eyes of others do crazy things like this. I think it is of stress and also to be great they must have been doing something different from everyone else so they must be a little bit crazy!

I think this should be a very controversial topic because if someone doesn't tell people about someone doing wrong i don't think they should get banned, fired or in trouble because maybe it way to save or help some one but also it could be for bad reasons which is why it is so confusion to me!

I think that this is not a good move, because sure the coach failed to talk, but he might not have wanted to make his relationship bad, or he didn't want to get in trouble because he could be falsely accused of being part of the rapes

This had clearly proved the psychological thinking that the relations one has to another can strongly alter your understanding of the situation, and can drive you to cover the perpetrators tracks.  

Even the thought of this sends shivers down my spine i see how it is sad or frowned upon that no one spoke but also the thought of a sound so blood curdling and real and even seeing a murder it would give rarely anyone the courage to speak i think

I think that sentence is related to the lord of the flies because people's behavior gets affected when others are around. The group affects one's personal identity because the group doesn't care and doesn't necessarily make the moral choice.

That is kind of like when we researched id, ego, and superego. When certian things happen one of the "ego's" take over.

This also relates to teen issues because people have the power to convince us to do bad things (alcohol, smoking, drugs, etc). We are under peer pressure and that clouds our decisions.

I agree with all three of them, this quote/sentence shows how some people have "a second life" as in saying that with some people they are cool, and funny but with others at home they are mean and don't care. This sort of deals with peer pressure from friends and family.

It seems interesting how quickly this case turned into an urban legend, with people streching what really happened and making it seem even worse. I feel that it is fascinating in determining how our brain works, and what governs our decisions, and when we are truly responsible for our actions, including our action of remaining silent. All the same, I am shocked by this event, and even more so by the feeling of apathy and nonchalance of the onlookers, as they did not try to help Kitty Genovese.

It shocking to know that out of 38 people, not one person went over and tried to help in some way

I agree with Beobgwan. How would they of not noticed? There must of been some disturbance around the area. And in some way it is strange how quickly it turned into urban legend.

Although I can see how its shocking that no one helped, the words " they assume others around them will do so" really speaks for just about everyone. Honestly, although we say we will, what are the chances someone would risk themselves to save someone who is being stabbed? Its the unfortunate truth that we humans can be so selfish sometimes

I wonder why these big time coaches would do stupid things like this to lose such an important job.

It is hard to think that you would just stand there watching a boy being attacked and not saving him. 

It was wrong and he should do something about it. The kid could have gotten seriously injured or hurt

The coach not stepping in probably resulted in the kid now being traumatized until adulthood, and possibly forever

Just like this quote to the right, some people only help if it is someone that they know and if it is someone they know they are more likely to help.

If it is someone they know, they may ask if they need help but if they make a story up then they may move on and keep walking.

This part of this sentence is a little confusing to understand. I think it means that the less communication from organizations or people increase the behavior in situations. Maybe it means that the less witnesses or help to prevent these situation results into better outcome.

So, pretty much, when someones reputation is in threat of being damaged, they instantly try to protect it.  This is because of the way modern society is shaped.  The higher our reputation, the more respect we have.  The more respect we have, the more attention we get.  The more attention we get, the more we believe we have a chance at success.  It is all a process of thought that modern society and others have pushed onto us.

This displays how we tweak or alter our morals, depending on who the person/victum is.

I agree with this that we can learn something but it may not work until someone "boots us up." It is just like the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't force it to drink the water"

That's definitely true.  Humans may have the capability of being moral, but we don't always use it.  And the use of words to describe the "booting up" is like saying humans are robots.  Which in some ways is true.  We do what we're told and act in a certain way.

Thats interesting that if you dont aid a stranger you are a criminal in France... I guess the person who needs help will get it faster there than anywhere else.  I would want to be there if I needed help :)

Our morals, or rather perspectives of what we think is right or wrong can change based on the location and event in which we commit ourselves to. 

Empathy is a very strong factor in our lives.  We feel so much of it, that sometimes we pass it off as something else entirely.  But, there are people who have a lack of empathy, those who don't even look at people the same way as others.  These people, can preform the cruelest of acts, but sometimes the most logical.  Also, to much empathy could prove a problem.  If your over thinking about how something affected another person, you may miss a chance of something happening to you, and loose the opportunity.  But, it is good to worry about others, but you must trust that they can move on without your help.

Yes, I agree sometimes the best thing to learn is empathy.  I think this is something that all great leaders must have.  This question reminds me a lot of Ender's Games.

