[bushramemon]

A TEEN FEMALE FOOTBALL FIRST

1) Determine the main point idea or lesson in the article and analyze how the writer develops his point in a specific way for maximum effect.

The main point of this article is about how Karlie Harman became the first female to win Player of the Year in a Washington D.C. area youth football league. The main point first emerges when the author says, “Karlie is the first female quarterback ever to win this award.” The article then continues on to tell us about how this happened: the Thunder’s coach heard about her and made her quarterback of his team and “put her on defense too”. The article then talks about how Karlie was the only girl on the team and how due to her accomplishment of becoming the first female to win Player of the Year many other teams are also gaining female players. The article finally tells us of what Karlie is doing post winning this award – she has started her own clothing company some of whose “sales money will go to charity” and ”may try out for kicker on her high school’s team next season”. The article develops from being about her winning this award to how this event inspired other girls to follow in her footsteps resulting in more and more girls joining football – a previously male dominated sport.

2) Critique and comment on two of the following elements after reading the article. Include your own evaluation of the writer’s strengths and weaknesses in these two areas. Use evidence/examples from the text. (Purpose, Argument, Organization)

ORGANIZATION: The article is divided into parts using sub-headings. This is a good thing as it helps the reader better understand the article as the sub-headings give us a clue as to what the next section of the article will be about. However, a weakness of this article would be in the way that the author organizes ideas. The beginning starts out talking about Karlie Herman being the first female to win Player of the Year and ends on an almost completely different note of what her mother thinks about this victory. Had the author started out telling us who Karlie Herman was, how did she come to play for the Dulles South Thunder and how did she eventually become the first female to hold the title of Player of the Year before talking about how Karlie became the holder of this title then the reader would’ve understood the article with more ease.

PURPOSE: The author’s purpose in this article is to inform. This is done well as the author uses sub-headings which make it easier for the reader to have an idea about the main point of the following section of the article. Another reason the article is written in the best possible way is because the author has included illustrations of Karlie Herman – the focus of this piece. This adds to the article positively because we now have a face to give to the name of Karlie Herman.

ARGUMENT: The article’s main message is that Karlie Herman was the first female to win Player of the Year. The message is clearly communicated as the writer connects every other idea of the article to the aforementioned one. However, something that could’ve helped the reader better understand the article would’ve been if the writer would’ve mentioned what Karlie Herman did exactly to come into the judges’ - who gave out the Player of the Year award -  notice.

3) What kinds of questions would you ask yourself before determining if any information is reliable? Write down two questions and explain why you would ask them.

A) Is the information provided sufficient – depending on the topic? Asking this question would be helpful in determining the reliability of the article because we usually have an idea about how much information an author can provide depending upon the topic of the article. If any author provides insufficient information compared to the reader’s estimation of the amount of information that could have been provided then the article is most likely fallible as it’s hard to provide details on fabricated information.

B) When was the article written? Knowing when an article was written would help us determine if its information is still reliable. The information in a past article may be true at that time but falsified now due to new discoveries.

4) Determine if this article is a reliable or unreliable source. Give three detailed reasons to support your point of view.

This article is a reliable source due to many reasons. One of these reasons is that it provides visual proof that Karlie Herman was the one that won the Player of the Year. Another reason this article is reliable is because it’s well researched and provides many background details – had it been a fallible one, it wouldn’t have been able to provide as many details. Lastly this article is a reliable one because it is posted on a well-known site – Scholastic. As this is a credible source of information; the information posted on it must too be credible.

[bushramemon]

Shaggy - Mr bombastic

Shaggy - mr bombastic ---DISCLAIMER--- All music used in this film are Copyright to Sony BMG Another company that I do not own.

Bombastic

[bushramemon]

Vindictive

[bushramemon]

Week 5 Vocabulary

Vindictive:

The imbecilic vindictive woman thought of avenging her sister’s murder by tailing her murderer disguised as her sister.

Pejorative:

The pejorative comments that a British lady made to a fellow Asian passenger garnered media attention to racism and Islamophobia in the west.

[bushramemon]

Do you like Christopher? What about his father? And his mother? Are they good people? Do you sympathize with them when they behave unskillfully, or blame them for their faults? Write two paragraphs.

I like Christopher and his father but his mother not so much because she’s the main reason that everyone’s in such a mess in the first place. They are all good people but that in no way justifies their actions – all of them mess up in the book.  

