Question 3. (Revised)
Everyone has their own view of what makes a hero. Everyone has different perspectives, and it is debatable whether or not Peter is a hero, and what kind of hero he is, because everyone has different standards for someone or something to be considered a hero in their books. Everyone has their own view of what makes a hero. There is a very long list of possible qualifications, and in the eyes of many, he would indeed meet the criteria to be acknowledged as a true hero.
What did he do to get nominated for the position of a hero? Peter played a major role in saving the life of Queen Elizabeth, one of the most important and powerful people of his time. A person beneficial and helpful in maintaining order and playing a huge role in helping the people of England lead peaceful, happy lives. He rescued one of the most critical people in existance at his time.
Now don't get the wrong idea, Osama Bin Laden was considered important by some select few, and powerful in the eyes of many. Simply saving one's life cannot instantly make one a hero, the person who one saves can have a huge impact on if the savior can be considered a hero. If Peter had saved an antagonist of the story, such as the knights of treason instead of Elizabeth, knights that seek power and control because of selfishness, he would certainly be out of the running to be considered a hero, in fact, many could reasonably consider him a villian. The knights of treason are short-sighted people, only seeking great wealth and power through greed, not taking into consideration the impact their future actions could have on all of the people of England by assassinating Elizabeth. A few possible outcomes could be a corrupted nation, hyperinflation, and rebellion. Because of how the conspirators' intents have consequences for humanity that far outweigh the benefits, the knights of treason can be considered evil and on opposite poles in comparison to benign people such as Elizabeth. As a result, there is no way that Peter could be considered a hero if he had saved one of the knights of treason, or any antagonist. He saved Elizabeth, a beneficial person dedicated to advancing, healing, and easing the lives of people in England.
Furthermore, while trying to save Elizabeth, he put his own life in danger to complete the task. Many people would agree that if someone has knowingly put their own life on the line in order to save another peaceful, benign person or people, they can already be considered a hero, though one does not have to in order to be considered a hero. For example, a person who performs CPR on someone who undergoes severe cardiac arrest and is credited with keeping him or her alive until an ambulance arrives can be considered a hero. One does not have to put their own life at risk in order to be considered a hero, though they should be aware of how dire the situation is.
If one does not realize the massive consequences their actions could have in the future, then they do not deserve to be recognized with hero status. If a blind man walked into a burning building thinking everything was normal and pulled out an unconscious person, wanting them to walk with him somewhere, could he be considered a hero? Though this is a highly unlikely scenario, it is possible, and there would no doubt be some debate over whether or not the man could be considered a savior. He was not aware that he was risking his own life, nor was he aware that he was saving another's life. This would have taken off enormous pressure off the rescuer. One could ask "Would you have rescued that person if you knew the building was on fire?" and not get an honest answer. This was not how Peter saved Elizabeth. He knew he was fighting a battle against experienced, well armed soldiers. He knew he ran quite a high risk of death. Most of all, he knew that if he did not achieve success, there would be dire consequences for the humanity of England, and took the pressure.
So, Peter can easily be considered a hero. What kind of hero is he? Again, this is a question that is largely influenced by opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer like one plus one. Though this is a highly debatable question, Peter can very much be considered an accidental hero depending on one's criteria. Peter never chose or was chosen for a noble, heroic, and deadly path in life. Never once in the text does it ever say that Peter was one of Queen Elizabeth's chosen spies, specialized and trained to hunt, track, and kill off possible treason. From the text, it never once occurred to Peter that he would be living a life somewhat similar to an outcast, and then a soldier, before he had thrown a stone at Sir Philip. He never knew he would become one of Elizabeth's helpers and be sent on a mission, it only became so because of sudden, unexpected, dire circumstances that forced him to make a life-changing decision, he never planned or prepared for it. As a result, Peter is an accidental hero. The unexpected twist in the path of his life, which he never trained for or anticipated, was accidental. It would be the same idea as if someone shoved a weapon you've never seen before into your hands and told you to travel to another country to kill a swordsman and at the same time avoid capture by an elite force of experienced, well-armed soldiers. A good example of someone who became an accidental hero in a similar manor to Peter is the fictional character 'Pendragon,' from the Pendragon novel series. He was thrown into a complex quest because of someone else, unexpectedly of course, and resolved the conflict through evil through unknown ways prior to his beginning of the quest. His story is similar to Peter's story of heroism, though is not precise. The most significant similarity between the two stories is that the heroes were not prepared.
