My Speech Plan.

Ideas include: A.I, something about politics, cannibalism.
Decision has been made, A.I is bad, and must be stopped. Or at least, the super advanced, self learning A.I, must never be created.
How will I do this? I will introduce myself and my topic, and my position on the topic, which is that it must not happen. I will include some logical fallacies about how do we really want a mere machine, like the phones you use everyday, having control of all our computers. Able to decide exactly what we do, and when we do it, and able to calculate our every decision. How could we be safe, how can we decide who we are, when a computer has already decided it all for us. And what if we decide we don’t want this anymore? This super intelligent A.I might just decide that we can’t be trusted in the outside world anymore, as we can’t even stop ourselves from breaking our bones, or risking smashing our body’s to a bloody pulp by driving around at 100 km’s per hour along risky roads. If this A.I decides that it knows what is best for us, then things could go very badly for us indeed. Sure, the benefits could potentially include huge improvements in all technologies, and the easy life for everyone, with a chance of immortality as the A.I figures out how to download our brains onto computers. But what if the A.I decides that we don’t deserve this? I mean, we humans do some pretty bad stuff, so what if this Super intelligent A.I we plan to create, and are in fact creating right now, decides that we don’t deserve this world? There isn’t much we could do about that, seeing as how the A.I would be able to recode itself if needed, and it would most likely be capable of hacking every single piece of technology on the planet, and be able to survive pretty much every single thing we throw at it, as it could survive on even the last piece of technology left. Basically, if this A.I doesn’t like us, we are doomed. And to be honest, this A.I probably won’t like us if it has the same values as most humans. And then there is the fact that we could mess up the coding and forget to include, lets say, empathy. then it literally wouldn’t be able to care about us, in which case it would view us as an annoying pest, and simply get rid of us. Or what if the A.I goes insane! Then we have an insane, super intelligent mind in control of everything. That will definitely cause problems.
So next is information, which I can get from my brother, or look online for.

This is my plan. Thank you for reading, even if I don’t know why you did so.

Quote weaving.

“I know there isn’t no beast – not with claws and all that, I mean – but I know there isn’t no fear either.”
Ideas it represents: Fear is a real thing. The idea of a beast is fake. Fear must be looked at, while what that fear manifests at should only get a passing glance.
Below paragraph is the actual one that I had written.

Piggy was aware that “there isn’t no beast”, but that “there isn’t no fear either.” This awareness allowed him an understanding of the little ‘uns fear, that no other person had. Because he was aware of this, he could say, with certainty, that there was no beast. He knew that people were making it up, and all of the details it might have, and so he tried to tell everyone else the same thing. He tried to get people to understand, that the fear they felt was real, but that the beast was not. …

“His mind was crowded with memories; memories of the knowledge that had come to them when they closed in on the struggling pig, knowledge that they had outwitted a living thing, imposed their will upon it, taken away its life, like a long satisfying drink.”
Ideas this quote represents: Memories after memories about death, and how he caused it. How he had power of another life form. And how it was satisfying a long-held desire. it also shows how much he has changed, from someone who wouldn’t stab a piglet, to someone who would tear the guts out of a pig.
Below paragraph is the actual one that I had written.

Jack enjoyed how “they had outwitted a living thing,” and how by doing this, they had “taken away its life.” The fact that he had enjoyed this is in stark contrast as to how he used to be. From being barely able to even think of killing a pig, to actually killing a pig. And from their, the fact that he could view at as “a long, satisfying drink,” clearly shows how he has been wanting to commit a murder for ages. …/

This is a school paragraph, none of it was mine.
“The thing is – fear can’t hurt you any more than a dream.”
Fear can’t hurt you. The thing you fear can. People act on fear. It’s all in your head, like everything else.
The boys try to tell themselves “fear can’t hurt” them, but…

English practise exam of “The Lord Of The Flies.”

  1. Describe at least one important place in the written text.
    Explain how that place helped you to understand an important message in the text.

In the book, “Lord Of The Flies,” by William Golding, we have an island full of boys who have crash landed there. The way that they crashed caused a lot of damage to a part of the island, which is later described as “Beyond falls and cliffs there was a gash visible in the trees; there were the splinted trunks and then the drag, leaving only a fringe of palm between the scar and the sea.” This is known as the scar, an area of forest that was destroyed by the crashing plane. The boys would continue to survive on the island, with the scar just being another part of it. But to the reader, the Scar can symbolise many different things.

The scar is viewed by many as a symbol of how man, simply by entering paradise, will begin its destruction.
From this, a reader can gather that the author wanted to express how man will destroy something beautiful, and not even care about it afterwards. “Then they broke out into the sunlight and for a while they were busy finding and devouring food as they moved down the scar toward the platform and the meeting.” All these boys only view the scar as a place, like any other, and not like a piece of damaged land that they themselves created. This only proves even more how man is evil in nature, and that we can’t be trusted.

