See the attached

See the attached
DA9. Summary of findings Name________________________ This section is where you put all of your Diet Analysis information together. Are you getting enough of all the nutrients? If not, how could you? What are your exercise habits? Should you change them? Looking at your family history, is there anything you should be paying particular attention to? What did you learn about your dietary habits? What is good about your diet? Bad? Changeable? This section should be 2 pages in length. It should not be full of facts and numbers but generalities about your habits, what you discovered, and any future possible or necessary changes. TOPIC: We talk a lot in class about maintaining a healthy body weight. to reduce the risk of many chronic diseases.  There is a movement called HAES (Health at Every Size).  Take a minute a research what they are focusing on.  Is there science to back up being overweight and fit?  Is this a dangerous ideology?
See the attached
DA9. Summary of findings Name________________________ This section is where you put all of your Diet Analysis information together. Are you getting enough of all the nutrients? If not, how could you? What are your exercise habits? Should you change them? Looking at your family history, is there anything you should be paying particular attention to? What did you learn about your dietary habits? What is good about your diet? Bad? Changeable? This section should be 2 pages in length. It should not be full of facts and numbers but generalities about your habits, what you discovered, and any future possible or necessary changes. TOPIC: We talk a lot in class about maintaining a healthy body weight. to reduce the risk of many chronic diseases.  There is a movement called HAES (Health at Every Size).  Take a minute a research what they are focusing on.  Is there science to back up being overweight and fit?  Is this a dangerous ideology?
See the attached
Week 5 screenings: National and transnational cinemas Week 5 screenings: National and transnational cinemas Screen at least one of the following films this week: I encouage you to see as much as you can this summer! Monsoon Wedding (India et al, 2001) – Mira Nair’s biggest box office success A Simple Life (Hong Kong, 2011) – Ann Hui’s minor key gem Wild Tales (Argentina, 2014) – Damián Szifron’s Tarantino-esque set of variations on a theme Criterion has been streaming a Mira Nair retrospective this year… A little digging will reward you with additional Ann Hui films, to say nothing of the wealth of film from South America! Discussion board (20 points) Our final week for this condensed summer course! We’re reading about national and transnational cinemas, streaming films from both the Americas and Asia, and we’re collaborating on an online map of global cinema… We even have a couple of flipgrid assignments! All of these things are on the table… On top of that, I’m happy to entertain a conversation regarding what you liked about the class (and wouldn’t mind seeing more of), as well as what you didn’t like about the class (and wouldn’t mind seeing less of)… Your feedback is really useful to me as I look ahead to multiple online sections of this class in September!  Sign-up wiki MAKE YOUR CHOICE OF ENTRIES TODAY! EVERYONE SHOULD PICK TWO ITEMS TO WORK ON… Please sign up for two different entries on our interactive Global Cinema map… Everyone should have one entry from Pool A (a list of entries based on shared readings and screenings) and one entry from Pool B (a list of entries based on individual interests–and let’s try to build that in chronological order, ok?). Make sure you’ve signed up for two entries asap for your initial 50 points… You have the rest of this Sign up! Created By  Bjorn Ingvoldstad on Tuesday, June 21, 2022 10:52:08 PM EDT last modified by  Olivia Aubin on Wednesday, June 22, 2022 1:19:28 PM EDT POOL A – Shared content. Pick one of the listed entries by adding your name to the right of the entry… Please keep the entries in alphabetical order.  Argentinian cinema –  Asian cinema-Michael Poirier Bollywood-   Bong Joon-Ho – Devin Biello, Aidan Washington, Teagan Parker Cannes Film Festival – Briana Jusseaume, Olivia Aubin European cinema-  Joe Auriemma Hui, Ann –  Nollywood- Oluchi Enaworu Indian cinema-  Jia Zhang-ke-  Mohandas, Geethu –  Nair, Mira –  Romanian cinema-  Tsai, Ming-liang – Varda, Agnès –  Venice Film Festival – Grace Leopold Vinterberg, Thomas –  POOL B – Individual content. Please add one entry to the list, keeping the list in alphabetical order by entry (adding your name to the right of the entry). (add content here!) Claire Denis – Grace Leopold Dogtooth – Joe Auriemma Lion Heart – Oluchi Enaworu Snowpiercer – Aidan Washington Steel Rain – Michael