Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.
Page 63 Section 35c : "But apart from all question of appearances, gentlemen, I do not think that it is just for a man to appeal to the jury or to get himself acquitted by doing so; he ought to inform them of the facts and convince them by argument"
I chose this statement from Socrates' trail because I thought it once again showed him in the democratic and just light. These type of statements would have really helped Socrates out if it wasn't for the jury's predetermend decision. It made the situation seem like Socrates was a saint and the prosecution as unjust jerks. After reading this I really started to side with Socrates and believing that he was in the right while his prosecutors were really criminals who thought that they were above the law.
5.17.2007
5.16.2007
The Apology 5/17
Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph (at least 4 sentences) that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion.
Page 52 Section 27a: "You are not at all convincing, Meletus; not even to yourself I suspect."
I chose this because it really showed how easy Socrates was able to bend the prosecution's words and turn it right back on them. Here the prosecution was claming that he didn't believe in the Gods at all and Socrates simply shakes it off and showes him how he is contradicting himself. In the trial it would have been right there, that if I were a juror I would have really thought twice about my pre-chosen conviction of guilty. I think that this part shows how unfair the trail really was despite how easily Socrates was able to show his innocence.
Page 52 Section 27a: "You are not at all convincing, Meletus; not even to yourself I suspect."
I chose this because it really showed how easy Socrates was able to bend the prosecution's words and turn it right back on them. Here the prosecution was claming that he didn't believe in the Gods at all and Socrates simply shakes it off and showes him how he is contradicting himself. In the trial it would have been right there, that if I were a juror I would have really thought twice about my pre-chosen conviction of guilty. I think that this part shows how unfair the trail really was despite how easily Socrates was able to show his innocence.
5.15.2007
The Apology 5/16
Indicate one sentence that you highlighted or underlined (give page number and section number) and write a short paragraph that explains why you underlined it or highlighted it. Be prepared to share this in discussion:
"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft."
I think that what this is saying is that just because we as humans desire high quality things does not make us greedy, it is simply human nature. Human nature makes you want exiusate things but that doesn't make you extravagant, that only makes you human. And when it says that the love of the mind doesn't make you soft, I think that that means that just because you are concerned with things that men aren't nesscesarily expected to concern themselves with (i.e. combat) doesn't make you any less of the man and instead makes you more of one.
"Our love of what is beautiful does not lead to extravagance; our love of the things of the mind does not make us soft."
I think that what this is saying is that just because we as humans desire high quality things does not make us greedy, it is simply human nature. Human nature makes you want exiusate things but that doesn't make you extravagant, that only makes you human. And when it says that the love of the mind doesn't make you soft, I think that that means that just because you are concerned with things that men aren't nesscesarily expected to concern themselves with (i.e. combat) doesn't make you any less of the man and instead makes you more of one.
Pericles Funeral Oration 5/15
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.
- They try to make a government others want to model
- They don't try to build walls or borders around their land; they are open to the world
- Individuals are not only interested in them selves but in the government and state's as well.
- They make friends by doing good to others, not by receiving good from them.
4.24.2007
Jigsaw 4/25
1) Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic. (a couple of sentences)
My section talks about how the aftermath effects on American citizens brought forth an extremely sensitive situation involving free speech. A good resolution would be that it was not right for the media to censor pundits and opinions that rebelled against the President or provide a second opinion on the happenings of 9/11
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)
The censorship that the media and hollywood placed on people who had minority opinions was wrong because it envoked our constitutional right for free speech, but at the same time you have to use your brain before you speek. You understand that the nation is in a very sensitve greeving point and you should accept that when making a statement that could be strewed as offensive or hurtful. Now that doesn't mean you can't say it but it means that you should think before you speak.
3) 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 (2-4 sentences total).