I sympathize with Christopher and his father when they behave unskillfully because they in some way are made to because of the mother's actions and therefore I do not sympathize with the mother when she behaves unskillfully. People say that it's a mother who holds the house together and Christopher's mother was quite selfish in the way that she never really tried to fix things and even if she did she didn't try hard enough and just went and ruined her relationship with her family which is to say her husband and her son. It was no one's fault for Christopher being the way that he was, but his mother was greatly upset that he was so. She was very intolerant when it came to Christopher when she was living with them which led to fights with her husband and eventually them falling out of love and her falling in love with another man and eventually leaving home. Here her reasoning was that her leaving would make things better but actually things worsened more and more after she left. For example Christopher and his father got into fights because of reasons which were evoked due to his mother abandoning them. Had Christopher's mother remained calm and tried to have less arguments about Christopher with her husband and calmly talked out what she was concerned with instead of screaming and shouting and being negative about it then she might have not fallen out with her husband. This would have made a huge difference as they could then deal with problems that arose due to Christopher's condition together instead of on their own. The main reason that Christopher's mother sought another man to fill the void of her life was because her husband didn't see her the same way anymore and so his behavior towards her changed so much so that he fell out of love with her and she was left to fare on her own.

Regardless of this Christopher's mother is a good person because even though she leaves she believes she's doing it for good and doesn't realize that it's not really like that. She's a good person because she still loves his son and is still welcoming to him when he shows up at her doorstep in London. Not only her but so is Roger – in his own way. This is a big thing because had Christopher's mother really hated her child then she would've cut off from him completely. Another instance that proves that Christopher's mother really does love him is that she keeps sending him letters telling him about her life even though she has no answer from his side.

I think that Christopher and his parents are good people but they make many mistakes and it's only human for them to make these mistakes. We can always talk about what ifs but we can never put ourselves truly in their shoes and try to find a resolution to their problems. Yes it would be ideal if the parents stopped arguing, yes it would be ideal if Christopher wasn't the way he was, and yes it would be ideal if Judy hadn't found Roger, but all of these things are what ifs and talking in hypotheticals won't get us anywhere and therefore looking at the situation as it is would be the ideal. There may have been solutions to it but these solutions would've been hard to come to had the person giving them been a part of the situation. It is rather easy for an onlooker to come in and give their opinion on what might have been a good solution to a particular situation but it is very hard for the people going through the situation to come to the very same solution mainly because they would be looking at it emotionally rather than logically and honestly I wouldn't blame them for doing so because it is an emotional situation and if it concerns you then you would only look at it emotionally and it would be extremely difficult for you to look at it logically.

[bushramemon]

Until The End Lyrics- Breaking Benjamin

Lyrics to Until The End by Breaking Benjamin Album: Phobia I own nothing. Enjoy!

Pick a scene from the novel then add music to it. Write a paragraph about how that song would work well with this particular scene from the book.

The scene: Christopher finding his mother’s letters and discovering that his father lied to him and then his father telling him about Wellington and why he lied to Christopher about Judy Boone (Christopher’s mother). The song: Breaking Benjamin - Until the End

The song Breaking Benjamin - Until the End best fits the part of the book where Christopher discovers the truth about his parents and Wellington because it says, “I'm done with these endeavors. Alone I walk the winding way” which highlights how Christopher felt at that moment – alone - and also obscurely foreshadows that Christopher is going to leave home to go and live with his mother in London.  “It's easy to fall apart completely. I feel you creeping up again. (In my head) It's over, No longer” this part of the song again highlights how Christopher may be feeling at this point - disgusted by his father’s actions and broken because he’s just had his trust broken by one of the people he trusted most completely. The chorus repeatedly says “I've lost my way. I've lost my way, but I will go on until the end” which emphasizes that Christopher has lost his way because he lost the person who showed him the way (his father) and now Christopher can’t trust his father anymore nonetheless soon Christopher begins to look for a way out of the situation as he knows he has to do something and so it makes sense for it to say “but I will go on until the end”. The song ends with “The final fight I'll win, But I will go on until the end” which again serves to foreshadow the fact that Christopher will try his best to find a way out of his trying situation.

[alya-aq-blog]

“Portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media is unfair.”

I disagree with the fact that portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media is unfair. Of course there are some entertainment media that portraits people with disabilities in a rude way, but that happens to people with no disabilities too. People with disabilities shouldn’t feel as if they’re different than us, because they aren’t. Portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media can actually benefit the people in many ways.

