DUE TUE 5/15 Pericles Funeral Oration
Continue reading "Pericles Funeral Oration" up to p. 148 (bottom of page, section 42 line 10).
Make a list of some of the Athenian values that you encountered in the text. Choose one and write a couple of sentences (or more) about why it might be good for the trial of Socrates.We are not going to read the rest of the oration, so if you are interested you should read the rest on your own. We will move on to the Apology of Plato.
- They view themselves as a model to the rest of society.
- They are aware that they have an advanced government and knew a lot about it, as well as their own lives and interests.
- They try not to ask for help and solve/get things done on their own.
I think this would be good point in the debate because their way of life clashes with Socrates' opinions. In a way that means that he would be the only one who opposes them, which could result in a all to one ratio, not in Socrates' favor.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Due Wed 4/25 "Jigsaw Activity"
Due Wed 4/25 "Jigsaw Activity"
Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.
I read about whether or not the Press should be censored during the current war on terror. A good resolution would be: "The press should stay censored during the War on Terror because it will panic the masses."
Explain why it is an important topic.
This topic could impact your daily life by you not knowing everything that is going on in your country. It is hard to avoid information given to you and who purposely doesnt watch the news? Most adults and/or teenagers watch the news and when they get the story; good or bad, they want the whole story, not false hope or worring that is unnessacery.
Q: Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side:
Con Side:
- The people of America always have a right to know what's going on with their own country and military.
- Military families will be at ease knowing the whole and honest truth to what is going on in the war.
Pro Side:
- Even though Americans have the right to know the truth, the dont really need it.
- Seeing soldiers dead or American planes exploding wouldn't be good for the families of America.
Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.
I read about whether or not the Press should be censored during the current war on terror. A good resolution would be: "The press should stay censored during the War on Terror because it will panic the masses."
Explain why it is an important topic.
This topic could impact your daily life by you not knowing everything that is going on in your country. It is hard to avoid information given to you and who purposely doesnt watch the news? Most adults and/or teenagers watch the news and when they get the story; good or bad, they want the whole story, not false hope or worring that is unnessacery.
Q: Write one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the con side and one or two sentences that explain a good point made by the pro side:
Con Side:
- The people of America always have a right to know what's going on with their own country and military.
- Military families will be at ease knowing the whole and honest truth to what is going on in the war.
Pro Side:
- Even though Americans have the right to know the truth, the dont really need it.
- Seeing soldiers dead or American planes exploding wouldn't be good for the families of America.
Monday, April 23, 2007
The press in times of crisis
Due Tuesday 4/24 - The press in times of crisis
i wrote this by hand, so i will sometime put it in here....
I DID IT THOUGH!
promise!
i wrote this by hand, so i will sometime put it in here....
I DID IT THOUGH!
promise!
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Viewpoints 4/23
DUE MONDAY 4/23 Viewpoints
Read the handouts, chapters 1 and 2 (i.e. "Viewpoints 1 and 2").
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "There should be limits to free speech."
1. For chapter 1, write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
America is falling apart because of peoples' need to express themselves so much. People violate the limitations of what is protected by the government (what they will back you up on). On top of all this, the youth of our nation finds ways to access to things that corrupt them at a very young age. (for example; myspace, blogs, and the music kids listen to these days can be VERY conturversal and/or racist/homophobic/sexist as well as simply rebeling)
2. For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
Without the ability to say what we want, so many ideas and opinions would never get out to the world, and even if they did, chances are they would be either shot down, or not paied attention to. America is rebellious, if you give them strict rules; they are bound to break them. It took the founding people of our country a long time to develop the rights in which American Citizens have and those rights should stay in effect, the Ammendments.
3. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I think that many people, especially the younger generations, take advantage of their rights. They feel that they can say whatever they want, and if anyone tries to stop them, they can argue that they have "freedom of speech." I think there should be a certain point in which Citizens can be punished for over stepping the boundaries. But I think the real question is; where do the boundaries end? Of corse, when the words you say results in voilence, but what if it just promotes hatred? Free speech mixing with American citizens is never going to be settled, in my opinion at least.
Read the handouts, chapters 1 and 2 (i.e. "Viewpoints 1 and 2").
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "There should be limits to free speech."
1. For chapter 1, write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
America is falling apart because of peoples' need to express themselves so much. People violate the limitations of what is protected by the government (what they will back you up on). On top of all this, the youth of our nation finds ways to access to things that corrupt them at a very young age. (for example; myspace, blogs, and the music kids listen to these days can be VERY conturversal and/or racist/homophobic/sexist as well as simply rebeling)
2. For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
Without the ability to say what we want, so many ideas and opinions would never get out to the world, and even if they did, chances are they would be either shot down, or not paied attention to. America is rebellious, if you give them strict rules; they are bound to break them. It took the founding people of our country a long time to develop the rights in which American Citizens have and those rights should stay in effect, the Ammendments.
