Answer:
resigning their titles; boycotting government educational institutions, the courts, government service, foreign goods, and elections; and, eventually, refusing to pay taxes.
Explanation:
Explanation:
In 1651, Thomas Hobbes famously wrote that life in the state of nature – that is, our natural condition outside the authority of a political state – is ‘solitary, poore, nasty brutish, and short.’ Just over a century later, Jean-Jacques Rousseau countered that human nature is essentially good, and that we could have lived peaceful and happy lives well before the development of anything like the modern state. At first glance, then, Hobbes and Rousseau represent opposing poles in answer to one of the age-old questions of human nature: are we naturally good or evil? In fact, their actual positions are both more complicated and interesting than this stark dichotomy suggests. But why, if at all, should we even think about human nature in these terms, and what can returning to this philosophical debate tell us about how to evaluate the political world we inhabit today?
The question of whether humans are inherently good or evil might seem like a throwback to theological controversies about Original Sin, perhaps one that serious philosophers should leave aside. After all, humans are complex creatures capable of both good and evil. To come down unequivocally on one side of this debate might seem rather naïve, the mark of someone who has failed to grasp the messy reality of the human condition. Maybe so. But what Hobbes and Rousseau saw very clearly is that our judgements about the societies in which we live are greatly shaped by underlying visions of human nature and the political possibilities that these visions entail.
The cotton gin is a machine that separates cotton seeds from cotton fiber it was an important invention for their time because it dramatically reduced the time it took to separate cotton seeds from cotton fibers.
It can be helpful when:
- The intervention occurs with a humanitarian purpose, as in a country that just had a couple of its cities wasted by a natural disaster, like a tsunami or tornado.
- Or in a country which its population has been suffering from hunger for decades due to political crises or coups
It can be ineffective or even destructive when:
- It's a military extreme intervention on a city or country that although on war, it's still very populated by civilians. Like it was in the War on Terror campaign, started by the US after the 9/11 terrorist assault, with American invasion on Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and others. It ended up being effective, with even the fall of Al-Qaeda's terrorist organization leader in 2011, but in the process several cases of violent acts against and deaths of civilians were reported.
D. The pilgrims stayed in an abandoned village whose original inhabitants had died of disease.
