Seminar Response 12-18

According to the Supreme Court, schools do have the right to censor school newspapers but is this ok? Personally I think that schools need to be very careful about what they do censor and not remove articles that contain controversial topics that may cause school disruption. The means of censoring an article on this basis is wrong and shouldn't be done. I can see it only understandable if the article is poorly written and there is lack of evidence/ research involved. But whoever is writing the article should know better as well as the newspaper advisors. Stories/ articles don't just appear in the newspaper with no one else reading over them, a lot of time is spent on each article looking for false claims (libel) and making sure that it is well written. With this in mind, all of the time spent into a well written article, why should it be censored? The readers of the newspaper should have access to these controversial topics to learn more to make their own decision on the issue. Like the article on racism in the school dress code, if there was a lot of research done and the article was not bias (which journalism is not supposed to be) then why censor it. If the problem exists in the school and someone has noticed, it should be taken care of. Also not all school newspapers are funded by the school. The printing costs is paid for by the newspaper class/ account. In the beginning of the year we sell subscriptions and put ads in the paper to help fund the printing costs. We are not the only school that has done this either, there are lots of schools that do the same thing. Within the last year, our newspaper has covered a lot of controversial topics such as drugs, sex, and religion in the school. These topics need to be covered and readers (students) should be learning about them in order to be successful after high school by having knowledge on these topics. So why a school would want to prevent their students from learning about these topics is beyond me as long as they are written according to true journalism ethics and are not subjective or bias. So as long as student journalists are practicing good journalism ethics and put a lot of time into their story (which every student should want to do anyway,) their work should not be censored.

Michael Moore in his documentary “Bowling for Columbine” used the Socratic Method to get the most information out of interviews and sources for the purpose of the documentary. Since Moore is researching/uncovering a huge topic that is multi-sided and very complex, his questions have to be the same way. He has to prepare questions before the interview and thoughtfully consider each question to get the most information out of his sources. This includes coming up with follow up questions during an interview that he can't plan for. All of this he did in the movie, when he was interviewing the head guy of the NRA, he had some pretty tough questions that left him speechless for a few moments. He asked questions like “why is this the problem” and “What is different about America.” It was questions like these that gave Moore the answers that he was looking for. In the book Dialogues of Plato Socrates does this same line of questioning/ reasoning when he is on trial for his life. He asks thought out thought provoking questions aimed right towards your brain. And it’s these good questions that we have to think about before answering that are the best ones.

Seminar Response 11-18

“The dog is a very good one: you know that well-bred dogs are perfectly gentle to their familiars and acquaintances, and the reverse to strangers (230).”

Here Socrates states that the Guardians should be gentle to society and others around them but hostile to the enemy. He makes sense of the example of the guard dog, and how it is nice to its owner but attacks unfamiliar people. This connects to White Fang who minded everyone in the family but when he saw trouble he attacked. This whole idea of the Guardians being two sided doesn't make a lot of sense. In the beginning of the section he states that there should be specialization and that each person should focus on one task and do it well. If the Guardians are both friendly and savage, it will take away from them in a battle when maybe their friendly side will want to take over instead of being savage. They would also not be as savage as they could be since they have made room for softness.

Seminar Response 11-13

1

“But, oh! My beloved Socrates, let me entreat you once more to take my advice and escape. For if you die I shall not only lose a friend who can never be replaced, but there is another evil (43).” Crito wanted Socrates to escape from the bondage that in his opinion was not fair. Socrates probably had many friends who wanted Socrates to escape and were willing to pay money for his release from jail. Then Socrates responds with “I am certain not to agree with you; no, not even if the power of the multitude could inflict many more imprisonments, confiscations, deaths, frightening us like children with hobgoblin terrors (45).” Socrates want to accept his punishment in accordance to the state and their laws. If he did run away he would probably be subject to more time in jail due to his radical ideas.

2     

“Are we to say that we never intentionally to do wrong, or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong, or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable (49).” This connects to the Law and Justice packet because it talked about how Martin Luther King Jr. and how he believed that the current laws were not just but still accepted his punishment for breaking them. This is very similar to how Socrates is dealing with breaking his laws. He thought he was doing right by teaching the younger generation with his ideas and values while the material and ideas that he was teaching was banned by the state and therefore breaking the law.

Seminar Response 11-4

Quote

 

"I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but from virtue comes money and every other good of man, public as well as private (pg 22)."

