Toga Day
Toga. It is a new word in my brain's vocabulary. I never heard this word before until the day Mr. Mark mentioned it in the previous class. When I heard he said this word, lots of colourful and shining question marks appear on my head. I was thinking, what on earth was this toga thing anyway?
Now I know what is toga. Toga is, hmmm... How can I say this? It is something that the Greeks and Romans were wearing, some sort of fashion during that time. It was kind of funny anyway, looking at a bunch of men wearing something that looks like a blanket that almost cover up 100% of their body.
On that cheerful day, we have been asked by Mr. Mark to do a roleplay. A roleplay on how Caesar was killed by his own men and his ungrateful adopted son, Brutus. Yusoff was being chosen to bring the character of Caesar, Abu would be Brutus and I can't remember what was Zainal's role in that roleplay, and a few of my classmates that will kill Caesar.
After a rough practice, the real roleplay begins. With the background music was playing, Yusoff, or Caesar, walked in. "All hail Caesar!", cried the whole class. After a simple, little talk with Casca and Cassius, then the climax has come. We stabbed Yusoff full-heartedly, although at that time my toga does not look like toga anymore. Then, Brutus or Abu came. With his drama face, he stabbed Yusoff in the heart. And so the roleplya ends. I have to admit that I enjoy wearing toga that day. Others as well. :)
Saturday, 21 April 2012
Francis Tumblety
Few days after my group have presented the prosecution of James Kelly, we have to defend Francis Tumblety in the next session. Francis Tumblety was born in 1833 and died in 1903 at the age of 70.
He earned a small fortune posing as an Indian Herb' doctor throughout the United States and Canada and has commonly perceived as a misogynist quack. He was connected to the death of one of his patients, but escaped prosecution. In 1865, he was released without charge. Tumblety was in England in 1888, and was arrested on 7 November, apparently for engaging in homosexuality, which was illegal at the same time. Avoiding trial, he fled to France and then to the United States. Already notrious in the states for his self-promotion and previous criminal charges, his arrest was reported as connected to the Ripper murders. American reports that Scotland Yard tried to extradite him were not confirmed by the British press or the London police and the New York City Police said, " there is no proof of his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he is under bond in London is not extraditable." In 1923, Tumblety was mentioned as a Ripper suspect by Chief Inspector John Littlechild of the Metropolitan Police Service in a letter to journalist and author George R. Sims.
During the class, after facing all kinds of questions from the audience, we managed to defend Francis Tumblety that he was not guilty.
Few days after my group have presented the prosecution of James Kelly, we have to defend Francis Tumblety in the next session. Francis Tumblety was born in 1833 and died in 1903 at the age of 70.
He earned a small fortune posing as an Indian Herb' doctor throughout the United States and Canada and has commonly perceived as a misogynist quack. He was connected to the death of one of his patients, but escaped prosecution. In 1865, he was released without charge. Tumblety was in England in 1888, and was arrested on 7 November, apparently for engaging in homosexuality, which was illegal at the same time. Avoiding trial, he fled to France and then to the United States. Already notrious in the states for his self-promotion and previous criminal charges, his arrest was reported as connected to the Ripper murders. American reports that Scotland Yard tried to extradite him were not confirmed by the British press or the London police and the New York City Police said, " there is no proof of his complicity in the Whitechapel murders, and the crime for which he is under bond in London is not extraditable." In 1923, Tumblety was mentioned as a Ripper suspect by Chief Inspector John Littlechild of the Metropolitan Police Service in a letter to journalist and author George R. Sims.
During the class, after facing all kinds of questions from the audience, we managed to defend Francis Tumblety that he was not guilty.
James Kelly was Jack the Ripper
From the previous class, we have been divided into few groups as we need to prosecute and defend for Jack the Ripper case. In my group, we have chose to prosecute James Kelly. Here, I would like to talk about James Kelly a little bit. In my opinion, he is the one and only, Jack the Ripper.
He was born at 20 April 1860 and died at 17 September 1929 at the age of 69. He murdered his wife in 1883 by stabbing her in the neck. He was medically proven an insane guy. He was committed to the Broadmoor Asylum that later he escaped using a key that he created by himself at 1888. Unfortuantely, the police cannot find him. In 1927, almost 40 years after his escape, he unexpectedly returned himself in to officials at Broadmoor Asylum. Two years later, he died.
Ed Norris, a retired NYPD cold-case detective examined the case for a Discover Channel program called "Jack the Ripper in America." Norris claims that James Kelly was not only Jack the Ripper's real identity, he was also responsible for multiple murders in cities around the United States.
