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.

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.

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

I think that this statement relates to a plethora of other, extremely important topics. Learning math and science is valuable, but isn't it just as worthwhile, if not better, to learn more about communication with other people?

I feel that we as we are growing up, we have to adapt to bigger responsibilities, and I think that this scenario is a good way to help us teenagers make better decisions.

I agree with this teenager because I think it is shocking to find how much time us teenagers spend on Facebook. We have to get used to social situations as we get older, and Facebook sort of defeats the purpose. It makes us teenagers unable to cope with face to face situations, which I think is a major downfall for us as a society. We are supposed to mature as we grow up, but it is hard enough to talk face to face. How hard is it to cope with something when a hundred other people already know about it? All of this traumal because of one website.

I believe that President Obama is correct in that we can not use a couple of terrorists to represent an entire religion. More than one billion people are Muslim, a quarter of the world's population, and it seems unfair to blame all of them for what less than a hundred people did. What the terrorists did were wrong, but the religion itself is not to blame. Individuals can not be held responsible for the larger group. I think that we are being unreasonable when blaming the terrorist acts on Muslims as a whole, when it is just a couple of extremists that commited the crime.

I believe that Obama proposed the Islamic center as he wanted to show that America does not blame Muslims for the September 11 Attacks, and that they should not be afraid. It is ironic in that instead, there is even more resentment among Americans involving Muslims. I support Obama, as he is having a hard time trying to be peaceful when Americans have so many stereotypes and suspicion regarding Muslims.

While I believe that critics have a point in that the center is a reminder of the September Attacks, that does not mean that the center is a bad idea. Remembering the September Attacks is painful, yet it reminds us how the United States has stood up to devastation and risen back to its former state. I think that we should realize that the terrorists do not represent Muslims, and that we should be more forgiving.

I think that nobody is perfect, and that because of that it is impossible to perfectly predict the future, as there an infinate number of ways the future could possibly hold. For example, just by kicking an acorn could lead to the acorn bearing hundreds of trees, leading to thousands of more trees in the future. This shows how fickle time is, and how one small event can change a huge portion of the future. I think while birth-order may be true in a general perspective, it will be impossible to say things like "I am first-born, so I will be the most successful in my family." or "Since I am third-born, I will be very active and be the class clown." It just does not work that way, much like asking a 2 year old child what he or she wants to be in the future.

I think this is like the Prisoner's Dilemna, a theoretical game in probabilty where two prisoners are forced to do the statistically best option, while if they had trusted each other they would have gotten a better result. I think that it will be nearly impossible to break this endless cycle, as statistically this is the best option for the paretns to raise a healthy, successful child. I think I am lucky to be an only child, as I don't have to compete with my siblings.

Birth-order must be very serious if even collecting data is biased because of that issue, which I find somewhat ironic.

Ants seem to be similar to other animals in fighting, as other species also fight by seeing which of them is bigger, or competing. I wonder if there are other similar characteristics in different species, such as behaviour.

It seems that ants are more complicated than we give credit. It appears that we humans have a lot more information we can learn about ants, as I have never heard of ants sleeping. How strange is that?

How interesting. I did not know that ants were so interesting. I never would have thought that ants could be so complicated, like having stategies for hunting!