Portraying people with disabilities can teach people about that particular disability. Some people aren’t that aware of the struggles or what a person with a disability may go through everyday, this could give people more sympathy to people with disabilities and make them more understanding when that disabled person does something unacceptable or wrong in some way. For example if I have met someone like Christopher, with Asperger’s Syndrome, I would’ve thought they were rude or disrespectful for doing certain things (an example is hitting people when being touched), but because I’ve read the book, now I know why they would’ve done that. Knowing certain behaviors of people with Asperger’s Syndrome (from Christopher) helped me understand why they do certain things.

Also, sometimes seeing people with disabilities makes you feel more thankful for what you have. People should always feel grateful towards what they have, not everyone has what you have. Also people with disabilities, they have things we don’t have. Nobody is perfect or has everything, so everyone should feel appreciative for the things they have. For people with disabilities, seeing others go through the same struggles they go through everyday would make them feel like they aren’t alone. For example seeing Christopher having difficulties communicating with others made me feel fortunate to have the social skills I’ve got (even though I have bad social skills). A person with Asperger’s Syndrome might have never or rarely seen a person with the same disability. That person might have read TCIOTDITNT and felt like they weren’t the only ones going through these obstacles that differentiate them from other people.

All in all, I disagree with the statement that says that portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media is unfair. Actually, I think not portraying them in entertainment media would be unfair because they aren’t any different than us. There isn’t anything wrong with showing people what a day in a life of a disabled person is like. We always portray able-bodied people, how would it be unfair to portray disabled people? We are all the same. Also portraying disabled people would help others by teaching them new information and making them feel thankful for what these got. It would also teach disabled people to be stronger and feel like they aren’t alone.

[bushramemon]

I disagree with your disagreement of the statement “Portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media is unfair.” As far as portraying people in an offensive way goes; it shouldn’t be done to people who aren’t disabled either. This is because when anyone – disabled or not – is portrayed in such demeaning ways; it causes people to lose respect for them. Even if you’re viewing something with such content purely for entertainment purposes and believe that this content won’t have any effect on your opinions then you are mistaken. It’s a proven fact that what we view has an effect on our perceptions. Going back to your point of how even able people are portrayed in an unpleasant manner; they shouldn’t be because that way it causes any and all  viewers to lose respect for these people and start belittling them.

It is difficult to understand what a disabled person may be going through by viewing them in fictitious and unreal situations that are usually meant for comedy – trying to do so from such a source would end in you discovering unreliable information that would lead you to believe in untrue facts. If your aim really was to comprehend what a disabled person may be facing on a daily basis then entertainment media would be an unreliable source because their aim would then be entertaining the audience, not informing them.

Your next point about how seeing these disabled people in entertainment media and being thankful for what you have brings me back to my previous statement  that the way in which these people are portrayed in entertainment media would only cause us to look down on them.

As far as your example about Christopher goes, there’s a lot of argument concerning how the book doesn’t portray a sufferer of Asperger’s syndrome realistically as it focuses mainly on showing you the negative side of things – a major part of Christopher’s story is about how his mother sees him as a burden and so falls out with his father; has an affair and abandons her family. Many may argue that the author has to do so to show the negativity of it all or to have a plot or some such but the truth is that this book is quite unrealistic if you’re looking to achieve a better understanding of what a person with such a condition has to go through. This isn’t essentially the writer’s fault but there should be some warning as to not assume that all people suffering from Asperger’s syndrome do so in a similar fashion as Christopher.

In addition to the fact that the book doesn’t portray the life of a sufferer of Asperger’s syndrome realistically due to its pessimism on the issue it also portrays that people of this condition don’t feel empathy and are shallow. This is proven in the way that Christopher reacts to other people in his school calling them stupid or disgusting or some such variant. Also Christopher on multiple occasions praises his own intelligence while trivializing others’ disabilities.

Due to these we see a person suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome in negative light even if we don’t realize it. In reality - such people aren’t like this at all. The book leads us to believe that an autistic person is such and doesn’t give the reader any sense that these people can be befriended mainly because Christopher’s so cut off from everyone else and mentions that he likes it that way. Not all autistic people are like this and so the book is quite misleading when it comes to showing how an autistic person really is.

