1) Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.
The topic that I read was “protection of children.” This was about the first
Amendment. What it mostly talked about was how children should change, and not let kids view inappropriate things like porn. To me my resolution is to censor children from viewing things that are for adults. I think it should be against the law.
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck.
This topic is important because the effect that it does to children affects them and society as well. So if children are not being censored then the society will be harmed. So children need to be censored because they are our future and they shouldn’t watch things like porn.
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
Pro Side: One good point that the pro side made for this is that children should not have the same rights as an adult. This is because the children are still growing and everything they do, learn, and see will affect them sooner or later. Things that affect children are bad words, porn, and negative things.
Con Side: A good point that the con side made is that the 1st Amendment states that they guarantee everybody’s rights. Witch means that anybody can do anything they want no matter how bad and harmful it is.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Due Wed 4/25 - Jigsaw Activity
1) Give a quick explanation of the topic and propose a debate resolution of the topic.
The topic that I read was “protection of children.” This was about the first
Amendment. What it mostly talked about was how children should change, and not let kids view inappropriate things like porn. To me my resolution is to censor children from viewing things that are for adults. I think it should be against the law.
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck.
This topic is important because the effect that it does to children affects them and society as well. So if children are not being censored then the society will be harmed. So children need to be censored because they are our future and they shouldn’t watch things like porn.
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
Pro Side: One good point that the pro side made for this is that children should not have the same rights as an adult. This is because the children are still growing and everything they do, learn, and see will affect them sooner or later. Things that affect children are bad words, porn, and negative things.
Con Side: A good point that the con side made is that the 1st Amendment states that they guarantee everybody’s rights. Witch means that anybody can do anything they want no matter how bad and harmful it is.
The topic that I read was “protection of children.” This was about the first
Amendment. What it mostly talked about was how children should change, and not let kids view inappropriate things like porn. To me my resolution is to censor children from viewing things that are for adults. I think it should be against the law.
2) Explain why it is an important topic. You choose what to write about, but here are some suggestions if you are stuck.
This topic is important because the effect that it does to children affects them and society as well. So if children are not being censored then the society will be harmed. So children need to be censored because they are our future and they shouldn’t watch things like porn.
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
Pro Side: One good point that the pro side made for this is that children should not have the same rights as an adult. This is because the children are still growing and everything they do, learn, and see will affect them sooner or later. Things that affect children are bad words, porn, and negative things.
Con Side: A good point that the con side made is that the 1st Amendment states that they guarantee everybody’s rights. Witch means that anybody can do anything they want no matter how bad and harmful it is.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Due Wed 3/28 - Plato assignment
1. Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Homer (yesterday the question was about Hesiod)?
I think that Plato wants to censor Homer because the Iliad shows a lot of things you shouldn’t teach your children. For example Achilles is always killing people, he cries because his war prize is taken away, they use words that shouldn’t be used like punk, and the Iliad is full of anger and revenge. People don’t want their kids reading this because it sets a bad example like Hesiod with the gods. So I think that this is why someone will try to censor Homer.
2. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why?
Some aspects of poetry that should be banned are to stop talking about the after life, misrepresenting god with evil, the names in the underworld, and description of reputable characters. This is because it sends out the wrong message and it’s unsuitable for the ears of children.
3.What should poetry “teach” and why?
I don’t think that poetry should teach only one thing. I think poetry should teach a variety of things. For example it should about god, people, justice, law/government, culture, and society, because people need to know this, and it will help out the leaders to know this information.
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?
If I was talking to Plato I would tell him that I do agree with him. I think that poets should not write about the gods and heroes being bad. Also about people harming each other, and I do think it’s giving kids a bad example. So I would agree with him and tell him that I think he’s right, and I would follow his laws/principals.
I think that Plato wants to censor Homer because the Iliad shows a lot of things you shouldn’t teach your children. For example Achilles is always killing people, he cries because his war prize is taken away, they use words that shouldn’t be used like punk, and the Iliad is full of anger and revenge. People don’t want their kids reading this because it sets a bad example like Hesiod with the gods. So I think that this is why someone will try to censor Homer.
2. According to Plato, what are some aspects of poetry that should be banned and why?
Some aspects of poetry that should be banned are to stop talking about the after life, misrepresenting god with evil, the names in the underworld, and description of reputable characters. This is because it sends out the wrong message and it’s unsuitable for the ears of children.
3.What should poetry “teach” and why?
I don’t think that poetry should teach only one thing. I think poetry should teach a variety of things. For example it should about god, people, justice, law/government, culture, and society, because people need to know this, and it will help out the leaders to know this information.
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?
If I was talking to Plato I would tell him that I do agree with him. I think that poets should not write about the gods and heroes being bad. Also about people harming each other, and I do think it’s giving kids a bad example. So I would agree with him and tell him that I think he’s right, and I would follow his laws/principals.
Due Tue 3/27 - Republic Assignment
1. Why do you think Plato (or anyone else) would want to censor Hesiod?
I think that Plato would censor Hesiod because there’s probably something that Hesiod did wrong that Plato didn’t want people to know about. Or maybe it was not as important as other things that happened.
2. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Homer is guilty of misrepresenting gods, and it is not right so its better to not say anything about it, because it gives an idea that gods were bad when there good.
3. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
The two main characteristics of god are that god is perfect in beauty and goodness, and that god is without deceit or falsehood. So the principles that have to be followed are first that God is the cause, not of all things, but only of good, and that when you speak of god they shall not represented as using magic to disguise themselves nor as playing us false in word or deed.
4. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
My personal reflection was somehow true and had to do with what Plato wrote. This is because it is true that Hesiod did something wrong, he misrepresented god in his play. But I was wrong about it not being important as other things because god is a very important subject.
I think that Plato would censor Hesiod because there’s probably something that Hesiod did wrong that Plato didn’t want people to know about. Or maybe it was not as important as other things that happened.
2. What are Homer and Hesiod guilty of?
Homer is guilty of misrepresenting gods, and it is not right so its better to not say anything about it, because it gives an idea that gods were bad when there good.
3. What are the two main characteristics of “god” and what are the laws/principles of story telling based on those characteristics?
The two main characteristics of god are that god is perfect in beauty and goodness, and that god is without deceit or falsehood. So the principles that have to be followed are first that God is the cause, not of all things, but only of good, and that when you speak of god they shall not represented as using magic to disguise themselves nor as playing us false in word or deed.
4. Compare what you wrote in your personal reflection above (#1) with what Plato wrote. How close were you to what Plato wrote?
My personal reflection was somehow true and had to do with what Plato wrote. This is because it is true that Hesiod did something wrong, he misrepresented god in his play. But I was wrong about it not being important as other things because god is a very important subject.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Due Thr 3/22 - Prep for Seminar
In your opinion, is it ever right to harm somebody? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer?
I think that it is not right to harm anyone. But it is sometimes ok, but only as self defense. This is because if you harm someone they will harm you back its like karma. Its not right to harm someone unless they harm you first wich will be self defense. I think weather you like it or not you have to harm someone if they attack you because you cant just stand there and do nothing that’s why its okay to harm someone at one point. But it should not go to the point where you kill the person because you don’t have a right to take someone’s life away. I think that Socrates will probably response by agreeing because of the believe that sometimes you have to deviate from the law for justice.
I think that it is not right to harm anyone. But it is sometimes ok, but only as self defense. This is because if you harm someone they will harm you back its like karma. Its not right to harm someone unless they harm you first wich will be self defense. I think weather you like it or not you have to harm someone if they attack you because you cant just stand there and do nothing that’s why its okay to harm someone at one point. But it should not go to the point where you kill the person because you don’t have a right to take someone’s life away. I think that Socrates will probably response by agreeing because of the believe that sometimes you have to deviate from the law for justice.
Due wed 3/21 - Republic Assignment
1. 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 acting right can help or harm the person it depends on what brings happiness to them. For example if following the law doing the right things make you happy then acting right helps your achievement of happiness. But if you’re a rebel you like to break the law than acting right harms your achievement of happiness. To me right means doing what the law and justice says, and happiness is what makes you feel good and happy. I think that Thrasymachus will probably say that this is true because to him justice is the interest of the strong witch make the strong happy, but like I said if following the law doing the right thing makes you happy then there’s no problem.
In my opinion acting right can help or harm the person it depends on what brings happiness to them. For example if following the law doing the right things make you happy then acting right helps your achievement of happiness. But if you’re a rebel you like to break the law than acting right harms your achievement of happiness. To me right means doing what the law and justice says, and happiness is what makes you feel good and happy. I think that Thrasymachus will probably say that this is true because to him justice is the interest of the strong witch make the strong happy, but like I said if following the law doing the right thing makes you happy then there’s no problem.
Due Tue 3/20 - Republic Assignment
1. 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?
Socrates’ main arguments against the idea that justice is whatever the strong say are that the exercise of any skill is, as such, disinterested, and that right is for the interest of the strong, so the person’s actions positive way because when they make justice it will suit there own interest.
2. What are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Thrasymahcus two main points are that political power is the exploitation of a class by another, and that justice is the interest of the stronger party, injustice is the interest and profit of oneself. Socrates’ two main points in response were that each professional skill brings its own peculiar benefit, and that no one really wants to look for other types of authority.
3. In your opinion, does injustice pay? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer.
I think that injustice does not pay off most of the time. Or at least what you do get paid is not enough to help you out or make you happy. And when justice is done since your not a strong person then it pays to the strong and not you. Thrasymahcus will probably agree with me because my idea comes from what he said, ‘Justice is the interest of the stronger party, injustice the interest and profit of oneself.”
Socrates’ main arguments against the idea that justice is whatever the strong say are that the exercise of any skill is, as such, disinterested, and that right is for the interest of the strong, so the person’s actions positive way because when they make justice it will suit there own interest.
2. What are Thrasymahcus’ two main points and what are Socrates’ two main points in response?
Thrasymahcus two main points are that political power is the exploitation of a class by another, and that justice is the interest of the stronger party, injustice is the interest and profit of oneself. Socrates’ two main points in response were that each professional skill brings its own peculiar benefit, and that no one really wants to look for other types of authority.
3. In your opinion, does injustice pay? Why or why not? What would Socrates and/or Thrasymachus say in response to your answer.
I think that injustice does not pay off most of the time. Or at least what you do get paid is not enough to help you out or make you happy. And when justice is done since your not a strong person then it pays to the strong and not you. Thrasymahcus will probably agree with me because my idea comes from what he said, ‘Justice is the interest of the stronger party, injustice the interest and profit of oneself.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)