Jigsaw...

1) Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic. (a couple of sentences)

My topic for reading is supposed to be about the Patriot Act. Unfortunately I did not get the packet. So I will be writing about the patriot act in general. I think a good resolution for this topic would be that the Patriot Act has increased censorship.

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 dis empowered 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 Patriot Act is a really important topic because it has taken away our privacy as citizens. The patriot act was taken to effect only 15 days after the attacks of 9/11 due to the increase of terrorist attacks. This act definitely impacts daily life. And the worst part is that we may not know when we get spied on. The Patriot Act says that it gives government officials the right to wire tap a suspect and track down e-mail connections that may contain clues to a another terrorist attack. I think this dis empowers us as individuals because we are being spied on.

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).

Con: Crime rates have plunged due to FBI and local cops.
Pro: Government Officials can track down future terrorist attacks through local communications and wiretaps.

Viewpoints due 4/24

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.
Since my reading of the packet says that the press should practice self censorship, i would guess that it id for the PRO side. For starters, if a reporter is out in the middle of war they might report on something that the U.S military might keep hiding and thus expose our plan to the enemies.(For those watching). Secondly, recently there have been attacks made by the army to the reporters because they have been getting in the way. Finally, the press, if they have a copy of good news, should know what to air and what not to.


AND


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 think that the press should not be silenced completely like in the Virginia Tech incident but they should not get in the way of soldiers when out in the battle. Soldiers have a duty and they have to achieve it. It's hard enough risking your life and keeping secret plans secret, but then having a reporter in your face?
Come on!
that's what I think.

Viewpoints 4/23

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.
a) Keeping Adult content from children T.V. channels
b) Freedom of Press
c) Calling censorship something else due to the laws that prohibit it.(Responsible policy)

2) For chapter 2, write three things based on the reading that goes against the above resolution. This is the "con" argument.
a) W/out free speech we would have no say in ideas
b) Rather than helping the minorities, censorship brings them down
c) Freedom of Speech is the foundation for a great society


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.
a) My view in this censorship debate is that people should be able to express their ideas but there should be limits to how much you can say. Screaming out the "N" word at African American people is past the line Somewhere n between those lines we should be able to say. Another thing; people usually want to sensor out someone just for their own benefits. Like the Don Imus controversy for example. The NAACP took it far with that one. They got Don Imus fired even after he apologized and the women accepted it. Another thing; he was a comedian. Sometimes comedians say crude mean stuff that they don't actually mean which makes people laugh. The NAACP should have known that. This is what I think.

Don Imus Controversy 4/18

1. According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
A. According to NAACP, Imus should be silenced for his racial blur towards African American women; more specifically towards the Rutgers women's basketball team.

2. According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
A. According to Frank Rich, Imus should not be silenced because since he has been in his show, Frank has seen that Imus makes fun of all people. The racial blur that he said was meant to be a joke, but somehow people took it the wring way.

3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?

3. Do you think Imus should be silenced? Why?
A.

Don Imus has shared what’s in his mind a lot of times. He makes fun of all people. He is a comedian born July 23, 1940. Many comedians find anything to make fun of. The most commonly used subjects though have to do with racist offenses. Somehow, we have grown to know that some of the jokes are just for laughs. Especially those made from comedians.

Just recently, Don Imus was kicked off his own show for making a racist comment against African American women. He was known for making such comments, so why were people making a big deal out of this one? This is why I say Imus should not be censored completely.

The NAACP has taken this too far. Taking a man off his show just because he said something that many other people have said, that is not fair. We hear many of these comments in our daily lives through rap and all sorts of music. So why just go against this one man? Many comedians have said such comments. For example Carlos Mencia. In his show he has always said many racist jokes, even of his own, but people do not seem offended. So why did all of a sudden Don Imus’ comment have so many bad consequences? If it were up to me, I would not strip him of what he has; I would just have him do community service or something.

In conclusion, Don Imus should not have gotten the punishment he got for what he said. Later on he even apologized directly to the women that got offended (The Rutgers Basketball team) and they accepted the apology. Why is the NAACP so interested even after the apology? I say the NAACP has blown this out of proportion and they are the racists in this case.

I believe that Imus should not be silenced.

Plato 4/17

Q) 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 his ideas are not right. They will have a bad impact on the society. By removing certain ideas that we know are not real and completely thinking that they are wrong will cause confusion all around. By adapting to this we will soon forget we ever had "art" and will lower our intelligence. They will start moving backwards rather than progressing. Having more knowledge is better.