You say that disabled people sometimes get you to be thankful for what you have and you use the example of Christopher and his social skills but tell me I’m sure there must have been a point in the book where you felt like “Did he really do that? – I can’t believe he did that. Why would anyone do that?” and this not incredulously per say but more shock mingled with condemnation.

You claim that another sufferer of Asperger’s syndrome may be able to relate to Christopher but then again Christopher is shown to us through a very pessimistic eye. Christopher’s life may easily not be relatable to another suffering of the same condition mainly because not all sufferers have dysfunctional families and do not all get so neglected and treated as belittlingly as Christopher is.

To wrap this up, I think that portraying a disabled person in entertainment media is unfair because it gets people to look down on them - subconsciously. This is because entertainment media seeks to entertain through portraying such a character and it doesn’t seek to give us a good understanding on how life may be for them. This also shows that if you’re trying to get an idea on how life for a disable person may be then entertainment media is one of the least favorable sources you should go to. Yes we're all the same but you have to look at how disabled people are portrayed in entertainment media versus how an able person is.  By viewing a disabled person In entertainment media you’ll rarely feel thankful for what you have because you’ll be too bust laughing at what the disable person doesn’t have – I do not mean to be harsh but this is mostly how entertainment media portrays disabled [people promoting the idea that it’s funny how they don’t have something that an average person does or aren’t capable of life’s simple tasks. In my opinion entertainment media would make a disabled person feel worse about themselves as entertainment media usually portrays them in offensive or erroneous ways.

[bushramemon]

A major theme in the book is Isolation. Provide three examples of this throughout the book and also respond to the following: Christopher prefers to be alone, but knows he’s unable take care of himself on his own. Is there a contradiction here? AND why is Christopher okay touching animals, but not humans?

One example of isolation in the book is when Christopher is arrested and is left alone in the jail cell. An interesting fact about Christopher’s arrest was that Christopher actually liked it, he says, “It was nice in the police cell.”(Chapter 23)

Another example of isolation is when Christopher is mostly left to be on his own. This is mainly because it’s just him and his father at home since their mother has moved out. Also Christopher isn’t very good in social situations and so prefers it that way. This is proved when Christopher implies that he likes being on his own because he says, “I do not like strangers because I do not like people I have never met before. They are hard to understand.” (Chapter 67)

The third example of isolation is when Christopher hides out in the shed. As he is alone, this is an example of isolation, “I went round the back of the shed and I squeezed into the gap between the wall of the shed and the fence, behind the big black plastic tub for collecting rainwater. Then I sat down and I felt a bit safer.”(Chapter 167)

“Christopher prefers to be alone, but knows he’s unable take care of himself on his own.”  

There is a contradiction over here because even though Christopher sometimes realizes that he can’t take care of himself on his own, he doesn’t KNOW it. There are many instances that prove this. An example of such an instance would be when Christopher decides that he can travel on his own all the way to London to go and live with his mother. He does not realize the consequences of his actions neither does he realize that he does not know how to properly handle most of the situations that arise during his journey. When he tries to handle said situations, he finds himself inadequately prepared to do so.

Why is Christopher okay touching animals, but not humans?

Christopher's OK touching animals but not humans because he feels threatened by humans while he thinks that animals are quite safe. This is implied in the book when he tells us that humans are confusing – “I find people confusing” (Chapter 29) – because of their body language which he finds difficult to comprehend. Another reason he finds humans confusing is because they use metaphors - another thing he finds difficult to understand.

On the other hand animals are easier for him to comprehend and therefore he doesn't feel threatened by them. This is because we often feel threatened by what we cannot comprehend – and understanding animals is a lot easier than understanding humans as animals don’t experience the same complexity of emotions, motivations, body language, behavior, social situations, etc. as humans do. Animals’ motives and intentions are very clear to us and so they cannot do something that we don’t already know them to be capable of doing – no behavior of an animal can ambush us. This is because animals are so much easier to figure out and that’s why Christopher is comparatively more comfortable with them than he is with humans. So quod erat demonstrandum (thus it is proved) that Christopher’s okay with touching animals but not humans because animals are a lot easier to understand and so are less threatening and more approachable.

[jovial-soul-deactivated20160617]

Violence is Never the Answer.

“ Violence can be a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.” I disagree with this statement mainly because I think that violence is never the answer and I have always been an advocate of that. I think that in most situations that we encounter we should never use violence as a response despite what the problem happens to be. Violence is not a responsible act and makes the situations much worse and most likely you will fall into a spiral of trouble. 