I think the best point was brought up by the conclusion of the con argument. "The Hollywood celebrities on the left think they can do or say whatever they please and face no criticism or consequences. It's time for them to wake up and join the real world. Until then, our First Amendment rights continue to be strong. Just as strong are the consequencese for using those First Amendment rights without first using our brain." I used this quote because I thought that it really summed up their points well.
My section talks about how the aftermath effects on American citizens brought forth an extremely sensitive situation involving free speech. A good resolution would be that it was not right for the media to censor pundits and opinions that rebelled against the President or provide a second opinion on the happenings of 9/11
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck: How does it impact your constitutional rights? Can it impact your daily life? Does it empower or disempowered you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)
The censorship that the media and hollywood placed on people who had minority opinions was wrong because it envoked our constitutional right for free speech, but at the same time you have to use your brain before you speek. You understand that the nation is in a very sensitve greeving point and you should accept that when making a statement that could be strewed as offensive or hurtful. Now that doesn't mean you can't say it but it means that you should think before you speak.
3) 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 (2-4 sentences total).
I think the best point was brought up by the conclusion of the con argument. "The Hollywood celebrities on the left think they can do or say whatever they please and face no criticism or consequences. It's time for them to wake up and join the real world. Until then, our First Amendment rights continue to be strong. Just as strong are the consequencese for using those First Amendment rights without first using our brain." I used this quote because I thought that it really summed up their points well.
Freedom of Speech in Times of Crises
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "The press should be censored in times of crisis."
1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
I read the first section which was about the pro side of the resolution. Carlos A. Kelly is trying to say that sometimes the media should not disclose all military information. During times of crisis, such as a war, successful military operations are more important than letting sensitive information out to the public and risking defeat. Often, secrecy and silence is important to winning a war quickly and well. Media decision makers should use their judgment and common sense when covering military matters. Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. Kelly says that freedom of speech is tempered by “the circumstances in which it is done”.
2) 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 don’t necessarily think that the media should be censored during times of crisis, but I do think that they should use their judgment and not publish something that might make the situation worse. I said before that the media should not be censored and they should report the straight up, unbiased facts, unfortunatly I doubt that that is possible. I also think that what I don’t know won’t hurt me. I would rather win a war smoothly than know every detail about the war. In addition, I think that negative media coverage gets very tiring after a while and I don’t know how this could help during a time of crisis. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and I understand that it is an essential part of democracy; however I think that limited and temporary restrictions on media coverage are necessary.
1) Indicate whether your reading selection is pro or con for the above resolution and write three things that support the pro or con position on this issue.
I read the first section which was about the pro side of the resolution. Carlos A. Kelly is trying to say that sometimes the media should not disclose all military information. During times of crisis, such as a war, successful military operations are more important than letting sensitive information out to the public and risking defeat. Often, secrecy and silence is important to winning a war quickly and well. Media decision makers should use their judgment and common sense when covering military matters. Just because you can publish something, doesn’t mean that it is right to do so. Kelly says that freedom of speech is tempered by “the circumstances in which it is done”.
2) 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 don’t necessarily think that the media should be censored during times of crisis, but I do think that they should use their judgment and not publish something that might make the situation worse. I said before that the media should not be censored and they should report the straight up, unbiased facts, unfortunatly I doubt that that is possible. I also think that what I don’t know won’t hurt me. I would rather win a war smoothly than know every detail about the war. In addition, I think that negative media coverage gets very tiring after a while and I don’t know how this could help during a time of crisis. I believe in freedom of speech and the press, and I understand that it is an essential part of democracy; however I think that limited and temporary restrictions on media coverage are necessary.
Viewpoint 4/23
Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "There should be limits to free speech."
1) Write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
In my opinion a sprinkling of censorship isn't a bad thing. Jonah Goldberg says that people, but particularly the media, has been brain washed to think that censorship is always a major threat to our freedom. Many people everywhere think that obscenity such as poop covered paintings are beautiful examples of free expression while democratic debate is censored. Jonah Goldberg says: If you believe that all free speech should be allowed, do you think that TV channels should be able to run pornography?
