AUDIENCE: Innercity Youth
ETHOS: Funny, On their level
PATHOS: Empowered, Inspired
ACTION: Join an RBI Youth League
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Mock RBI Commercial
AUDIENCE: Innercity Youth
ETHOS: Funny, On their level
PATHOS: Empowered, Inspired
ACTION: Join an RBI Youth League
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Should Barry Bonds and others be inducted into the HOF
After focusing on Kant for the last paper I wanted to focus on something a little more fun for this paper, not that Kant can't be fun.
I strongly believe that Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and other greats from the steroid era should be voted into the Hall of Fame. Players go onto the ballot five years after they retire. They are then voted on by a panel of voters comprised of members of the Base Ball Writers Association of America. Many of these voters and potential voters have explicitly said that they will not vote for anyone with any connection to steroids.
They say that they wont vote with them for several reasons, here are a few of them
A) they are cheaters
B) some of them are criminals
C) the era has inflated home run numbers
Many other voters choose to abstain, others agree with me and have championed these rebuttles
A) Many "used" before it was technically against the rules. There were other forms of "cheating" in previous eras, in the seventies and eighties players would consume amphetamines casually in the clubhouse, in the early years of Major League Baseball players doctored the ball, spit on the ball, bet on games, threw games, and several other things.
B) Now you are talking about things beyond baseball, it is not the job of the selection committee to be a moral jury of these men. Players like Ty Cobb were horrible racists, Babe Ruth was a known bootlegger during prohibition, these things are beyond the scope of baseball.
C) The effects of steroids have been grossly over misunderstood. Steroids do not just equate to home runs. Pitchers can benefit from steroids; contact hitters can benefit from steroids. You cannot pick and choose which players you think did or did not use just based on whether or not they are a home run hitter.
As for sites it is extremely easy to gather "expert" advice. The voters and the experts are the the BBWAA, they are all writers who publish their work.
DMeyer, 1st Elimination Argument
I strongly believe that Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Sammy Sosa and other greats from the steroid era should be voted into the Hall of Fame. Players go onto the ballot five years after they retire. They are then voted on by a panel of voters comprised of members of the Base Ball Writers Association of America. Many of these voters and potential voters have explicitly said that they will not vote for anyone with any connection to steroids.
They say that they wont vote with them for several reasons, here are a few of them
A) they are cheaters
B) some of them are criminals
C) the era has inflated home run numbers
Many other voters choose to abstain, others agree with me and have championed these rebuttles
A) Many "used" before it was technically against the rules. There were other forms of "cheating" in previous eras, in the seventies and eighties players would consume amphetamines casually in the clubhouse, in the early years of Major League Baseball players doctored the ball, spit on the ball, bet on games, threw games, and several other things.
B) Now you are talking about things beyond baseball, it is not the job of the selection committee to be a moral jury of these men. Players like Ty Cobb were horrible racists, Babe Ruth was a known bootlegger during prohibition, these things are beyond the scope of baseball.
C) The effects of steroids have been grossly over misunderstood. Steroids do not just equate to home runs. Pitchers can benefit from steroids; contact hitters can benefit from steroids. You cannot pick and choose which players you think did or did not use just based on whether or not they are a home run hitter.
As for sites it is extremely easy to gather "expert" advice. The voters and the experts are the the BBWAA, they are all writers who publish their work.
DMeyer, 1st Elimination Argument
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
2nd Deffinitional Argument OUTLINE
Genetically modifying crops is ethical.
According to renowned ethics philosopher Immanuel Kant for something to be morally correct it must fit all three of his formulations
Formulation #1: Formula of a universal law.
a) Find agents maxim. What is the action in question. “Is it okay to...”
b) Imagine a world in which this was a universal law without exception.c) Evaluate. Would that be a rational world?
d) Imperative “Do X.” or “Do not do X”
Formulation #2: Rational beings have their own ends.
a) Never use another rational being merely as a means to your own ends.
b) Respect that every rational being has their own ends.
Formulation #3: Formulation of Autonomy
a) Synthesis of the first two.
b) all maxims which stem from autonomous legislation ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends
Genetic Modification fits the First Formulation.
a) Is it okay to genetically modify crops to make them more efficient
b) In a world where this happens all the time I suppose nature is jeapordized
c)This would be a fine world to live in, crops would be cheaper, better, etc
d) Genetically Modify crops
Genetic Modification fits the Second Formulation.
a) nature is altered, but plants are not rational beings
b) hurts no people, perhaps insects, but not people
Genetic Modification fits the Third Formulation.
a) working on it....
Rebuttle.