Peter never anticipated the path he suddenly walked. Yet, despite being completely untrained and unprepared for the task of becoming one of Elizabeth's spies, he took the job on, in an attempt to aid the humanity of England. He could have declined and said he did not want to die, but he did not. He could have walked out on the job when all seemed lost, which was multiple times in the plot, yet he did not. His accomplishment of saving queen Elizabeth, while risking his own life despite being totally untrained, is definitely one large enough so that anyone can reasonably acknowledge Peter as an accidental hero.
WE LOVE ENGLISH!!!
Thursday, 24 November 2011
Tuesday, 22 November 2011
Should we continue blogging?
Answer: I do not mind.
Blogging has had some great benefits to my work. As an individual, I have gained enormously in terms of efficiency from blogging, due to the fact that my typing prowess is far superior to that of my writing. I am able to produce neater work with near-maximum efficiency, due to the fact that most of the time wasted spent on writing is removed, as well as eliminating the need to rest after a sore wrist. Even more, I am able to edit my work easily and quickly. Instead of having to waste time scratching out and erasing words, and making reminders for improvements later on, I can simply delete the unwanted portion and revise it with little effort in comparison to improving on paper. The only negative impact blogging has had on me is the fact that our computer use at home is on high demand from everyone in the family, though this is easily solved due to the fact that my parents place homework as the no.1 priority for computer use, and I can usually gain access. For me, blogging has been nothing but beneficial to my work.
As an individual, I have gained, but I am not so selfish as to not consider the negative impact it could have on my peers. My typing is far quicker than my writing, however, I know that for many other students, it will be the opposite, so blogging will actually be more time-consuming. It's also quite obvious that many people get distracted from blogging to go on tempting sites such as facebook, twitter, youtube, and possibly much more in the near-unlimited area of the world wide web, I admit, I occasionally have had the same problem. As well, computer screen quality varies, and some can have more harmful effects on the eyes compared to others.
I do not know the exact numbers for negative impacts and positive, so I will not make a decision. My vote can be counted as one for each, or not at all. I do not mind as to whether or not we stop or continue blogging
Blogging has had some great benefits to my work. As an individual, I have gained enormously in terms of efficiency from blogging, due to the fact that my typing prowess is far superior to that of my writing. I am able to produce neater work with near-maximum efficiency, due to the fact that most of the time wasted spent on writing is removed, as well as eliminating the need to rest after a sore wrist. Even more, I am able to edit my work easily and quickly. Instead of having to waste time scratching out and erasing words, and making reminders for improvements later on, I can simply delete the unwanted portion and revise it with little effort in comparison to improving on paper. The only negative impact blogging has had on me is the fact that our computer use at home is on high demand from everyone in the family, though this is easily solved due to the fact that my parents place homework as the no.1 priority for computer use, and I can usually gain access. For me, blogging has been nothing but beneficial to my work.
As an individual, I have gained, but I am not so selfish as to not consider the negative impact it could have on my peers. My typing is far quicker than my writing, however, I know that for many other students, it will be the opposite, so blogging will actually be more time-consuming. It's also quite obvious that many people get distracted from blogging to go on tempting sites such as facebook, twitter, youtube, and possibly much more in the near-unlimited area of the world wide web, I admit, I occasionally have had the same problem. As well, computer screen quality varies, and some can have more harmful effects on the eyes compared to others.
I do not know the exact numbers for negative impacts and positive, so I will not make a decision. My vote can be counted as one for each, or not at all. I do not mind as to whether or not we stop or continue blogging
Sunday, 20 November 2011
Should we continue blogging?
I believe there are ups and downs to doing the blogs. It is good because all the group members get to help each other out, and critique each other to help improve our work. Also, we have an advantage by being able to see how other groups do things like critque each other, and seeing how we can improve our own blogs. The downside of this blog is that (like Brendon C said) if one person does not complete the homework assigned, the other people cannot complete their homework either. (e.g. if some people in the group do not post, the other members cannot comment) It is also difficult when there are tech problems such as not being able to comment, internet problems, etc.
I think that the blog was a good experiment, but there would be less problems if we stopped and did our assignments and work on paper.
I think that the blog was a good experiment, but there would be less problems if we stopped and did our assignments and work on paper.
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Should we continue blogging?
Do you think you think we should continue blogging?
I think we should continue blogging because it's a good way to share our thoughts and ideas with our peers. We are able to discuss with each other about activities done in class whenever we want. The only problem with blogging is that if one person in the group does not participate, the whole blog will fail. If the groups are well made, and everyone is doing their job, blogs can be a wonderful way to show growth and development. That's why I think we should continue blogging. (Hopefully this is more of a casual conversation instead of an essay)
I think we should continue blogging because it's a good way to share our thoughts and ideas with our peers. We are able to discuss with each other about activities done in class whenever we want. The only problem with blogging is that if one person in the group does not participate, the whole blog will fail. If the groups are well made, and everyone is doing their job, blogs can be a wonderful way to show growth and development. That's why I think we should continue blogging. (Hopefully this is more of a casual conversation instead of an essay)
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Peter is a hero. (Revised)
Question 3. (Revised)
Everyone has their own view of what makes a hero. Everyone has different perspectives, and it is debatable whether or not Peter is a hero, and what kind of hero he is, because everyone has different standards for someone or something to be considered a hero in their books. Everyone has their own view of what makes a hero. There is a very long list of possible qualifications, and in the eyes of many, he would indeed meet the criteria to be acknowledged as a true hero.
