Hello Everyone!
Thank you all for your thoughtful responses. Access to Internet has been challenging here in Ghana, but I have enjoyed reading many of your responses to the overriding statements as well as one another’s responses. Many of you are making excellent points and backing them up well with evidence. I may not be able to reply from here (Internet is slow), but will do so upon my return. Hopefully you are all enjoying the book!
Our trip to Ghana has been amazing so far. We have met incredible people, visited Mr. Labi’s village in Dunkwa, participated in ceremonies, eaten wonderful food (bananas, oranges, pineapple, banku, chicken, tilapia…), danced, played soccer, met amazing people, swam in the ocean, and much more. It has truly been an eye-opening and perspective-changing experience. I hope you are all doing well and are having a relaxing vacation. See you soon!
Ms. Jenkins
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
Jessica K -"The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat."
I strongly disagree with this statement. This would work in some cases, but not all of them. Everyone has different interests, including in what they read. Right now we're all reading 1984. Does that mean I'm interested in being like Winston, and plotting ways of going against the government? Or maybe someone's reading a book about weapons. Are they planning to somehow obtain them so they can destroy our country? Everyone has the right to read whatever they like as long as they aren't breaking the law. One's interests in books doesn't really have anything to do with if they're a threat to our country or not. It's also one's choice to not have others knowing what they read if they choose to.
Jessica K- "Reporters should submit their work to government officials so they may determine if it's a threat to the country."
I disagree with this statement. Reporters have the right to write whatever they want as long as it's not going against the law and ethics. Let's say the government was making a poor decision and a reporter wanted to write about it. Then this reporter should have the right to tell the general public and inform them what is going on. The government might find it threatening to their publicity, but everyone deserves to know what's going on.
It's not the job of a government official to determine what should be printed and what shouldn't be, but between the reporter and their editor after considering the public's view of whether or not an article should be printed.
It's not the job of a government official to determine what should be printed and what shouldn't be, but between the reporter and their editor after considering the public's view of whether or not an article should be printed.
Jessica K -"Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals."
I disagree with this statement. Everyone has the right to go into public places. We also have the right to refuse to be watched such as through cameras. It's invading one's privacy to have security cameras capturing their every move.
I can agree that with security cameras, in case a criminal act did take place, then we would have evidence and know what to do. But if you think about it, it might not even be effective at all. Someone can have weird behaviors that might appear to be threatening, but actually isn't. If their behavior leads to a misunderstanding that this person is threatening, then is this fair for them? It's somewhat discrimination to consider if one is threatening based on their appearance and what we see them doing. Someone who is actually a potential criminal can also pretend to be perfectly innocent. How is that going to help then? The idea of having these cameras isn't fair to those who don't want to be watched.
I can agree that with security cameras, in case a criminal act did take place, then we would have evidence and know what to do. But if you think about it, it might not even be effective at all. Someone can have weird behaviors that might appear to be threatening, but actually isn't. If their behavior leads to a misunderstanding that this person is threatening, then is this fair for them? It's somewhat discrimination to consider if one is threatening based on their appearance and what we see them doing. Someone who is actually a potential criminal can also pretend to be perfectly innocent. How is that going to help then? The idea of having these cameras isn't fair to those who don't want to be watched.
Briyana Bembry
"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither."
I disagree with this statement. Security provides safety and and keeping the peace. Without laws we would all be living in a state of nature. To some that may sound like fun but think of all the crime that would be commited. I think security it good but only to an extent.
I disagree with this statement. Security provides safety and and keeping the peace. Without laws we would all be living in a state of nature. To some that may sound like fun but think of all the crime that would be commited. I think security it good but only to an extent.
Paige Paulsen
"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither"
I have mixed feelings about this statement mostly because it is too sweeping. There can't be freedom if that freedom is not secured. It's human nature to try and get and maintain power over fellow man, sad as it is, and everybody knows this. If people are afraid that they won't be alive the next day then they won't exercize the freedoms they nominally have. You don't say that the rising power is corrupt, you don't have the freedom if there is no guarentee that it will last and won't come back to haunt you.
This quote is similar to one by Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up a little liberty for a a little security deserve neither, and lose both". I think this quote is a little closer to the truth, but it can't be applied to an entire situation or society. If you change the focus from protecting the citizens from oppresion to protecting the citizens from themselves by any means, you have become the oppressor.
I have mixed feelings about this statement mostly because it is too sweeping. There can't be freedom if that freedom is not secured. It's human nature to try and get and maintain power over fellow man, sad as it is, and everybody knows this. If people are afraid that they won't be alive the next day then they won't exercize the freedoms they nominally have. You don't say that the rising power is corrupt, you don't have the freedom if there is no guarentee that it will last and won't come back to haunt you.
This quote is similar to one by Benjamin Franklin "Those who would give up a little liberty for a a little security deserve neither, and lose both". I think this quote is a little closer to the truth, but it can't be applied to an entire situation or society. If you change the focus from protecting the citizens from oppresion to protecting the citizens from themselves by any means, you have become the oppressor.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Amelia Holmes
"The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war."
I agree with this statement. Peace isn't something that you can prepare for alone, so in some ways the only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war, if you are ready for one you would most likely be ready for the other. To prepare for war is easy, because it is something that people who start wars need to think about how to do it. People who are peaceful, don't prepare for peace, it is just natural to them. The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for any kind of situation, which of course includes war. Preparing for war and preparing for peace are intertwined but we cant fully understand this statement unless you can answer your self the question: How does someone go about preparing for peace?
Johannes Harkins - 2 responses - 2/21/08
in repsonse to prompt no 3. - "patriotism means supporting your country during times of war"
I don't agree with this statement. I believe that patriotism is not agreeing with the decisions that your government make, but rather patriotism is valuing the rights and laws that your country upholds and being proud and grateful that you take part in blessings that your country gives to its citizens. In fact, protesting a war could be construed as patriotism in the United States, because you are exercising your constitutional right to protest.
response no. 2
in response to prompt no. 7.
"society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals"
I agree with this statement in its most literal sense. Society would be safer from criminal activity. More people would get caught in the act of crimes and apprehended than a society without these cameras. Furthermore, more people, with knowledge of security cameras, would refrain from committing crimes in the first place. I do not think, however, that people's rights would be safer. Their privacy would be violated. When applied to specific examples or terms, I find fault with this statement, but, in its most literal sense, it is correct.
I don't agree with this statement. I believe that patriotism is not agreeing with the decisions that your government make, but rather patriotism is valuing the rights and laws that your country upholds and being proud and grateful that you take part in blessings that your country gives to its citizens. In fact, protesting a war could be construed as patriotism in the United States, because you are exercising your constitutional right to protest.
response no. 2
in response to prompt no. 7.
"society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals"
I agree with this statement in its most literal sense. Society would be safer from criminal activity. More people would get caught in the act of crimes and apprehended than a society without these cameras. Furthermore, more people, with knowledge of security cameras, would refrain from committing crimes in the first place. I do not think, however, that people's rights would be safer. Their privacy would be violated. When applied to specific examples or terms, I find fault with this statement, but, in its most literal sense, it is correct.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Justine Freeman P5 Blog (1984)
Justine Freeman P5
"To assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens"
In 1984 by George Orwell, constantly "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU"
Though, this isnt helping anyone. When denying freedom in every form, even to be watched when you want to be alone is very far. In the law + ethincs in journalism it would be invasion of privacy. This also contributes to an unsafe demeanor, for example Winston is always angry from the Idea of being watched, he's angry from this brainwashing of the State Party.