Poirier The Meyerowitz Stories – Briana Jusseaume The Handmaiden – Teagan Parker, Olivia Aubin Titane – Devin Biello Collaborative final (150 points total) Make sure you choose two entry ideas (below)–the map for collaborative work will open later this week! Nothing to upload to Blackboard; rather, we’ll use an off-Blackboard tool (like we do with Flipgrid) to collaboratively build the project. Everything should be up by the end of the semester (6/27)… The big assignment in the final week of Summer 2022 (150 points total, or 15% of your final grade) will be to collaborate on an interactive Global Cinema map. Everyone in class will be selecting a pair of entries (be it films, directors, actors, national cinemas, etc), and then pulling together web-based materials to supplement each of your two short, 250-word written posts. We’ll make mapping selections, then work on entries…  Here’s our collaborative project for the semester–together gathering material on global cinema to share online! Everyone picks two entries (go to our Wiki to make your selection)… Then for each entry I’d like you to gather the following: an entry of approximately 250 words –for instance, any kind of summary and/or critical take on your subject (from our textbook or elsewhere) that you think would be interesting to the rest of the class (and our fellow travellers) at least two additional elements of web content to make your entry vibrant (a link to a webpage, film trailer, photos / stills, etc) CLICK HERE to upload your entries to Padlet! Use the tool to include video, web links, and your short entries… and then plot them on our map! Two posts to upload: EACH of them should include a 250-word entry + two web-rich items (e.g. hyperlink, still image, video)… Make sure you sign your name (or at least your initials) to ensure you get credit for your work! The initial wiki sign-up is 50 points, and then the two posted entries are another 100 points… Make sure you sign up for (and do) two entries!
See the attached
Thread: Analyze the problem of evil. Do you think Augustine o rLeibniz offer an adequate solution to the probelm? Joshua Based on the two solutions provided from Augustine and Leibniz I personally would think that Leibniz’s solution offers an adequate solution to the problem. I think Leibniz’s has a better solution because It follows a similar motto that I firmly belive in: everything happens for a reason. We assume the principle of sufficient reason and that god exists as a perfect being. God is omnipotent: god can create any possible world, God is omniscient: god can survey all possible worlds and select which world to create, God is omnibenevolent: god would choose to create the best possible world and evil exists under Leibniz’s solution. This solution that God chooses the best of all possible worlds just makes sense to me more out of the two given solutions.  Katelyn, L2. Consider Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments (Argument from Motion and Argument from Cause). Do you think either argument is successful in proving God’s existence? If so, why? If not, why not? COLLAPSE Top of Form The Objections introduced in lecture challenge fundamental aspects of Aquinas’ Cosmological Arguments. As indicated in lecture, Objection #1 references a challenge to Premise 3 of the “Argument Based on Cause”. Premise 3 states the following: “The chain of causes of things coming into existence cannot be infinite.” That challenge indicates the reflection that an idea of infinitiude may be “perfectly coherent”. I question the role of faith in this circumstance, as a definition of infinitude applies in both a physical and mental context when introduced through mathematics. David Hume’s discussion regarding causality expresses that causal relationships may be appropriately understood only as they might have occurred in the past, which complicates an understanding of infinitude within a temporal framework. Should God exist atemporally, how might Premise 3 in the causally focused Cosmological Argument enhance or affect a notion of a god-like being? I continue this question in reference to Objection #2, as mentioned in lecture; with the following stipulation: God-like is understood to be an implication of perfect-ness, recognizable in this framework by the characteristics of omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence. The Big Bang might be definitive as God, or represented in a conjunctive, or congruent; knowledge, or understanding. How might an articulation of logical laws; as mentioned, be conducive to proving God’s existence? Premise 5 of the “Argument Based on Change” is noted in lecture to state that: “If someone/thing responsible for initial motions/changes … then – then God exists as that some one or thing,” as