2) Write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
The ACLU says that without freedom of speech, democracy is impossible. People’s opinions, even if it is unpopular or hateful, should be protected in order to protect the freedom that the First Amendment gives to all Americans. The ACLU says that if only popular ideas were protected we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. If you learn about hateful ideas and speech, that is the best protection that we have against it. JS Mills says that freedom of speech is vital to the advancement of knowledge and truth.
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 find myself as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and freedom of speech but I also think that some little things should be censored. For example, I do not think it would be alright for cartoon network to run pornography on Saturday morning. I definitely think that everyone should be able to express what they think and have opinions. I don’t think that people should say things that are stupid and hurtful to other people. I also believe in the free market of ideas and I think that expressing your own thoughts and communicating freely furthers society and your life.
1) Write three things based on the reading that supports the above resolution. This is the "pro" argument.
In my opinion a sprinkling of censorship isn't a bad thing. Jonah Goldberg says that people, but particularly the media, has been brain washed to think that censorship is always a major threat to our freedom. Many people everywhere think that obscenity such as poop covered paintings are beautiful examples of free expression while democratic debate is censored. Jonah Goldberg says: If you believe that all free speech should be allowed, do you think that TV channels should be able to run pornography?
2) Write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
The ACLU says that without freedom of speech, democracy is impossible. People’s opinions, even if it is unpopular or hateful, should be protected in order to protect the freedom that the First Amendment gives to all Americans. The ACLU says that if only popular ideas were protected we wouldn’t need the First Amendment. If you learn about hateful ideas and speech, that is the best protection that we have against it. JS Mills says that freedom of speech is vital to the advancement of knowledge and truth.
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 find myself as a strong supporter of the First Amendment and freedom of speech but I also think that some little things should be censored. For example, I do not think it would be alright for cartoon network to run pornography on Saturday morning. I definitely think that everyone should be able to express what they think and have opinions. I don’t think that people should say things that are stupid and hurtful to other people. I also believe in the free market of ideas and I think that expressing your own thoughts and communicating freely furthers society and your life.
4.18.2007
Don Imus Assignment 4/19
Short Answer: a few sentences for each question:
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP is worried that Imus' statements will enforce bigotry and homophobia in society. They also say that it could cheapen people's views on minorities and women and further promote negative veiws on those people by making racist and sexist comments.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
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?
The Don Imus statement was a very serious one. But before judgment can be dished out, you must first look at the situation on both sides before making an opinion on the matter. In the following paragraphs I will tell you my opionion on the controversy after I had reviewed both sides of the battlefield.
Don Imus may not have made the smartest decision to open his mouth that day and utter what might be his downfall, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. As a matter of fact it is his civil right to say whatever he wants to say about anything. The first amendment in the constitution is the right to free speech and this is exactly what he was exersizing. Imus' comment probably wasn't the smartest decision but it was his decision and everybody else needs to deal with it.
Another great thing about our country is our level of technology. We have the technology to broadcast radiowaves across the country so that one little voice can reach the ears of hundreds of millions. Now if these hundreds of millions happend to be angered or offended by the opinions of one person we also have this great little technological advancement of radio tuners which can be moved. If you don't like one radio jock's opinion, switch the channel!
Honestly I think that it was a shame that Imus was put out of a job and will probably screwed over for the rest of his life as he will be branded a racist and sexist and will have a very hard time keeping or reciving a job. I hope that he is able to find a home on XM or Sirrius radio so that people, who would like to hear his constitutionally provided opinions, can. Fortunatly I do not believe that he was fired strictly because of what he said. While the reason does have to do with it, it is probably more due to the loss of advertisement money and listener approval; and not because CBS and MSNBC were acting against our rights.
