American System

Cruz’s story is about the corruption of the American system and how your climb is based solely on the acceptance of those in the highest seats of power, not pure perseverance and skill. Cruz found that he was allowed to climb based on his “likeness” to his superiors and was being used as somewhat of an ethnic poster child. This is sort of similar to Dick having to work hard and be educated to a certain extent in order to succeed. Beyond this similarity there isn’t much that ties the two together. Dick was willing to aid those that he left behind in his climb to the top, a sort of homage to where he’d come from and who had helped him get there. Cruz on the other hand wasn’t necessarily unwilling to help others, but he encountered a completely different attitude altogether. He found most minorities and different social niches willing to sell each other out for their own personal gain. Instead of banding together to benefit all, they were more willing to watch others that they used to be like fall back down the ladder as long as the man on top would give them some goodies. 

Ragged Dick is my Hero

The story makes an implicit argument about the character and mindset it takes to climb to the top. Success requires perseverance, moral strength, and a knowledge of where you hope to see yourself. What took Dick time was to learn to read, write, and speak in a manner where he could enter new and elevated social circles to better his lifestyle. This was probably the most emphasized point by the end of the story as he was proud of his penmanship and fought back old “slang” tendencies. He had submitted application after application only to improve and be denied. By the time he was finally offered up a position, he had reached a height that he did not know possible for himself and began to see new light shed on his life. All any of the things above really needed to happen was one unexpected moment. In that moment, Dick excelled and stood out from all others modestly explaining away his plunge after a small child with no certain way out for either of them. This singular moment of extraordinary made him visible to those who would then in fact pay closer attention to him then others. His self sacrifice set him apart on a chain of events that granted him that last “application” in person. 

i like the pitures

We are becoming a visual society, but I think the benefits of this are much more abundant than the downfalls. Typically speaking, the people I know who care enough about a subject to become immersed in both sides of the argument will go out of their way to read book and broaden their own perspective. What you will not find, is someone going to Fox news and then comparing it with CNN. Those kinds of visual sources make appeals on emotion with bare bones information that barely scratches the surface. That is why you’re able to watch the news, hear about starving children and soldiers dying, and then go back to your family dinner and not be affected by it. The pathos is touched on, but you become desensitized to it. I’m not saying that you would’ve done something had you not been use to these kinds of ads, but we get used to seeing these kinds of things. They draw our attention for a moment, we identify their purpose, and then move on with our lives. A visual argument may at first be more persuasive, but like a bad caffeine rush that fades away and doesn’t last. You do not get a deep enough pool to claim a justified opinion on a matter and if you actually take the time to think and look into it your claims disappear with the only proof being a slanted picture. 

big entities = big lies !!!

The author of any piece is morally obligated to balance logos, ethos, and pathos. This on its own is very difficult since in many cases it’s easy to slant an argument depending on your facts and desired emotions. This corrupts your ethics as the author for attempting to sound reasonable in a way that manipulates the legitimacy of your piece. I think ethos should take a primary role over pathos. Drawing on emotions is a dangerously affective way to present an argument or story, and it leaves the reader to reach their own conclusions that they were shepherded to. This kind of manipulation is a powerful asset to maintaining attention and a sense of responsibility to those listening to you. The government and media for example may not necessarily be presenting both sides of an argument, but trying to present a feasible explanation for their actions by always portraying the world as victims, heroes, and villains. By manipulating these emotions and developing a blind belief that the media is the final word on the outside world, you are led to false conclusions. By accepting things as the ultimate truth and watching the news, you’d think that everyday in all of our cities murderers, rapists, and thieves run rampant when that is actually what is just portrayed the most. They portray ethics and pathos in whatever way they feel will benefit their purpose.

Help the Victim

Langley uses evidence from a neutral perspective. Everything said and explained in the story relates to him as a victim of society. He pleads his being misunderstood and abused by a society that is being unreasonable and ignorant of its actions and what could actually be considered beneficial and healthy as opposed to rebellious angry skaters spraying up tags at every stop sign and going wherever they want whenever and running from police. The article on torture was based from the perspective of the exact opposite. You could base it that you were a victim of terrorism and had to torture, but I’d say that the other article is written from the perspective of a torturer. The skate article was from the recipient. The perspectives slant the evidence in completely different ways. I’d say the victim is more believable and can affect more people. Evidence works best when presented to essentially a jury that will judge it passionately towards the injustice you face. Just in the way that the article was written you know that whoever this skater was, they were an intelligent youth who was well spoken and had examined all the facets to the argument. The persona on its own is evidence enough.