When the society is uncomfortable (expecialy from being spied on) this may break out eventually to a protest and people may get hurt.
"To assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens"
In 1984 by George Orwell, constantly "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU"
Though, this isnt helping anyone. When denying freedom in every form, even to be watched when you want to be alone is very far. In the law + ethincs in journalism it would be invasion of privacy. This also contributes to an unsafe demeanor, for example Winston is always angry from the Idea of being watched, he's angry from this brainwashing of the State Party.
When the society is uncomfortable (expecialy from being spied on) this may break out eventually to a protest and people may get hurt.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Anna Gray
“For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.”
I strongly disagree with this statement. Yes, many ideas are expressed through conversations, speeches, and literature, all using words to express ideas, yet think about the images that you see. For instance, if you see a picture of a child crying, the idea that this child is sad or has something to be sad about is expressed, clearly. I am currently taking photography right now, and “wordless expression” is what the entire world of photography seems to be about. People analyze photos and images so closely that something like a broken swing could express the idea of a “broken childhood.” Art in general is considered to express ideas. Music, even without lyrics, can depict emotions and ideas. As well, ideas as passionate as religious ones can be expressed through a form other than words, for example, the crucifix. Ideas and even beliefs rely within that familiar image, yet no words are necessary to express the meaning of that image to some. Ideas can most definitely be expressed through many forms other than words.
I strongly disagree with this statement. Yes, many ideas are expressed through conversations, speeches, and literature, all using words to express ideas, yet think about the images that you see. For instance, if you see a picture of a child crying, the idea that this child is sad or has something to be sad about is expressed, clearly. I am currently taking photography right now, and “wordless expression” is what the entire world of photography seems to be about. People analyze photos and images so closely that something like a broken swing could express the idea of a “broken childhood.” Art in general is considered to express ideas. Music, even without lyrics, can depict emotions and ideas. As well, ideas as passionate as religious ones can be expressed through a form other than words, for example, the crucifix. Ideas and even beliefs rely within that familiar image, yet no words are necessary to express the meaning of that image to some. Ideas can most definitely be expressed through many forms other than words.
Lily Nguyen
I somewhat agree and disagree. It’s true that if we are being watched, it is pretty obvious that people will be careful of their actions and at the same time feel safer. But on the other hand, we will greatly lose our privacy. It would be scary and intimating to feel and know that there is someone out there watching every move that you make. And just one move, you could be sent to jail or be guilty for the crime that you didn’t commit. However, if the cameras are in “public places” as they said then, this is where I agree that we do need them. Even though a public place may sound like it would be a place where no one would hurt you or do something bad, because there are many people than in a private place, that’s where I believe this statement is false. I had many experiences that public places and private places both have good and bad advantages. For example, if you are at a mall with a lot of people (of course) and someone robbed your purse, there is someone that you can yell for help; whereas, in a dark ally, no one can you screaming. So this shows you that public places have a lot of people which is good, but there is still crime scenes happening that we don’t believe would actually happen; therefore, with cameras around in public places AND private places would help. And when I mean private places, I don’t mean the FBI putting a camera in each room in your house, but in places like the allies or some quiet residential streets just to make sure everything is still safe. Therefore, it varies, but if our society is surrounded by cameras, then we would be able to catch crimes that we wouldn’t be able to see and that will make our society a safer environment.
Kate Collins
“The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat.”
First of all, the first amendment of the Constitution states that all people are entitled to the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In a democratic state, the free exchange of ideas is essential in order for citizens to be able to make informed decisions. If the government restricts this privilege, it could lead to corruption and ignorance on the part of the citizens. Second, the content that people read does not necessarily predict their actions or make them a threat in any way. For example, if I was interested in science and I was browsing the internet, I might read about how to create a bomb. The government might think that I’m a threat to other people and that I want to destroy something, when in fact I was only interested in the scientific aspect of the article. What if I was reading a book about Che Guevara or Fidel Castro? Does that mean I’m planning a revolution against the United States? Or am I just interested in what factors led to revolutions in other countries? Even if the government did have the right to know what people are reading, they would in no way be able to verify who might or might not be a threat to our country.
First of all, the first amendment of the Constitution states that all people are entitled to the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. In a democratic state, the free exchange of ideas is essential in order for citizens to be able to make informed decisions. If the government restricts this privilege, it could lead to corruption and ignorance on the part of the citizens. Second, the content that people read does not necessarily predict their actions or make them a threat in any way. For example, if I was interested in science and I was browsing the internet, I might read about how to create a bomb. The government might think that I’m a threat to other people and that I want to destroy something, when in fact I was only interested in the scientific aspect of the article. What if I was reading a book about Che Guevara or Fidel Castro? Does that mean I’m planning a revolution against the United States? Or am I just interested in what factors led to revolutions in other countries? Even if the government did have the right to know what people are reading, they would in no way be able to verify who might or might not be a threat to our country.
Laura West "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither"
There are many definitions for the term freedom, but one in particular is "the right to enjoy all the privileges or special rights of citizenship, membership, etc., in a community or the like". As a citizen, you are part of a social contract with the government in your society. To fulfill your part of the contract, you agree and commit to pay taxes, vote and serve to protect your fellow people. In return, the government is expected to provide the people with education, city services and most importantly, protect them during war or danger.
The definition of security is "freedom from danger, risk, etc.". In order to feel secure, you must have protection from those dangers and risk and those who expect the government to uphold their end of the contract shouldn't be punished.
I disagree completely with the statement "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither". Those who feel the desire to give up their freedom for security deserve to recieve security. If the government has gone so far as to not provide security for those who deserve it, then those individuals must find any way they can to acquire it, even if it means giving up their freedom.
The definition of security is "freedom from danger, risk, etc.". In order to feel secure, you must have protection from those dangers and risk and those who expect the government to uphold their end of the contract shouldn't be punished.
I disagree completely with the statement "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither". Those who feel the desire to give up their freedom for security deserve to recieve security. If the government has gone so far as to not provide security for those who deserve it, then those individuals must find any way they can to acquire it, even if it means giving up their freedom.
Georgia Jamieson: Society would be safer if we had securty cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.
I definately agree with this statement because what it really comes down to, is you shouldn't be doing things in public that you don't want people to see. Having security cameras in public could not only catch criminals but scare them out of committing the crime in the first place. Public security cameras could prevent people being mugged, stores being robbed, hit and runs and many petty crimes like those. When you step outside of your home, and go into the city or out to the street, you have left your privacy in your house. If you don't like the idea of being filmed, stay home.
Melissa Wong - Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war
Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war. I disagree with this statement. Patriotism, the love to ones country does not imply one has to support their government. To love a country, one must do things that would be beneficial to the country. A government is created to represent the citizens, representatives of the country. If a government is corrupted and would not listen to the voices of the citizens, the government is not doing their job. The government is no longer the representatives of the country. Thus, citizens do not have to support their government and still be a patriot. Citizens following the government can be patriots, but not all patriots are followers of the government.
