# data[].attributes.body
The most interesting aspect of the discussion held in class that I recognized was how student’s political views lined up with their moral decision in this particular case.  I noticed that people who consider themselves Republicans, including myself, CJ and Pete, would not have pulled the lever.  This is because we felt that by pulling the lever, we would be responsible for the death of the single miner on the alternate track.  Another reason for our decision was we felt that the five men would have a better chance to recognize the train was coming and get out of the way.  It was noted in the scenario that the men would not be able to see the men coming, but of course that is not a realistic assumption to make.  Another opinion I observed from the discussion was those of Anti-Trump students.  I know this because they have expressed in previous classes their distaste for him.  These students chose to pull the lever to try to save five at the expense of the miner on the alternate track.  They took the utilitarian approach when making their decision.

Follow Up Question- What aspect of the utilitarian approach compelled students to pull the lever?

Link- https://rationaloptimist.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/utilitarianism-is-killing-one-to-save-five-moral/

This source explains the utilitarian approach in depth.  It links it to this particular scenario to utilitarianism and helps to explain why students would make the decision to pull the lever.

# data[].attributes.body
I enjoyed the discussion we had in class. I believe this a scary topic to talk about because it questions a person’s morals. In the both situations, I would have tried to save everyone but no matter what I would have done, someone would have had to die. If I really had just a few seconds to react, I think in both sequences, I would have tried to save the five people. I would have a huge burden on my heart knowing I took I life. But I would know more people would be alive. I wouldn’t really know what I would do unless it actually happened. I might have been too scared to do anything.  This got me wondering on how people think in tragic situations. My question was would multiple people react to a situation at once to a situation or would they freeze up? I did some research and at  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect it explains that this type of scenario would be called the Bystander Effect. The Bystander Effect describes the phenomenon in which such individuals are less likely to seek help or give assistance when others are present. This does not mean that bystanders are apathetic to the plight of others, for bystanders often show signs of distress, anxiety, and concern if they delay responding or fail to respond at all. It also does not necessarily mean that a victim will be less likely to receive help as the number of bystanders present increases. The greater the number of other people present, the greater is the likelihood that at least one of them will intervene. A good show I found about this is called “What would you do?” by John Quiñones. I watched an episode on YouTube ( https://padlet.com/jacobsonl1/trolleycarethic215003) and it’s crazy how these situations happen all the time.

# data[].attributes.body
During the last class we discussed the trolley car dilemma, I thought that the most interesting part of our discussion was the fact that people were willing to pull the lever, but not willing to push a man off the bridge for the same result. I would like to know why people will do one and not the other if they both lead to the same result? People were so bought in with their answer to part one, only to change it for part 2. http://people.howstuffworks.com/trolley-problem.htm
The source talks about consequentialism and how this does not fit into this problem because a believer in consequentialism only looks at the results and not how it is gotten there, and here it does not apply. People believe that in this situation saving 5 people is more important, and are willing to pull a lever to save, but will not push the man because their morality believes that that is murder no matter what the situation is.

# data[].attributes.body
I truly enjoy the discussion of: Are we born with a conscience or Are we born good? It's always interesting the think about where our morale boundaries come from. In class, most of us agreed that babies are born, either good or with the will to socialize. We also speculated that it was not the strongest who survived long enough to pass on their genes, nor the smartest but those who were willing to be social and collaborate with each other. While morals may be learned or they may come naturally, I feel that the willingness to be social is inherently natural.
In the second page of the article , posted by Smithsonian, the Author agrees with this, stating that being social was the most important thing to survival and reproduction.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/?src=longreads&c=y&story=fullstory&utm_source=buffer&page=2&buffer_share=38bb4

Question 1: Were social skills the key to survival for our ancestors?
Question 2: Were there people who survived without being social?
Think about Genghis Khan, for example.
Question 3: What was the most important social skill? Singing, dancing, fitness/body language, etc.

# data[].attributes.body
I found the trolley car discusion very interesting. Second scenario everyone mostly rejected. The reason everyone would rather pull the lever than push the man is because pulling the lever is dehumanizing the act of killing people.

Is dehumanization training in the military moral?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8848015

This former soldier describes how they were taught to use demeaning language in order to dehumanize the enemy. This helped them assert their supremacy and have less guilt about killing them.

