Step 1- Read all the comments from the previous assignment.
Step 2- Choose one comment which is thoughtful.
Step 3-
First, paraphrase the comment you are responding to: For example: “Mr. Michael Greenburg thinks that…”
Then, write a question about the chosen comment. The question must be: clear, sincere, useful and be the sort of question which leads to more questions. The question you write must complicate the comment’s argument, make the reader of the comment you are questioning think deeper. Stir up some intellectual trouble.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ms Agaronnik thinks that Euripides and Franklin D. Roosevelt disagrre with eachother but in a way the feelings they had are the same. In 1934 african americans were not free. Though they had a little more freedom they were still all treated like slaves and Franklin D Roosevelt knew this. So the only real difference about their statements is that Euripides spoke his mind while Franklin D Roosevelt made the truth different. Although I too agree with his definition of freedom my question is; Did Franklin D. Roosevelt and Euripides really disagree with eachother?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. Jonathan Sperling states that "To have freedom you must earn it, you must want it, and you must be willing to put your life on the line for it." I do not agree with this statement because I do not feel that in order have freeedom I must put my life on the line for it. This statement suggests that you must always fight for freedom but today in the 21st century not all citizens need to actually go to war to fight for freedom. My quetsion to Mr. Jonathan Sperling is "Would you put your life on the line by going to war to fight for your freedom?"
ReplyDeleteMs. Julia Dankov said that freedom is granted to those who really deserves it, and that a criminal in jail gets his freedom taken away after he abuses it. I agree that a criminal should not walk freely on the streets, however, should the criminal lose all his basic freedoms too? Therefore, my question for Julia is, doesn’t the accused at least deserve the right to legal representation, freedom from unreasonable searches, right to a speedy and public trial, and the right to liberty?
ReplyDeleteMr. Frederick Yen states that the statement made by Franklin D. Roosevelt was closest to his heart. He agrees with Mr. Roosevelt on the fact that even though freedom allows you to be an individual person with rights, the price you have to pay is following the rules and be responsible and reasonable about it. I agree with Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Yen about this part, but the next part puzzled me. "Without rules to go with freedom, it would not be called freedom, but instead a chaotic world." Frederick states, and I have a question about that statement. Are the people of the world really not intelligent and mature enough to take their freedom seriously without abusing it? I think that people have enough manners and brains to keep themselves restrained and following the rules.
ReplyDeleteMs. Katie Li states that her definition is being able to express yourself without getting punished. She stated that freedom is also about religion, standing up for what you think is right. Freedom can be taken away, but not given. To obtain freedom, you must fight for it and risk your life for it. My question to Katie is "How can you stand up for something that you believe is right without getting punished or getting your freedom taken away?"
ReplyDeleteMs. Yana K. said that her personal definition of freedom is to be able to be yourself as long as laws are not broken. Freedom is the right to have your own unique appearance and to have the freedom of speech. I agree that you should be able to speak your opinions, be your own person, and look as you want to. However, I don’t think that a person can be free only if he obeys all laws. It is true that most laws are significant to the safety and security of people. However, some incidents prove that certain laws may be thought of as unfair by people and are meant to be broken. If the colonists had obeyed all laws and not been rebellious, we may have not been here today. My question is, “Does a person have to obey all laws to have freedom?”
ReplyDeleteMs. Ilana Urman thinks that the 21st century definition of freedom is to act freely without any limits and to also be considerate of others. I agree that a person is allowed to express themselves freely. However, expressing your freedom without limits is dangerous. Freedom with no limits is like letting a person jump off a bridge and yet that person isn't disturbing anyone. It's his/her decision to jump off the bridge. My question is "If freedom doesn't allow you to do the things you want to do, whats the point of having it?"
ReplyDeleteMs. Ilana Urman thinks that a 21st century definition of freedom is to actly freely without any limits and to be considerate of others but I believe this is a very dangerous definition. If freedom is to act freely without any limitations, murder wouldn't be a crime. In court, people would always be found innocent due to this definition, and there would be no order in the country. Criminals and everyday people would get away with everything. I also think that there wouldn't be any definition of criminal because there would be no limits to what you could do. There would be no difference between right or wrong. My question is: For a country to be considered a free country, are the people supposed to be allowed to do anything they want without consequences?
ReplyDeleteMs. Erika Lopez states that her definition of freedom, is that you may do anything you want as long as it does noy violate anything or anyone. I agree with this statement, because if you were caught stealing, it would not be refered to as freedom, but as a crime, since you are not following the laws. Freedom is something that is given to us in our society, but if violated, they might take it away from you. My question for Ms. Erika Lopez is: If people know how freedom is considered in society, them why do they still commit crimes, or offences?
ReplyDeleteMs. Ilana Urman’s definition of freedom was” the ability for each and every individual to be able to express themselves without any limits to their actions. I believe Ilana Urman’s definition is quite shallow and doesn’t explain how important freedom is. She also says that we must take people’s feelings into account. If that was the real definition of freedom that we lived by today then something like this would happen; if someone decided to kill a man and tells the judge that he was only expressing his feelings he could be let go with no consequences. My question for her is “When there are no limits to a person’s actions, then they feel that they have the freedom to do whatever they want to do. Wouldn’t letting everyone express their actions with the choice to consider someone’s feelings only make more problems between different people?”