What did he do to get nominated for the position of a hero? Peter played a major role in saving the life of Queen Elizabeth, one of the most important and powerful people of his time. A person beneficial and helpful in maintaining order and playing a huge role in helping the people of England lead peaceful, happy lives. He rescued one of the most critical people in existance at his time.
Now don't get the wrong idea, Osama Bin Laden was considered important by some select few, the Al-Qaeda, and powerful in the eyes of many. Simply saving someone's life cannot instantly make one a hero, the person who one saves can have a huge impact on if the savior can be considered a hero. If Peter had saved one of the knights of treason instead of Elizabeth, a knight that seeks power and control because of greed and selfishness, he would certainly be out of the running to be considered a hero, in fact, many could reasonably consider him a villian. The knights of treason are selfish, short-sighted people, only seeking great wealth and power through greed, not taking into consideration the impact their future actions could have on all of the people of England by assassinating Elizabeth. A few possible outcomes could be a corrupted nation, hyperinflation, and rebellion, depending on how well experienced the knights of treason are in leading a country. Because of how the conspirators' intents have consequences for humanity that far outweigh the benefits, the knights of treason can be considered evil and on opposite poles in comparison to benign people such as Elizabeth. As a result, there is no way that Peter could be considered a hero if he had saved one of the knights of treason. He saved Elizabeth, a beneficial person dedicated to advancing, healing, and easing the lives of people in England.
Furthermore, while trying to save Elizabeth, he put his own life in danger to complete the task. Many people would agree that if someone has knowingly put their own life on the line in order to save another peaceful, benign person or people, they can already be considered a hero, though one does not have to in order to be considered a hero. For example, a person who performs CPR on someone who undergoes severe cardiac arrest and is credited with keeping him or her alive until an ambulance arrives can be considered a hero. One does not have to put their own life at risk in order to be considered a hero, though I think they should be aware of how dire the situation is.
Take Superman for example. Being ranked first on "IGN's Top 100 Comic Book Heroes," many people around the world consider him a fictional hero, mainly because he saves others' lives and values them. He puts himself in danger to battle with fictional, antagonistic creatures, whose malicious intents place the safety of humans in jeopardy. He shows little concern for his own life when he does so, even if he knows little or nothing about his enemy and his or her or it's abilities, and even if he finds his opponent superior to him in the field of battle. It is because of this, that in the eyes of millions, he is the perfect example of a hero.
So, Peter can easily be considered a hero. What kind of hero is he? Again, this is a question that is largely influenced by opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer like 1+1. Though this is a highly debatable question, Peter can very much be considered an accidental hero depending on one's criteria. Peter never chose or was chosen for a noble, heroic, and deadly path in life. Never once in the text does it ever say that Peter was one of Queen Elizabeth's chosen spies, specialized and trained to hunt, track, and kill off possible treason. From the text, it never once occurred to Peter that he would be living a life somewhat similar to an outcast, and then a soldier, before he had thrown a stone at Sir Philip. He never knew he would become one of Elizabeth's helpers, or be sent on a quest, it only became so because of sudden, unexpected, dire circumstances that forced him the make a life-changing decision, he never planned or prepared for it. As a result, Peter is an accidental hero. The unexpected twist in the path of his life, which he never trained for or anticipated, was accidental. It would be the same idea as if someone shoved a weapon you've never seen before into your hands and told you to travel to another country to kill a dragon and at the same time avoid capture by an elite force of experienced, well-armed soldiers. A good example of someone who became an accidental hero in a similar manor to Peter is the fictional character 'Pendragon,' from the Pendragon novel series. He was thrown into a complex quest because of someone else, and defeated the evil through unknown ways prior to his beginning of the quest. His story is similar to Peter's story of heroism, though is not the same down to the last detail. The most significant similarity between the two stories: the heroes were not prepared.
Peter never anticipated the path he suddenly chose. Yet, despite being completely untrained and unprepared for the task of becoming one of Elizabeth's spies, he took the job on, in an attempt to aid the humanity of England. He could have declined and said he did not want to die, but he did not. He could have walked out on the job when all seemed lost, which was multiple times in the plot, yet he did not. Because of all these reasons, one can reasonably acknowledge Peter as an accidental hero.