# data[].attributes.body
1)
I feel like the most interesting part of the discussion we had yesterday was how many different trains  of thought the class had.
2)
My follow up question is why exactly does doing nothing in this situation still 'count' as causing the death of somebody?
3)
My link that addresses my question: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/magazine/a-bystanders-crime.html
4) In my source from the New York Times, they say that 'action has to matter more than mere knowledge' and they use the Penn State Issue as an example - the students inaction means that they are less responsible for the boys death than if they had been force feeding him everclear through a funnel.

# data[].attributes.body
The most interesting part of the discussion was that most people would rather pull the lever to switch the train to hit and kill one person. Everyone was saying that saving 5 people is better than saving one. The same people would also not push one person off the bridge to save the same five people and kill only one. I think that people felt that pulling a lever vs physically pushing someone kept them less involved in the death of the one person. Most people looked at the situation as saving one person vs saving 5 people. I looked at the situation as killing a person or not saving people. My thinking is that I would rather not save people instead of kill someone. Is there a better solution than my own that I agree with that may change my viewpoint. In the post from http://www.organizingcreativity.com/2014/03/a-more-or-less-creative-solution-to-the-trolley-problem/, the person has a different approach to their answer of why they switch the track, but don’t push the person off the bridge. Their answer is that they would not commit murder by pushing someone onto the tracks, but would have no problem switching the track to kill the one person. The reason is that the workers on the track know the risk of working on the tracks, so killing the one person is not a problem. The reason they say pushing the man off the bridge is wrong is because he is uninvolved with the train yard, so he has no idea of the risk of standing on that bridge.

# data[].attributes.body
During the trolley car discussion, it really made me think about the more “gray” areas of morality in which I can’t always expect myself to always make the right choices.  The scenario of being able to save either one person and let 5 other people die or prevent the deaths of five people at the expense of one person without being held responsible really challenges a person’s moral fiber to do what they believe is good.  I would pull the lever to save five people at the expense of one person because I believe the burden of myself letting one person die isn’t as great for the possibility that five people could’ve died.  The discussion also allowed me to understand that countries such as China have the one-child policy because they place the well-being of everyone in the country above all else even at the expense of one person’s life since they don’t have sufficient resources to deal with overpopulation.  The decision about whether to pull the lever or not is dependent on the circumstances a person has developed in his or her environment and that we can’t judge someone’s morality for being absolutely right or wrong.

This discussion has left one question in my mind regarding the grayer areas of morality.

Does one’s inner desire to survive affect their sense of morality based on the circumstances brought upon the environment/society they were raised in?

Link: http://www.nomoredependence.com/2011/02/morality-survival/

The link explains that morality is completely gray when it comes to making decisions regarding your own survival.  Decisions that test your ability to make moral decisions is completely dependent on whether you value your moral value more than the well-being of people around yourself.  Morality in itself is never set in stone since everyone in the world is different which we are more likely to have dissimilar moral values from each other.

# data[].attributes.body
The Trolley Car Dilemma seems to put people in an uncomfortable position. This discomfort is due to the fact that their choice will impact the life of other people. You a pull a lever and one person dies or you don’t and five people die. There is also the scenario with pushing a man in front of the trolley car and avoid killing the rest of the people. From our discussion most people would rather kill one than five and this seems to be common sense to me. While the whole situation is tragic, it is ingrained in most people that the death of one is far less detrimental than the death of five. The most interesting part of this though was the idea of how the act is executed. Most people would not push the man in front of the trolley car because in a way they are directly killing the one person. By pulling the lever this dehumanizes the act of killing therefore it is justified. People are ok with killing the one person if they are not directly involved in , directly meaning they are killing the person with their own hands. The idea of the lever gives people the comfort that they did not actually kill someone, but they were doing it for the greater good. Also we discussed if morality was an internal feeling or a learned experience. As in the video we saw that babies usually choose the “good guy” because they have an internal gut feeling. I think that morality is both learned and inherent in all of us. There's always a reasoning behind our decision that  I believe is rooted in feelings.