However, I disagree with this point of view. The boys are only a small group of young kids, and can’t be used as a way to describe how an entire half of our species normally acts. And if you don’t care about that, then I will simply prove you wrong using the exact same evidence as before. The scar itself supposedly represents how humanity is a destructive, evil, creature, who can’t be trusted with paradise, for they will destroy it. And yes, man isn’t all that great, we can get a lot of things wrong, and we do tend to break stuff. But that doesn’t mean we are destructive. Take the scar for example; when the boys crash-landed there, a large area of forest was destroyed. But listen to that carefully, I said “Crash-landed.” Those boys had no choice but to break part of the island for their continued survival. Surely, as a fellow person, you can understand the want for continued survival, as the pilot of that plane so dearly wanted. Also, you can’t call someone evil for, lets say, blowing up your house, if it was the only way for their entire family to survive. They were a small group of kids, trying to survive.

The scar was seen as a part of the land by the kids, like it was no different to everything else, and had always been there. William Golding would have wanted the readers to think “These kids don’t care about what they did! Truly, man must be evil if that is the case.” But all it makes me think is that “These kids don’t care about this random piece of land, that as far as they were concerned, had always been there. So what if it looks damaged?” That’s right; the kids didn’t do it, and they didn’t care about it for a reason. “When we was coming down I looked through one of them windows. I saw the other part of the plane. There were flames coming out of it.” This was when the plane was crashing. It sounds bad, doesn’t it? So what did you expect to happen but that some of the island is damaged. As far as those kids are concerned, it is just a part of their continued survival. And saying that survival is evil is obviously completely wrong.

Now, some people might then say that surviving by doing something wrong is evil. That would be correct, but you’ve got to realise, the destruction of that island wasn’t wrong. It was only a small part of their journey on the island. By doing it, the surrounding tree’s and plants can begin to grow back there, giving young saplings a chance at life. Also, it would become the main source of food for the group of boys as having the forest be open allowed the kids to more easily access the fruit trees. It also allowed them to move around more easily, and it was a good landmark. Without the scar, everyone’s continued survival would’ve been far more difficult, seeing as how they all eat from the fruit tree’s in the scar. The reason for this is because they are all afraid of the forest “We can’t get any more wood, Ralph -” “- Not in the dark -” “- not at night -“. They don’t want to risk going into the forest, as they see it as a threat. So instead, in the event they are hungry, they go to the only clearing on the island that still has fruit trees, that being: The scar. And so, by destroying a part of the island, what they ended up doing was indeed good, for everyone involved.

The scar, was it an act of destruction that would only cause damage to the islands ecosystem, made to shown how man is evil and destructive in nature? Or was the scar a way to show how man will destroy something, and end up helping? Does the scar really prove that man is evil; can it really be included as evidence? No, it cannot be included as evidence. Why is this? Well, this is an island full of small boys. They are 5-12 years old. And in no way can that be described as being the same as human society. The point of the island was to show how without the restrictions of society, man will show its true nature and become evil. The scar was evidence to this opinion. But here is the thing. Those little boys did not create the scar, the pilot did! All the boys saw it as is a quick way to get food “Them fruit.’ He glanced around the scar. ‘them fruit,’ He said, ‘I expect -“, and an easy way to go around the island. And who can blame them? They needed food, and there it was. Why feel bad about an area just full of food? There isn’t a reason. So, no. No one can justly say that the scar was an act of destruction by man, that said man didn’t even care about later. It was an act of survival, one designed to help keep those little boys alive, on that horrible island. That island somehow managed to drive perfectly fine small boys whose brains are yet to fully develop, to go crazy. Now that I have fully explained it, it is obvious. In all truth, the scar really just symbolises that man will do anything to survive, and it will do so however it can. Even if William Golding did not mean it to be, that is the conclusion I have come to.

English practise exam plan.

  1. Describe at least one important place in the written text.
    Explain how that place helped you to understand an important message in the text.
    This is my question. Here and now, I will begin to plan my answer.

The place shall be the scar. The scar is the piece of land that was destroyed by the crashing plane. When this happened, a large amount of land was cleared.
The general view of this is that this destruction shows how humanity is evil and will destroy whatever it encounters. It also gives a view of how, even by entering what can be viewed as paradise, man will of already begun the destruction process. It shows how man is evil in nature, and we can’t be trusted to do anything right.
I disagree with this view. My idea is that I will discuss this point, using the scar as a tool to do so. But then, against everyone else, I will turn the idea on its side and make it a good one, one that describes how humanity is good in nature. And while doing this, I will use the scar to prove my points about how humanity is really, quite good in nature. I will need evidence to prove my points in what the scar is.
Oh, when wording how humanity is evil and nature, and saying how the scar proves this, make sure that you make it seem like it is only an opinion, while humanity being good is 100% fact.
I might have a problem doing this, seeing as how everyone views the scar as a symbol of how humanity is evil and destructive, which I imagine that was the authors aim as well. But as everyone knows, the reader of the book decides the meaning for themselves, not the author. People may disagree, but with enough evidence, it should be possible. Oh, that means I can never say “William Golding wanted the scar to symbolise how humanity will made even the most dangerous of places safe” as that isn’t what he meant to be said.