More on privacy

Hi!  Recapping what I asked you to do in class today (in keeping with Cyan's request and complete with Agent Orange's amendment):

Most of the posts from this past week had a number of strengths.  They accurately understood the parts of the questions that asked you to locate an idea in the readings and successfully found quotations or paraphrased ideas from the readings associated with that idea.  They summarized the idea ably, showing understanding of it.  They often connected one idea with another adeptly.  And, most of the time, the authors formed coherent opinions, saying that they agreed or disagreed with the authors of the assigned articles.

More often than not, however, the analysis stopped there.  The authors used words like "because", but looking closely at the writing revealed that the authors were essentially saying "X is right because X is right because X is right," or, in stronger cases "X is right because of Y and Y is right."  In both cases, you need to go several levels deeper to really defend a moral argument.

We touched on a lot of ideas about the "whys" and explored the issue of privacy more deeply in our discussion this week, and it's my hope that that prepared you to talk about the "why" a little more effectively.

So, this week, we'll work on getting to the "why".

Please take your post from last week about the privacy readings.  Copy and paste it into a new blog post.  Edit if you like.  Then, expand on it.  Add some thoughts defending your opinion and supporting the "why" behind your point of view.  Signal the new thoughts by bolding or italicizing or underlining the new stuff.  Everybody's post will have different needs--email me if you have questions about yours. 

Publish your post by 9PM on Monday please, so that I have time to read it before class.

tl;dr: you did a good job understanding the readings and having opinions but not such a good job defending your own opinions and getting at the "why". do that better this week.