I happen to be a strong believer in the right to free speech and highly against censorship because the priviledge to be able to be exposed to uncensored opinions and thoughts is what make our citizens different. They are able to think for themselves and form their own thoughts on events and happenings. Who are the NAACP to come into the situation to tell people that they shouldn't be able to listen to somebody's opinion? where is the democracy in that? if I am talking to a friend about something the the NAACP doesn't like, are they going to come tell me that I can't continue to say that because it might offend my friend? of course not! this is America people, we have the freedom to think, feel, and decide without the help of Big Brother and that's what makes us great.
1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
The NAACP is worried that Imus' statements will enforce bigotry and homophobia in society. They also say that it could cheapen people's views on minorities and women and further promote negative veiws on those people by making racist and sexist comments.
2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Frank Rich's main point is that freedom of speech makes it so that you have the freedom to say whatever you want no matter what affects that it has. Rich also points out that Imus isn't the only comedian or shock jock that could face reprocusions from the desicion to can him.
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?
The Don Imus statement was a very serious one. But before judgment can be dished out, you must first look at the situation on both sides before making an opinion on the matter. In the following paragraphs I will tell you my opionion on the controversy after I had reviewed both sides of the battlefield.
Don Imus may not have made the smartest decision to open his mouth that day and utter what might be his downfall, but he shouldn't be condemned for it. As a matter of fact it is his civil right to say whatever he wants to say about anything. The first amendment in the constitution is the right to free speech and this is exactly what he was exersizing. Imus' comment probably wasn't the smartest decision but it was his decision and everybody else needs to deal with it.
Another great thing about our country is our level of technology. We have the technology to broadcast radiowaves across the country so that one little voice can reach the ears of hundreds of millions. Now if these hundreds of millions happend to be angered or offended by the opinions of one person we also have this great little technological advancement of radio tuners which can be moved. If you don't like one radio jock's opinion, switch the channel!
Honestly I think that it was a shame that Imus was put out of a job and will probably screwed over for the rest of his life as he will be branded a racist and sexist and will have a very hard time keeping or reciving a job. I hope that he is able to find a home on XM or Sirrius radio so that people, who would like to hear his constitutionally provided opinions, can. Fortunatly I do not believe that he was fired strictly because of what he said. While the reason does have to do with it, it is probably more due to the loss of advertisement money and listener approval; and not because CBS and MSNBC were acting against our rights.
I happen to be a strong believer in the right to free speech and highly against censorship because the priviledge to be able to be exposed to uncensored opinions and thoughts is what make our citizens different. They are able to think for themselves and form their own thoughts on events and happenings. Who are the NAACP to come into the situation to tell people that they shouldn't be able to listen to somebody's opinion? where is the democracy in that? if I am talking to a friend about something the the NAACP doesn't like, are they going to come tell me that I can't continue to say that because it might offend my friend? of course not! this is America people, we have the freedom to think, feel, and decide without the help of Big Brother and that's what makes us great.
Republic Assignment 4/18
1) 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 that Socrates ideas will be bad for society and would put them into a kind of state similar to what was protrayed in Fahrenheit 451. By censoring things in society you are taking away part of the human mind that allows everybody to make their own opinions and decisions on topics. By taking this right away, you are dumbing down society and numbing them.
I think that Socrates ideas will be bad for society and would put them into a kind of state similar to what was protrayed in Fahrenheit 451. By censoring things in society you are taking away part of the human mind that allows everybody to make their own opinions and decisions on topics. By taking this right away, you are dumbing down society and numbing them.
4.16.2007
Best Comment Award 4/17
I agree with Dulce and Paige that this is a great peice because of the fact you used descriptive writing. I also see that you used great vocabulary like climatic....i had no clue wat that ment until i read it in your writing. i also get mad when mr. commerson does not let us out on time.
I thought that this was the best comment because it illustrated how he felt about my piece. It also had his own opinion on the matter and something that he actually learned which I thought was cool. Thanks Lishane!
I thought that this was the best comment because it illustrated how he felt about my piece. It also had his own opinion on the matter and something that he actually learned which I thought was cool. Thanks Lishane!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
