Question.5042 - Week 2When Someone You Love Doesn’t Think Like You DiscussionRequired ResourcesRead/review the following resources for this activity:Textbook: Chapter 3LessonMinimum of 1 scholarly source (in addition to the textbook) Initial Post Instructions IntroductionA critical thinker listens to others and attempts to understand their point of view. Consider these points of view: the point of view of a misogynist—a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against womenthe point of view of a racistthe point of view of someone who believes marriage is only between one man and one womanthe point of view of someone who does not believe that humans are contributing to the conditions that cause climate changethe point of view of someone who denies that the Holocaust occurredThey represent five points of view about vastly different topics. Are they also qualitatively different? Or are some more alike than others, and are some quite different? How, if at all, does the institution of marriage differ from the concept of race? How, if at all, does the science of climate change differ from the facts of the Holocaust? Note that although these are vastly different topics, Topics 1 and 2 have a similar basis, as do Topics 4 and 5, while the basis for Topic 3 is unlike either pair. How would you respond to someone expressing such views? How does a critical thinker respond to a viewpoint which he or she may find deeply repugnant? Is there a qualitative difference between believing some races are inferior and the belief that marriage should only be between one man and one woman? Is there a qualitative difference between not believing in human contribution to climate change and not believing in the Holocaust? For your initial post, pick two of the viewpoints stated in the Introduction section.1. With respect to just one of the views you chose, discuss:How would you respond to someone expressing such a view? How does a critical thinker respond to a viewpoint that he or she may find deeply repugnant? 2. Also, look at both of the views you chose. Examine them based on these questions: Are the two viewpoints qualitatively different? Does the qualitative difference among them change the way in which you would listen to and respond to such views? Should it? State if you have argued your position using inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, or both, and explain why you believe this. If inductive, point out your observations. If deductive, specify the principle, rule, or value that you have reasoned down from. Follow-up Post InstructionsFor your responsive post, try to find a peer’s original response with which you disagree, either on how to respond or your peer’s position on the qualitative differences between chosen points of view. Writing RequirementsMinimum of 2 posts (1 initial & 1 follow-up)  Minimum of 2 sources cited (assigned readings/online lessons and an outside source)  APA format for in-text citations and list of references  GradingThis activity will be graded using the Discussion Grading Rubric. Review: Discussion GuidelinesOpen this document with ReadSpeaker docReaderReview the specific grading rubric by clicking on the three dots in the upper right corner. Course OutcomesCO 5: Evaluate the role of cognitive bias and fallacies of relevance in critical reasoning and decision-making.CO 6: Apply principles of critical reasoning to political, educational, economic, and/or social issues.CO 7: Create a fallacy-free argument that incorporates principles of ethical decision-making.
Answer Below:
Hello xxxxx and xxxxxxxxx For xxxx post x will xxxxxxx the xxxxxxxxx of x racist xxx the xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxx who xxxx not xxxxxxx that xxxxxx are xxxxxxxxxxxx to xxx conditions xxxx cause xxxxxxx change xx response xx someone xxxxxxxxxx a xxxxxx viewpoint x would xxxxxx respectfully xxx firmly xxxxxx for xxxxxxxxxxxxx on xxxxx beliefs xxxxx challenging xxxxx assumptions xxxx evidence xxx personal xxxxxxxxxx that xxxxxxxx the xxxxxx they xxx prejudiced xxxxxxx A xxxxxxxx thinker xxxxxxx to xxxxxxxxxx not xx agree xxx must xxxxxxx empathy xxxx ethical xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Bassham xxxx confronted xxxx deeply xxxxxxxxx views xxxx racism xx is xxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxx the xxxx such xxxxxxx cause xxxxx maintaining xxxxxxxx discourse x critical xxxxxxx evaluates xxx reasoning xxxxxx the xxxxxx identifies xxxxxxx fallacies xx biases xxx provides xxxxxxxxxxx fact-based xxxxxxxxxxxx Comparing xxx two xxxxx racism xxx climate xxxxxx denial xxxxxx qualitatively xxxxxx is x moral xxx ethical xxxxx rooted xx hate xxx hierarchy xxxxx climate xxxxxx denial xx primarily x scientific xxxxxxxxxxxx often xxxxxxxx from xxxxxxxxxxxxxx or xxxxxxxxx ideology xxxxx Roberts xxxxxxx of xxxx my xxxxxxxx to xxxx differs xxxx racism x feel x moral xxxxxxxxxx to xxxxxxxx oppose xxx dismantle xxxxxxx ideologies xxxx climate xxxxxx I xxxxx more xx educating xxx presenting xxxxxxxxxx consensus xxxxxxx both xxxxxxx patience xxxxxxxx and x willingness xx engage x ve xxxx both xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx reasoning xxxxxxxxxxx I xxxx from xxxxxxxx harm xxxxxx by xxxxxx and xxxxxxx denial xxxxxxxxxxx I xxxxx principles xx human xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxxx stewardship xx reason xxxx to xx conclusions xxxxxxxxxxx the xxxxxx of xxxx belief xxxxxx how x engage xxx critical xxxxxxxx demands xxxxxxxxxx evidence-based xxxxxxxxx in xxx cases xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx G xxxxx W xxxxxxx H xxxxxxx J x Critical xxxxxxxx A xxxxxxxx introduction xx ed xxxxxx Hill xxxxxxxxx Moore x Roberts x The xxxx of xxxxxxxxxx Climate xxxxxx and xxx far xxxxx John xxxxx SonsMore Articles From Critical Reasoning PHIL 347
.ico)
.ico)
.ico)
