The scientist led the narrator down wet stone steps to a large oak door. He unlocked the door, which opened with a groan to reveal a dimly lit laboratory. On a dissecting table lay a still form with closed eyes, sending a chill down the narrator's spine. The scientist strode to the table and lifted his white-gloved hand over the form.
Original Description:
Some textbook exercises from an english class
Original Title
We Followed the Scientist Down a Flight of Wet Stone Steps
The scientist led the narrator down wet stone steps to a large oak door. He unlocked the door, which opened with a groan to reveal a dimly lit laboratory. On a dissecting table lay a still form with closed eyes, sending a chill down the narrator's spine. The scientist strode to the table and lifted his white-gloved hand over the form.
The scientist led the narrator down wet stone steps to a large oak door. He unlocked the door, which opened with a groan to reveal a dimly lit laboratory. On a dissecting table lay a still form with closed eyes, sending a chill down the narrator's spine. The scientist strode to the table and lifted his white-gloved hand over the form.
a. We followed the scientist down a flight of wet stone steps.
At last he stopped before a
huge oak door. b. Dr. Frankenstein selected a heavy key, and he twisted in the lock. c. The huge door gave a groan and it swung open on a dimly lighted laboratory. d. Before us on a dissecting table lay a form with closed eyes. Beholding it sent a quick child down my spine. e. The scientist strode to the table and lifted a white-gloved hand.
Robert Jensens Argument is classic chicken before egg argument The political system does have the potential to perpetuate erroneous and harmful views, but can we rightly call it the origin of these views? Progress in the American political system towards equal treatment in the eyes of the law for both genders has come a long ways in the past half-century. In light of this, I disagree with Jensens statement. This is a position he has to take in conjunction with his closing statement because Jensen wont (or at least doesnt) appeal to morality in his arguments.
Jensens argument as a whole implies that things have gotten worse. In his closing statement, Jensen states that We face political and ecological challenges that cant be met with this old model of what it means to be a man. So either society will collapse or worse. If this is true, then either the previous societies that left us with these flawed viewpoints faced simpler, less dangerous challenges or Jensen is completely incorrect in this portion of his closing statement. To say that the challenges we face today are more serious that humankind has ever faced before is proud; humankind has certainly been in the danger of extinction, or at least decimation. The problem at the heart of Jensens argument is that he is driven by the wrong motive. A human who abandons absolute morality has little to which he can appeal (so Jensen here appeals to avoiding what he totes as imminent destruction). But the real reason why toxic masculinity as Jensen defines it must be eliminated from our society is because it is morally wrong! Men should treat women and other men with dignity and respect.