Many counter Kant with a philosophy called Utilitarianism. Even under that philosophy Genetic Modification is moral.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
GMOs, Second Look
I have found many online articles, some recent and some older from around 2000-2005. My worry is that some of the information is dated because science and technology by nature is such an evolving field. I have found both factual objective readings as well as editorial subjective ones.
Pros:
Most of the arguments for genetic engineering in agriculture are based in economics. Some specifics are that it helps in terms of pest resistance. Every year farmers lose crops and money because of insect problems with their crops. Crops are altered such that they are posinous to most insects, but not to humans or animals. Other arguements are herbicide resistance. It makes it more economically friendly to give them this gene so you can use herbicides to kill the weeds, but not the plants. Aside from a larger yield GMOs help by making food more nutritional, certain qualities can be added that help the human body. Conversely viruses vaccinations can be administered through GMOs, a much more cost effective method in many third world countries.
Cons:
The cons are divided into four distinct groups
Environmental: The risk that these traits can be selected against through microevolution we could inadvertantly create "superinsects" and "superweeds" that are resistant to the pesticides in the crops or the herbicides we use.
Human Health Risks: None have been proven concretely, but there may be a correlation between GMOs and a spike in food allergies.
Economic:There have been many legal ramifacations regarding the patents on many of this bioagricultural tech. Most notably Monsanto
Moral: many contend that it is wrong to alter nature in such a way
Pros:
Most of the arguments for genetic engineering in agriculture are based in economics. Some specifics are that it helps in terms of pest resistance. Every year farmers lose crops and money because of insect problems with their crops. Crops are altered such that they are posinous to most insects, but not to humans or animals. Other arguements are herbicide resistance. It makes it more economically friendly to give them this gene so you can use herbicides to kill the weeds, but not the plants. Aside from a larger yield GMOs help by making food more nutritional, certain qualities can be added that help the human body. Conversely viruses vaccinations can be administered through GMOs, a much more cost effective method in many third world countries.
Cons:
The cons are divided into four distinct groups
Environmental: The risk that these traits can be selected against through microevolution we could inadvertantly create "superinsects" and "superweeds" that are resistant to the pesticides in the crops or the herbicides we use.
Human Health Risks: None have been proven concretely, but there may be a correlation between GMOs and a spike in food allergies.
Economic:There have been many legal ramifacations regarding the patents on many of this bioagricultural tech. Most notably Monsanto
Moral: many contend that it is wrong to alter nature in such a way
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
First Glance at Genetically Modified Foods
Daniel Meyer, Wiki and Database Search for INfo on GM Corn/Maize
Wikipedia Information:
The main purpose of genetically modified corn is to make it resistant to herbisides and pests. This is done primarily by engineering the corn to make proteins that are posinous to certain insects. 85% of Corn grown in the US is genetically modified. US is the leader in Corn Production by a lot, double China.
-Studies have shown that GM corn has negative side effects on rats.
-Another concern is the development of resistant insects. Certain standards are in place to prevent such microevolution, but 25% of domestic growers are not in compliance.
-some varieties not released yet for sale because of dangers.
Overall Wikipedia has a lot of information dedicated to genetic modification, maize in general, genetic modification in maize, controversies of genetically modified food. When it comes to this topic Wikipedia has a lot of information. Most of the statistics cited are from 2009 surveys and cenuses. up to date informaiton
Britanica
-2003 European Union moratorium on trade of GM food. They later put a new tracing system out.
This information is dated and specific, not quite what im looking for.
The article on Corn gives lots of information about corn, but nothing on genetic modification
Global Issues in Context
recent editorials on merits of corn as a savior
Wikipedia Information:
The main purpose of genetically modified corn is to make it resistant to herbisides and pests. This is done primarily by engineering the corn to make proteins that are posinous to certain insects. 85% of Corn grown in the US is genetically modified. US is the leader in Corn Production by a lot, double China.
-Studies have shown that GM corn has negative side effects on rats.
-Another concern is the development of resistant insects. Certain standards are in place to prevent such microevolution, but 25% of domestic growers are not in compliance.
-some varieties not released yet for sale because of dangers.
Overall Wikipedia has a lot of information dedicated to genetic modification, maize in general, genetic modification in maize, controversies of genetically modified food. When it comes to this topic Wikipedia has a lot of information. Most of the statistics cited are from 2009 surveys and cenuses. up to date informaiton
Britanica
-2003 European Union moratorium on trade of GM food. They later put a new tracing system out.
This information is dated and specific, not quite what im looking for.
The article on Corn gives lots of information about corn, but nothing on genetic modification
Global Issues in Context
recent editorials on merits of corn as a savior
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)