that someone or something is to be called God. How does calling a God-like being: “God”, change who or what God is to be? Meghan, Evaluate the Ontological Argument. Do you think it is successful in proving the existence of God? If so, why? If not, why not? Where does the argument go wrong? Is the form invalid or is there at least one false premise? COLLAPSE Top of Form I do not believe that the Ontological Argument is successful in proving the existence of God. From the lecture, we learned two objections against this argument, one stating that existence is not a property. I agree with this objection against the argument because I do not believe that the existence of God is truly considered a property. The question of a winged horse actually existing or not is what made me agree with this objection. Just because there is a belief that God exists, does not necessarily mean God does exist. In my opinion, the argument goes wrong when we learned from the lecture that experience is not needed to relate these ideas. Personally, I believe in such arguments where there is experience and evidence, and rarely have a belief in a reasoning system unless I can understand facts to back it up. I believe the false premise in the Ontological Argument is to assume existence to be a property. Evaluate Hume’s version of the Teleological Argument (as an Argument by Analogy). Do you think it is successful in showing the likelihood of God’s existence as the intelligent designer? If so, why. If not, why not? Where does the argument go wrong? Do you agree or disagree with Hume’s critiques? Meghan, Top of Form I believe Hume’s version of the Teleological Argument is successful in showing the likelihood of God’s existence as the intelligent designer. One reason I believe this is because the premises are derived from observation, perception, and experience. Hume believes that knowledge comes from the senses, and by using senses through observation, perception, and experience, accurate knowledge is obtained. Hume’s argument by analogy I agree because if there are observed similarities between more than two events, processes, persons, locations, etc. then there must be larger reasoning behind it, rather than coincidences. Lastly, I somewhat agree with Hume’s critiques, specifically the inductive argument being a weak analogy. I agree with Hume that there are analogies that are unwanted that follows from the comparison. Also, Hume critiques that it is unclear whether the effects are analogous, and I can agree with that as well. Bottom of Form Bottom of Form Bottom of Form
See the attached
Discussion Topic Instructions Grading:These weekly discussions will be scored as follows:7 points for the initial post (5 points/content, 2 points/2 references)3 points for each secondary response (2 points content/1 point ref)=10 points total for the week Initial post:1. The primary posts should be ½ to ¾ of a page in length.2. They should be single spaced and either a 10 or 12 font.3. These posts should have a minimum of two references. Secondary/response posts:1. The secondary posts should have one reference. TOPIC: Many people are choosing organic foods over non-organic foods.  Others wonder about genetically modified food sources.   List the arguments for and against the use of organic foods and products of biotechnology.  After reading this chapter, will you consider buying more organic foods?  Explain.
See the attached
Hunger at Home! Names:_____________________ 1. What is the poverty level (annual income) for a family of four in Massachusetts? 2. How many people in Massachusetts live below the poverty level? Give the percentage of the population and the actual number of people. 3. What two racial and ethnic groups face the highest level of poverty in Massachusetts ? 4. If we spend roughly 10% of our take home income on food, how much do families at the poverty level have per week to spend? You will have to do some math for this one! 5. Using the number from 4, how much does a family have to spend per meal? (Assume four total meals per d ay: 3 meals plus another “meal” that accounts for snacks) 6. Design a meal that would be healthy yet affordable for this family. 7. Was this exercise easy to do? Why or why not? 8. What resources are available to help people in need find food in your area? Hunger at Home! Names:_____________________ 9. Do people facing hunger and food insecurity un the US have the same challenges as those in developing and underdeveloped nations? How are they similar and yet different ? Explain. 10. After reading this chapter and conducting this exercise, what would you identify as the number one problem worldwide and in the US that contributes to hunger and food insecurity? Suggest some ways in which these can be addressed.