To What Extent...
To what extent can it be said that CP TOK II is what IB intended for it to be?
I found myself wondering about this a little bit the other day/night. I guess I don't really know what the course is supposed to entail, but I feel like the class has been pushed to the blog and we have become CIS English. I do enjoy the writing instruction, but I guess I just wonder about the material. I try not to ramble, so I'll stop now.
Thoughts?
P.S. Does anybody agree with me that TOK II should be moved to second trimester? I make this argument due to college apps, history IA, etc. Thoughts on this welcomed too.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Compañeros
Compañeros
Tag: Ally Welle
What's wrong with blogging with a partner? Isn't the point of blogging to share ideas? Technically, we (Ally and Christian) are sharing ideas at this very moment. Could this be considered cheating? After all, two people are submitting the same post as their own. We're having an ethical dilemma (and also a spelling crisis!)!
Is working with a partner on another assignment (or history outline) ethical? You're submitting the same assignment that consists of two people's ideas. Is it an original piece of work?
Oh snap! Bell!
We find blogging more enjoyable as partners.
I'm Christian Dube, and I'm Ally Welle, and we approve this message.
Tag: Ally Welle
What's wrong with blogging with a partner? Isn't the point of blogging to share ideas? Technically, we (Ally and Christian) are sharing ideas at this very moment. Could this be considered cheating? After all, two people are submitting the same post as their own. We're having an ethical dilemma (and also a spelling crisis!)!
Is working with a partner on another assignment (or history outline) ethical? You're submitting the same assignment that consists of two people's ideas. Is it an original piece of work?
Oh snap! Bell!
We find blogging more enjoyable as partners.
I'm Christian Dube, and I'm Ally Welle, and we approve this message.
Meta-Blogging
Meta-Blogging
Tag: Ally Welle
I'm going to blog about blogging. Maybe the history of blogging. Maybe whatever I feel like.
Honestly though, what did middle class mothers do before blogging? (Probs a microaggression). I feel like without blogging, people were unable to share their thoughts and ideas, unless they were involved with the newspaper. I'll broaden it up a little bit and say without social media. I suppose that's why people blog.
What good can come from blogging? Although it is entertainment (sorta), and a place to share ideas, what's the point? Do people actually care about your thoughts? You hear of people who become Tumblr (another blogging site) famous. It isn't like they're rich or anything. Sure there might be the occasional multi-millionaire blogger. But other than that, it is just people living and blogging about their not so extraordinary lives.
Kind of a boring subject, but yet relevant because we, TOK 2'ers, spend countless hours on this website discussing ideas.
I'm Christian Dube, and I'm Ally Welle, and we approve this message.
Tag: Ally Welle
I'm going to blog about blogging. Maybe the history of blogging. Maybe whatever I feel like.
Honestly though, what did middle class mothers do before blogging? (Probs a microaggression). I feel like without blogging, people were unable to share their thoughts and ideas, unless they were involved with the newspaper. I'll broaden it up a little bit and say without social media. I suppose that's why people blog.
What good can come from blogging? Although it is entertainment (sorta), and a place to share ideas, what's the point? Do people actually care about your thoughts? You hear of people who become Tumblr (another blogging site) famous. It isn't like they're rich or anything. Sure there might be the occasional multi-millionaire blogger. But other than that, it is just people living and blogging about their not so extraordinary lives.
Kind of a boring subject, but yet relevant because we, TOK 2'ers, spend countless hours on this website discussing ideas.
I'm Christian Dube, and I'm Ally Welle, and we approve this message.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Inference
Inference
Inference is a weird thing... an educated guess. Consider this-
"It is a hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this means that we do not know whether it will rise."
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
Have you ever thought about that? We make an inference that the sun will rise at 6:30 am. How do we know? Because it has risen at approximately 6:30 am for thousands of years. One could say that the sun rising at 6:30 am tomorrow is common knowledge, but is it knowledge? It is an inference, but is that knowledge?
