Homegrown Violent Extremism or Global Terrorism

Write your opinion on Homegrown Violent Extremism or Global Terrorism without using the first or second person. In this paper, you get the opportunity to write your point of view on the material reviewed during the week – and the best part is that there is no wrong answer! This paper is your opinion, and as such, it is your job to express your thoughts in a manner that is comprehensible and clear for all readers. Feel free to write your thoughts freely, without any constraints.

After you have finished the readings you selected for the week, it is time to brainstorm. Some simple brainstorm techniques for writing reflection papers can involve you answering some of the basic questions below:

– How did the material on Homegrown Violent Extremism or Global Terrorism affect you?
– Did your learning about the material on Homegrown Violent Extremism or Global Terrorism change your mind about something? If so, how.
– Has the material on Homegrown Violent Extremism or Global Terrorism left you with any questions? If so, what are they?
– Were there any unaddressed critical issues not covered by the material on Homegrown Violent Extremism or Global Terrorism?
– How will the material on Homegrown Violent Extremism or Global Terrorism impact your future in Homeland Security?

Components of the Reflection Paper

Introduction – specifies what you are reflecting upon.
Body Paragraphs – examines the ideas and experiences you have had in context to your topic. Be sure that each new body paragraph starts with a topic sentence. Remember that your paper must be at least 2½ pages long and no more than 3 pages so clear and concise writing is critical.
Conclusion – summarize what you have learned from the material. Tell the reader how this knowledge affected your overall understanding of the subject. Describe the feeling and overall lesson that you had from the material on Homegrown Violent Extremism or Global Terrorism.

 

 

Sample Solution

factual beliefs are entitled to some normative weight. Nonsense, says Sunstein. Incorrect factual beliefs have no “normative weight,” even where they are expressions of values. That, in my view, is obviously correct. Truth is not about counting votes or respecting people’s values and prejudices. Truth is about underwriting factual claims with the prevailing opinions of a specialized scientific community that follows certain public procedures. I am thrilled to see that Kahan and Sovic acknowledge Sunstein’s point in that regard:

[I]f we came off sounding as if we think democracy entails respecting all culturally grounded risk perceptions, no matter how empirically misguided they might be, we overstated our position. We admit to a fair measure of ambivalence about when beliefs formed as a result of cultural cognition merit normative respect within a democratic society.

In my view, Kahan’s and Slovic’s paper puts much of the cultural cognition v. bounded rationality debate to rest. Cultural cognition, properly stripped of certain overreaching normative implications, provides a useful explanatory backdrop to bounded rationality.

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.