ReplyDeleteMs. Ilana Urman thinks that the 21st century definition of freedom is the ability to act freely. She also said that her definition is that every individual can express themselves freely without any limits to their actions. Freedom is a privilege and we should treat it well. I agree and disagree with her understanding of freedom. If there is freedom where individuals can express themselves with no limits, then there would be no order. For example, kids in schools would be getting no education and it would be very wild. Also, killing yourself or another would be considered okay. It would get very dangerous because there are no limits to what you could do. My question is: If we have freedom, according to your definition, there would be no order and nobody would be safe. Why would anybody want to have freedom if they might be hurting someone?
ReplyDeleteMs. Erika Lopez thinks that the definition of freedom is that you can do anything you like as long it does not violate the law. I agree with her too. You should be able to do whatever you want as long as you don't break a law like murdering or stealing. If you do you should be punished. My question to Ms. Erika Lopez is "If no one followed the law and did anything they wanted to do, should they all be punished or should the laws be removed?"
ReplyDeleteMr. David Krumgalz thinks that freedom is the power to express yourself and do anything you want, as long as it doesn't contradict with any rules/laws or cause harm to yourself. He thinks that we should be able to say what we feel, but we shouldn't hurt somebody's feelings. He also thinks that we shouldn't be allowed to hurt anyone, including yourself. I agree with his idea of freedom, yet disagree. Even though it is wrong, we do have the right to hurt someone, including ourselves. My question for him is this: "If there are laws that we have to follow, and things we aren't allowed to do, can we really call it 'freedom'?"
ReplyDeleteMs. Rina Gershman has stated that freedom is the right to live and be alive. She had said that one should not set boundaries for people, because then he is creating boundaries for himself. This statement made by Rina is an opinion of hers, but to me I almost completely disagree with her. In my opinion freedom is the right to live and be alive, but there should be boundaries. The boundaries are what keep freedom in order. Without these boundaries, people could be killing other people, or be doing anything they want. My question for Rina is: If there were no boundaries at all for freedom, what would life be like today?
ReplyDeleteMr. Frederick Yen believes that freedom is when you can do as you please as long as you don't violate it. For instance, if you stole something, it wouldn't be considered freedom; more as stealing and then resulting in punishment. I agree with Frederick, when there is freedom there comes responsibilities and rules you need to respect and use. Although today you do have freedom, you still have to be wise and make correct decisions to how you use it. My question to him is, "Now that people these days do have freedom, what exactly can you do to stop people from violating/abusing it?"
ReplyDeleteIn Ms. Fradah Gold's statement, she writes "I believe freedom is a persons right to say or do what you want if it does not contradict with other peoples rights". I strongly disagree with this statement since there are many loopoles invloved in it. Hypothetically a person robbed a bank. Although this is morally wrong, it does not violate any rights of the owner of the bank or the employees. Nowhere in the Declaration Of Independence does it state "the right to own a bank and not ever get robbed".My opinion is that this definition is a very loosely-based definition of freedom. My question for Ms.Gold is:In a world that abides by your definition of freedom, would robbing a bank, possesing an un-licesed weapon and other activities that would be considered crimes in reality be accepted as normal according to this definition of freedom?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. Michael Greenberg had stated, “Freedom is the ability to make yourself visible in the world, the ability to do whatever your goal is no matter what your background is.” I disagree with this statement. To gain freedom means that you have a right of expressing yourself just not hurting anyone at it. Freedom is not the fact that you have to be visible to the world. You don’t need to stand out to have freedom. You just need to express yourself wisely. In addition to that, you can not reach any of your goals just because you feel like it. Yes, if the goal is appropriate you should be able to achieve it without it mattering what your background is. Although, if your goal is to be the leader of the world and for that you need to destroy everyone, you can not have freedom in that manner. Once in history that had happened, the person thought that if he was a ruler of a country he should be able to rule the world. Instead of ruling the world wisely he was destroying the world. Even though freedom is a right to express yourself, you must not only think about yourself first but most of the time you have to think of others first. My question is, “Does freedom mean that you should stand out and do as you prefer or does it mean that you should consider others first before you express yourself?”
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMr. Jonathon Sperling says “To have freedom, you must earn it, you must want it, and you must be willing to put your life on the line for it”. Those people that are willing to die for freedom are patriotic and those are the people that go to fight wars for our country. I disagree with Jonathan’s statement. There are people that are born with freedom, and they are lucky enough not to have fight for it. My question is “It is easy for someone’s freedom to get taken away when they abuse it, but how does one earn their freedom? Do countries just start a war the way the American Revolution was started?”