3. Write a paragraph where you state your opinion on the issue. It should include some evidence from the reading, but it does not have to follow each viewpoint to the letter. You can also include ideas and evidence from other sources or individuals.
I think that many people, especially the younger generations, take advantage of their rights. They feel that they can say whatever they want, and if anyone tries to stop them, they can argue that they have "freedom of speech." I think there should be a certain point in which Citizens can be punished for over stepping the boundaries. But I think the real question is; where do the boundaries end? Of corse, when the words you say results in voilence, but what if it just promotes hatred? Free speech mixing with American citizens is never going to be settled, in my opinion at least.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
4/19 Don Imus Controversy
DUE THUR 4/19 Don Imus Controversy
ANSWER ALL THREE QUESTIONS and post on your blog. Don't forget to put the questions in bold.
Short Answer: a few sentences for each question:
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP thinks that Imus should be silenced, one, for his rude remarks which are ractist as well as sexist and homophobic. More specifically though, what he said about the female Rutgers Basketball team. Not only do they say he is a problem because of his recent words, but he has also been making such comments for years, and they think it is finally time to do something about it.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Frank Rich believes that Don Imus should not be silenced because he considers it freedom of speech. Also, he mentions that Imus didn’t make crude remarks to one minority group, but several, so it isnt like he is targeting one specific group. He also says that it is Imus' free speech although it is true that CBS has a right to censor it because it is also what they want to be seen as supporting.
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
Personally I think they are blowing what he has done WAY out of purportion. I mean, yes, he shouldnt have said what he said, but is it really nessacary to ban him from his work/talent? I think not. I definatley understand that people are offended by what he says, but plenty of other people say things that arent even paied attention to. Yes, he should have had the common sense not to say the things he did/does but he did addmit that what he has done is finially coming back to bite him in the ass.
Another thing that i dont understand is that why is it such a big deal about what he said when other people out there have music and TV have things that are much worse. Also the african american population seems to freak out more than they should when something "offends" them. Although, they seem to think they can say whatever they want about caucasion people. I really dont think it should matter the color of your skin. THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU JUST CANT SAY! That means no matter what. Yes, if you are black and say something negativly to a white person, we should be able to say something back, disregaurding what might "offend" them. IT IS 2007 PEOPLE! NOT way back when where the african americans were slaves. I can understand the "N word" and how that shouldnt be used, because of where that word originated, but think about it. Why should they be able to say something about how bad/annoying/stupid/etc. a white person is and nothing is done? BUT when we say something about them... all hell is let loose. It just doesnt seem fair to me.
These days people of color/different race (other than white) always joke around and say things like "OH YOU'RE SO RACIST!" when I dont let them borrow a pencil for example... But GET REAL ALREADY! They flip out on the little things, even if it is in a joking matter. NO, I am not racist, I just think if someone says something "morally wrong" they should get punished equally, no matter what. What I am getting at is that Imus shouldnt get punished in such derastic measures, because sadly that fact is... And we all know it, that if a black person had an online air show putting down white people nothing would happen. It is unfortunate how they use our country's history to their advantage when racism hardly is even a big deal anymore. Yes, it still goes on, but NOTHING like how it used to be.
Basically people, of all races, need to GET OVER THEMSELVES and act like mature citizens of the United States. We all live here and need to get along. I think that all remarks, like the ones Imus has said, should just be kept to themselves OR to an audince who wants to hear it. Dont get it mixed in with people who get offended because all it causes is problems.
ANSWER ALL THREE QUESTIONS and post on your blog. Don't forget to put the questions in bold.
Short Answer: a few sentences for each question:
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP thinks that Imus should be silenced, one, for his rude remarks which are ractist as well as sexist and homophobic. More specifically though, what he said about the female Rutgers Basketball team. Not only do they say he is a problem because of his recent words, but he has also been making such comments for years, and they think it is finally time to do something about it.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Frank Rich believes that Don Imus should not be silenced because he considers it freedom of speech. Also, he mentions that Imus didn’t make crude remarks to one minority group, but several, so it isnt like he is targeting one specific group. He also says that it is Imus' free speech although it is true that CBS has a right to censor it because it is also what they want to be seen as supporting.
Long Answer: Write a short essay, w/ intro, body and conclusion, about 4-5 paragraphs with at least 4 sentences each.
