According to the NAACP, why should Imus be silenced?
Because he needs to realize that what he did was wrong. Also to begin a movment on this kind of issue.
According to Frank Rich, why should Imus not be silenced?
Because the whole "making racist joke" has been around for a while. I guess hes saying that it would be hypocritical if the media only put all the negative attention on him because hes not the only one who has said a racial joke on live air
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 personally think that it was wrong for Don Imus to say what he said. It was very offensive and sexist comment that he said. Although, I think that the media is making a really big deal about the whole situation then it should be. I say this because I see some offensive and racial jokes being said on radio and the television. It seems like this certain issue is just being noticed now.
Don Imus was just a regular comedy talk show host until he made one offensive joke. Maybe it wasn’t just one but if it was such a big deal they would have made a big issue about it before. Instead they wait until now. So I think that they should just take him off of the radio show and just leave him alone.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Plato Assignment4/17
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 restricting plays and the art can have not very good effects on people. It blocks other peoples opinion and it wont let people be creative, expressing themselves. I think that this does not really help the society because it will just cause alot more disobedience in the end of the society. I also think that people will realize restrictions will always be broken.
I think that restricting plays and the art can have not very good effects on people. It blocks other peoples opinion and it wont let people be creative, expressing themselves. I think that this does not really help the society because it will just cause alot more disobedience in the end of the society. I also think that people will realize restrictions will always be broken.
Monday, March 19, 2007
1. Socrates asks Glaucon to suppose that one of the prisoners is freed and leaves the cave (p. 242 section 515d). What happens to the prisoner when he gets outside? Why does this happen to the prisoner?
It says that if they were to see the outside world. They would be confused, or maybe evne fascinated. This is because they have been locked up in a cave for so long and havent seen anything except for shadows.
2. Socrates states that the prisoners would try to kill anyone who tries to liberate them and lead them out of the cave (pp. 243 – 244 section 517a). Why would the prisoners kill someone who is trying to lead them outside?
In my opinion, these people have been locked up in a cave for so long, I think that there scared to go and view what's outside. There so used to what they see. It's almost like moving to outerspace and seeing things we've never seen before. They would probably want to kill what they don't recognize.
3. While reading pages 243-244 (section 517) keep in mind that the cave represents the way society actually is, while the sun (visible outside the cave) represents knowledge that could make for a better society. Don’t let the wording confuse you, Socrates sometimes calls the outside “the intelligible region” and associates it with “the divine.”
What is special about “the intelligible region” and why is it important for public servants/political leaders (p. 244 section 517 b and e) ?
Socrates states the divine can only be accomplished by the good. This is important for people, the intelligible people will teach the un educated people and try to see the light of intelligence.
It says that if they were to see the outside world. They would be confused, or maybe evne fascinated. This is because they have been locked up in a cave for so long and havent seen anything except for shadows.
2. Socrates states that the prisoners would try to kill anyone who tries to liberate them and lead them out of the cave (pp. 243 – 244 section 517a). Why would the prisoners kill someone who is trying to lead them outside?
In my opinion, these people have been locked up in a cave for so long, I think that there scared to go and view what's outside. There so used to what they see. It's almost like moving to outerspace and seeing things we've never seen before. They would probably want to kill what they don't recognize.
3. While reading pages 243-244 (section 517) keep in mind that the cave represents the way society actually is, while the sun (visible outside the cave) represents knowledge that could make for a better society. Don’t let the wording confuse you, Socrates sometimes calls the outside “the intelligible region” and associates it with “the divine.”
What is special about “the intelligible region” and why is it important for public servants/political leaders (p. 244 section 517 b and e) ?
Socrates states the divine can only be accomplished by the good. This is important for people, the intelligible people will teach the un educated people and try to see the light of intelligence.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Fact
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?
Well, this reminds me when I was young, I was always told that you had to be married in order to give birth to a baby. This was because I was surrounded by religous teachings. This is of course when I was around age 8 or 9. & about a year after that is when I fully understood the way things in life works. As the years went by, I of course got a bit curious about what was going on for an example, my cousin got pregnant at the age of 16. I didn't understand that until I was given the lesson of premarridal sex. It's not like I felt like my parents were lying to me, it's just that they didn't want to have "the talk" with me at such a young age.