If the government, a representative of all citizens starts a war that is not beneficial to the country, why support it?
If the government, a representative of all citizens starts a war that is not beneficial to the country, why support it?
Eric Lombardo: Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals
7. Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals I do not agree with this statement. Society would only seem more secure. On the outside this seems great: get mugged? Simple, just watch the video and follow the person home. We would be able to catch more criminals. But it would also be a huge nuisance. We all jaywalk; we sometimes park in the wrong zones or try to cheat the meter reader out of some fine money. But do we really want all of this to be caught? And this would not help prevent crimes. If you are mugged, you are still mugged; you just know who did it. But you are not any safer; you will simply be able to punish criminals more easily. Of course this also infringes on some rights. How is it possible to see only public places? Does this mean that you cannot see through windows into homes? Private spaces would also be affected. Another question this brings up: what type of criminal would this breed? Would it weed out more casual criminals? Would it leave only more desperate people willing to kill or steal rather than just snatch a purse? And how much time would be spent watching for minor, easy to catch, infringements rather than more major crimes, which would, on the whole, be better planned for and more serious? It would seem to me that this would give us the illusion but not the reality of security. We have cameras in malls, in schools, but this doesn’t deter crime, it still occurs, so would there be an actual advantage to taking the time and the effort to install security cameras in every public place, and to hire the manpower it would require to watch the cameras at the same time?
Neil "The Boss" Hinnant
Torture of a person who is a threat to our country's freedom is acceptable, so long as the person does not die:
This is a really touchy subject in today's world, and is very hard to adress. All cases should be viewed individually, there is no real way to make a hard, fast, torture rulebook. As a general rule, torture should not be allowed, because it' s benefits are questionable, and it clearly violates human rights. But in some cases, torture can be justified. It will never be pretty, never be nice, never be ok, but in reality, may be the expedient that saves lives. A person should never be killed by torture, because that totally defeats the purpose of torture.
The Dilemma: A terrorist is caught on january 13th. There were plans found in his residence describing a plot to detonate a small nuclear "dirty Bomb" in a major U.S. city. His handwriting was identified on the plans, and his guilt is not in question; it is obvious he helped in plotting the attack. The problem is, the plans do not specify the attack's location, or who is involved. The attack, according to the plans, is set to happen on january 15th. The FBI investigator has 48 hours to discover the location of the bomb, and neutralize it before any american lives are lost.
The preliminary psychological profile of the terrorist shows that he is not fanatical, and is likely to be broken by torture. The FBI investigator must decide whether to torture the individual, and potentially save thousands of lives, or respect the terrorists "human rights" and potentially allow thousands of american civillians to die.
The question above is, How willing are you to allow innocent people to die for an ideal? How much does one person's life equate against a group of others? Does the intent to kill remove any human rights a person might be entitled to?
This is a really touchy subject in today's world, and is very hard to adress. All cases should be viewed individually, there is no real way to make a hard, fast, torture rulebook. As a general rule, torture should not be allowed, because it' s benefits are questionable, and it clearly violates human rights. But in some cases, torture can be justified. It will never be pretty, never be nice, never be ok, but in reality, may be the expedient that saves lives. A person should never be killed by torture, because that totally defeats the purpose of torture.
The Dilemma: A terrorist is caught on january 13th. There were plans found in his residence describing a plot to detonate a small nuclear "dirty Bomb" in a major U.S. city. His handwriting was identified on the plans, and his guilt is not in question; it is obvious he helped in plotting the attack. The problem is, the plans do not specify the attack's location, or who is involved. The attack, according to the plans, is set to happen on january 15th. The FBI investigator has 48 hours to discover the location of the bomb, and neutralize it before any american lives are lost.
The preliminary psychological profile of the terrorist shows that he is not fanatical, and is likely to be broken by torture. The FBI investigator must decide whether to torture the individual, and potentially save thousands of lives, or respect the terrorists "human rights" and potentially allow thousands of american civillians to die.
The question above is, How willing are you to allow innocent people to die for an ideal? How much does one person's life equate against a group of others? Does the intent to kill remove any human rights a person might be entitled to?
Jessica K - "The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war."
I do agree with this statement. No matter how much we want to believe that a country can be at peace always, we know it's not true. You might say if a country isn't at war, then there is peace. Wars have taken aways so many lives throughout history. But if a country isn't prepared, others will take advantage and attack it, then there will be war. It has to be strong and be prepared to show others that they can't mess with them. Only then will you be able to have peace.
Max David
Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.
Personally, I find no fault in this. In fact, it seems like a pretty nice idea. Many stores have closed-circuit surveillance cameras in order to catch anyone who might try to steal goods or assault the clerk, why not have them all around? Anything you don't want anyone seeing you do in public is either illegal or embarassing. Say someone steals your wallet, car, maybe even a person. That would suck! You'd probably want to find out where the thief went, huh? Well, the police could use these all-seeing watchtowers to find out who it was and where he went. Criminal activity could be drastically reduced out of the fact that it'd be nearly impossible! You try stealing a purse with a security guard breathing down your neck wherever you are, it'd be tough. It would definitely take a while for the public to get used to the constant watch of their every move, but in the long run, it would be worth it.
Personally, I find no fault in this. In fact, it seems like a pretty nice idea. Many stores have closed-circuit surveillance cameras in order to catch anyone who might try to steal goods or assault the clerk, why not have them all around? Anything you don't want anyone seeing you do in public is either illegal or embarassing. Say someone steals your wallet, car, maybe even a person. That would suck! You'd probably want to find out where the thief went, huh? Well, the police could use these all-seeing watchtowers to find out who it was and where he went. Criminal activity could be drastically reduced out of the fact that it'd be nearly impossible! You try stealing a purse with a security guard breathing down your neck wherever you are, it'd be tough. It would definitely take a while for the public to get used to the constant watch of their every move, but in the long run, it would be worth it.
Angelica Felix-DeGuzman (Patriotism)
"Patriotism means supporting your
government during times of war"
Patriotism(N): love for or devotion to one's country.
If you love your country and support your country then shouldnt you support you countries gorvenment though peace and war? However, what if your government is corrupt? Just because you love your country does that mean you agree with your government?
If your government officials are corrupt then wouldnt the decisions they are making not be for the good of the people but for their own selfish interests. If you love your coutnry then go ahead and love your country. However, loving your country doesnt necessarily mean loving the people who govern it. Because if you really think about it do we all hand pick the people we want to lead us? Or is it a majority of the population, no, not even that, because it is the electors of the country and not the peoples vote in particular that decides our countries leaders.
That brings us back to the question at hand. If you are a Patriot than you love your country. If you love your coutnry then shouldnt you support the decisions it makes politically? No. Because it is not your coutrny that is going to war. It is the men governing our coutnry who are sending us into war. It is their beliefs along with others that war is the solution.
I disagree with the statement:
"Patriotism means supporting your government durign times of war"
You do not need to support your government
in order to support your country.