Norris highlights a few features of Kelly to support his contention. He worked as a furniture upholsterer, a job that requires handiness with a knife. He also claimed to have resided in United States and left behind a journal that spoke of his story disapproval of the immorality of prostitutes and been on the 'warpath' during his time as a fugitive. Norris claims Kelly was in New York at the time of a ripper-like murder of a prostitutes named Carrie Brown as well as in a number of cities while each experienced one or two brutal murders of prostitures while Kelly was there.
After doing some research in the Internet, discussions and from my own background reading, I got to say that James Kelly was Jack the Ripper.
From the previous class, we have been divided into few groups as we need to prosecute and defend for Jack the Ripper case. In my group, we have chose to prosecute James Kelly. Here, I would like to talk about James Kelly a little bit. In my opinion, he is the one and only, Jack the Ripper.
He was born at 20 April 1860 and died at 17 September 1929 at the age of 69. He murdered his wife in 1883 by stabbing her in the neck. He was medically proven an insane guy. He was committed to the Broadmoor Asylum that later he escaped using a key that he created by himself at 1888. Unfortuantely, the police cannot find him. In 1927, almost 40 years after his escape, he unexpectedly returned himself in to officials at Broadmoor Asylum. Two years later, he died.
Ed Norris, a retired NYPD cold-case detective examined the case for a Discover Channel program called "Jack the Ripper in America." Norris claims that James Kelly was not only Jack the Ripper's real identity, he was also responsible for multiple murders in cities around the United States.
Norris highlights a few features of Kelly to support his contention. He worked as a furniture upholsterer, a job that requires handiness with a knife. He also claimed to have resided in United States and left behind a journal that spoke of his story disapproval of the immorality of prostitutes and been on the 'warpath' during his time as a fugitive. Norris claims Kelly was in New York at the time of a ripper-like murder of a prostitutes named Carrie Brown as well as in a number of cities while each experienced one or two brutal murders of prostitures while Kelly was there.
After doing some research in the Internet, discussions and from my own background reading, I got to say that James Kelly was Jack the Ripper.
Steve Jobbs
As a starting, I would like to state that I am one of the biggest fan of Apple products, (though I can't afford on having one). Without his genius brain in technological field, we are still using the lame Windows that has been created by Bill Gates. It is kind of sad actually when Jeff Goodell is condemning someone that has become a corpse. I bet that Goodell do not know anything much about Jobbs inside out, though they have been working together for quite some time. Yet, he is telling the whole world that Jobbs was a cruel person. Well, in this context, who is the cruel one? It is got to be Jeff Goodell. What would be his intention on telling all this bad informations to the public? Everyone is not an angel, everybody make mistakes, including Jobbs. He refused to admit that Lisa is her daughter. This might be related to his past life that most of the people do not know. But, in the end, it is proven that Lisa is his daughter.
My point over here is, we do not know that someone's action might be related to his or her past experiences. Goodell is condemning Jobbs about his bad attitude. How about his own attitudes as well? Karma is doing her job very excellent nowadays. Goodell is going to get it back. Just the matter of time. It might sound a bit harsh, but maybe someone else hate Goodell as well.
Sincerely, Jobbs's fan.
Evaluating Evidence
Now that you are able to separate the conclusion from the premises that support it, it is time to evaluate those premises. This is a vital step; the conclusion, after all, is trying to convince you of something-that you should accept a certain opinion, change your beliefs, or take a specific action. Before you accept that conclusion, therefore, you need to examine the validity of the evidence for that conclusion.
Specifically, there are three questions to ask yourself when evaluating evidence:
1. What type of evidence is offered?
2. Is that evidence credible?
3. Is that evidence reasonable?
Types if Evidence
There are many different types of evidence that can be offered in support of a conclusion. One of the most basic distinctions to make is between premises that are fact, premises that are opinion, and premises that can be accepted only as tentative truths.
Here is a review of the difference between fact and opinion:
Now that you are able to separate the conclusion from the premises that support it, it is time to evaluate those premises. This is a vital step; the conclusion, after all, is trying to convince you of something-that you should accept a certain opinion, change your beliefs, or take a specific action. Before you accept that conclusion, therefore, you need to examine the validity of the evidence for that conclusion.
Specifically, there are three questions to ask yourself when evaluating evidence:
1. What type of evidence is offered?
2. Is that evidence credible?
3. Is that evidence reasonable?
Types if Evidence
There are many different types of evidence that can be offered in support of a conclusion. One of the most basic distinctions to make is between premises that are fact, premises that are opinion, and premises that can be accepted only as tentative truths.
Here is a review of the difference between fact and opinion:
- A fact is something known for certain to have happened, to be true, or to exist.
- An opinion is something believed to have happened, to be true, or to exist.
- A tentative truth is a claim that may be a fact but that needs to be verified.