 

            This quote from Socrates has a lot of good thinking behind it and is something that I work towards in life. He talks about how you can't buy virtue (value, knowledge, and worth) in society, he says that you have to earn it. So I am following the same principal by going to school and getting an education. I am working towards my future, not just hoping that everything will turn out ok. You are not going to live in a big mansion if you dream about it, you have to work for it and earn it. Even in our everyday lives, you can't wish you had good relationships with everyone, you have to work hard towards it and communicate effectively. What you put in to life is what you will get out of it. If you work hard, you will see the benefits of doing so.

Seminar Response 10-21

With the large debate on whether teachers should have a say about what is talked about in their classroom, I think that it is a very important thing to be addressed. Personally, I think a teacher’s role is to educate and inform children about topics. It is not their role to tell students what is right or their personal opinions. School is about the kids getting the best possible education not about what the teachers think about a certain topic. Teachers should also care enough about their job to expose their students of the different viewpoints without interjecting their own personal views. "The freedom of speech is not without limits." We need to accept the consequences of what we say. Sure we can tell a teacher to f-off and claim freedom of speech, but we have to own up to what we say and not hurt others. Teachers should not force ideas onto their students and the first amendment "Does not include students having their teacher's political, religious, or moral values thrust onto them while they are held captive in class." But teachers shouldn't be limited and restricted so that they can't even do their own job. "Free speech is an essential element in the exercise of democracy... in any public place." Teachers should encourage students to expand on their ideas and inquire about the ideas that others may have. There has to be a good balance between freedom and restrictions in order for students to obtain the correct education. It is not ok for a teacher to just plan and teach whatever they want because students wouldn't learn and be prepared for life. But on the other side, teachers should not be reading/teaching of a mandatory script that every teacher in the state/nation uses. This would severely limit what is taught in the classroom and would not be ok. After all education is about the students not the teachers.

Seminar Response 10-14

Law is the way of the land, the rules that govern it and the way its citizens are to act. In a way it is the code of conduct for its citizens. "The law appears impersonal. It is on paper, and who can trace it back to what men? And because it has the look of neutrality, its injustices are made legitimate(111)." When one does break the law, there has to be someone to administer the law to the law breaker.

When one breaks the law, justice comes into play. Justice is how the law is served to those who break it. "There is also justice, meaning the fair treatment of all human beings, the equal right of all people to freedom and prosperity(109)." This sounds very similar to what the enlightenment thinkers or more famously John Locke said and what we adopted in our deceleration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness and freedom. Justice is typically served in the courtroom (can be other places such as a traffic stop) and typically ends in a fine or a jail sentence.

Law and justice are necessary to society because they keep order. Without laws and justice, people would just act the way they want to and that would cause lots of conflict between people. In a way law and justice make life fair for all, they are the directions to a board game. "The idea behind 'accept your punishment' is that whatever your disagreement with some specific law or some particular policy, you should not spread disrespect for the law in general, because we need respect for the law to keep society intact (122)."

Over time law and justice have generally stayed the same. The basics of our laws were the same when the colonies were formed and the birth of our nation. Of course as time went on, more specific laws were developed for specific situations as we experienced them. With every new piece of technology comes more laws governing how we use them. When these new laws are developed there has to be new justice in what the punishment for breaking these laws.

Seminar Response 10/9

  I think that Intelligent Design (ID) should be taught in class because it provides another side to the discussion of Evolution. If we just talked about Evolution in science class and how it is the only reason explaining how things are today, we would be leaving out another side to the discussion, ID. Just like when you are writing an argumentative paper for school, you must include the other view therefore leaving bias out of a paper. So why are we teaching kids that Evolution is the only way explaining how things are today when there is another side? It makes sense to teach both sides and let the students decide what they want to believe in. The point side makes the better argument because it states that "ID presents the hypothesis: an intelligent designer lies at the heart of the highly complex and inter-related system of natural phenomena." ID is not promoting a God or religion, it just gives a possible reason to how things were started or created. ID is different to creationism in that "Creationism is specific to the Book of Genesis in the Bible." The point side also talks about how the "'first causes' cannot be determined." Since we were not there how can we prove it scientifically. We can't make assumptions about the past because we were not there and we can't observe it. We can only observe what is happening now. ID is "an alternative approach to explaining the origins, the first cause, of a phenomenon widely accepted by poorly understood: life." So why should we not teach it?
The counterpoint has a weaker argument because it explains that if something is to be considered science it must be able to prove by "recording observations, undertaking experiments, and drawing conclusions." It also says that science is "the process of disciplined and repeatable observation." So with all of this observation being based on the past, which we can't actually observe, how can we call this evidence. We were not there, we don't know what is was like, and therefore we can only make assumptions about the past. This side also says that ID is religion in disguise but in reality it is not. ID "does not require believing that the earth and everything upon it was 'created' in six days by a deity named God." ID does not promote any God or religion so why is that a good reason not to teach it as an alternative way to how things (life) was created.