Ellissa Abbott: "To Assure Our Country's Freedom, The Government Should Be Able To Spy On Its Citizens"
I don't agree with this statement. It states that government should be able to invade poeples privacy, i don't think thats okay. In the book the phrase that is enforced over and over is "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU". Its bothersom that someone thought the world would be like this. I feel like in a way the goverment has a lot of freedom in exposing peoples personal life but i also want security as an individual. This is a sensitive subject due to the fact that most people are torn about it. So to insure our country's freedom "BIG BROTHER" should be left out of the picture, I would rather have them persue potential criminals then to suspect new ones.
Jada Wittow
"The Goverment has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who may be a threat."
I strongly disagree with this statement. Monitoring what people are reading would not reveal who could be a threat to the Goverment. What would they consider a threat to the Goverment? Someone reading a book about some idea that goes against something the Goverment supports? Would they consider someone reading a book about guns, or how to make bombs a threat? A person could just be interested in how bombs are built because they are curious, not because they are planning on making a bomb and then planting it in the White House. There are a large variety of reasons people read what they read, and it is not an accurate way to determine who could be a threat to the goverment. Monitoring what people read is infringing on people's privacy and digging into things that don't really affect the goverment at all. I could be researching at the library for a project on nuclear warfare, but they would see I checked out a book about nuclear warfare and assume that I was threat to the goverement because of that. Knowing what people are reading is a very inaccurate way to determine whether they are a threat.
Carly Haeck: "The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat."
This statement implies that people agree with everything they read, which is entirely false. Think about how many republicans read democratic publications, or vice versa. It's not because they are thinking of switching sides, but because they want to be informed of recent news. It's always beneficial to know all angles of an issue so you can better form your opinions. At my middle school we read parts of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Does that mean we were all planning on joining the communist party? Of course not. So if the government did keep tabs on everything we read, how could they determine who is actually a threat and who is just brushing up on history? In AP European History, we are learning about anarchists, a group of people who are against the state. Yes, anarchists are threatening to the government, but if we didn't learn about them we would be missing out on an interesting aspect of history. What if students were not allowed to read about the KKK? That was an important aspect of the obstacles facing the civil rights movement. Without that significant knowledge, opinions would not be as accurate.
Marvin Eng - "For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it"
"For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it"
I highly disagree with this statement. There are so many ways to express your ideas without using words, such as music, art, basically just anyway to communicate with others with out using words. For example when watching a cartoon like “Tom and Jerry” there are no words because the music and the actions are enough to portray the idea that is being sent to the audience. When you see in movie a woman walking down a dark alley and the suspenseful music starts to play, you already know that something bad is about to happen. How? Because visually and audibly you can deduce things much easier than having just the words.
There is a reason a saying like “a picture is worth a thousand words” exist.
=]
I highly disagree with this statement. There are so many ways to express your ideas without using words, such as music, art, basically just anyway to communicate with others with out using words. For example when watching a cartoon like “Tom and Jerry” there are no words because the music and the actions are enough to portray the idea that is being sent to the audience. When you see in movie a woman walking down a dark alley and the suspenseful music starts to play, you already know that something bad is about to happen. How? Because visually and audibly you can deduce things much easier than having just the words.
There is a reason a saying like “a picture is worth a thousand words” exist.
=]
N-Dog Tizzle
"To assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on it's citizens."
This statement is not true. In fact, this statement defines the complete opposite of freedom. Freedom is having the ability to do what you wish without others judging you for it. Freedom is the right to privacy, and spying on citizens violates one's privacy. Freedom is not defined by our government knowing what we do in private, whether it be sculpting clay figurines or sheep herding. Instead, our freedom is secured by citizens knowing what our government does and having the right to vote on it. If we don't know what the government is doing and we can't influence it based on what we, as people want, then the government can take away our freedom in any way possible, including spying on us.
This statement is not true. In fact, this statement defines the complete opposite of freedom. Freedom is having the ability to do what you wish without others judging you for it. Freedom is the right to privacy, and spying on citizens violates one's privacy. Freedom is not defined by our government knowing what we do in private, whether it be sculpting clay figurines or sheep herding. Instead, our freedom is secured by citizens knowing what our government does and having the right to vote on it. If we don't know what the government is doing and we can't influence it based on what we, as people want, then the government can take away our freedom in any way possible, including spying on us.
David B. - Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals
#7 - Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals...
I agreed with this topic but only if it is on public property because it would be unlawful to have it on a streetcorner and watching the inside of someones house, but it would be ok if it would be in a government owned property like parks and schools especially if it were to watch for criminal activity. This is what is occuring today but later there could be possibly a different government and there would be cameras everywhere, and it is the things like that which make me not agree with the security cameras because people need privacy sometimes and without that it would cause people to breakdown in stress knowing that they couldn't do many things. For instance if you were trying to write down some of your thoughts in your house and a camera sees that you are writing something that isn't allowed, that would be really annoying because sometimes people are angry and want to do certain things. Without the ability to do that a lot of people would be stressed out and angrier at the high power.
I agreed with this topic but only if it is on public property because it would be unlawful to have it on a streetcorner and watching the inside of someones house, but it would be ok if it would be in a government owned property like parks and schools especially if it were to watch for criminal activity. This is what is occuring today but later there could be possibly a different government and there would be cameras everywhere, and it is the things like that which make me not agree with the security cameras because people need privacy sometimes and without that it would cause people to breakdown in stress knowing that they couldn't do many things. For instance if you were trying to write down some of your thoughts in your house and a camera sees that you are writing something that isn't allowed, that would be really annoying because sometimes people are angry and want to do certain things. Without the ability to do that a lot of people would be stressed out and angrier at the high power.
Brigitte Manos: "People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged."
I disagrgee with this statement. I believe that people should have the right to be told their charge and be tried. In Amendment VI it states, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial..." Sadly however, this amendment is not always followed. Guantanamo bay is an example where the government of the United States does not follow the sixth amendment. At Guantanamo Bay, they deny the "criminals" the right to a trial. This is unconstitutional and should not be allowed. Therefore, I disagree with this statement.
Vanessa Newman-"To assure our country's freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens"
i disagree. i say this because i think that if everyone has freedom then they shouldn't be spied on. i feel that privacy is also apart of freedom because the citizens should be able to feel comfortable with living in their country without worrying that the government is watching their every move. in 1984, they have "BIG BROTHER" everywhere, according to Winston. Winston feels hatred because he thinks BIG BROTHER is watching him.
Molly Sharpe "The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who may be a threat."
The medium of text holds a remarkable amount of indoctrination power. As with television, movies, and photographs, the content of novels, magazines, newspapers, and other types of written material can often include depraved, inappropriate, or, most importantly, dangerous ideas, images, or scenes. Many people don't realize that just by reading a murder mystery or a book like '1984' that is anti-establishment, or by reading an account of the life of a bloodthirsty dictator that they absorb information, and even internalize ideas that normally would not occur in their natural mind. Besides this, the types of people that enjoy books with descriptions of gory scenes often glean some enjoyment from violence, and many who read books like '1984' of their own volition may have anti-government tendencies. Therefore, in order to track and possibly prevent those with closet affection for violence and those who are anti-government (perhaps in a dangerous way), the government does have a right to know what people are reading. This, of course, does not mean that the government has a right to remove material from circulation that is viewed as being indicative of unsafe characteristics in those who read such material. It merely means that they have a right to know.