The Republic 2/27

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 Homer?
I think they would ban Homer because since there are many conflicts and talk about who is right and who is wrong, it would stir their minds and incite violence. They just want people to be calm and not dangerous.

a. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why? In other words, how can poetry undermine the education of a Guardian?

Some parts of poetry that would undermine the education of a guardian would probably have to be that poetry is strong. It tells a story through its powerful words and if one would read them they would feel empowered and will try to things outside the guardians choice.

b. What should poetry “teach” and why?
I think poetry should teach people how to be themselves. If they talk about what is “right” in the world, it will cause many problems because people will start fights. It is right to have an opinion on something small but if you try to explain what justice is, that is a big topic and many people have their own views on it.

4) If you were talking to Plato what would you say to him? Do you agree with his ideas? Do you think poetry, or literature in general, should be put to the purposes that he says it should?

I am not sure about what I would say but I would start by saying that I do not tally agree with his ideas. Poetry should be to have fun and express your life etc..not judge someone or criticize them.

The Republic 2/26

Q.) 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.

A.) I think they want to censor it because they have no real evidence of gods and the titans ever existing and there is no logic in that. It goes against what they believe in and they think it is wrong. The Theogony talks about the origins of the world and the gods and Plato thinks that was not true.

Q) What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?

A.) Misinterpreting the other beliefs.

Q) What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?

A.) They say that god is all the good things and will cause not trouble. God is supposed to be seen as reality which is good and just.

Q) Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?

A.) I was right in a way because they thought it was nonsense to believe in something not true.

Republic Assignment 3/21

In your opinion, does injustice pay? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?

In my opinion, I think that injustice does pay. Law breakers pay for the trouble they have caused by taking away their liberty, their freedoms. We do this by sending them to jail. But I think that even when they do go to jail, those people will just not learn there lesson. Especially if someone ratted them out. Because once they are out they are out to get that person that got them busted. And once they hurt that person they will just go back to jail. But overall I think that injustice does pay, they just don't learn their lesson though.

Republic Assingment 3/20

In your opinion, how can acting “right” (i.e. justly) help or harm the achievement of happiness? In your answer you need to first establish, in true Socratic fashion, what you mean by "right" (justice) and what you mean by happiness. What do you think Socrates would say about what you wrote and/or what do you think Thrasymachus would say?

In my opinion I believe that acting “right” can sometimes harm your achievement of happiness because maybe sometimes you won’t like doing the right thing so you won’t be happy. For example doing chores. If you do them you are doing the right thing but you may not like doing them. It could also help out happiness though if you think of it through the way of honesty. For example, if you find a $20 bill on the ground and you return it to the person and they in return say “you can keep it, thanks for your honesty” that would be better than finding it and keeping it because you will feel guilty and feel bad about your actions. I do not know what Socrates Thrasymachus would say in return though.

The Republic 3/19

Q) Notice that our reading on Thrasymachus is divided into two parts. The first part is entitled – “First Statement and Criticisms”. In this first part, what are Socrates’ main argument(s) against the idea that justice is whatever the strong (i.e. the government) says it is?

A.) He is basically stating that the leaders are always making decisions for their own liking. Therefore making whatever they say the law and anyone opposing it is against the law. If a leader gives a bad order and damages/hurts anyone it is against the law but since the leader said it is not. It is weird how stuff can counteract with each other.

Q) In the second part – “Second Statement and Final Refutation” – what are Thrasymachus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?

A.) Thrasymarchus’ two main points are that 'justice is the interest of the stronger party' and that injustice is the interest and profit of oneself'. I cant really remember what Socrates said in return.

Q.) In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymarchus say in response to your answer?

A.) In my opinion I don’t really think it is ever right to harm anyone. There are only few times when it is right though, as in self defense for example. If you are out on the streets and you are being robbed and hit you will not just stand there and take the pain, your first instinct will be to attack back. I think Socrates would say that if it was never right to harm anyone the person robbing would not think of hurting you.