Seminar Response 9-30

Debate-

In the debate they talked about how people wonder why we are here and if there are more of us. They said that some people believe that things were made by a god to make up for what they don't know and that they just invent gods to prove the unknowable. Something else that was said was that all of the religions that were created all point to the idea of morals and purpose of being on earth and that all of the religions are generally similar. One of the scientists said that the laws of science always going to happen and we can count on them occurring in the past.

Bill Nye-

Bill Nye tought that teaching creationism in classrooms is unreasonable to teach because science is observing around and discovering what you can observe. So we should let our kids discover for themselves if creationism is true or if there is no god and there is an alternative reason for why things are the way they are in this world. He also made the point that science can prove that the earth is over 10,000 years old and that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years ago disproving the creationism story of the earth being much younger.

Seminar Response 9-23

After reading the article, I agree with the opinion that it is not ok for us to torture suspects and that it should be abolished from our countries policy. Starting with the Deceleration on Independence we state the idea that everyone is created equal and should be treated so as stated in the famous line, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Even though these people that were being tortured were not U.S. Citizens, they should still be treated like one. And yes, I understand that a certain person may have just helped plot and kill 3,000 U.S. Citizens, but that doesn't mean that they should tortured with techniques that inflict physical pain and suffering just to get information out that may or may not be useful. And what about the person that just may have found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time and are tortured to get “information” out of. Say we do adopt torture or enhanced interrogation as U.S. Policy and is used commonly, just like Abu Ghraib, things will go bad and power will change. What was intended as torture will turn out much worse and would get out of control. Like the article says “The migration of torture through the military likely, this loophole ows the doors wide open.” And “Once you permit torture for someone somewhere, it had a habit of spreading (Sullivan).” Torture also poses a question of our own interrogation system, do we not trust our own non torture interrogation techniques? We have devised and tested our own interrogation techniques that have been used for many years. So all of the sudden are these techniques not good enough. I somewhat understand the viewpoint of Krauthammer in that it would only be used in certain situations where information is needed to prevent a possible terror plot. But in reality, do we really capture someone and have knowledge of what they are planning to do? Krauthammer says    “Whatever extreme measures are used are for reasons of nothing but information.” But that is a very fine line and can easily be blurred and crossed. Torture should be abolished because it goes against the morals of this county and if we did so, it would open the door for the future of interrogation. It would also be adopted worldwide and could even be used against our own citizens by other countries or terror groups.

Seminar Response Question

1. Like in the book, when White Fang is pressured by Lip-lip to fight and cause trouble, the staff at Abu Ghraib were pressured into beating up and torturing the prisioners. If you placed one guard in the prision, they wouldn't have done what they did as a group. They would not be influenced by what the others did. Another part of the book when White Fang is put in the cage and morphed into a fighting machine. The prison guards really didn't have a choice to beat up and tortrue the prisioners, they were forced to by people who were above them (Beauty Smith and the interrigation team).
   
   
2. The disciplinary actions taken against the prisioners was not justified. When they rounded up they found all of the people that fit a certain description and brought them to Abu Ghraib for interrigation. They went way past the line for the people who they just thought or assumed had informaion. And even for the guiltly party, there is no reason to inflict so much torture just to get information. What if our troops were captured and went through the same thing. How would our nation act? Just short of nuclear war. Like in the book, Beauth Smith's was influenced by society so that intentions were to make money and be famous. The soldiers were influenced by other soldiers and the higher command into having “fun” with the prisioners and making their life awful.

Seminar Response Question

I found the book “White Fang” more interesting because the plot was easy to follow and it had a very exciting story line. Even though I found the beginning of the story confusing, once White Fang was born and the story of his life was being told, it kept me on the edge of my seat. Whenever Lip Lip came around, I was excited to see what would happen. I was just waiting for the time that White Fang would end up on top. Another part that I enjoyed was the end of the book when Mr. Scott taught White Fang to become loving and not evil. It was cool to see the process slowly reversed and the attitude of White Fang change. Overall, the book “White Fang” was exciting to read and always kept me on the edge of my seat.