I think that using strong words is a responsible thing to do when put in an unreasonable situation and if that can’t be achieved then you could ask for assistance from a more experienced group of people like the police. Let’s take Christopher for example from The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night time and how he hit the policeman because he didn’t like being touched, and we know how that turned into a bigger problem with Christopher getting a warning from the police and made matters much worse. I know that Christopher has a disorder that makes him think and act the way he does but generally speaking this example shows how violence can turn a whole situation upside down.  

But we need to understand the difference between violence and self-defence. Self-defence is a form of violence but it  is a way to protect yourself from people who go beyond just verbally arguing or harassing. Self-defence is used in situation where you need to protect yourself from physical harm that may happen to you, like someone hitting you, stabbing you, or any other form of physical harm. Violence on the other hand is used in unnecessary ways, for example when Christopher’s father grabbed him during their fight about the book, that was not a necessary thing to do and it didn’t help father’s side of the argument rather it just made the bad situation worse.

[bushramemon]

I disagree with your argument concerning the statement “Violence can be a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation” because you are only disagreeing to the “Violence can be a reasonable response” part; you are not including or somehow exempting the “to an unreasonable situation” part. This makes a big difference because while violence can be unreasonable while talking in general it is very reasonable in an unreasonable situation. This unreasonable situation could be anything from a kidnapping to domestic violence. If you do not react to these situations with violence then how would you get out of them?

And have you ever thought of why policemen are allowed to use force or violence in order to arrest a criminal? This is because sometimes violence is quite necessary since without it you can't achieve your aim which in this case would be to catch the said aggressive criminal.

In addition to this have you ever considered why countries have laws where you can plead innocent in court under claims of using violence only as self-defense? It's because in a situation such as when somebody's trying to murder you or when somebody's trying to kidnap you then violence is quite necessary because without it you would not be able to get out of the situation.

As far as talking about the book’s example goes; this very example that you're using about how Christopher hits the policemen demonstrates how violence can be unreasonable in a reasonable situation. The situation is a reasonable one because Christopher has a choice whether to hit the policeman or not. As he chooses to hit the policeman and makes a choice it is then a reasonable situation in which he acts unreasonably by using violence. This is because he uses violence lightly - only because the policeman is asking him too many questions. Maybe this will be argued with how Christopher has a different thought process because he has Asperger’s Syndrome but even this can be argued with how he knows that hitting is unacceptable.  This is proved in chapter 73 when he lists out hitting as one of his behavioral problems.

Regardless this doesn't mean that using violence in an unreasonable situation is unreasonable. If everyone is expected to do that then self-defense would be treated as crime. Don't you think that would be unfair? If a country deported you or sent you to jail or punished you in some other legal way just because you were trying to defend yourself using violence would make life a lot harder and it would make facing crime such as rape and kidnapping a lot more difficult because then you would barely have a way out. And this is why I think that violence is reasonable in an unreasonable situation and in an unreasonable situation only.

As far as using violence as self-defense goes - you contradict yourself by saying so. When you are asked to agree or disagree to a statement you cannot choose a grey area - you must explicitly agree or disagree but you cannot do both. For emphasis sake I would like to repeat myself and point out that you are only both agreeing and disagreeing because you are arguing "Violence can be a reasonable response" rather than "Violence can be a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation".

[bushramemon]

Pick one of the following: “Violence can be a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.” OR “Portraying people with disabilities in entertainment media is unfair.” Argue your view in two paragraphs on one of these topics. Use examples from the book and personal opinions to support your ideas.

“Violence can be a reasonable response to an unreasonable situation.”

I agree with this statement because it says that violence can be reasonable meaning that violence could be appropriate and sensible in an inappropriate and insensible situation. If you think about it then it makes complete sense as violence is reasonable when for example you’re faced with a kidnapper who means only harm to you. You would have no chance at escape if not by using violence. Here violence is justified because it is used as a means of self-defense in a threatening or in other words inappropriate situation.

In fact majority of the people would show assent towards this statement because sometimes violence is the only solution in the face of an unfortunate situation. This is supported by the fact that many countries actually have laws where even killing is justified if the reason behind it is one that’s sensible. For example, in US legal system, all states allow an offender to claim self-defense when accused of a violent crime.  In addition to this we all know that most countries allow the police to use force in arresting criminals if necessary and we are all also aware that the police has strict guidelines behind how much force they may use on said criminal.