I started to think about this during data collection for my ethnography. I could infer something, but be totally wrong. My incorrect inferences were incorrect knowledge then, correct?
I guess there is no question. Just an epiphany.
Inference is a weird thing... an educated guess. Consider this-
"It is a hypothesis that the sun will rise tomorrow: and this means that we do not know whether it will rise."
-Ludwig Wittgenstein
Have you ever thought about that? We make an inference that the sun will rise at 6:30 am. How do we know? Because it has risen at approximately 6:30 am for thousands of years. One could say that the sun rising at 6:30 am tomorrow is common knowledge, but is it knowledge? It is an inference, but is that knowledge?
I started to think about this during data collection for my ethnography. I could infer something, but be totally wrong. My incorrect inferences were incorrect knowledge then, correct?
I guess there is no question. Just an epiphany.
Emotion vs. Logic
Emotion vs. Logic
I'll just start off with the question - Which way of knowing is more important- emotion or logic?
I have been struggling with this for a while now. Firstly, I'm not really sure if this is exactly right. Bare with me.
How do you make a decision if two Ways of Knowing are in disagreement? If emotion tells you to act in the opposite manner of logic, what is your decision?
The problem is, emotion gets in the way (in many cases). Logic tells you that this is the right solution, but feelings you have developed stop you from making the decision that you want to. Or for instance, you feel that something is for the best, but your emotions make you regret your logical decision.
I guess I just feel like emotion is unreliable and unpredictable.
That is all.
I'll just start off with the question - Which way of knowing is more important- emotion or logic?
I have been struggling with this for a while now. Firstly, I'm not really sure if this is exactly right. Bare with me.
How do you make a decision if two Ways of Knowing are in disagreement? If emotion tells you to act in the opposite manner of logic, what is your decision?
The problem is, emotion gets in the way (in many cases). Logic tells you that this is the right solution, but feelings you have developed stop you from making the decision that you want to. Or for instance, you feel that something is for the best, but your emotions make you regret your logical decision.
I guess I just feel like emotion is unreliable and unpredictable.
That is all.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Grab Some Buds!
Grab Some Buds!
So last night, I was enjoying an intense football game, and a commercial for Bud Light popped up. It got me wondering-
Why is it acceptable for brewing companies to advertise their product on T.V., but not for tobacco companies?
Both products are harmful in their own ways, yet one is legal, and the other isn't. I feel like cigarettes are less likely to kill an innocent person while driving... Why is alcohol socially acceptable? Why do cigarette packs have huge surgeon general's warnings plastered over the front?
So many questions...
So last night, I was enjoying an intense football game, and a commercial for Bud Light popped up. It got me wondering-
Why is it acceptable for brewing companies to advertise their product on T.V., but not for tobacco companies?
Both products are harmful in their own ways, yet one is legal, and the other isn't. I feel like cigarettes are less likely to kill an innocent person while driving... Why is alcohol socially acceptable? Why do cigarette packs have huge surgeon general's warnings plastered over the front?
So many questions...
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Sports
Sports
I'm on a bloggin' craze! I know I'm not exactly doing this right, but I've been really busy this week.
Today, during Red Hot Rebel Read, I was talking with Kronzer, and the topic of sports came up. She made the point that sports don't accomplish what they should. She said that sports are supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart. She brought up a time, two years ago, when author Nina LaCour was here (@ Champlin Park). There were some Anoka students visiting because they were interested and when Kronzer introduced them, Champlin Park students 'booed' them. This was in light of the Battle for the Paddle (which we lost).
This got me thinking though. In wrestling, we do the same thing. Also, our homecoming phrase was "Bash the Bengals."
Why aren't we embracing our own talents rather than focusing on beating another team because they "suck"?
Just something to think about.
I'm on a bloggin' craze! I know I'm not exactly doing this right, but I've been really busy this week.