Annika "Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither"
Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve security. Those who would give up their freedom have a personal right to do so and therefore deserve to have their intentions realized. When the first Europeans came to the North American continent, they gave up their security for freedom. They gave up the security of a familiar home and a familiar society in favor of the freedom of a new beginning in America. Our country, having been founded on such principles, encourages such attitudes. This country, similarly, should also uphold the opposite point of view. If we're allowed to give up security for freedom, there is no reason we shouldn't be allowed to give up freedom for security.
Sometimes giving up freedom for security is desired. Some people yearn for a supportive structure more than they do total freedom. They should be allowed to wish for this just as the Europeans wished for freedom in the New World.
Sometimes giving up freedom for security is desired. Some people yearn for a supportive structure more than they do total freedom. They should be allowed to wish for this just as the Europeans wished for freedom in the New World.
Keira Weldon "The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine if it's a threat to the country."
I disagree with this statement because no one should have to reveal personal information or thoughts to anyone. When something is personal, it's to yourself and you shouldn’t have to reveal anything. If the government were to have the right to know what a person was reading or written to themselves, this would be breaking the 1st amendment. In the 1st amendment it states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. This means that no one should violate a person’s freedom to speak, nor write which is an expression of free exercise.
Genna Watson - "Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals."
While this idea might seem initially acceptable because we have video cameras in the majority of public places already, one word in this statement makes it unacceptable - "potential". I am wholly in favor of cameras in public places to catch thieves or committers of other illegal actions. However, once you enter the realm of proscibing crimes to people before they have actually been commited, law has lost its concreteness and crossed over into speculation. Just because someone glances at Mein Kampf in a bookstore does not mean that they will spontaneously begin killing Jews, just as a person who has a friend committing tax fraud will not immediately do so themselves. In addition, accusing people of potential crime paves the way for making certain types of inaction illegal. In 1984, like during the French Revolution, people are imprisoned or killed for not being enthusiastic enough about their governments, despite the fact that they never actually performed any anarchistic actions. In this way, people are no longer naturally innocent, but actually born with intrinsic guilt. While actual versus potential crime may seem like a fine line, please don't be fooled. Once that gap is bridged, there is no going back.
Sam Johnston - "For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it."
For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.
This is absolutely true. When we think, we use words to express our ideas. Children spend a very large amount of time asking questions until they find the words and their meanings to express their thoughts. If all they needed to think were emotions, then children would have the greatest creative capacity, since they have overwhelming, violently powerful mood swings.
Thoughts are expressed through words, and if there is no word with the correct meaning, then we must attempt to assign a new meaning to a word. In Newspeak, the word freedom has been stripped down, so that it can only be used to say a noun is free from another noun, and the ideas of political and intelectual freedom is abolished. without those meanings, the Party managed to remove any possibility of political and intelectual freedom.
While some will undoubtebly be trying to find counterarguments, bear in mind that every thought that you form will be composed of words that convey the meaning intended.
This is absolutely true. When we think, we use words to express our ideas. Children spend a very large amount of time asking questions until they find the words and their meanings to express their thoughts. If all they needed to think were emotions, then children would have the greatest creative capacity, since they have overwhelming, violently powerful mood swings.
Thoughts are expressed through words, and if there is no word with the correct meaning, then we must attempt to assign a new meaning to a word. In Newspeak, the word freedom has been stripped down, so that it can only be used to say a noun is free from another noun, and the ideas of political and intelectual freedom is abolished. without those meanings, the Party managed to remove any possibility of political and intelectual freedom.
While some will undoubtebly be trying to find counterarguments, bear in mind that every thought that you form will be composed of words that convey the meaning intended.
Aidan Lawrence: Patriotism Means Supporting Your Government During Times of War
Patriotism means nothing of the sort. Patriotism is a love for the ideals and moral fabric upon which your country is built. In order to be a true patriot, you must understand the issues presented to your country, not just blindly follow where your government leads. To be a patriot is to be a willful citizen of a country. It is not required to agree with everything the government does, nor is it required to have a flag in your yard, eat apple pie, or even celebrate the 4th of July. All that is required to be a patriot is to appreciate your country, not your government. True patriots support the citizens of the country, and by association, sometimes the government.
Jonny Hirschi: "Patriotism means supporting your government in times of war."
Patriotism means loving and supporting your country. I believe that a true citizen has no obligation to blindly support their government's decision. A true patriot should analyze and formulate their own opinions, for it is this active participation that really benefits the nation. With regards to the Iraq War, I am totally against the policies that led to the non-justifiable debacle. However, by being a true patriot, I want those US soldiers to be home with their families and not risking their lives for a pointless war. Being in this war is not what's best for the country, so all real patriots should oppose it. Therefore, if a patriotic citizen feels that their government is not positively leading the country that they love, it is their right and duty to stand up and have their voice be heard. Passive, submissive citizens will never help the country.
Ms. Jenkins
Looking forward to reading your thoughtful, academic, and reflective comments!
Statements to respond to:
1. Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither.
2. To assure our country’s freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens.
3. Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war.
4. Torture of a person who is a threat to our country’s freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die.
5. People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged.
6. The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat.
7. Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.
8. For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.
9. Reporters should submit their work to government officials so they may determine if it’s a threat to the country.
10. The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war.
Statement Response Rubric: Response is thoughtful, academically-focused, uses evidences to support opinion, no spelling errors, and appropriate word choice = 20 points (depending on amount of errors, grade will decrease).
Peer Response Rubric: Response is thoughtful, academically-focused, responds to author’s point, offers reasoning for agree/disagree, no spelling errors, and appropriate word choice = 10 points (depending on amount of errors, grade will decrease).
Statements to respond to:
1. Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither.
2. To assure our country’s freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens.
3. Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war.
4. Torture of a person who is a threat to our country’s freedom is acceptable as long as the person does not die.
5. People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged.
6. The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat.
7. Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals.
8. For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.
9. Reporters should submit their work to government officials so they may determine if it’s a threat to the country.
10. The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war.
Statement Response Rubric: Response is thoughtful, academically-focused, uses evidences to support opinion, no spelling errors, and appropriate word choice = 20 points (depending on amount of errors, grade will decrease).
Peer Response Rubric: Response is thoughtful, academically-focused, responds to author’s point, offers reasoning for agree/disagree, no spelling errors, and appropriate word choice = 10 points (depending on amount of errors, grade will decrease).
Zoe Storck- Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war.
Webster’s definition of patriotism is: “love of one’s own country”. Here in the United States, there are many pieces that make up our great nation. Along with a military fighting a war in Iraq, we also have a public education system, a judicial system, freedom of speech, and a myriad of other privileges that are not often found in other countries around the world. Honestly, I cannot say that I support the war in Iraq. However, I love this country and I support the government. According to the dictionary, I am a patriot.
Zoe Erb- "People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged."
I strongly disagree with this statement, because it is unjust in American society. People are capable of many things, but that doesn't mean they will carry out these actions. It is impossible to predict what people will actually do. If we start punishing people for what they could do, wouldn't everyone be in jail?For example, people have the potential and ability to go into a store, take something off a shelf, and walk away. But will they actually do it? Anyone decent wouldn't. But it's the potential in people that this quote wants to punish. I don't think that's just.