Republic Assignment

I. Answer the following questions – short answer (about a couple of sentences or more)

Q. Who are Cephalus and Polemarchus?

A. They are friends of Socrates. Cephalus is the dad and his son is Polemarchus.

Q. What is the profession of Cephalus?

A. Business

Q. What was Cephalus doing right before the discussion that took place?

A. some sacrifice

Q. According to Cephalus, what are the virtues of old age?

A. Knowledge of what is ahead and experiences the young have not yet had.

Q. What are Cephalus’ view of justice?

A. He believes it’s paying your debts and not lying.

Q. What is Socrates response?

A. Socrates gives a short story exposing some of its flaws. He says there are times where you do not pay your debts and you lie.

II. Write a one paragraph response to the following question:

Do you agree with Cephaus or with Socrates? Why? If you don't agree with either of them, write about which one you think makes the stronger arguement - even if you think it is not "right" - and why?

A. I will have to say I go with Cephaus because he has years and years of experience to give forth an answer. All Socrates has been doing is disprove someone else’s ideas and make them think differently. I have not (yet) seen Socrates put forth an answer.

Plato(personal reflection and assignment)

Section 1

Short responses 2-5 sentences

Q. In your opinion, is Polemarchus definition of justice, derived from the poet Simonedes, an improvement from his father’s definition?

A. I think it is because at first they said justice was to do good to friends and harm your enemies and now they say hat is bad because by doing harm to your enemies you will only make them worse and I agree with that.

Q. What is Simonides definition of justice? Has Polemarchus interpreted him correctly?

A. Simonedes says that justice is to help your friends and hurt your enemies. This is how Polemarchus interpreted him.

Q. What problem does Socrates see in the phrase, “helping one’s friends and harming ones enemies”? Why is this not an accurate definition of justice?

A. He says that people base their judgments on human likes and dislikes so it does not apply to all. A friend you say is a friend might not be good and an enemy you say is an enemy might not be bad. This is not accurate because it is based on your own personal emotions.

Q. What lesson do you think Socrates/Plato is trying to prove by having Polemarchus give in to Socrates when his father (Cephalus) would not?

A. I don’t really understand what this question is asking but I am guessing its is showing that adult minds are more concrete and are not willing to change while a child’s mind is not. It is more open.

Q. Whose argument do you find more convincing, Polemarchus or Socrates? Why? (This should be a longer response, short paragraph, about 5 sentences).

A. Socrates is not actually giving an argument as much as just proving that Polemarchus is wrong. He is not one to argue but to see people’s arguments and see its problems. Then maybe change their perspectives in it.

In one paragraph (or more) define what a friend is and how you should act towards a friend?

A friend is someone who will not harm you or go against you in any way. They will do favors for you and you will be able to do the same for them. Good friends are loyal to one another. You should act respectively to them and goof around as long as you know when to stop.

Plato. “The Simile of the Cave.” The Republic.

Section 2:

1. Compare and contrast what Socrates says in “The Simile of the Cave” with Fahrenheit 451. How are characters like Mildred similar to characters in “Simile of the Cave”?

- There are many similarities with this book and Fahrenheit 451. For one Socrates is talking to Glaucon. He told him to imagine a cave where there would be people shackled and will not be able to look anywhere but straight. By doing this you will be setting them apart. They will have projected images coming from the fire and they will only have that image to tell what it is. They will not know it is only a shadow unless they look back and see it for themselves. And until they see the real image/object they will know that they have been living lies all their lives. This is just like in F.451 because they have been living a lie. The only thing left that would tell them the truth were the books and they have been burning them. This here has been setting them apart. They have been running away from what’s real. Some contrasts though, about them, is that people in Plato, like Glaucon, are willing to listen and understand. He is being proven something else and he is accepting. When Socrates is asking him something he answers “yes” because he knows it’s true unlike F.451 where they were not willing to accept it.

Socrates has been talking to Glaucon and has been questioning him. Glaucon believes in something else and yet has been falling for what Socrates is saying. Socrates has been extracting the truth out of him.

Lies I tell you!!

Recall a time that you heard a statement of “fact” that was later found to be untrue. It can be from a parent, a teacher, a friend, a government official, a book, or a film. How did you find out it was untrue and how did it make you feel? Did it change your outlook on anything?

-I can't really remember a good time where that happened but there was this one time when i was at a fair, a policeman was handing out stickers and so i go ask for one and he says he has no more. Then later on i see a kid who had a sticker. I asked him and he said he got it from the policeman. i ask him, "when did you get it" he says, "right now" he was like third person waiting in line on back of me.

