for Questioning Patriotism6/27/2006 c1 
5Joseph Mises
Honestly, I don't even want to say.Never start with a question.This essay is a babble. You should seek to correct and edit your essays. If you can call this an essay, as it appears to be a meer paragraph.
*Pe@cE*
-J.D.
5Joseph MisesHonestly, I don't even want to say.Never start with a question.This essay is a babble. You should seek to correct and edit your essays. If you can call this an essay, as it appears to be a meer paragraph.
*Pe@cE*
-J.D.
3/18/2006 c1 11Vivix
Logical continuity. It's necessary in any essay. If you'd care to examine this essay, then you'd find that your ideas vacilate wildly from sentence to sentence. This not only compounds what your intention might be, but also confuses readers beyond any reasonable interpretation.
The first sentence should not be a stand-alone topic for another essay. You state 'what are laws?' but never mention laws again. This question isn't even answered. Instead, you launch straight into 'government' as if government=laws. I'm sorry to say, that's just wrong. This idea of the government as the strongest entity of a nation (just not true, Uganda had an ineffective government that passed all the laws, which were mostly ignored by the warlords. You can't say that the warlords were then the government, because they did not impose their beliefs among those under their control ) then passes into 'an alternate definition of patriotism' although none had been given. The concept of 'love of government' given just three words later also has no precedance, but you place it as if your entire essay was based on it. After that follows words, words, words. Your primary idea (well, like the fifth) is that patriotism is love of the people ruled by the government. Those are your exact words. Then the essay follows another tangent, and at the end you come up with the strange conclusion that patriotism is obedience to government. Obedience had never come up. And you never really define patriotism. You merely use it in circular reasoning, repeatedly using your definition of patriotism to make the idea of 'love of selected people' work.
"The entity in power has control of who is a member or not and since a patriot likes people who the entity in power choses, then whomever a patriot likes is in the hands of the government."
11VivixLogical continuity. It's necessary in any essay. If you'd care to examine this essay, then you'd find that your ideas vacilate wildly from sentence to sentence. This not only compounds what your intention might be, but also confuses readers beyond any reasonable interpretation.
The first sentence should not be a stand-alone topic for another essay. You state 'what are laws?' but never mention laws again. This question isn't even answered. Instead, you launch straight into 'government' as if government=laws. I'm sorry to say, that's just wrong. This idea of the government as the strongest entity of a nation (just not true, Uganda had an ineffective government that passed all the laws, which were mostly ignored by the warlords. You can't say that the warlords were then the government, because they did not impose their beliefs among those under their control ) then passes into 'an alternate definition of patriotism' although none had been given. The concept of 'love of government' given just three words later also has no precedance, but you place it as if your entire essay was based on it. After that follows words, words, words. Your primary idea (well, like the fifth) is that patriotism is love of the people ruled by the government. Those are your exact words. Then the essay follows another tangent, and at the end you come up with the strange conclusion that patriotism is obedience to government. Obedience had never come up. And you never really define patriotism. You merely use it in circular reasoning, repeatedly using your definition of patriotism to make the idea of 'love of selected people' work.
"The entity in power has control of who is a member or not and since a patriot likes people who the entity in power choses, then whomever a patriot likes is in the hands of the government."