Addressing these three entities separately is helpful to keep in mind

This idea is interesting especially nowadays where people tend to write in the stream of consciousness manner as opposed to carefully constructed and structured writing.

Does this mean exigence can be the cause of the writer addressing something?

I think this is important to keep in mind when writing. Readers may interpret a text in any way and it can have nothing to with the writers intention.

I haven't thought about the attitude an author can have toward a counter argument. Rarely am I focusing on how they present opposing views to their argument as. I'm usually trying to dissect their argument or disprove it myself.

This is a useful point to keep in mind for my own writing in order to be able to structure my essays well.

I never thought about describing a writer trying to present an argument as fact like this. It intrigues me that they use the word "reality". I've done my fair share of research for academic papers and I'll try to keep this in mind in the future.

This statement really stood out to me because I've thought about it before. My family comes from rural towns in El Salvador and their relationship to food is much more involved and intimate. Majority of my relatives grow a lot of their food and raise livestock as well. Even my parents despite having been raised over there I think over time have developed a different relationship to the food they eat because of how it's consumed in this country. My mother maintains a home garden where she harvests vegetables in the summer, but it's still not the same connection. I'd like to get more into touch with food, but I recognize the system we live in makes it sort of difficult to do that.

As I tried to understand this concept I landed on a rough conclusion as to why rich countries waste so much food. It's better to have surplus than shortage because then at least demand isn't falling. I imagine it's difficult for all food producers to be at an equillibrium where people are buying exactly what they want to sell. Shortages drive up prices, but decrease demand in the end. This might be one of the reasonings of this practice. I'm interested in doing more research on this topic so I can see if my conclusions are sound.

I think this is a relatable question to a lot of people and I found it interesting and amusing. In my household, we tend to avoid eating this piece until the loaf is finished and it's the only one left. It made me think about how I perceive food, and how society teaches us to see it. Nourishment is the focus point in order to be a healthy human, but perception influences what deem desirable enough to actually intake.

To me the Global Goals seem like a much more nuanced approach to improving human life overall. They account for the issues left over that still affect the world even if poverty is improved. What comes to mind is the issue of medical debt in the U.S. Someone may be getting by and not living in poverty, but that doesn’t mean they’re safe from it if they become weighed down by something unexpected that can end up completely changing someone's life for the worse.

I wonder what the score would be now in 2021 and how Covid-19 has affected it. My guess is that it would be lower as it seems many countries including the U.S suffered as result of lack of sufficient support from their governments. Many people lost their livelihoods as new social safety nets weren’t implemented and current ones lacked the infrastructure to support people living in a failing economy. That certainly would’ve affected the Global Goals. It’s interesting to learn about what went into structuring these goals, and how in 2015 they didn’t even fathom to think about accounting for a pandemic just 5 years later.

This statement really resonated with me as it relates to what I’ve reflected on as I grew more into an adult and began to think about wealth. I remember learning about “trickle-down economics” specifically throughout my life and realizing how in my opinion the wealthy/powerful have justified their outrageous accumulation of wealth by promising to redistribute it. I don’t think that has happened in the U.S and if anything, billionaires especially seem to just keep gaining more wealth. This article I read recently immediately came to mind.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-cuts-rich-50-years-no-trickle-down/

The phenomenon of “cancel culture” comes to mind for me on this topic. I think compassion has a lot to do with it. To really empathize with the hurt feelings of another person is to be compassionate. To admit your wrongdoing even if not intentional is a step further. To be that way demonstrates true understanding of your effects on someone and to be willing to improve on whatever made someone upset with you. I think many people reject this manner of self-reflection because it hurts to think that people might see them as less because of an error.

This is quite a definitive statement that I would certainly think as true in a society that displayed more utopian ideals. While many leaders of these traditions would assert this is as true I think there are things that demonstrate not. Many favor devotion to a person or a set of ideals rather than focusing on compassion. Some people that distinguish themselves for compassionate acts treat people and situations in the very manner this charter advocates to separate from. There is also something to be said of founding texts being centered around compassion, but people not following that.

There is room to wonder why humanity has failed. There should be acknowledgement of how we got here in the first place. Many of our systems are based on unequal relationships. The food service industry shows this as employers deny living wages by employing the tipping system. People who are trusted to be leaders put their interests (with good reason or not) above people they're supposed to be working with fairly so that affects the whole chain of command of any group. It's difficult for people who are not afforded compassion to see a reason to be compassionate.