I think this makes things harder because you pressure and might make a mistake.

I think when the threat gets more complicated you tend to think it's worse, just because there are a number of things that can happen to you.  I also thinks when this happens you get confused and you only hear the bad things that may happen.

Is the writer implying that the less complex an animal, the more it is kind and empathetic? If this is true, it might explain how so many people lie and commit crimes. Have we done wrong so many times that people have resigned themeselves on the fact that people will always be bad? Does this show our intelligence or our ignorance, because only the thought that it is morally acceptable because so many others are doing the same thing is not a very good arguement, but maybe our intellect eludes us. We have flourished because of our propensity to cheat and be selfish. Is this because of natural selection, as the one mutation that decides to be selfish has a better chance of survival over others of the same species, and so the genes that made that individual selfish will be passed onto its descendants, and soon most of the population will have been overcome with this selfish gene. As describe in the evolutionary biology book, "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins, other animals are not selfish because they actually benefit from being altruistic. For example, penguins will huddle together in order to stay warm. They participate in this because each individual presents less are of their body to the frigid cold weather than they would have on their own. Animals clearly benefit from being cooperative and altruistic, and so maybe it is only because a majority of humans are selfish in that there are still selfish people around. I could assume that the author is implying that the animals that are less complex are being selfish in turn, but I think that animals are always altruistic to begin with, and there is no "good or bad" in it. It is only natural selection that enforces our choices, so it is our ancestors that determined long ago what we will do in the here and now. Also, the animals wouldn't know they are benefiting from their innoculous altruism, so natural selection is letting them keep their altruism in favor for their survival. However, why is it that humans are so se

It seems that what limits our empathy is our intelligence. I believe this can be both a blessing and a curse. A blessing because less empathy allows more rational decisions (as mentioned later in the article). A curse because less empathy can lead to corruption, which can even negate the bonus of more rational decisions (in the case of killers and so on).

does this mean that every human being is the same in their feelings? that one action done unto someone will have the same reaction to another even though they are both different? i think people would have different reactions to a situation and not feel the same mutual hurt.

Wow, I can't believe that a gorilla actually saved a child's life rather than attacking him. Gorilla's are really smart and seems to understand human beings.

I would think all animals have a way of speaking to communicate with their peers/

I agree with Kolton. You'll usually see animals working together or in groups. They'd have to have a way to communicate or else they wouldn't be able to be around each other. Imagine if you were standing by some people, but they didn't talk and you had no way of communicating. How would you let them know to relocate or get food like how animals do? All animals must have a way to communicate.

interesting I never thought of it in this kind of way.

I think it is good that kids learn the difference between right and wrong at a young age.

I agree with Maris because if children aren't taught the difference between right and wrong at a young age, how do you think they would act when they are older?

Does this mean that we are the highest and wisest species but the crimes that we commit make us the lowest and cruelest species

The entire human race is a paradox in this statement of truth. There are those who do the right thing and set a good example for others(those are the people that make us look good), and there are those like Hitler, Ghidafi, and Bin Ladin who tear out the light of our race and make us look like blood-thirsty creatures. We are the double edged sword that both takes our life and gives it reason to exist.

Well I dont think it is just certain people like Hitler and Osama that tar the name of the human race, but ourselves as well. Every person that makes us look good (as Mako said) has probably done something that he or she regrets and people that make us look bad have probably commited some good deed. Remember these people in the eyes of their people look like heros. So it is a matter of perspective. We see others as bad and they see us as bad.

Cool story Jay

I think this part means that anger is not in the mentally part of us but our mind can be a creative place with many feelings.

I think this means that even though some people feel and understand the rules and what they did wrong that doesn't guaranteed that the rules and law will be not broken by that person again.

I agree and for someone who broke a rule or is a constantly breaking rules will find it hard to stop since have already done it and it can get somewhat addicting even with harsh punishment. If a kid knows not to steal a cookie from the cookie jar I think it adds to the pressure of wanting a cookie when your not allowed to.

Rules can be there. No one said you aren't allowed to have rules. Yet we all know, it's our choices to actually follow them or not.

So humans are recognized not only by our judgment but by our empathy? We know what it feels like to suffer, what it feels like after we make a good or bad decision, that is what defines a human?

They're making it seem like this quality is only for humans. I'm pretty sure other animals feel pain for each other.

I agree with dylan. I remember the previous AOW we did about ants and how we learned how smart they actually were. Other living things on this planet also have feelings and not just humans.