The book is ridden with examples in which violence was an unreasonable response to a reasonable situation such as when Christopher’s dad killed Wellington.  The author explicitly states that this was because Christopher’s dad was engulfed by fury and had a lapse in judgment. As lapses in judgment are unreasonable, since a person’s choice can and is dictated by them and them only, Christopher’s dad’s action of killing Wellington was an unreasonable response to a reasonable situation. This point further illustrates that there’s a huge distinction between using violence in an unreasonable and reasonable situation which further supports that violence is reasonable only in unreasonable situations.

[simplylena-bo-beana-blog]

Prompt Two

I picked “There is no such thing as “normal” when it comes to human beings.” I disagree with these idea. As a human myself I happen to believe that humans are the most intelligent and “normal” people or things on the planet. Because if we weren’t “normal” then life wouldn’t be controlled properly and so it wouldn’t be balanced. We wouldn’t be living in a proper environment if we weren’t ‘normal’. Not only that but we wouldn’t even be able to communicate properly or nothing would be “well managed”.

In the story Christopher says this because he views humans as “not normal” because he has Asperger’s Syndrome. He finds them complicated to understand and since he doesn’t understand emotions he thinks of humans “as abnormal” people.  For example, Cristopher mentions how he doesn’t like to talk to people except Siobhan. And he says he doesn’t understand the emotions of people. This is an example of how he views us as abnormal because of the Syndrome.

[sal7a45-blog]

That is your point of view, and I totally respect that, but I will have to disagree with your disagreement of the quote. When the word normal comes to your head, what do you think of it? What does it mean to you? To me this is what it means NOTHING. The only way that normal can be defined is by judging behaviour, which is not possible because we all have different behaviours. If we were all the same, then we would all think in the same way, which cause life to be boring, but because we all are normal in our own ways, life is full of life.I see you added ‘life won’t be controlled properly’ How do you know that it is being controlled properly? I know, we assume that because it’s being controlled by normal people, so of course it’s the proper way. Those people might be normal to you, but definitely not normal to me, because the word normal does not exist in the human world. It’s just there with no meaning behind it.

P.S: I hope that this is not taken as a derogatory disagreement. We are humans, as I mentioned in my other post, we all think differently, that’s why we have different point of views, because there is no such thing as normal when it comes to human beings. That’s the reason why we are having arguments with this quote, if there was a word such as normal then we will all either agree or disagree together.

[bushramemon]

I disagree with your disagreement of the statement that people are not normal. And that is because you're using the very general definition of normal and that is what your response is based on. If you're going by definition then yes your answer is justified but if you look into what people define as normal of a person then that would be looking more into depth of the way they interact, the way they dress, the way they behave, the way they talk, etc. In that case you would have to look at human behavior.

I disagree with you because yes we are normal by the standard definition of a dictionary for the word “normal” but not so much when it comes to our behavior. Have you ever taken a step back and wondered how different everybody is? How differently they interact? How differently they behave? One person's reaction to a situation may be completely different from another's. And this is why were not normal. That's because we're not the same.

Even when going by dictionary definition normal means standard, usual, typical, or expected but we are none of these if you think about it because we are not all typical or we don't all do things that are completely expected of us or we don't confirm to every standard there is and we don't confirm to any of those in the same way even if we do confirm to a standard. There is so much difference and so much complication in human behavior that it just doesn’t make it normal. But you have to keep in mind that being different from normal or being abnormal isn't a bad thing because sometimes not being normal just means that you’re unique. The phrase “not normal” has acquired a negative meaning and so we all associate it with some kind of disorder or some kind of huge difference which sits you so apart from everybody else as if you're a completely different species. But it's not like that. Not being normal just simply means not being usual and not being usual just simply means being unique.

To summarize, I disagree with you on your disagreement on the statement that we are not normal because human behavior is so very different when you look from person to person that in a big way we are not normal. And not being normal is a good thing because that makes us unprecedented.

[bushramemon]

Pick one of the following: “There is no such thing as ‘normal’ when it comes to human beings.”  OR “Lying is always wrong: White lies and lies of omission are as immoral as outright lies.” Argue your view in two paragraphs on one of these topics. Use examples from the book and personal opinions to support your ideas.

