DUE FRIDAY 5/18 Apology Reading pp. 61-70

Highlighted section: P.69 section 40e-(end of)41a Summarized: "Death would be a nice punishment because I will get to see my friends again. Please kill me, i would like to see them."

I almost understand why Socrates would say this. I do not get this because he is trying a bit to hard to give the judges guilt trip. It seams unnecessary to go to that length of making someone feel bad about themselves. Yet at the same time it seems effective... but only if he told the judges before he was sentenced to death!

DUE THR 5/17 The Apology pp. 51-61

Sentence highlighted: p.52 section 27a: 'Socrates is guilty of not believing in the gods, but believing in the gods.' And this is pure flippancy.

I chose this sentence for a hopefully obvious reason. That reason is that this sentence makes no sense at all. Meletus says that Socrates is guilty and not guilty of believing in the gods. Either this sentence was written wrong or I am confused on what Meletus is trying to say. I will ask for clarification on Thursday.

DUE WED 5/16 The Apology

Sentence I highlighted: p46-47 section b I highlighted the first full paragraph. Summarized it says that he is so actively religious that it has reduced him to poverty.

This is important because he was charged of not being religious. So if this paragraph states that he is very active in the practice he couldn't have been non-religious. that said, there is one less offense toward Socrates. Also, it shows how dumb the prosecutors were in convicting him of that.

DUE TUE 5/15 Pericles Funeral Oration

Make a list of some of the Athenian values that you encountered in the text. Choose one a write a couple of sentences (or more) about why it might be good for the trial of Socrates.

I came across several values. One of those values stated that everyone had power and not just a minority. Another value was that they gave their obedience to the people they put in an authoritative position. I am kinda confused on those two values because the contradict each other a bit.

Due Wed 4/25 "Jigsaw Activity"

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

The topic was weather or not we should censor things deemed inappropriate for minors. I think a debate resolution could be: "We should restrict minors from certain content because it could corrupt them." This resolution could generate lots of ideas and opinions such as: If we censor them, what would we censor, why? We shouldn't censor them because... It depends on...

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 restrict you as an individual? Does it promote or inhibit public discussion? Does it help or hurt people getting along with one another? (short paragraph)

This is an incredibly important topic because it has to do with tomorrows generation, a.k.a our future. It defines what our generation has access to in the (* cough *) information age. A good point that was brought up in the article was that access to seemingly 'bad' info helps us deal with the real world when we turn 18 because we don't just instantly become adult-like when we turn 18.

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).

There is only one good point made on the con side (restrict access to minors). That good point was that vulgar, violent, etc... things make us more likely to imitate those actions.
There were two good points made on the pro side (infinite access to minors). The first point was the censoring things blinds us from what is really happening and makes us ill prepared for the real world. The other good point made was that making items bad or for 'mommy and daddy' only makes kids more likely to get into them. There were a few other good points but I will stick to writing about those two points.

You do NOT have to write this down, but think about how you are going to "pitch" this topic. In other words, if you want to debate this, how are you going to convince others that it would be a good topic. If you don't want to debate it, how are you going to convince the others that you think it would be a bad topic?

I think that this would be an excellent topic for several reasons. The first reason is that it pertains directly to us, thus making a better topic then burning flags because chances are that none of us burn flags. The second reason is that this topic will affect are immediate future and distant future. The third reason is that it is tied into several opinions making it a good idea generating topic.

Due Tuesday 4/24 - The press in times of crisis

Assume that our next debate will have the resolution, "The press should be censored in times of crisis."

Q: 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.

A:
The section that I read was against that resolution. There are three things that support the con side argument on this topic. The first argument is that it is unconstitutional to censor what the media has to say. The other arguments did not relate to the press in a manner describing how it is unnecessary to censor the media. For instance they talk about a guy who was thrown in jail without questioning or a lawyer. The article also talks about how high government officials asked news stations to restrict the bin laden tapes; it never really said how that was bad, just why the stations agreed. So I hope we get to talk about this in class because we didn't last time and it would have helped me a lot.