Question:  Why do most people think it is right to pull the lever? Why kill one person over five people? Do you think the situation would be different if the one person being killed was someone close to you?

http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2011/moral-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five/

This link goes into the thinking behind killing one versus five.  We rationalize this decision as contributing to a greater good. We override the ingrained rules of “Thou shalt not kill” and kick into our intuition which realizes that we need to take action.

# data[].attributes.body
The part of the discussion that was most interesting to me was when we started to talk about the trolley car going off of its tracks. The main question was, if you noticed a trolley car going off the tracks heading towards 5 people and you knew they were going to get hit with the trolley car and die, would you pull the lever and have the trolley car go the other way, this would only kill the one person on the other side. Even thought, I would feel horrible about this situation regardless of how many people were killed, I would pull the lever and kill only the one person. I would rather fell the guilt of killing one person, rather than killing five people.
Question: Does it make it morally wrong to pull the lever and intentionally kill the one person?
https://www.thoughtco.com/would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-4045377
This article discusses another way to save the people, to push a larger man infront of the trolley to stop it. I thought it was interesting in this article when they spoke about the psychology behind it. Thye state that the person who pushed the man in front would even feel more emotional and guilty about his death because that person physically touched the man.

# data[].attributes.body
The part of the discussion that was most interesting to me was hearing and understanding both sides of the argument. Instinctively, I tried to think about the situation in a different a way in order to save everyone’s life. My first thought was to put an object on the tracks to derail the trolley car and in turn not killing anyone of the six people on the tracks. Alternatively if the lever is not fully engaged in either direction the trolley would also derail. Both scenarios assume it is of no issue if the trolley crashes or anyone on the trolley gets hurt. I would like to know the opinions of federal law authorities in regards to this situation. The Trolley Car Dilemma is a universal concept that represents a more significant issue that individuals face on a daily basis. Some incidents are characterized as personal issues, and some incidents are characterized as serious political matters that entail millions of lives. The core of this dilemma is its ability to characterize the everyday matters that people face. I think it would be beneficial if communities seriously analyzed the dialogue of the Trolley Car Dilemma because it allows people to argue amongst themselves the meaning of ‘right vs. wrong’.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence

If a person decides to not take any action in a situation it is known as negligence. This link describes how every citizen has the responsibility to act in an appropriate manner. There are various aspects of a situation that help determine whether there was a duty to act. In a legal situation there are elements required to establish a prima facie case of negligence.

# data[].attributes.body
After yesterday's discussion I was left still thinking about everyone's quick responses to the two variations. I thought it was interesting that there was a little bit of disagreement with the first scenario, where it seemed almost unanimous. It seemed easier for everyone to be able to pull a lever in order to end a life and save lives, rather than physically push someone to their death in order to save the greatest number. I'm still wondering when we develop that "gut feeling" that helps us define which one of those variations is more wrong . This leads me to my question: At every month of a infants life they reach different developmental stages. At what point do we think they can truly understand right and wrong and what thought processes go into that kind of decision?

http://www.parents.com/baby/development/behavioral/month-by-month-guide-to-babys-emotional-development/

this link goes in to full detail at physical and mental developmental growth of an infant by following the average growth of every month. When reading through this month to month guide I. noticed that there were different mental developments each month, but there isn't one specific month where they understand the difference between right and wrong. So I'm curious as to what people would think after looking at this month to month guide, if there is a real defining point when infants start to understand their own morals?

# data[].attributes.body
-During our discussion in class, a question along the lines of "are we born knowing good from bad or is it taught?" was asked. Originally without giving much thought to it I said that it is something we are taught. After watching the video of the study done with the babies at Yale I changed my mind. To me, this was the most interesting part of the discussion. It was really interesting to see a little baby, who doesn't even know how to speak yet, choose the good character in the puppet show over the bad one.

-Although unlikely, the woman mentioned that there were times that a baby would choose the bad character over the good one. Why was this and do you think it says something about that baby's intuition?

http://nypost.com/2013/10/26/do-babies-know-good-from-evil/

-This source helps me understand why babies would choose the bad character from the puppet show at times because it states that even though research says that evolution has given us a sense of morality and justice from birth, the downside is that we inherently distrust people who don't look like us.

