kublaikahn wrote:I still don't like it. Sorry. The concept is neither terrible nor terribly deep. Your first story is about injustice. But the next two are more about controversy. And you arguments make you sound intellectually weak. You theaten your ex-friend with jail in a civil matter. You make a logical leap from brushing you with a car to not knowing how to drive.
^^ It's not that I'm trying to sound intellectually weak, but like I state, I was thirteen at the time. The point is that I was so mad at her because I knew what she was doing was wrong, that I threatened her because I didn't know how or why her actions were wrong. In a way its meant to be taken as an exageration. I mean, how many thirteen year olds have a well formed argument about the rights and wrongs of the legal system?
The big problem is that you start by announcing your thesis which is speaking up in the face of injustice, and then you tell stories that are injustice--those are not the same thing.
But in each story I do speak up. Maybe I should go into my "speaking up" in more detail? Or maybe that's not even really the direction I should be going. The real point I'm trying to make is that I've witnessed injustice in more than one way, and each situation raised questions that lead to an interest in law.