3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
Personally I think they are blowing what he has done WAY out of purportion. I mean, yes, he shouldnt have said what he said, but is it really nessacary to ban him from his work/talent? I think not. I definatley understand that people are offended by what he says, but plenty of other people say things that arent even paied attention to. Yes, he should have had the common sense not to say the things he did/does but he did addmit that what he has done is finially coming back to bite him in the ass.
Another thing that i dont understand is that why is it such a big deal about what he said when other people out there have music and TV have things that are much worse. Also the african american population seems to freak out more than they should when something "offends" them. Although, they seem to think they can say whatever they want about caucasion people. I really dont think it should matter the color of your skin. THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU JUST CANT SAY! That means no matter what. Yes, if you are black and say something negativly to a white person, we should be able to say something back, disregaurding what might "offend" them. IT IS 2007 PEOPLE! NOT way back when where the african americans were slaves. I can understand the "N word" and how that shouldnt be used, because of where that word originated, but think about it. Why should they be able to say something about how bad/annoying/stupid/etc. a white person is and nothing is done? BUT when we say something about them... all hell is let loose. It just doesnt seem fair to me.
These days people of color/different race (other than white) always joke around and say things like "OH YOU'RE SO RACIST!" when I dont let them borrow a pencil for example... But GET REAL ALREADY! They flip out on the little things, even if it is in a joking matter. NO, I am not racist, I just think if someone says something "morally wrong" they should get punished equally, no matter what. What I am getting at is that Imus shouldnt get punished in such derastic measures, because sadly that fact is... And we all know it, that if a black person had an online air show putting down white people nothing would happen. It is unfortunate how they use our country's history to their advantage when racism hardly is even a big deal anymore. Yes, it still goes on, but NOTHING like how it used to be.
Basically people, of all races, need to GET OVER THEMSELVES and act like mature citizens of the United States. We all live here and need to get along. I think that all remarks, like the ones Imus has said, should just be kept to themselves OR to an audince who wants to hear it. Dont get it mixed in with people who get offended because all it causes is problems.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
4/18 Plato Reading
DUE WED 4/18 Plato Reading and Blog
Read all of section c. pp. 85-93 (start where the section begins on the bottom)
Answer one of the following questions or develop your own. Post the response on your blog. Don’t forget to include the question in bold on your blog.
2. What is your reaction to the ending of the section? What is good and/or bad about the type of society outlined by Socrates?
I think by illimatinating art as a form or expression, Socrates is basically asking for an outcry from the people. Citizens will want to be able to do what they want more if there are rules saying you cant do it. The overall outcome of saying that Art isnt a true way to make a difference will back fire.
Read all of section c. pp. 85-93 (start where the section begins on the bottom)
Answer one of the following questions or develop your own. Post the response on your blog. Don’t forget to include the question in bold on your blog.
2. What is your reaction to the ending of the section? What is good and/or bad about the type of society outlined by Socrates?
I think by illimatinating art as a form or expression, Socrates is basically asking for an outcry from the people. Citizens will want to be able to do what they want more if there are rules saying you cant do it. The overall outcome of saying that Art isnt a true way to make a difference will back fire.
Monday, March 26, 2007
3/27 Republic Assignment
DUE TUE 3/27 Republic Assignment
The Republic, Part III Education, Section 1. pp. 67-76
1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I think that people would want Homer censored because he brings out the light of peoples bad habits and doings. For example in the Iliad, there is killing, stealing, raping, hurting, cursing. All of these terrible things. I think that people would want this censored is because they are happy thinking that they are the greatest nation of all. They want to think that they only do good, and that the Gods only do good.
Then read pp. 67-76 (Section I. Secondary or Literary Education)
2. Short Answers
a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Representing the Gods as deceitful and troublesome.
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
The first main characteristic of "god" is that god is not the cause of all, but only good.
The second main characteristic of the gods is to never show deceit.
3. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
Well, pretty darn close :D
The Republic, Part III Education, Section 1. pp. 67-76
1. Short Paragraph – Personal Reflection: Before reading the selection from Plato write at least one full paragraph on this question: Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod? Remember that Hesiod was the poet who wrote about the fight between the gods and the titans.
I think that people would want Homer censored because he brings out the light of peoples bad habits and doings. For example in the Iliad, there is killing, stealing, raping, hurting, cursing. All of these terrible things. I think that people would want this censored is because they are happy thinking that they are the greatest nation of all. They want to think that they only do good, and that the Gods only do good.
Then read pp. 67-76 (Section I. Secondary or Literary Education)
2. Short Answers
a. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Representing the Gods as deceitful and troublesome.
b. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
The first main characteristic of "god" is that god is not the cause of all, but only good.
The second main characteristic of the gods is to never show deceit.
3. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
Well, pretty darn close :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
