I will be discussing my relationship with a friend and what dialectical tensions we faced altogether. So, when I first met this friend, he was a complete stranger to me and we met in a local market accidentally where our shopping bags got exchanged. We met officially to exchange bags and then got to know each other in a formal discussion. Soon, that bonding developed but there was still uncertainty about this bond
(Predictability/novelty). There was some bizarre tension in my mind to ask him out to meet again but then again it was a kind of some uncomfortable pull that didn't let me do it. When I got to know him better I soon realized that he was too open about his things and experiences and I could not be open the same way about my life(Openness/closeness). Another tension suddenly which we faced was to connect properly and that too how to maintain a bond since we shared quite a bunch of things such as the interest in similar books, TV shows, etc (Autonomy/connectedness).
Learn more about relationships here
brainly.com/question/10286547
#SPJ4
Answer:
The waters are generally crystal-clear, with submarine features clearly visible at depths of 100 feet (30 metres).They: protect coastlines from the damaging effects of wave action and tropical storms. provide habitats and shelter for many marine organisms. are the source of nitrogen and other essential nutrients for marine food chains.
Explanation:
The answer is prejudice against a people who were from an
enemy nation. Because of the attack on
Pearl Harbor, many Japanese citizens were rounded up and sent to internment
camps. Despite the interment, many Japanese Americans enlisted in the U.S. army
to prove their loyalty as many fought in Europe and distinguished themselves.
Answer:
It asserts that Americans as a whole (and not as members of their respective colonies) are a distinct “people.” To “dissolve the political bands” revokes the “social compact” that existed between the Americans and the rest of “the People” of the British commonwealth, reinstates the “state of nature” between Americans and the government of Great Britain, and makes “the Laws of Nature” the standard by which this dissolution and whatever government is to follow are judged. “Declare the causes” indicates they are publicly stating the reasons and justifying their actions rather than acting as thieves in the night. The Declaration is like the indictment of a criminal that states the basis of his criminality. But the ultimate judge of the rightness of their cause will be God, which is why the revolutionaries spoke of an “appeal to heaven”—an expression commonly found on revolutionary banners and flags. As British political theorist John Locke wrote: “The people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to appeal to heaven.” The reference to a “decent respect to the opinions of mankind” might be viewed as a kind of an international public opinion test. Or perhaps the emphasis is on the word “respect,” recognizing the obligation to provide the rest of the world with an explanation they can evaluate for themselves.