Today, during Red Hot Rebel Read, I was talking with Kronzer, and the topic of sports came up. She made the point that sports don't accomplish what they should. She said that sports are supposed to bring people together, not tear them apart. She brought up a time, two years ago, when author Nina LaCour was here (@ Champlin Park). There were some Anoka students visiting because they were interested and when Kronzer introduced them, Champlin Park students 'booed' them. This was in light of the Battle for the Paddle (which we lost).
This got me thinking though. In wrestling, we do the same thing. Also, our homecoming phrase was "Bash the Bengals."
Why aren't we embracing our own talents rather than focusing on beating another team because they "suck"?
Just something to think about.
English (the language)
English (the language)
Yesterday, at work, I had a realization.
English is harder than... nuts... to learn! I never really understood why until I spoke with one of my (Mexican) co-workers. Basically, he said that when you write a word like 'water,' it doesn't sound the same as you say it. However, in Spanish, you would say water the same way as you spell it, agua. Also, when the word needs to be changed/said differently, an accent mark is added. We don't do that in English.
I think this is important to remember because a person who is learning English needs to memorize words like this and their pronunciation. I have grown close to my Mexican co-workers and we help each other with our native languages.
But this kind of got me thinking...
Why should they have to learn our language, but we don't have to learn theirs. I'm talking about when people say "This is America, speak English!" I mean, English isn't our official language... I think that we (English speakers) should have to make an attempt to learn another language. It's only fair, right?
Yeah, that's it.
Yesterday, at work, I had a realization.
English is harder than... nuts... to learn! I never really understood why until I spoke with one of my (Mexican) co-workers. Basically, he said that when you write a word like 'water,' it doesn't sound the same as you say it. However, in Spanish, you would say water the same way as you spell it, agua. Also, when the word needs to be changed/said differently, an accent mark is added. We don't do that in English.
I think this is important to remember because a person who is learning English needs to memorize words like this and their pronunciation. I have grown close to my Mexican co-workers and we help each other with our native languages.
But this kind of got me thinking...
Why should they have to learn our language, but we don't have to learn theirs. I'm talking about when people say "This is America, speak English!" I mean, English isn't our official language... I think that we (English speakers) should have to make an attempt to learn another language. It's only fair, right?
Yeah, that's it.
Lions, Tigers, Bears? OH MY!
Lions, Tigers, Bears? OH MY!
So the title has nothing to do with the post... really. It must have grabbed your attention!
I want to talk a little about social networking sites. I'll use Facebook for examples because (almost) all of us have one, but it applies to many others.
I was on Facebook a lot this week and have been seeing many political posts. The majority of the posts revolve around the Marriage Amendment. I find that this pops up a lot because this is something that directly affects our generation (as compared to something like Medicare). I don't really want to talk about the amendment itself because I have already done that; but rather, the use of a social networking site for politics/controversial issues.
I personally believe that politics and controversial issues belong on sites like Facebook. When a controversial post is made, I find that it just results in anger, bashing, name-calling, and nobody is persuaded to the other side. I know this doesn't really support my point, but at least I'm being honest? I think that you should be able to post away. Why? Because you're sharing. Sharing how you feel on a subject. If somebody has no stance on the issue, they can decide for themselves.
I could elaborate, but I'm lazy and don't feel like it. Thoughts?
P.S. If somebody wants to have a debate with you, I would recommend a 1 on 1 conversation with that person, not a boxing match where spectators are chomping on the popcorn.
So the title has nothing to do with the post... really. It must have grabbed your attention!
I want to talk a little about social networking sites. I'll use Facebook for examples because (almost) all of us have one, but it applies to many others.
I was on Facebook a lot this week and have been seeing many political posts. The majority of the posts revolve around the Marriage Amendment. I find that this pops up a lot because this is something that directly affects our generation (as compared to something like Medicare). I don't really want to talk about the amendment itself because I have already done that; but rather, the use of a social networking site for politics/controversial issues.
