1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Pavlova-9 [17]
3 years ago
9

PICTURE DESCRIPTION; please answer and don't answer just to get points :(

English
1 answer:
solniwko [45]3 years ago
7 0
Hope it helps youuuuu
You might be interested in
Explain how they way the author orders his ideas in " the perils of indifference" helps develop his overall point.
Inessa05 [86]

He wanted to convey that indifference is worse than hate or anger. One could be angry at injustice or hate evil, violent acts. Indifference is the absence of compassion and implies something worse than outright hate; indifference implies a lack of acknowledgment. Being indifferent to another's suffering is like saying, 'you're suffering is not even worth my consideration.' Wiesel speaks from his experience of the Holocaust, but this could be applied to any situation in history in which the world was indifferent; in which the world willfully refused to acknowledge suffering of others for any number of unjustifiable reasons: 1) out of sight, out of mind, 2) passivity, laziness, 3) an untried feeling of hopelessness ('what could i possibly do?'), 4) selfishness. When Wiesel speaks of indifference he also means ignorance in 3 senses: 1) ignorant as in lacking sensitivity, 2) lacking knowledge and 3) ignoring.

The 'perils of indifference' could be described as the 'the terrible outcomes of ignoring atrocities. Apply this to anything today, where suffering is ignored by indifferent people and governments. (i.e., Darfur, Haiti). The peril of indifference would be to allow (allow by ignoring = indifference) an atrocity like the Holocaust to occur again.

6 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
20 POINTS AND BRANLIEST
Nookie1986 [14]
<span>to sacrifice self-interest for the common good</span>
6 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
PLEASE HELP ME ASAP!!!!!!!!!!!
natulia [17]

The answer is the last sentence you have marked. The last sentence shows how the Prince ignored the chaos that was occurring outside of his land and instead threw a party for the wealthy and powerful. This sentence shows the ignorance of the rich. Hope that helps :))

5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Student chapter packet weasel.
castortr0y [4]

Answer:

Discovering things, and grief

Explanation:

6 0
2 years ago
Which of the following is NOT a part of an argument?
lina2011 [118]

Answer: C. Irrelevant evidence

Explanation:

4 0
2 years ago
Other questions:
  • The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is said to be a novel of its time, meaning that it reflects the values and issues of
    7·1 answer
  • What evidence from the text supports the prediction that
    12·2 answers
  • How does the impact of globalization benefit developed countries more than
    12·1 answer
  • Can you put this in your own words??? <br><br> ENGLISH HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    13·1 answer
  • Why is jayden surprise that mrs wei can speak english
    11·1 answer
  • The quest for survival is a powerful human instinct. What determines who lived and who dies?
    14·1 answer
  • What type of sentence is this: "Before the circus came to town, the train clunked along the
    13·2 answers
  • Please hurry!
    7·1 answer
  • What modern technologies did Forster capture? List five.
    5·1 answer
  • The market is nearer to them than <br> A) us<br> B) we
    14·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!