# data[].attributes.body
Before reading the excerpt from Behave by Robert M. Sapolsky and our class discussion, I had never heard of the trolly car dilemma before. I thought this was a very interesting dilemma and it was interesting to hear what others would do in this situation. Personally, I believe I do not believe I would pull the lever because then I would feel personally responsible for killing the one person. Now, the other side to the argument is that then you would technically be responsible for killing the other five workers; however, I would feel as if I did not have anything to do with the situation and therefore not be responsible. I also found it interesting how some people could pull the lever, but not push the man to stop the train. After further discussion, it made more sense to me how people could do the one, but not the other simply because then they are not physically performing the act.
Question: If a child were to pick the more mean or evil puppet, does that predict anything for their future self/personality?
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/14/mental.health.loughner/index.html
This link explains the warning signs of a child who would grow up with a mental illness. The website explains how having odd interests or beliefs would cause one to worry and to seek medical attention. I would guess that in this scenario picking the puppet that was considered the mean one would be considered having odd interests.

# data[].attributes.body
The most interesting part of or diccussion on the trolley car dilemma for me was definitely the second part to the question. When faced with the

# data[].attributes.body
In class when the variation with the footbridge was brought up, it seemed that switching to the other track was a better received solution than before. Most agree that by killing the one person with the switch was justifiable because it saved the most lives, right? Since you are doing it for the good of the whole there will be no repercussions despite taking a person’s life in the process. My question is if the same result could be achieved by pushing the person on the foot bridge then why were a lot of people much more hesitant to do so and would prefer to switch the tracks?

This article discusses that concept after asking the question to a group of Buddhist monks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/06/how-do-buddhist-monks-think-about-the-trolley-problem/532092/

This article discusses how the monks find no fault in pushing the larger person due to the intentions of the act being pure. Yet ordinary folks would be hesitant simply because the action of taking the person’s life because they would have to do so with their own hands rather than just pulling a switch. What does that say about a person’s morals once the problem is more personal or requires a more hands-on approach? (pun not intended)

# data[].attributes.body
i found this very interesting because it was something I've never encountered before. This scenario puts u in a situation where somebody fate rest in your hands and you have to act on a blink of an eye. It put you in 2 different scenarios one where you kill someone without the use of ur bare hands and the other where you use your hands to murder someone but both of these result in the saving of several people compared to one life. i feel if you choose to pull the lever you have to push the guy off because if you don't your contradicting yourself just because its easy to kill the person behind closed doors compared to actually right in front of you.

Question

My question is how could people choose to pull the lever but not push the fat guy off the bridge ?

http://www.revue-klesis.org/pdf/Klesis-philosophie-experimentale-8-Katinka-J.P.-Quintelier-Delphine-De-Smet-Daniel-M.T.-Fessler-The-moral-universalism-relativism-debate.pdf

this link explains the difference between moral universalism and moral relativism this link really helped me get a better understanding of the two and how they stack up next to each other.

# data[].attributes.body
I think the trolley car dilemma is an interesting ethical dilemma and nothing else. I think real life ethical dilemmas are much more complex. While the trolley car problem is thought provoking, the person who says just to yell at the people to get off the tracks isn't necessarily wrong. A complex ethical question shouldn't have a simple answer, and in the sterile vacuum of ethical problems they do. A real life ethical problem for instance, would be the dropping of the atomic bombs on Imperial Japan. Real life ethical situations are much more interesting in my mind, since a decision was often made, but it is still controversial. I think the most important part of ethics is the part we can apply to the real world. In my opinion, the trolley car issue has no real life application outside of inciting discussion in an academic setting.

# data[].attributes.body
While discussing the trolly car theory, I found myself applying it to real life scenarios that effect my own life. Even though this the trolly car dilemma is hypothetical, and for some hard to grasp because of the overall unlikeliness, it happens frequently in today's society. I personally feel it would be immoral to physically put someone who was never in danger in the first place in harms way. As humans we find it easier to make decisions when we are not physically involved. For example, our US military using drones to attack enemies. It is easier to push a button killing someone than to shoot someone close range.

Question: Does anyone think that by not having any physical involvement weigh just as heavy on our conscious in comparison to having direct physical involvement? If not is that a trait that most humans instinctively have or because we were raised in an environment that teaches us not to feel personally responsible?