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenburg stated that freedom needs to be obtained and that freedom is the right to do whatever you want no matter what. I agree that freedom needs to be obtained, but I don’t agree on how he said that with freedom, you can do whatever you want. You can do whatever you want, but you shouldn’t be able to do whatever you want and harm people, groups, or government. I believe that freedom should have certain limits and that with freedom, you also need order. If I said mean things to somebody, that would mean I used my freedom for the wrong reasons and that I should be punished. (This was just an example). My question to Michael is that how do you obtain this “freedom” and what should be the limits to freedom.
ReplyDeleteMr. Greenberg stated "Freedom is the ability to make yourself visible in the world, the ability to do whatever your goal is no matter what your background is". He also states that freedom is the right to do whatever you want to matter what and freedom has to be obtained.Freedom does need to be obtained but you can't just do whatever you want. If everyone in a nation was allowed to do whatever they wanted there would be no order. You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't harm anyone and pass the "boundaries". Freedom has its limit and every time you give someone freedom, order "weighs" less on the scale.Its hard to let everyone do what they want if you actually want to keep your nation running. My question is how does a nation promise everyone the same freedom and what would be the boundaries?
ReplyDeleteMs. Alyssa Natividad supports the idea of true freedom. She states that true freedom is when one can do, state, or believe anything without being penalized by a person with higher authority. I believe that if there would be true freedom then people would take immoral actions such as being sexually offensive, saying or publishing false statements about others, or knowingly jeopardizing the safety of others because no authorities would exist and no laws would be established. My question is, “If having true freedom means being allowed to do anything without getting penalized, how can true freedom benefit society?”
ReplyDeleteMs. Ilana Urman’s 21st century definition of freedom is “the ability of each and every individual to be able to express themselves freely without any limits to their actions.” I believe that this statement is very dangerous. If an individual were to express there anger by possessing a gun and doing whatever they want with it, they would be “free” to go around shooting innocent people. But there may be some people in this world that are smart and mature and they will not abuse this. If there were to be no limits, society would crumble and it would be unsustainable even for the government to handle. My question is “Do you really think that if there were no limits, people wouldn’t abuse their freedom?”
ReplyDeleteMr. Jonathan Sperling explained that he believes freedom is the right to express one's true feelings about something, anything, but not be punished for doing that. If freedom is as Jonathan states, then that means that we can go around doing such things as screaming "FIRE!" which is very dangerous because it will cause agreat commotion and that is endangering many people. I have two questions.
ReplyDelete1. "Do we really have ultimate freedom to express our feelings any way we want?"
2. We are given laws, but they are constantly broken. "Is there a way to ensure that no laws are broken, while ensuring the promised freedom?
Mrs. Julia Dankov thinks that when somebody disobeys the law and is put in jails gets his/her freedom taken away. My question is: How does the person in jail get their freedom taken away when they are free to do as they like in the cell. They are not slaves and we are not forcing them to do something they do not like. They are just shut away for the time being.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Julia Dankov believes that her definition of freedom relies on if somebody disobeys the law and gets put in jail, freedom is taken away from them. I disagree with her analogy because freedom is a gift that people possess. When you go to jail, that doesnt mean that your freedom is necessarily taken away from you. You knoew that when you broke law,you were going against the limitations of freedom. Freedom isn't taken away from you, you toke freedom away from yourself. My question to you is, if you think that freedom is taken from you when you are placed in jail, how are people taken out of jail? Don't they have to have freedom to do so?
ReplyDeleteMitchell Eng's definition of freedom confused me a bit. He said that one must value and cherish freedom before he can obtain it. This means that before a person has freedom, they must show appreciation for it.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read this, I understood what Mitchell was trying to say. Freedom is not a privilege that you can abuse. You must treat it well otherwise it can get taken away from you.
I do have one question after reading Mitchell's comment. If your freedom is taken away from you, why should you fight for it? For example, when you break the law and you go to jail, you can't fight back because there would be bigger consequences. So why fight back?
Ms. Erika Lopez says that her definition of freedom is “when you are free to do whatever you want as long as you aren’t violating anything or anyone else.” I agree with her statement because you are allowed to do anything you want to do unless it breaks any part of the law or harms any person in any way. This leads me too my question. My question is”Why do people break the law if all they get out of it is the privilege of freedom taken away and punished severely?”
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteErika Lopez says that freedom should not be abused. I believe that freedom,today, can not be abused because if it could be we would be in a world of chaos and lope holes. Freedom is give to be used,there is no abusing it. Freedom of speech is the right to speak ones thoughts without fear of persecution. Any man or woman may speak freely as long as they something true or inoffensive. If what your saying is true then answer this"What would happen if our freedoms could all be twisted or changed.What if everyone could find a lope hole in the law? What would happen then?"
ReplyDeleteMitchell Eng states that ‘By having freedom, there are also rules to be placed. One rule about freedom is that one is allowed to speak freely without breaking lawful authorities. Another rule about freedom are manners.' I believe that freedom has many interpretations but it really is simply being able to do whatever you want. (This is regulated by laws and other things of course.) What I disagree with is that rules automatically come with freedom as Mitchell has stated. You can eat without manners at a restaurant and it is no crime, just socially unacceptable. We must remember that the rules, such as the one in question, are only created by the people that "control" the freedom.
ReplyDelete