Learn to Argue

In the 8^th grade for history class, we had to present a formal debate to our class and teachers. The set up was U.S. history, and it was broken into three groups. There were the radicals, “whigs,” and neutrals who went with the different sides of the American Revolution and whether or not it would be a just cause to break away. Upon picking groups no one wanted to choose the  whigs, and so some of the most quiet and brightest minds of our grade decided to take on the challenge as a joke or for personal test. There was one problem with this, that left everyone else to debate against us and the neutrals to judge it and pick a winner. With all of our heavy thinkers pooled into one basket, we were left with what seemed a clear victory, but turned into a nightmare. People from the radical party took up radical behavior screaming incoherent and blatantly moronic contradictions to fair points. Any attempt to refute their arguments was screamed out and shunned like some ignorant blindness that plagues many of our political leaders and youth today. What was a very overwhelming and superior debate on the side of the whigs turned out to be a landslide victory to the radicals both through the obnoxiousness of the debaters and those going into it with their minds already made up as doubters. 

pathos best one sided

Pathos uses the imagination and emotions of readers to draw conclusions. It is easy for someone to present a laundry list of information and information, especially if you believe their information or are free to interpret the facts as you see fit. Pathos provides the guided conclusions that feed off of the emotions and tendencies of human nature. This provides facts and assumptions that we may already draw on based off of our own experiences. It allows us to empathetically reach the author’s conclusions. It provides a much more concise argument and in the same sense, more affective. The article on torture is a good example. As opposed to confronting mothers with random information and ideas on situations that may not affect them, you cut to their better judgment should it affect them directly. By threatening their infants you draw upon the desired affect you want, expediting the entire argument and having them reach the conclusion you want. It provides the most affective way to present a one sided argument. In some cases you may have difficulties providing the appropriate emotional tug should the audience turn out to be a bunch deaf ears. 

To Torture or Not to Torture

I believe torture is a practical necessity that must be addressed and dealt with accordingly. In a world where there are radicals that seek to drive fear and chaos into the hearts of millions by attacking the public at any place and any time. In principal, it is fighting fire with fire. It is unrealistic and fake to pretend that anything else could be used to fight a mentalities where many may just assume die than tell you anything. The only danger with these kinds of powers are those who use them. You can’t have some fool in charge who just grabs anyone who has met a terrorist or criminal and torture them to tell you what you want. Someone with their head on their shoulders who can remain emotionally detached is required. It must always remain strictly objective and used as an utter last resort. I believe everyone lies. After that everyone has a breaking point where they’ll tell the truth. Beyond that point of honesty there is such a thing as being in so much pain that you’ll say and believe you’re the king of England just to get out of it. Torture isn’t tricky and may not always be the answer, but it’s a solution to a problem where many have already forfeit their rights and personal health by getting into a line of work where they harm others for a living.

food labels

            I am naturally inclined to pick the ‘print the biotech ingredients on the label side.’ I feel that it is our right to know what goes into these foods even at our own cost. I’ve never looked at a food label and understood half of the crap on it, so why would more unknowns confuse me anymore than what’s already there? It’s better to go into your purchases at least having the option of finding out what’s in your foods. If some study surfaces later about how ingredient x is bad and we never knew it went into our foods there could be significant problems. If it was printed there all along and no one knew of its effects, it wouldn’t be such a big deal. I think in the long run printing the labels is a better decision and I honestly doubt the idea that a majority of Americans read food labels when shopping. The only counter arguments I’d side with are the idea of costs going up if the food isn’t even noticeably different than its counter part. In that case for widespread distribution in a world where people starve daily, I’d be ok with a little bio-engineered food sticker being smacked onto things as opposed to a full blown secondary list of ingredients in order to keep costs down.

i don't know

            The first image is a political cartoon shaded to portray the stupidity of being against genetically engineered foods. It portrays a hippy character who’s against genetically engineered foods depriving a starving African boy. This image takes a swing at the idea of food being food and that in the event of countries with mass starvation and crop problems there really can’t be all that much wrong with it. The second image plays against your pride. This picture tells you what you need to know and argues that you don’t need to know anything else. You won’t understand it so it’s over your had. This not only gets the ‘reader’ fired up about being told what they can and can’t know, but it brings into play the idea of not knowing what is going into your food. It’s one thing to not understand the labels and what they contain. It’s a completely different story to possess a food you know was genetically engineered and you haven’t the slightest idea what is in it. One picture puns and mocks the idea of a certain type of food not being good enough for the malnourished. The other plays into the patriotic ideals of our right and freedom to know.

explicit arguments are for the cool kids

            Explicit arguments present a two sided claim and supports it with various proof and reasons. An implicit argument is an argument, but it drives you to a certain conclusion through a not necessarily straightforward mean. The poem presented in the book is an implicit argument against the valor and heroism of war. Unlike an explicit statement, it is a piece of poetry that provides the imagery of the gruesome reality of war. You are allowed to draw your own conclusions as the poem guides you along in a desired direction. The picture does a similar thing in the sense that it can’t formally present a two sided argument. You could however say that both the gruesome nature of one of the veterans having one hand and the honor and pride in the picture cover both aspects of the pictures. Although the picture does present a potential two sides, it does not cover the traditional down the line thesis, support, conclusion. An explicit argument of these things would formally present both sides of whatever was being disputed or examined. There would be thoughtful representations and support for whatever conclusion you would mean for the reader to draw, be it a one sided argument or neutral.