Link: http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_universalism.html
This link compares moral relativism which argues that we are raised with morals and they depend on culture, personality, history and environment, vs. cultural realism which argues absolute morals universally. This helped me analyze both answers to my question and allowed me to construct an opinion on the subject matter.

# data[].attributes.body
Even though this has been an on going scenario that people have though about for years, this is the first time I have heard of it. I found it extremely fascinating. The first variation was a no brainer to push the lever. It is simply committing a simple action of pushing a lever and saving 5 humans but killing one. The numbers seem to make pushing the lever the right thing to do. The second one is what really got me. My first instinct is to push the guy to save the rest. Then I really thought about me being in that situation. I honestly don' think I could physically look a person in the eyes and push them knowing that my action leads to his/her death. Pushing an object that has an effect and pushing a human are two different processes for me.
Question: Now my question is why. What makes one feel so different when pushing a human or an object that may or may not lead to fatality?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3528470/Would-kill-one-person-save-five-answer-moral-dilemma-determine-people-trust-you.html

This link explains the question of sacrificing one life many. The article is from a physiologists stand point and an experiment is done on volunteers seeing what they would do as well as the morality of their thinking. 2400 people were given a series of moral dilemmas. In each they were given an option to save one innocent live or sacrifice that one for a number of others.

# data[].attributes.body
This was actually the first time I have heard of the Trolley Car Dilemma. It was interesting to me, because I didn't even think about which choice I would do, I automatically knew I would pull the lever. However, the other scenario in which you must push someone in front of the train gets you thinking. I don’t think many people would be able to push someone in front of the train, but most people would be able to pull the lever. It is strange, because it is the same act, however one is more hands on. More guilt would come with pushing someone because it is more direct. I think that morality does come from both experiences and from within. Babies choose the good guy because of that gut feeling, but someone would pull the lever because it may be taught. It is better to help multiple people, rather than just one.

Question:

If a baby’s parent hinted to picking the bad character, would the baby choose it, or would they go with their gut feeling of picking the good character?

Link:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parents-peers-children/

This link goes into the psychology behind parenting. It explains The Nurture Assumption, and what the effect parents have on babies. Kids learn a lot of behaviors at home, so it would make sense that a baby would go with what their parent is telling them.

# data[].attributes.body
Trolley Car Dilemma

The trolley car dilemma is something we have all discussed in the past. Some said that we should pull that lever to save the most people. Others believe touching the lever is actually committing the crime. What I realized is that the truth is in the person behind the lever in the situation. I do not believe it is wrong to pull the lever but I also do not believe it is wrong no to pull it. We discussed that intuition is that gut feeling you get when you make a decision of any importance. I’m in school to be an engineer and I hate these “what if” type discussion because I am used to wrong and right. Aaron had the most intelligent answer to the Trolley Car Dilemma. Pull the lever half way, maybe the trolley car will derail either killing no one or everyone. Obviously the “right” answer is hidden behind the person with the option.

The other part of our discussion involved voluntarily pushing a man off of a bridge that would stop the trolley car. The proximity problem comes into play here. Being the person flipping a switch is easy but when you are the foot soldier things change.

Question: How do we feel about autonomous automobiles? Is there an ethical dilemma around technology playing a bigger part in our lives?
https://www.recode.net/2016/4/13/11644890/ethics-and-artificial-intelligence-the-moral-compass-of-a-machine

# data[].attributes.body
The discussion in class was based on Morality. We talked about where people believed morality comes from, whether it is learned, by experiences, or if people are just born with it. The part about the class discussion that was most interesting to me was when we spoke about people knowing the right thing to do most times but doing the opposite because of so many bad things happening to them or them just not knowing any better. It was very interesting to see everyone’s points of views on the topic. In my personal opinion, I believe that morality comes from the experiences you go through. Also, it has a lot to do with your mindset. When people go through things it teaches them how to react and what decisions to make the next time around. Learning plays a part in morality but not fully and here’s why: Two people can be born in the same family and taught the same exact way but they’ll still make different decisions when certain situations occur. This is because we all think differently and go through different things. Everyone has a different mindset. The question that I have about this morality topic is:

Question: “How so do people believe that we are born knowing right from wrong”? Is it true that when a woman is pregnant that whatever she is around most, the child becomes immune to it?”

