self → Though I forced myself to complete assignments, I'm mostly pleased with result, though essays are sometimes vague and withough clear structure, but that's my style (I'm original writer).
peer 1 → It`s a bit hard to follow your thoughts...in the first pair you concentrated on the term honor only, second it was Okinawa atrocity mentioned just in the very fiest sentence and I wouldn`t talk about dehumanization in the Roman legion.
peer 2 → 55% pass
peer 3 → First pair: honor and Menelaus You start off fine: trying to define honor and applying it to Menelaus. In the first sentence you write "Honour is a perception of how others view a person's qualities" in relation to "compliance to the social standards" of the person's position in society. But then you point out that a person can lose honor. So, honor is not just a perception, but it is also a matter of evaluating that person. If he fails to meet the social standards, he loses honor. If he meets the standards, he gains or maintains honor. But this causes me to wonder which social standards are involved in honor. You don't say. And are they standards all the persons living in a geographical region support or are they standards adopted by an elite subset of the population? You leave out all these sorts of distinctions. So it remains unclear what honor actually is. Second pair: atrocity and Okinawa A lot of people picked 'atrocity'. You are one of the few to point out that atrocity is unnecessary and that it involves the infliction of brutality. And yet those are two feature are central. I think a definition of atrocity also needs to include infliction of unnecessary pain and death on other humans and to include that large numbers of people are victims. I don't think it would be an atrocity if it were inflicted on just one or two. At the end of your answer you make an interesting observation: "especially in modern times, when soldiers couldn't get a personal part in conflicts such as looting or capturing land and the only emotional discharge available is transferring of suffering to other people." Do you mean that every soldier or most solders always or most of the time engage in transferring pain to others as a kind of emotionally satisfying release? Do you have any citation to support that? You write in broad sweeping generalizations such as "war can be considered atrocity in its entirety" which I don't think advances analysis at all. Try to support such generalizations with specific incidents. Third pair: dehumanization and legion Good start with providing definitions. You makes a lot of interesting observations in the course of giving your answer. Good effort to explicitly say how dehumanization affected the Legion; few made the connection. Some of your writing is difficult to understand. For example, this sentence "To achieve proper efficiency in fighting dehumanization must go both ways - a soldier shouldn't see enemy as a human and as well can't consider as a real person with his/her own agency, but a part of mechanism that moves through commands." After a lot of effort I think I finally got it. Do you mean something like this: "To achieve proper efficiency in fighting, dehumanization must go both ways - a soldier shouldn't see the enemy as a human and as well the soldier can't even consider himself a real person with his/her own agency, but must see himself merely as a part of larger mechanism in which he responds mindlessly through learned reaction to commands from superiors." ?
peer 4 → I gave you full credit because your paper was one of the best that I graded. You did a wonderful job at pairing these words and concepts in a logical way that made a lot of sense. KEEP UP THE AWESOME WORK!!!
peer 5 → Pretty good work, though I think you could work on improving the flow of your writing. I would suggest trying to organize your arguments into effectively making just a few points, rather than mentioning many different things in passing.