Rachel Lee Statement six:
The government has a right to know what people are reading so they may determine who might be a threat I disagree with that statement because obviously the government has the right to read whatever pleases them but I don’t believe they should be reading things to weed out people who may possibly be a threat. In the novel 1984 their government was differed from ours in various ways, but in our current government according to the first amendment guarantees the people the freedom of speech and protects media messages from regulation and censorship. If the government read everything that anyone ever wrote to weed out everyone who was a possible threat, which would be illegal according to the first amendment. Journalists posses the right to write what they wish as long as it doesn’t violate the four privacy torts, having the government interfere with what is being written is going against the law.
Amanda Jones
In response to 2. To assure our country’s freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens.A country's freedom is a direct result of its government. A government is a 'the form or system of rule by which a state, community, etc., is governed' [dictionary meaning]. Government is a popular sovereignty, created with its power residing in its citizens. The social contract between a government and its citizen ensures that the citizen's necessity is achieved by any means possible. The word 'spy' ideally means someone who follows one to obtain confidential information but the word also means to examine something closely or carefully. If government needs to examine its citizens to ensure their freedom, they should be allowed to do so. There is no violation in privacy when the government acquires certain knowledge for the benefit of a citizen or the greater population.
Janice- "For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it."
To some of us, words are significiantly used to express our strongest opinions or thoughts. For the artistic others, they paint pictures to express the thousand words that could be represented within their personal piece. Though these pictures have a literal meaning, they still manage to convey the artist's ideas through the expressions or emotions they put into the art piece. While words are most often used as a direct form of putting out an idea, an image's message is a lot stronger when it attracts the attention of a viewer by their instant emotion or reaction, upon viewing the image.So when they say "a picture is worth a thousand words", it shows that the image could be EXPLAINED using words, but it was created in the visual form because it's the full portrayal of an idea with added emotions. And that, is stronger than what words can conceive.
Juliette Riley- "Those who exchange freedom for security deserve neither."
I disagree with this statement because feeling secure is a large part of having freedom. If you feel unsafe or uncomfortable in any situation or environment, then you are not truly free to do as you please as you don't feel safe in doing so. There is also no right for anyone to take away from you either your freedom or security, even if you decide to exchange one for the other.
Molly Quinn-Shea- “Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither.”
(#1)I believe this only because you cannot truly feel free until you truly feel secure, and vise versa. In order to accomplish security…freedom must be accomplished as well. Security is not just the knowing that you cannot be harmed, it is also being comfortable with your actions and the possible outcomes. Then freedom is the understanding that you are able to express your thoughts and ideas with the knowledge that any contradiction will not be said in order just to silence but instead to comprehend; the security of this is essential. Already hinted in the book 1984, the main character that is given security his whole life has begun to feel uneasy about every action he takes. He has begun to question everyone and everything that is watching him, even if it is the slightest of suspicions. This proves that true security goes hand in hand with absolute freedom.
Alyson Mar
For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it.Words are not the only way of expressing ideas. We have other methods like drawing, dancing, painting, music, etc. These methods were thought of to make the idea tangible for people to see/hear/understand. For example, if someone were feeling sad, he'd play a lament on his guitar and have his emotions heard and felt by others. In some cases, not using words can be more expressive than using them.
Eliza Cohn
"The only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war."A country can prepare for war by gathering weapons and soldiers, and getting into the correct mindset to fight. If a country is prepared to go into war, they are ready to battle their enemies. Being ready to fight cannot mean being ready for peace. Peace is abolishing hate and violence. Peace is respect and harmony. If a country is ready to go to war, they are ready for extreme violence, and not at all ready for respect and harmony. The only way to prepare for peace is to live in unity with your neighbors, instead of fighting against them. When a country can do that, they will be ready for peace. A respectful country filled with toleration is the background that is necessary for peace to flourish.-
Pat Yiu
"Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war."Patriotism in a literal definition means to provide positive support towards your country. War being a major issue in a country would mean to provide positive support towards that war. However, the definition of patriotism has changed since then. To support Patriotism nowadays means to provide positive support towards your country while not going against your own values. If your President was to start a war against a defenseless country for no apparent reason, then you could be patriotic and not support this war as long as you justify your reasoning in the benefit of the country. There are lots of countries that used to believe war was the only way for a country to develop. War allowed countries to expand to other areas, gain resources, and find allies with other neighboring countries. In the present day, we have a greater respect towards human life and most of the time we don't choose to go to war unless the loss of human life is preventive of a greater loss of human life if you'd choose not to go to war.
James Morris-Lent
"Patriotism meens supporting your government during times of war."I strongly disagree with this statement. Patriotism refers not to a loyalty to one's government, but a loyalty to one's state. If the government enters the state into a damaging war, it is the citizens' responsibility to oppose the war, since it hurts the state. If a war is beneficial to the state, then it can be considered patriotic to support the war, regardless of any moral or ethical failing.To use a contemporary example, many people support the United States' war in Iraq, and many do not. However, citizens on either side can be described as patriotic - whether or not they support the war - as long as their stand is based on what they feel is best for our state. Patriotism is not based on supporting or opposing the war due to feelings towards the government. The government merely works for the state. Patriotism considers the state before the current government.
Francis Lin
“Reporters should submit their work to government officials so they may determine if it’s a threat to the country.”I would have to disagree with this statement because what would freedom of the press be if the government would be allowed to control what gets circulated to the public. If the government had that kind of power they would have the power to control the thought and lives of its people. The power of the press is the most powerful thing there is because of its ability to influence a large mass of people. The only point of view that the people would see would be the point of view of the government. In most societies, most people will form their thoughts and opinions based on what the media says. They will either agree or disagree based on what they have previously been informed about. If there is only one source coming out, there will only be one view point. Only one way to think. What would be such a threat to our country that our own government would find it appropriate to censor from us? A terrorists bomber? If that is that case, the people should know and be on alert. An overthrow of the government? If that many people respond to an article about that, then the government deserves to be overturned. There is no excuse for allowing the government to intervene and censor the media. There have been governments in the past where the government controlled all of media. Good examples would be Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Both used their propaganda machines to convince their countries that what they were doing was for the good of the state, even at the cost of the lives of others. In fact, this book, 1984 is an allegory for the time of Stalin and his terrible reign, and how he used the power of the media to shape the minds of all that he controlled. Now, if the media were to control the power of the press, our world would be like George Orwell’s Oceania in the year 1984.
Daylee Baker
The definition of peace according to the Encarta Dictionary is Freedom from war; a calm and quiet state, free from disturbance or noise; freedom from conflict or disagreement among people or groups of people. The definition of war according to the Encarta Dictionary is a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or fractions that leads to fighting between armed forces; a serious struggle, argument, or conflict between people. Just in the definition, peace is a result of war. In a giving situation where there is more than one person involved there is bound to be a disagreement. It seems the only way to get rid of the issue is to come to an agreement. Typically someone contradicts with the proposition created and the only way to get your way is to defeat the enemy. Thus war breaks out, and one person is either defeated or surrenders. The statement “ the only way to prepare for peace is to be prepared for war” is true because if you want peace you should be prepared for the ones who will be against your ideas, thoughts and beliefs so that if war breaks out you can be victorious.