Link: https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/babies-and-birth-morality

This source explains and illustrates the topic by stating that a baby as young as 21 month old knows right from wrong. This necessarily doesn’t mean that the person is born with it. Some of morality is innate and some is developed.

‘

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
See all the wonderful things Rachel Walchonski has made

# data[].attributes.headline
Padlet Assignment	Today’s class discussion was quite engrossing. I found the topic on where our morality comes from was the best topic discussed because it provided many different answers and views out of different people. Personally, I find that our morality comes from within. Often, although we may think one way or want to act in a certain way, our emotions cause us to act the way we do and do the things we do regardless of what you’re taught sometimes. After today’s discussion, it is clear experience also plays a role and can be in fact connected to our emotions. What I would like to know more about is the baby situation. Why do you think it is that babies are born more “attracted to the good guy” and are often on the good guys side?                                                               --------------------Link: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/?all 	           ----------------------The link above is an article from Smithsonian.com on whether or not babies are born good or evil. The article is very insightful on the issue of babies being born preferring the good guys over the bad guys. There’s many details on a bunch of different studies that in essence show the same thing. Babies are born preferring the good guys which we discussed in class and toddlers are natural helpers willing to aid others at a cost to themselves (Tucker). In conclusion babies are born knowing much more than most of us think. Regarding Rachel Walchonski's question I do believe that idea to an extent. I feel that the basic human morals, for example if killing an innocent person is right or wrong, is universal and most people agree as to what the right answer to that will be. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Padlet Assignment	Today’s class discussion was quite engrossing. I found the topic on where our morality comes from was the best topic discussed because it provided many different answers and views out of different people. Personally, I find that our morality comes from within. Often, although we may think one way or want to act in a certain way, our emotions cause us to act the way we do and do the things we do regardless of what you’re taught sometimes. After today’s discussion, it is clear experience also plays a role and can be in fact connected to our emotions. What I would like to know more about is the baby situation. Why do you think it is that babies are born more “attracted to the good guy” and are often on the good guys side?                                                               --------------------Link: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/are-babies-born-good-165443013/?all 	           ----------------------The link above is an article from Smithsonian.com on whether or not babies are born good or evil. The article is very insightful on the issue of babies being born preferring the good guys over the bad guys. There’s many details on a bunch of different studies that in essence show the same thing. Babies are born preferring the good guys which we discussed in class and toddlers are natural helpers willing to aid others at a cost to themselves (Tucker). In conclusion babies are born knowing much more than most of us think. Regarding Rachel Walchonski's question I do believe that idea to an extent. I feel that the basic human morals, for example if killing an innocent person is right or wrong, is universal and most people agree as to what the right answer to that will be. 

# data[].attributes.body
To me, I think the most interesting part of our conversation occurred right in the beginning of class, when we were discussing if morality was inherited or learned. I think this part of the discussion was the most interesting because I saw that the reasoning on both sides made sense, which lead me to believe that it's a little bit of both. I believe that we are born with a certain level of morals that are instilled in us (hence the research that was one with the babies) however, I think that we do have other morals that are learned throughout life. The ones we learn typically depend on experiences that we have gone through, because at the end of the day we don't all have the same morals, and if we only had morals from what we were born with we would all in the end have the same idea of morality.

The question that I had left class with was regarding if morality is universal. It was said in class that when it comes to autonomy, community, and divinity it's morally universal, but is that really true? I don't know if I'm completely sold on the idea that people have the same idea of morals. http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_moral_universalism.html
This link discussed moral universalism vs moral relativism and I thought that it was interesting to see both sides of the argument. This website helped me understand why we were talking today about how morality is universal, however I see the opposing argument saying that moral relativism makes claims to culture, religion, and historical consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
-        Describe what part of the discussion was most interesting to you.

-        Provide a follow-up question that you still have about this particular topic. What would you like to know more about?

-        Provide a link to a source that addresses your follow-up question. In other words, look up a source that might help you answer your question.

-        Describe how this source explains or illuminates the topic.

-        Respond to the Padlet posts of three of your classmates. You can respond to their question or you can respond to the source they provide for follow-up. Your response should be two to three sentences in length. Your responses do not count toward the length requirement of your own post.