“There is no such thing as ‘normal’ when it comes to human beings.”

I agree with Christopher when he says that nothing's normal about humans because that is how I would describe humans too. We complicate things, or oversimplify them, and then we have complicated emotions and thoughts and the way we behave is just so difficult to decipher. Even psychologists can't definitely state a fact about human behavior because it is that complicated. If you've ever read an article on human behavior then the psychologists who authored it mostly mentions that the results that they have acquired and conclusions that they have to come to are applicable to some and not all people. And most of the time to sound surer of what they're talking about they briefly mention that what they have come to discover may not be applicable to all people and then they later use phrases such as "most people" or "many people" instead of saying just "people" - in general. It is very hard to study human behavior and so in a big way it would be correct to say that humans are not normal. We are very different from each other even though we belong to the same species. Now I'm not trying to compare us to animals but looking at behavior and the way we interact there is a big difference between the two. This difference in behavior and interaction is highly commendable in some ways.

The statement that people are not normal is easily proven by the book because in my opinion one of the book's leading themes is also that people are very different and that their reactions are very different and then to Christopher that's all very abnormal because he’s not great on social interaction.

People who are arguing against this statement that people are not normal may say that people seem very abnormal to Christopher because he is not exactly normal himself and that's not his fault or anything but that's just the way it is. But if we look at it closely, it is actually easy to see that this statement is quite true - it's proven in real life and in the book.

It is shown that people are not normal in the book by how the author uses many situations where even though Christopher is trying to be nice people, people seem to completely look over that and think only from their point of view and react to the given situation in a way that is somehow very selfish of them. Especially people that closely deal with Christopher daily such as his father, his mother, some of his teachers, and his neighbors sometimes react in a way that is somehow inconsiderate of Christopher's condition. In this case it is safe to assume that they already know that Christopher suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome because they so closely deal with him in life, and even if it's not very daily Christopher is a part of their neighborhood or community and so it would kind of be obvious even if not completely known a fact that Christopher suffers from Asperger’s Syndrome.

All in all this statement that people are not normal is true and this is proven by the fact that we behave in very different ways in different situations and all of our reactions are different from other humans - the way we talk, the way we interact, etc. - everything is so different from another human and so we are not normal but even so this makes our symbiotic existence very commendable. And not being normal is a good thing because that makes us unique.

[bushramemon]

In chapter 179 (pages 126-140), what decision does Christopher make? Why does he make this decision? Give evidence from these pages to support your answer and give detail.

At this point in the book Christopher decides to go and live with his mother because he can no longer trust his father. This is proven when he says “And then I had to decide what to do because I couldn't live in the house with Father anymore because it was dangerous.” He cannot trust father anymore because his father lied to him about his mother, telling him that she had died when she had actually left home and went to live with Mr. Shears – Roger – in London.

Another reason Christopher is going to live with his mother is because his father told him that he was the one who killed Wellington and Christopher loves dogs so this was a little bit too much for him. Also he was looking into the death of the dog quite closely which further proves that he loves dogs and even one that was a bit of a stranger to him. Because Christopher discovers these two things about his father at the same time he gets a little bit too much of a shock and freaks out and is now frightened of his father because he cannot trust his father anymore. The fact that these two things have a huge impact on Christopher is proven when Christopher actually feels sick just thinking about what his father did, “But then I thought about going home again, or staying where I was, or hiding in the garden every night and Father finding me, and that made me feel even more frightened. And when I thought about that I felt like I was going to be sick again like I did the night before.”

We need to keep in mind that Christopher thinks differently from most because he has Asperger’s Syndrome. This is why instead of processing the event in favor of his father because his father has gone through so much in such little time and has been going through it all alone - well almost all alone - he starts seeing his father as a dangerous person and is frightened of him because he thinks that his father is going to kill him because his father killed Wellington, the dog, and still feels that he needs to get away from his father. This is again proven when Christopher says “But I was frightened in two different ways. And one way was being frightened of being far away from a place I was used to, and the other was being frightened of being near where Father lived”.

[bushramemon]

3) Post a song that you think represents overcoming adversity; write two paragraphs about why you think this song represents the theme.

Song:  Life Starts Now – Three Days Grace

Life starts now is a good example of a song that represents overcoming adversity because it repeatedly says "you've done all the things that could kill you somehow". This implies that they have somehow overcome some sort of adversity. Later on it also says that "you will survive this somehow because life starts now" implying that whatever adversity they have overcome, the result of it did not leave them happy. But “life starts now” implies that whatever they have overcome leaves their life amended.