Heleina Gartrell
Statement: Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither.I disagree with this statement. Trading in your freedom to feel safe in your environment does not mean that you don’t deserve either of them. Look at the book 1984. The government took away all freedom from the community for security purposes because the government is fearful that if people think on their own things will not go the way that they want them to. In this the community lives in fear but nobody seems to know how things were before these times, so you can’t really say if they gave up their freedom for security or not. Regardless of whether they did or not, they deserve freedom because nobody deserves to be fearful of their own mind.
Mariama Salia
“To ensure our country’s freedom, the government should be able to spy on its citizens.”The definition of spy is a person employed by the government to retrieve secret information or knowledge about another person with or without their knowledge. To me, this would be extremely dangerous if enforced in our society today. There have been several incidents of the government spying on people without their knowledge through phones, known as “phone tapping”. While the government defended themselves by saying it was for national security, people who were tapped were outraged by the invasion of privacy and those who weren’t, were fearful of the possible tapping into their conversations. To spy on a citizen of America is without a doubt an extreme invasion of privacy. With the “Total Information Awareness” program the government initiated in 2002, they’ve become able to gain access to credit card charges, visited web sites, emails sent or received, trips booked, grades received, even bank charges to be sent to their “virtual, centralized grand database”. The question is, do they need all that information? If someone isn’t plotting anything against our society but is being tapped, is that ethical?Personally, no, it’s not ethical. This doesn’t ensure our freedom if we’re constantly being recorded by someone. For hundreds of years different groups of society have struggled to gain their freedom, which to them represented not being controlled by anyone. If our society knows that they’re being watched and that one wrong they do might turn for the worst for them, are we able to think freely and truly? I doubt that the government will enforce TV's that are able to see and hear you like in 1984, but how far will they go to "protect society" if it means invading everyones lives?
Jason Hu
7. Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals. Yes, society would be safer because there would be video proof of any person or persons committing a crime. Although this is unethical, as it invades a person's privacy, it instills more safety to the society as a whole. Not only this, a sense of paranoia overcomes anyone who is about to or thinking of breaking the law. This paranoia could further hinder future crime, as fear of getting caught may also stop premature felonies.So, despite unethical reasons, setting up security cameras to catch potential criminals would create a safer society because only a few would even try to commit these crimes through all the paranoia and uncertainty.
Michael Midllebrooks
So for the deep thought response we are to choose one statement and respond to it. Well I chose the 7th one, (society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals). Well I think it won’t be safer. I don’t think it won’t be safer because it’s a camera, someone can easily cover their face with something so they won’t get caught. Plus a camera moves pretty slow if they move at all. Also a camera can only see so much at a time, I think someone will come up with a way to avoid them.Some more reasons I don’t think society will be safer because If you ever watch cops or a show like cops you would seen how many criminals was caught on tape and is still on the run. Plus last school a whole bunch of student’s everyday at lunch used to steal from chevron and 7-11 and both these stores had working cameras and no one got caught. And just because they got cameras doesn’t mean that people aren’t going to do it, it just means there going to try harder to get away.
Megan Flood
For an idea to exist, we must have words to express it. This is a true statement because in order for an idea to exist you need to think of it. If you have no words in order to create the idea in the first place the idea cannot exist.Also ideas are made to be expressed, whether through writing, images, speaking, etc. And in order for your idea to be conveyed properly, these images and text must be attached to words. Ideas rely on words to support them, ideas don't exist without words to express them or create them.
Johannes Harkins
In response to question no. 1The idea that you would deprive anyone of freedom, even one who doesn't believe in it, is unconstitutional. The whole principle of freedom in this country is that it is an inalienalbe right that should be given to everyone & no one should go without it. Also the pursuit of personal safety is a right that this country strives to uphold for everyone, no matter what they believe.
Jack Davidson
Question 5 asks if the government should be allowed to hold “threatening” people in prison for an undetermined amount of time without charging them of anything. My response to this is NO, NO, NO. If someone posed an actual threat to the well being of the government then they could be imprisoned on charges of whatever illegal acts they were planning. If there is not sufficient evidence to charge them, then they should not be imprisoned. If the government suspects that someone is a legal threat, fighting the government through perfectly legal means, they should not be imprisoned. Humans have the right to fight what they oppose, and if they do it in a perfectly non-harmful way, they shouldn’t be hindered and imprisoned.
Hannah W.
Patriotism means supporting your government during times of war.I strongly disagree with this statement, for both ethical and logical reasons. International law forbids invading a country without significant provocation, and yet our country has chosen to do so more than once without regard for the implications or consequences. During times of undue war, many Americans, myself included, feel resentment for the government’s decisions. This, however, does not mean that I am ungrateful for the advantages that I have living in this country. Rational thinking tells us that being against actions that our government takes does not necessarily mean that we do not support the country as a whole.
Justine Freeman
5. People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged.-There are some sacrifices that are acceptable, and some that go too far. Our founding fathers founded this country hoping that our freedons & liberties would remain intact. Our founding fathers practiced Christianity on a basis of using the 10 commandments including commandment #9 Thou shall not falsly accuse.Therefore one should not be held in Prison if they are thought to be a threat becuase, one, many people have different opinions on who may or may not be a threat, and they may be falsly accused. One must have much evidence in order to accuse.Without evidence it is unethical to old someone in contempt.
Michael Haruta
“People who are a serious threat to the government should be able to be held in prison without being charged.”To agree or disagree with this statement, you must know how these people are threatening the government and if they are trying to be sinister or if their intentions are to better the country, even if it goes against the government. For example Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a serious threat to the government because he opposed the laws made by them, but he was acting to better our country and to grant civil rights to people of all ages, genders, and races, so it is absolutely not justified to put him in jail. However, say they government knew that there was someone threatening national security, then the case may be different and there would be more justification to throw them in jail.
Sebastian Voorhees
To assure our countries freedom, the government should not be able to spy on its citizens. Because OUR country at least is “by the people for the people”, and so by spying on our citizens and restricting their freedom, we are rather than assuring their freedom we are assuring that we are less free. Furthermore, our countries freedom on an international standing means nothing if internally we are made menial by our own government. (response to statement #2)
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Neil "The Boss" Hinnant
The Only Way To Prepare For Peace Is To Be Prepared For War:
This statement is true. A country cannot, in good conscience, be unprepared for war. Any country that attempts to live with no military forces will be eventually destroyed, unless they have absolutely nothing of value in their country. Value is what drives invasions of other countries, no war has ever been fought by a country that had nothing to gain by winning. Therefore, if a country wants to have any standard of living whatsoever (a standard of living requires a certain amount of economic production, which implies value), they must be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take that value for themselves. Any country that tries to live based on abstruse conceptions of "Human Nature" will inevitably find themselves on the receiving end of a good ass-whuppin (sorry ms jenkins).
A perfect example of a country that tried to live peacefully is Tibet. The Dalai Lama had next to no military, as he wanted. Then, when China decided to invade, Tibet was unable to put up a fight, and China easily conquered the defenseless country. This kind of subjugation shows exactly why a country must be prepared for war at all times. Any other philosophy is naive.
Disclaimer: Just because a country HAS military power, does not mean it MUST use it. In fact, it is beneficial to a country to refrain from military action as much as possible.