Iliad book 16(Read pp. 434-441 lines 800 - end)

Simply summarize the main points and ask questions.

Summary:
Basically what happened was that Patroclus did not listen to Achilles and goes off to war.
there the people mistake him for Achilles and is feared by all. Hector then stabs him in the chest and kills him.

Pride and its consequences

I think a time when my pride had bad outcomes would have to be when I was at the arcade. I was playing the skill crane. I got so confident that i was going to win a prize since i had played before and won. So i decide to play one more time and i lost it. I tried again and still no. I ended up wasting 5 dollars and got nothing in return.

The Iliad Book 16 – “Patroclus Fights and Dies” (pp. 412-421 lines 1-333)

1. What does Patroclus propose to Achilles and what is Achilles’ response? Why does Achilles grant Patroclus’ request?
Patroclus proposes that when he goes to fight, he wears Achilles' armor and Achilles says yes because its like the war has already ended. they are losing.

2. On p. 413 line 35 (approximately), Patroclus tells Achilles that Achilles is “cursed in [his] own courage.” What does Patroclus mean by that and do you agree with him?
I think he means that his courage is why he is feeling bad. It's what caused his "downfall". I totally agree with him because Achilles needs not learn where to stop but no, he keeps on going.Arguing.

Iliad book 9 (pp. 266-275 lines 521-869 )

2. What was your opinion of Achilles before reading Book 9? Does it change after reading Book 9? Explain why or why not.
Before reading book 9 i always thought Achilles was the man to look up to. He was a courageous brave fighter. He did not let anyone bring him down. He fought for what he wanted and did not settle for less. Now that i read this section i feel like he has lost it all. Before he would not care of his actions and just did what he wanted. Now he thinks about it first. To me he seems more "human".

3.

Who is speaking? Phoenix

What does that person say and to whom does he say it? To Achilles, he starts talking about him and how hi dad helped him a lot. he says the he himself took care of him and was hoping for Achilles to return the favor, which is to fight.

What persuasive strategy is it? This would probably go in two. In Reason and Emotion.

I say this because he is reasoning with him yet he touches on a topic of emotion

Who is speaking? Phoenix

What does that person say and to whom does he say it to? To: Achilles, he says that he should fight for his country since he needs to let his anger out by fighting.

What persuasive strategy is it? This appeals to reason because he has the energy and the reason to fight.

Iliad Reading(book 9)

1. Write a question. It can be an interpretive question that you have an opinion on or something about the text that you don't understand. You do not need to write the answer.
- After reading this section I am getting the impression that Agamemnon has changed. He has thrown a banquet and has called on some warriors and has said that they cannot over throw/ take over Troy. But I did not understand it very clearly.

2. What was your opinion of Agamemnon before reading this section? Does your opinion of him change after reading it? Why or why not? A one paragraph reply is fine, minimum of 6 solid sentences, but you are encouraged to write more.
- I am going to write my opinion on what I understood. My opinion on him changed due to the fact that his attitude has gotten better. Not a lot but now he accepts is mistakes. At least from what I understood. One example that I found, and saw that some of the students did too, was on page 255 lines 137 through 139. it goes like “That’s no lie old man, a full account you give of all my acts of madness…” this is saying that Ag. Knows about his mistakes he has made.

3. At various points in the text some characters attempt to persuade other characters to take a course of action. Examples of characters using persuasion include Nestor, Odysseus, and Ajax. Make a list of the persuasive strategy used by these characters, following this format:


1.) Who is speaking? Nestor
What does that person say and to whom does he say it?
To: Diomedes
He says: “Few can match your power in battle, Diomedes, and in council you excel all men your age…”
What persuasive strategy does this appeal to?
This appeals to emotion since it is complimenting him.

2.) Who is speaking?
Agamemnon
What does the person say and to whom does he say to?
To: Achilles
He says I lost the line number but it says he will offer all these items of interest just so he could forgive him. (This is another thing that really changed my ideas about Agamemnon)
What persuasive strategy does this appeal to?
I can’t think of a specific thing this topic would go under because its more like bribing him into doing something.

Friend Fight

In your blog write about a time when you had a big disagreement with a friend - or other person - that led you or the other person to regret things that were said or done.

I can’t really remember a time when me and a friend fought. I am sure I have but I can’t think of the details or why.

(ill keep this post they way it is and will add more to it later.)