The song mainly represents overcoming adversity because it says "you've done all the things that could kill you somehow" even though doing what they have done, overcoming their adversity did not leave them happy they still have overcome the adversity which leaves their life in a better state than it was in before.

[bushramemon]

Read Chapter 127 (Pages 79-83) to yourself. Then write down what happened when Christopher fought with his father in the book. Why did he respond the way that he did? How did his father respond after their fight? What do these things tell us about the relationship that Christopher has with his father?

Christopher and his father start fighting when Christopher’s father finds Christopher’s book and by reading it discovers that Christopher has been trying to find the murderer of Mrs. Shears’ dog even when Christopher’s father told him to quit poking his nose into other peoples’ business.

At first Christopher and his father are only arguing. However, it soon escalates to his father grabbing him which Christopher is not comfortable with and so hits his father and then his father beats Christopher up. Christopher, though, has no recollection of his father hitting him as he blacks out for that space of time.

Christopher responds to his father grabbing him the way he did because he is uncomfortable with people touching him. He blacked out when his father beat him up because the whole situation was very shocking to him and so his mind couldn't keep track of what was happening.

After the fight, on the next day, Christopher’s father says sorry to Christopher and makes him wash his cut from the night before. To prove he's really sorry, Christopher's father even takes Christopher to zoo. While having lunch in one of the cafes in the zoo Christopher's father apologizes to him once more saying that he knows that he gets angry sometimes and that's because he doesn't want Christopher to get in trouble and he doesn't want Christopher to get hurt.

These things tell us that Christopher and his father actually have a good relationship and have little trouble understanding each other. This is proven by the fact that after doing something bad to Christopher such as hitting Christopher, Christopher's father genuinely feels sorry and regrets it and makes an effort to set things right by explaining the reason for his behavior to Christopher. Also, to make up for his loss of control, Christopher’s father takes Christopher out to a place – the zoo – where he knows Christopher will enjoy himself.

[bushramemon]

Find a quote from the book that represents how Christopher feels about the world around him.

“I think that prime numbers are like life. They are very logical buy you could never work out the rules, even if you spent all your time thinking about them.” (Chapter 19, Page 12)

Christopher believes that everything is logical and that there is a reason behind everything that transpires in life. He also realizes that in life it is hard to see the pattern of this logic. To him specifically it is hard to work out the rules of life as they are mostly concerned with social interaction. Recalling previous details, we know that people with Asperger’s Syndrome find social interaction more difficult than most. This is why it makes perfect sense for Christopher to think that life is logical but not clear enough to figure out the rules of – even if he spent a long time trying to figure them out. The reason for this being that his brain just isn’t wired to think that way.

[bushramemon]

What do we know about Christopher’s mother? What can we infer about Christopher’s feelings towards this? What do we know about Christopher’s relationship with his father?

We know that Christopher’s mother had died 2 years prior to these events and that she loved him and cared for him a lot. Christopher reciprocated by doing the same for her and this was proven when he sent her all those cards when she was ill and in the hospital and it wasn’t possible for Christopher to go see her.  He also made sure that food was going to be taken to her because the food in the hospital wasn’t very good.

Christopher’s doesn’t particularly talk about his feelings towards his mother’s death but from the way that he talks about it so matter of factly, we can gather that he sees it as a part of life. And maybe he understands that it was a sudden event that could in no way be helped and so even if his mother’s death did hit him hard, he doesn’t express it much.

Comparing Christopher's relationship with his father and his relationship with his mother, it is easy to see that he was a lot closer to his mother. This may have been because his mother took his nature and the nature of his disease more into consideration than his father. An instance that indicates this is that his father was less considerate of Christopher's disease when he started screaming at him for poking his nose into others' business and goes looking for evidence of who killed Mrs. Shears' dog. In contrast gestures such as telling Christopher that he was a good person because he never lied came from his mother. This shows that his mother tried to make Christopher feel good about himself and feel that he was not different from everybody else and even if he was then it was in a better way rather than a worst one. However, Christopher’s father does love Christopher very much because he makes a sincere apology after he beats Christopher up by taking Christopher to the zoo. All in all, it is made quite clear that Christopher was always closer to his mother than his father and that h mother understood him better.