Progressive thinkers

Progressive thinkers, what are progressive thinkers? Are they people who think better than others? Or are they people who start to think and progress in that case? Well no they are nor one or the other. A progressive thinker is favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.

In Morocco the 39-year-old King Mohamed VI is a progressive thinker. He is encouraging tourism and promotes cultural expansion in the imperial cities such as Casablanca, Marrakesh, Meknes, Agadir, Rabat, and Fez. Because of its location Morocco is the doors of North Africa blessed by the weather of the Mediterranean and the Atlantic Ocean.

Most tourists in research of the real think, a preserved and authentic culture with not much cost look forward to Morocco. With the diversity came craftsmen producing carpets, pottery, leather goods, woodcrafts, and mosaics.

The King Mohamed VI is a progressive thinker, wasting lots of money on cultural attractions that could attract tourism. Businessmen in Morocco expand their business making new hotels and a comfortable environment for tourist. These progressive thinkers have only one goal in mind and it’s to make their nation better in every aspect.

imgres

Socratic Seminar

The point that was done during the seminar was more about the way to rid yourself out of the conflict. The thing we learned most is how to admit that you are wrong and how to say sorry. What helped to move the dialogue forward is the way we related the subject to other that are historic or that are done right now. We related them to our conversation either related to political or economical projects. At a point there were different ideas but no true debate was done because no one actually contradicted what someone had said. It was just that we got so into a subject that drove us out of the subject. Not very much domination but there were people who talked more than others and there are people who didn't talk at all. The evidence that people were involved in the conversation was more because they participated and always had an idea to share. The understanding of the question has been clarified to me because i made relationships between them and historical events that i knew and explored the ways it is similar and the way they are different. I don't really want to change any ideas that i had in the seminar so I'm staying with it. The best part of the seminar was when we go together to form the ideas. The worst part was when some people were drooling around and didn't say anything, and they had their own conversations. Though i don't really want to change anything in the seminar so i think it was good enough.