Well, this reminds me when I was young, I was always told that you had to be married in order to give birth to a baby. This was because I was surrounded by religous teachings. This is of course when I was around age 8 or 9. & about a year after that is when I fully understood the way things in life works. As the years went by, I of course got a bit curious about what was going on for an example, my cousin got pregnant at the age of 16. I didn't understand that until I was given the lesson of premarridal sex. It's not like I felt like my parents were lying to me, it's just that they didn't want to have "the talk" with me at such a young age.
Monday, February 26, 2007
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. Focus on the negative consequences of the disagreement and decisions that you or the other person made that might have made things needlessly worse. You can also write about something similar from literature or the movies, or even about other people that you know. Remember this is a public forum so be careful what you write. You can change names and fictionalize details.
One specific time that I had a disagreement with another person was when I asked this person to keep a secret. This person is actually my friend but I won't name any names. Lets call him/her Mufasa. So basically I asked Mufasa not to tell this person how I felt about Scar. I trusted Mufasa not to say anything and what does he/she do? She tells him/her. We stop talking to each other and this stupid secret jeopardized our friendship and this issue we had with each other became bigger than it should have been. We did and said things to each other that weren't very positive, but we all learn from out mistakes. In the end we both realized we weren't taking this negative situation very maturely especially because are very close friends. We then took the time to talk to each other and work things out and out friendship is as good as new!
One specific time that I had a disagreement with another person was when I asked this person to keep a secret. This person is actually my friend but I won't name any names. Lets call him/her Mufasa. So basically I asked Mufasa not to tell this person how I felt about Scar. I trusted Mufasa not to say anything and what does he/she do? She tells him/her. We stop talking to each other and this stupid secret jeopardized our friendship and this issue we had with each other became bigger than it should have been. We did and said things to each other that weren't very positive, but we all learn from out mistakes. In the end we both realized we weren't taking this negative situation very maturely especially because are very close friends. We then took the time to talk to each other and work things out and out friendship is as good as new!
Illiad response
A) Achilles’ rage is justified and I support his decision not to fight, even if it means the Greeks might lose lots of men, or even the war itself.
Or
B) Agamemnon is the commander, as such he is in the right, and I support his decision to ask for Achilles’ war prize Briseis – even if it means that Achilles will sit out the war.
I think that I would have to agree with letter "A" mostly because Achilles clearly explains that he does not fight for anyone but himself. Achilles proves this in The Illiad, page 87 from line 342-350. A short quote from the passage, "...my hands will never do battle for that girl, neither with you, King, nore any man alive." I think that Achilles deserved his war prize after working for Briseis. It shows that Agamemnon has never fought one battle for the Acheaens but yet, he is still King. It pretty much shows the reader that it is unfair and pathetic. The only credit Achilles recieves is having his name being remembered forever throughout history.
Or
B) Agamemnon is the commander, as such he is in the right, and I support his decision to ask for Achilles’ war prize Briseis – even if it means that Achilles will sit out the war.
I think that I would have to agree with letter "A" mostly because Achilles clearly explains that he does not fight for anyone but himself. Achilles proves this in The Illiad, page 87 from line 342-350. A short quote from the passage, "...my hands will never do battle for that girl, neither with you, King, nore any man alive." I think that Achilles deserved his war prize after working for Briseis. It shows that Agamemnon has never fought one battle for the Acheaens but yet, he is still King. It pretty much shows the reader that it is unfair and pathetic. The only credit Achilles recieves is having his name being remembered forever throughout history.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
MY RAGEEEEE!
One thing that gets me very angry is when my little brother begins to argue against me and I’m always the one that receives the blame. One particular time my brother made me angry was when my family went to go on a camping trip. While we were in the car, I asked my little brother to do me a tiny favor which was for him to hand me my Ipod because it was too far for me but close enough for him to reach. He replies and says, “No get it yourself.” Then I barely hit him on the arm and he whines and complains to my parents about it. Then I get the whole lecture of how I’m too rough with my little brother and how I need to be gentler with him, which isn’t true. In my opinion, my little brother needs to learn to grow up and listen to his older brother!!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)