Of course, this means the time traveler does not have unrestricted freedom to do as he pleases. He is hemmed in by the laws of physics. But that is nothing new. After all, I might want to walk on the ceiling, yet the laws of physics forbid it—I’ll simply fall. When causal loops are involved, the restrictions on what is or is not possible will be more severe. What would happen if you tried to kill your mother in the past? Would the knife fall down? Would you simply be unable to lift your arm? Many things could go wrong. But there is nothing strictly paradoxical about someone being part of his own past. So Mr. Thursday may not be able to prevent the accident, but he might have been able to exploit quantum fuzziness to tweak the details of how it happened.
In order to produce a good response essay it is necessary to draw strong parallels between the analyzed work and personal experience. All the statements presented in a response essay must be proved by actual evidence presented in the work. This is required to avoid the possibility of the invention of new ungrounded views on the analyzed work. This will make the essay possess a very logical construction and easier for the reader to follow the course of thought of the writer. The author should always consider the ideas, which were originally the base for the analyzed work.
For instance, what if we replaced the word “women” in the memo with another group? What if the memo said that biological differences amongst Black, Hispanic, or LGBTQ employees explained their underrepresentation in tech and leadership roles? Would some people still be discussing the merit of the memo’s arguments or would there be a universal call for swift action against its author? I don’t ask this to compare one group to another, but rather to point out that the language of discrimination can take many different forms and none are acceptable or productive.