Everyone has their own view of what makes a hero. Everyone has different perspectives, and it is debatable whether or not Peter is a hero, and what kind of hero he is, because everyone has different standards for someone or something to be considered a hero in their books. Everyone has their own view of what makes a hero. There is a very long list of possible qualifications, and in the eyes of many, he would indeed meet the criteria to be acknowledged as a true hero.
What did he do to get nominated for the position of a hero? Peter played a major role in saving the life of Queen Elizabeth, one of the most important and powerful people of his time. A person beneficial and helpful in maintaining order and playing a huge role in helping the people of England lead peaceful, happy lives. He rescued one of the most critical people in existance at his time.
Now don't get the wrong idea, Osama Bin Laden was considered important by some select few, the Al-Qaeda, and powerful in the eyes of many. Simply saving someone's life cannot instantly make one a hero, the person who one saves can have a huge impact on if the savior can be considered a hero. If Peter had saved one of the knights of treason instead of Elizabeth, a knight that seeks power and control because of greed and selfishness, he would certainly be out of the running to be considered a hero, in fact, many could reasonably consider him a villian. The knights of treason are selfish, short-sighted people, only seeking great wealth and power through greed, not taking into consideration the impact their future actions could have on all of the people of England by assassinating Elizabeth. A few possible outcomes could be a corrupted nation, hyperinflation, and rebellion, depending on how well experienced the knights of treason are in leading a country. Because of how the conspirators' intents have consequences for humanity that far outweigh the benefits, the knights of treason can be considered evil and on opposite poles in comparison to benign people such as Elizabeth. As a result, there is no way that Peter could be considered a hero if he had saved one of the knights of treason. He saved Elizabeth, a beneficial person dedicated to advancing, healing, and easing the lives of people in England.
Furthermore, while trying to save Elizabeth, he put his own life in danger to complete the task. Many people would agree that if someone has knowingly put their own life on the line in order to save another peaceful, benign person or people, they can already be considered a hero, though one does not have to in order to be considered a hero. For example, a person who performs CPR on someone who undergoes severe cardiac arrest and is credited with keeping him or her alive until an ambulance arrives can be considered a hero. One does not have to put their own life at risk in order to be considered a hero, though I think they should be aware of how dire the situation is.
Take Superman for example. Being ranked first on "IGN's Top 100 Comic Book Heroes," many people around the world consider him a fictional hero, mainly because he saves others' lives and values them. He puts himself in danger to battle with fictional, antagonistic creatures, whose malicious intents place the safety of humans in jeopardy. He shows little concern for his own life when he does so, even if he knows little or nothing about his enemy and his or her or it's abilities, and even if he finds his opponent superior to him in the field of battle. It is because of this, that in the eyes of millions, he is the perfect example of a hero.
So, Peter can easily be considered a hero. What kind of hero is he? Again, this is a question that is largely influenced by opinion, and there is no right or wrong answer like 1+1. Though this is a highly debatable question, Peter can very much be considered an accidental hero depending on one's criteria. Peter never chose or was chosen for a noble, heroic, and deadly path in life. Never once in the text does it ever say that Peter was one of Queen Elizabeth's chosen spies, specialized and trained to hunt, track, and kill off possible treason. From the text, it never once occurred to Peter that he would be living a life somewhat similar to an outcast, and then a soldier, before he had thrown a stone at Sir Philip. He never knew he would become one of Elizabeth's helpers, or be sent on a quest, it only became so because of sudden, unexpected, dire circumstances that forced him the make a life-changing decision, he never planned or prepared for it. As a result, Peter is an accidental hero. The unexpected twist in the path of his life, which he never trained for or anticipated, was accidental. It would be the same idea as if someone shoved a weapon you've never seen before into your hands and told you to travel to another country to kill a dragon and at the same time avoid capture by an elite force of experienced, well-armed soldiers. A good example of someone who became an accidental hero in a similar manor to Peter is the fictional character 'Pendragon,' from the Pendragon novel series. He was thrown into a complex quest because of someone else, and defeated the evil through unknown ways prior to his beginning of the quest. His story is similar to Peter's story of heroism, though is not the same down to the last detail. The most significant similarity between the two stories: the heroes were not prepared.
Peter never anticipated the path he suddenly chose. Yet, despite being completely untrained and unprepared for the task of becoming one of Elizabeth's spies, he took the job on, in an attempt to aid the humanity of England. He could have declined and said he did not want to die, but he did not. He could have walked out on the job when all seemed lost, which was multiple times in the plot, yet he did not. Because of all these reasons, one can reasonably acknowledge Peter as an accidental hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)