This statement is true. A country cannot, in good conscience, be unprepared for war. Any country that attempts to live with no military forces will be eventually destroyed, unless they have absolutely nothing of value in their country. Value is what drives invasions of other countries, no war has ever been fought by a country that had nothing to gain by winning. Therefore, if a country wants to have any standard of living whatsoever (a standard of living requires a certain amount of economic production, which implies value), they must be prepared to defend themselves from those who would take that value for themselves. Any country that tries to live based on abstruse conceptions of "Human Nature" will inevitably find themselves on the receiving end of a good ass-whuppin (sorry ms jenkins).
A perfect example of a country that tried to live peacefully is Tibet. The Dalai Lama had next to no military, as he wanted. Then, when China decided to invade, Tibet was unable to put up a fight, and China easily conquered the defenseless country. This kind of subjugation shows exactly why a country must be prepared for war at all times. Any other philosophy is naive.
Disclaimer: Just because a country HAS military power, does not mean it MUST use it. In fact, it is beneficial to a country to refrain from military action as much as possible.
Sam Dunnington
"Those who would exchange freedom for security deserve neither"
This cannot be considered a valid statement. With freedom comes the choice to give up that freedom, for security purposes or otherwise. You should control how your life plays out. And who judges what someone deserves? If there is such a judge, the person was not free to begin with.
It seems fairly simple up until you get to the question of government, especially our own. We live in a social contract in which we have relinquished certain freedoms to gain safety and security. You are free to do what you want, except when laws stop you. For example, we are not free to kill people. This is punishable by law.
The point is, this line does not apply to individuals. We have chosen to give up our freedom to kill in order to be secure against getting killed by another pursuing his right to kill. An individual can pick and choose what freedoms they maintain. But how does this apply to government, especially with laws like the patriot acts? We have not consented to be spied on, and yet our government has given itself permission to do so. We have given up more freedom, this time without our consent. These freedoms have been curtailed in the name of public safety, but how do you stop them from going too far? Where do you draw the line between laws that keep you safe and laws that expose every aspect of your life to the government? This is a question we will likely be forced to answer at some point in our lifetime.
This cannot be considered a valid statement. With freedom comes the choice to give up that freedom, for security purposes or otherwise. You should control how your life plays out. And who judges what someone deserves? If there is such a judge, the person was not free to begin with.
It seems fairly simple up until you get to the question of government, especially our own. We live in a social contract in which we have relinquished certain freedoms to gain safety and security. You are free to do what you want, except when laws stop you. For example, we are not free to kill people. This is punishable by law.
The point is, this line does not apply to individuals. We have chosen to give up our freedom to kill in order to be secure against getting killed by another pursuing his right to kill. An individual can pick and choose what freedoms they maintain. But how does this apply to government, especially with laws like the patriot acts? We have not consented to be spied on, and yet our government has given itself permission to do so. We have given up more freedom, this time without our consent. These freedoms have been curtailed in the name of public safety, but how do you stop them from going too far? Where do you draw the line between laws that keep you safe and laws that expose every aspect of your life to the government? This is a question we will likely be forced to answer at some point in our lifetime.
Shawnte
The only way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war.
WAR- a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles; to be involved in a serious struggle, argument, or conflict with somebody or an effort to combat or eradicate something harmful<>
Throughout the years in history there's been war. War can be an battle between two countries, for civil rights, and eternally. War is shown in the book 1984 by George Orwell through the battle for individual rights and the freedom of speech. The statement "The only way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war." Is proven to be true countless times throughout history. For example to obtain the same rights as whites Dr. Martian Luther King led his army into the streets to boycott for justice,his army believed in peace however. Battles dont always have to be with guns and hate,but with silence and calm.
WAR- a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions that leads to fighting between armed forces, especially in land, air, or sea battles; to be involved in a serious struggle, argument, or conflict with somebody or an effort to combat or eradicate something harmful<>
Throughout the years in history there's been war. War can be an battle between two countries, for civil rights, and eternally. War is shown in the book 1984 by George Orwell through the battle for individual rights and the freedom of speech. The statement "The only way to prepare for peace is to prepare for war." Is proven to be true countless times throughout history. For example to obtain the same rights as whites Dr. Martian Luther King led his army into the streets to boycott for justice,his army believed in peace however. Battles dont always have to be with guns and hate,but with silence and calm.
Tenny Abbott
"Patriotism mean supporting your government during time of war"
Personally I feel that to be a patriot to your country does not mean you should feel obliged to support your Government during war. The definition of a patriot is someone who loves and defends their country with interest and devotion. I feel that by the time I die, as for everyone, they should do something that gives back to the country and support this country in someway. That does not mean i think the only option would be to go off to war and fight. But if there was to ever be a draft, I would not run away to Canada. I would either become a conscientious objector or join some non-violent branch of the military but I pray this will never happen. However don't say this country sucks because of our politicians and being a patriot means you support Bush or the republicans because to me being a patriot has nothing to do with them. Look at the history of our country and what it was founded for and be a patriot for that. Love your country and defend your country for what it is, not for who runs it.
Personally I feel that to be a patriot to your country does not mean you should feel obliged to support your Government during war. The definition of a patriot is someone who loves and defends their country with interest and devotion. I feel that by the time I die, as for everyone, they should do something that gives back to the country and support this country in someway. That does not mean i think the only option would be to go off to war and fight. But if there was to ever be a draft, I would not run away to Canada. I would either become a conscientious objector or join some non-violent branch of the military but I pray this will never happen. However don't say this country sucks because of our politicians and being a patriot means you support Bush or the republicans because to me being a patriot has nothing to do with them. Look at the history of our country and what it was founded for and be a patriot for that. Love your country and defend your country for what it is, not for who runs it.
Audrey Musselman-Brown
"Society would be safer if we had security cameras in public places to catch potential criminals"
This statement is one that I both agree and disagree with. Were to there be security cameras in public places and the general public did not know about them, yes, it would probably catch criminals. But if evidence from these cameras were consistently used to convict criminals, people would catch on. Eventually criminals would either move their illegal activity away from public places or find a way to disable the cameras. Petty criminals may be stopped, but people who have a vested interest (personal or otherwise) in engaging in criminal activities are going to do them anyway. The only question is where. It could actually be easier to catch criminals without cameras because instead of being driven to more protected, secret places, criminals would be doing their deeds in more public, more populated areas where witnesses are more present. It's impossible to say for sure what the outcome would be of putting up security cameras everywhere, but the chances of them making very little impact are high, and the cost of putting them up in the first place would make it an ill advised choice.
This statement is one that I both agree and disagree with. Were to there be security cameras in public places and the general public did not know about them, yes, it would probably catch criminals. But if evidence from these cameras were consistently used to convict criminals, people would catch on. Eventually criminals would either move their illegal activity away from public places or find a way to disable the cameras. Petty criminals may be stopped, but people who have a vested interest (personal or otherwise) in engaging in criminal activities are going to do them anyway. The only question is where. It could actually be easier to catch criminals without cameras because instead of being driven to more protected, secret places, criminals would be doing their deeds in more public, more populated areas where witnesses are more present. It's impossible to say for sure what the outcome would be of putting up security cameras everywhere, but the chances of them making very little impact are high, and the cost of putting them up in the first place would make it an ill advised choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)