Explanation:
I believe that they give us freedom but also restrict what we can and can not do. tried to make since out of this.
Answer:
The cases were about racial segregation.
Explanation:
Brown v. Board of Education(1954) was a Supreme Court case which ruled that children's racial segregation in government's schools was illegal. The decision by the Supreme court showed that everyone is equal despite their colour or religion.
Milliken v. Bradley(1974) was a Supreme Court case in the United States regarding the outlined desegregation of busing among public school students in Detroit. There was a plan to blend students of different races in United States public schools following the decision made in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The decision was the opposite of the decision made in Brown v. Board of Education as segregation was encouraged.
The court refused to remedy unequal and separate education. Children need to learn together and understand each other. I believe voters who disagreed with the ruling could have made a peaceful protest regarding the decision made. Also, since the public schools were mainly funded by taxes, the people who opposed the decision could have refused to pay tax in order to voice their opinions on the issues.
The correct answer is True
Explanation:
Symbolic interactionism is one of the main theories in sociology, this proposes individuals construct reality through symbols or language. According to this theory, each person interacts with others and understands his/her social reality based on symbols. Due to this, this theory is mainly used to understand the way interaction occurs and the meaning of this.
The previous ideas suggest a symbolic interactionist (person who advocates symbolic interactionism) would focus on individuals' interpretation of reality though meanings, language and symbols and therefore the statement "Symbolic interactionists focus on how people interpret..." is true.
The Kantian theory is very particular with the sens of duty as the gauge of morality. It doesn't matter if the act itself is good or bad. If it is our duty to do such act, then that is considered morally right. That is categorical imperative. For example, we are told to follow the ten commandments. It is the duty of the Catholics. So, whatever the reason behind not following the commandment is, it is morally wrong.
Hence, it is the tutsis' fault because the farmer's duty is to save lives. He has the right moral compass. On the other hand, the tutsis should take full responsibility.
Answer:
B
Explanation:
The component that Darwin proposed for development is normal choice. Since assets are constrained in nature, life forms with heritable characteristics that favor endurance and proliferation will in general leave more posterity than their friends, making the attributes increment in recurrence over ages.