Q: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 opinion on this matter is that news stations should be able to present any news topic they want. The only exception would be if there is already legal interferences such as using hate speech. If stations like adult swim can get away with brief nudity, language, intense violence, etc... i think that a news stations should at least be able to do what they want.

DUE MONDAY 4/23 Viewpoints

Supportive argument on why speech must be protected:

Free speech must be protected (allowed) for several reasons. A few of these reasons are: Free speech is in the constitution; it allows us to express our opinions; lastly, it keeps America free.
The right to express yourself is written in the constitution. That means that you would be breaking the law if you did not allow someone to express themselves. You could say that free speech is entitled to every US citizen and is a law.
One of the most popular arguments for allowing free speech is that it allows us to express are selves. We wouldn't be able to talk about this right now if it was not for free speech.
The last of my opinions that I will talk about is how free speech keeps America free. America is a free country was sorry does not mean you can kill someone and get away with it (sorry OJ, u know its true), rather it means that you can express your self in any way weather that be talking, buying certain stocks, refusing to do something (go on strike), or simply practicing the religion you want to believe in. Without the ability to express yourself you would not be free along with the rest of America.

Supportive argument on why we should put a limit on speech:

This section of the article focused on two similar things. One of them was talking about how things like "triple-x porn on Saturday mornings" should be banned, and how we are not strict enough on enforcing copyright laws. The other argument was focusing on 'stealth advertising'.
The first topic just said how there are some things that just are not right and should be banned. For instance showing "kiddie porn" or not enforcing copyright laws. It gave a physically imposable graph showing who thought copyright laws were not being enforced well enough.
I am just going to tell the truth here so bare with me: I have no idea what the rest of this article was talking about. It had something to do with stealth advertising, poop smeared on canvas, and fringe and core freedoms. I wil bring this up in class because someone has to understand it.

My opinion:

I think that free speech should be completely allowed and that there should be no such thing as censorship... sort of. I can understand why people do not want to have "triple-x porn on Saturday mornings". Although, no one really talks about the people that do want it. Since everything (yes even something like sesame street) can be found offensive i think that broadcasters should have a warning be everything that simply sums up what is about to be shown and that it may be offensive. This also ties into copyright laws somewhat. I think that copyright things like the name 'google' should be restricted for anyone to use without the owners consent. If any one is to be found using 'google' that the authorities should report that to the entitled owners (google) and they should decide if they should be punished or not.

DUE THUR 4/19 Don Imus Controversy

Q:
According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?

A:
Frank Rich's argument stated a few reasons why Don should not be silenced. One of those statements stated that Don's previous 'jokes' or statements were very broad and was equally offensive to everyone. Frank added on to that stating that Don should be able to say what ever he wants as long as other people can give their opinion on the racial statement, or any statement that could be offensive. He also says that other people have gotten away with worse racial slurs.

DUE WED 4/18 Plato Reading and Blog

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?

A:
I think the society proposed is absurd. Their society proposes that you can only be one 'character', for instance a action actor has to be a action actor and can not also be a horror actor. Socrates think s that you can only be one thing because you would not be able to work both jobs as well as if you only had one. I think that you should be able to do both as long as you do them well so that they can contribute to the community, not everyone can do two completely separate things which i can understand (like being able to use a mac and a PC, lol).

DUE WED 3/28 Plato Assignment

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 some people would want to censor homer because he talks about how the gods picked sides. If they pick sides they are then they are technically fighting with each other and that makes them 'bad'.

[READ PAGES 76-85]

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?
Plato said that poetry that states that bad thing s about the afterlife or 'questionable' statements about the gods should be banned from poetry.

What should poetry “teach” and why?
I didn't catch what Plato said poetry should 'teach', i will ask what he said tomorrow in class.

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?
1. If I were talking to Plato i would argue with him about why he thinks that people should write about what they want, weather it be moral or immoral. I mean you should have the write to talk about what you think is write, and if you know what u are saying it is false simply label as a 'fictional' piece of writing'.
2. I do not agree with Plato's ideas at all, i think i like free speech too much to think about anyone else's argument.
3. I do not think that writing should be put to the purposes that Plato says it should be because it kills the idea of free speech that i treasure so much.