Whether they are facts, opinions, or tentative truths, premises can come in the following forms:
- Statistics or figures
- Physical evidence (artifacts)
- Things seen, felt, or heard (observations)
- Statements from experts and expert witnesses
- Reports of experiences
- Ideas, feelings or beliefs
Some types of evidence seem more convincing than others. That is, people are often more likely to believe or be convinced by statistics than by someone's opinion. But that does not mean that all statistics should automatically be accepted and that all opinions should be rejected. Because statistics can be manipulated and because opinions can be quite reasonable, all forms of evidence need to be examined for both credibility and reasonableness.
Working with Arguments
First, you need to know what deductive reasoning is. To help define it, the counterpart of deductive reasoning, which is inductive reasoning, will be introduced first.
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning consists of making observations and then drawing conclusions based on those observations.
Like a detective, you use inductive reasoning all the time in your life. You might notice, for example, that every time you eat a hot dog with chili and onions, you get a stomachache. Using inductive reasoning, you could logically conclude that the chili dogs cause indigestion, and that you should probably stop eating them. Similarly, you might notice that your cat tries ti scratch you every time you rub her stomach. You could logically conclude that she does not like her stomach rubbed. In both examples, what you are doing is moving from the specific-a particular observation-to the general-a larger conclusion. Inductive reasoning starts from observation and evidence and leads to a conclusion.
Using inductive reasoning generally involves the following questions:
1. What have you observed? What evidence is available?
2. What can you conclude from that evidence?
3. Is that evidence logical?
Deductive Reasoning
Unlike inductive reasoning, which moves from specific evidence to a general conclusion, deductive reasoning does the opposite; it generally moves from a conclusion to the evidence for that conclusion. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion has to be 'figured out' and we must determine whether or not the conclusion is valid. In deductive reasoning, on the other hand, we start with the conclusion and then see if the evidence is valid, the conclusion it supports is valid as well. In other words, deductive reasoning involves asking:
1. What is the conclusion?
2. What evidence supports it?
3. Is that evidence logical?
If you can answer yes to question 3, then the conclusion should be logical and the argument sound.
First, you need to know what deductive reasoning is. To help define it, the counterpart of deductive reasoning, which is inductive reasoning, will be introduced first.
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning consists of making observations and then drawing conclusions based on those observations.
Like a detective, you use inductive reasoning all the time in your life. You might notice, for example, that every time you eat a hot dog with chili and onions, you get a stomachache. Using inductive reasoning, you could logically conclude that the chili dogs cause indigestion, and that you should probably stop eating them. Similarly, you might notice that your cat tries ti scratch you every time you rub her stomach. You could logically conclude that she does not like her stomach rubbed. In both examples, what you are doing is moving from the specific-a particular observation-to the general-a larger conclusion. Inductive reasoning starts from observation and evidence and leads to a conclusion.
Using inductive reasoning generally involves the following questions:
1. What have you observed? What evidence is available?
2. What can you conclude from that evidence?
3. Is that evidence logical?
Deductive Reasoning
Unlike inductive reasoning, which moves from specific evidence to a general conclusion, deductive reasoning does the opposite; it generally moves from a conclusion to the evidence for that conclusion. In inductive reasoning, the conclusion has to be 'figured out' and we must determine whether or not the conclusion is valid. In deductive reasoning, on the other hand, we start with the conclusion and then see if the evidence is valid, the conclusion it supports is valid as well. In other words, deductive reasoning involves asking:
1. What is the conclusion?
2. What evidence supports it?
3. Is that evidence logical?
If you can answer yes to question 3, then the conclusion should be logical and the argument sound.
Who Makes the Claim?
What is Credibility? - believability; trustworthiness
When you are faced with a variety of opinions, one of the most important things to consider is the credibility of those giving their opinion. That is, you need to consider whose opinion is the most trustworthy and valid in the particular situation.
Credibility also plays a very important role when dealing with those tentative truths. Whenever you are offered opinions or facts that you are not comfortable accepting and are not able to verify, the credibility of your source is crucial in helping you decide whether or not to accept these opinions or tentative truths.
Recognizing Bias
A bias is an opinion or feeling that strongly favors one side over others; a predisposition to support one side; or a prejudice against other sides. However, it is important, to know as much as possible about your sources when deciding how heavily to weigh their opinions.
What is Credibility? - believability; trustworthiness
When you are faced with a variety of opinions, one of the most important things to consider is the credibility of those giving their opinion. That is, you need to consider whose opinion is the most trustworthy and valid in the particular situation.
Credibility also plays a very important role when dealing with those tentative truths. Whenever you are offered opinions or facts that you are not comfortable accepting and are not able to verify, the credibility of your source is crucial in helping you decide whether or not to accept these opinions or tentative truths.
Recognizing Bias
A bias is an opinion or feeling that strongly favors one side over others; a predisposition to support one side; or a prejudice against other sides. However, it is important, to know as much as possible about your sources when deciding how heavily to weigh their opinions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)