I personally believe that politics and controversial issues belong on sites like Facebook. When a controversial post is made, I find that it just results in anger, bashing, name-calling, and nobody is persuaded to the other side. I know this doesn't really support my point, but at least I'm being honest? I think that you should be able to post away. Why? Because you're sharing. Sharing how you feel on a subject. If somebody has no stance on the issue, they can decide for themselves.
I could elaborate, but I'm lazy and don't feel like it. Thoughts?
P.S. If somebody wants to have a debate with you, I would recommend a 1 on 1 conversation with that person, not a boxing match where spectators are chomping on the popcorn.
Advertising
Advertising
The question I am addressing is whether or not some forms of advertisement are acceptable.
We are working on our Written Tasks in English and I found myself wondering about the advertisements as a whole. For instance, is the second ad (World Wildlife Fund) acceptable? What about the third (Budweiser) ad?
I personally feel that the second ad is not acceptable. It portrays this woman as an animal, and reinforces the stereotype that people of color are more "exotic" than whites. However, I feel that the third ad is acceptable. The woman is objectified, but isn't portrayed in an extremely negative way.
I guess I just feel this way because advertising has to use some sort of technique to sell the product. In the third ad's case, it was sex appeal. That to me is a totally acceptable way of selling something, but when you reinforce a stereotype like the second ad did, that isn't acceptable.
I expect somebody will disagree. I'd love to hear your opinion :)
Christian
The question I am addressing is whether or not some forms of advertisement are acceptable.
We are working on our Written Tasks in English and I found myself wondering about the advertisements as a whole. For instance, is the second ad (World Wildlife Fund) acceptable? What about the third (Budweiser) ad?
I personally feel that the second ad is not acceptable. It portrays this woman as an animal, and reinforces the stereotype that people of color are more "exotic" than whites. However, I feel that the third ad is acceptable. The woman is objectified, but isn't portrayed in an extremely negative way.
I guess I just feel this way because advertising has to use some sort of technique to sell the product. In the third ad's case, it was sex appeal. That to me is a totally acceptable way of selling something, but when you reinforce a stereotype like the second ad did, that isn't acceptable.
I expect somebody will disagree. I'd love to hear your opinion :)
Christian
Friday, October 5, 2012
Voter ID
Voter ID
I don't really see the point in changing this. I understand why people want to change it but I don't believe it is necessary.
Basically, by changing the law, less people will be likely to vote. The majority of those people will be the lower class, older people, colored people, students, etc. (typically the majority of these votes go towards the Democrats). Because of this, there is a lot of conservative backing for this law to pass.
But why pass it?
It is kind of rigging the system from the start. The point to an election is to have a fair decision on who gets what position. It is kind of cheating really. From a conservative's view, this will help them in the election. I get the idea that there is massive 'fraud' in the system. Republicans think that people are voting more than once or are voting where they shouldn't be.
Ultimately, this makes it very hard for people to vote because it means they have to get a new ID every time they change residency. (I forgot to add that it would cost the State $60 million to implement. All of that money to stop 100 people from cheating the system?)
I guess it's a hard concept to understand. Why would you want to win by cheating?
I don't really see the point in changing this. I understand why people want to change it but I don't believe it is necessary.
Basically, by changing the law, less people will be likely to vote. The majority of those people will be the lower class, older people, colored people, students, etc. (typically the majority of these votes go towards the Democrats). Because of this, there is a lot of conservative backing for this law to pass.
But why pass it?
It is kind of rigging the system from the start. The point to an election is to have a fair decision on who gets what position. It is kind of cheating really. From a conservative's view, this will help them in the election. I get the idea that there is massive 'fraud' in the system. Republicans think that people are voting more than once or are voting where they shouldn't be.
Ultimately, this makes it very hard for people to vote because it means they have to get a new ID every time they change residency. (I forgot to add that it would cost the State $60 million to implement. All of that money to stop 100 people from cheating the system?)
I guess it's a hard concept to understand. Why would you want to win by cheating?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)