There Are Social and Political Benifits to Having Friends
Read the article above. Do you agree with the assertions that David Brooks claims? Use appropriate evidence from what you've experienced, what you've read, or what you've observed to support your argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree with the assertion David Brooke claim within his article because many were biased and stated to what he perceives the meaning of friendships in the eyes and minds of others. Inside the article, he states “You can do without marriage, or justice, or honor, but friendship is indispensable to life”; this very statement puzzles me. One would rather a friend then respect or fair treatment; Trayvon Martin’s mother would rather have a friend than justice for her son or a United States veteran fighting for his country would rather have a friend than honor for his sacrifice. He emphasizes that friends help others make better judgments and how people tend to behave better when their friends are around, however some friends push the friends into drugs, skipping school, partying, and etc. Also, Friday in one of my class a girl was disrespecting the teacher and her friends were laughing and provoking her to continue. The overall idea of Brooke’s claim is too generalized and stated through his assumption of a friendship.
ReplyDeleteCould the perceptions and opinions of Brooke be directly compared to the purpose of Shelly's novel?
DeleteI agree Porsha. Friends nowadays are much different from friends back in 1985. I have friends who try to talk me into doing things that i could possibly get in trouble for just like i have friends that do drugs. Its not about who one hangs around because everyone has their flaws. I have a friend, Kris, that got shot at Langston homecoming by his "friends" and died. With that being said would his mother rather have a friend or her own son back? What about his girlfriend and all his close friends? Think of it this way; one came into this world alone and one will leave this world alone. There are not to many "real friends" out here.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI personally disagree with both parts, if not all of the article. Although friends can be beneficial, the negative effects of having different sometimes outweighs the good.the mere fact that happiness can be so dependent on a friend is the most negative side effect. From personal experience, having someone that was thought to be my best friend maybe depending on that friendship. I was so afraid to be on my own that I couldn't function without my best friend. When my best friend moved away I thought that my life is over because this person to all my secrets. Although friendships are beneficial, the aftermath of the possibility of losing that creates an even bigger problem.
ReplyDeleteI somewhat disagree with what David Brooke claims in this article. Though friends provide a feeling of security, the individuals one may label as friend, are not always genuine. Speaking from personal experiences, the ones I felt were friends did not truly have my best interest at heart. Though there were times when I would sacrifice things for them, it was never done in turn. I was taken advantage of and the moment it was felt that I had nothing else to offer, I was left alone without these 'friends'. Though these Experiences were devastating to me, I recovered and I have grown from it, but everyone may not. Some individuals remain permanently damaged from the betrayal or abandonment of one they called 'friend' and can have a lasting negative impact. Friends are a wonderful thing to have, and can serve as a tool to help one gain wisdom and assist in reaching one's destiny. Friends ate a true blessing, but only when they are true and genuinely care for one's well being.
ReplyDeleteI agree because we all use the word "friend" too much on a regular basis. Some humans that we call our friends aren't really our friends. humans these days are selfish and will do anything that benefits them in the long run. so yes i do also somewhat disagree with what David Brooke said because I've had a friend somewhat like a brother to me, I never thought he would do anything to hurt me until his actions spoke louder than his words. Even though he wasn't who i thought he was i still look at the good in him instead of the bad because I'm not that type of person to just shut someone completely out of my life because of a mistake he or she made. I forgive and sometimes forget
DeleteI actually agree whole-heartedly with this entire article. Despite Brooks not mentioning the adverse effects of having a malignant friendship, his point is fairly valid. He is completely right that the number of friendships in the 21st century has depleted. This is mainly because of mistrust between people, which is basically what all of you commented here. Overall though, Brooks point was completely true.
ReplyDeleteHaving a friend really can drastically change the life of a person. A typical archetype of teenager-starred movies, friendship can change a person for better or worse. For example in John Green's bestseller "Looking for Alaska," the protagonist, Pudge, goes from being a weird outcast with a few friends to becoming close friends with three troublesome teens, particularly Alaska Young. After tragedy strikes, Pudge realizes how much Alaska changed him from a nonchalant teenager to one who has an almost philosophical outlook on life. Basically, friendship can actually be a great way to change people for the better.
Reading this has changed my whole perspective on the article. At first look, I was feeling like Hernandez, 'confused and baffled.' I thought, "Really? Friendship over justice?!" Maybe because the incident happened recently, but that stuck with me throughout reading. Looking at your response enlightens me on the positive side of friendship a little. It is true, friends can change people within for the better, but then again, I know plenty of people who are manipulative and would love to see someone crumble from the inside out. I really feel like this article can go either way because with each point made, there is an easy, evident contradiction.
DeleteBrooks was mostly correct in his analysis of friendship in current times. However he was wrong or at least partially wrong when he said that friends behave better when around each other. When friends are with each other they are actually compelled to do things amusing for their friends benefit which as we see at Westlake include back talking teachers, starting fights and making inappropriate jokes. Maybe I'm wrong but since Brooks' analysis was otherwise flawless it made me wonder if that only occurs at predominately black schools?
DeleteAre all viewpoints biased in a sense of us telling from our personal experiences’? I fully understand that friends are essential to life but I agree with your point that “friends” are not always genuine or only friends with you to get something from you. I empathize with the fact that you are a friend that is dependent able, caring, and helping; however never gets the treatment in return. I strongly believe that when begin friends with someone you’re vulnerable but should have your guard up to a certain point. So when David Brooke say a friend is indispensable in life is true but the points are what imainlydisagree with.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with David Brooke. Yes, Most friendships are developed in peoples childhood or being in a new environment and they are based on trust and secureness but people change. As we get older, we start to notice what we like or dislike and what do we want to be around. Sometimes you out grow people and want to be around better or different. In Brooke's research he says that it has been a decrease in the number of close friends from 1985 till 2004. Well a lot of things has change in that big gap like morals, fashion, and what's new out there. People now base their friendships on how they can get around or what can benefit them and others can be a true friend to somebody but they aren't getting that same respect back because of the ways people now look up to.
ReplyDeleteAlthough some of his points are valid, I do not completely agree with David Brook's assertions. He begins by stating, "You can go without marriage, or justice, or honor, but friendship is indispensable to life." The portion that baffles me is his feelings on justice. On Friday, October 3, a Fulton County student, who most of us know, was gunned down in Langston Hughes HighSchool's parking lot. He was shot more than once, and left there to die. Who would not want justice served for him and his family? They took someone's son, brother, cousin and friend over nothing. No one will be at peace until his killer is behind bars. Justice in a case like that surpasses even the simple thought of friendship.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, friends can either make or break a person. Those who hide behind the word 'friend' may be out to get you, you never know. No matter what someone says to you, you can not completely trust them. Not everyone has your best interest in mind. Of course, that is not a wonderful way to live, but I would rather be safe than sorry. In addition, friendship is thought of differently now than it was in 1985. Back then, you could actually trust someone, and everyone stuck together. Now you have to watch your back, even with those close to you around.
Do our past experiences make us biased to this article or does it just give us credibility?
ReplyDeleteShould the assertions of David Brooke be related to the believes of Mary Shelley?
ReplyDeleteI totally disagree with Brooke's opinion. Friendships are depending on your upbringing, but people adapt and change to their surroundings. Whether that is how people begin to act due to financial enhancements, puberty or things of that nature. One thing that I was taught growing up is that everybody is not your friend. These saying that my family told me constantly stuck in my brain even to this very day.
ReplyDelete