Tuesday, October 13, 2009
…[T]he acceptance of abortion does not end with the killing of unborn human life. It continues on to affect our attitude toward all aspects of human life. This is most obvious in how quickly, following the acceptance of abortion, comes the acceptance of infanticide―the killing of babies who after birth do not come up to someone's standard of life worthy to be lived―and then on to euthanasia of the aged. If human life can be taken before birth, there is no logical reason why human life cannot be taken after birth.
One must think logical in this situation. Ever since the beginning of time killing someone has been wrong. He is trying to make a point here that is not valid. In his first sentence he makes the claim that if we do not stop abortion now that it will continue until murder is even in essance okay. I am against aportion and disagree with it, but I would never make that second assumption because it is not fair. Especially for those people, who are for it.
In the second sentence he says that it will affect our attitude in all aspects of our lives. Abortion is not a domino affect.
It is important for each of us to learn from this. We can not assume things that have not happened before and have been a certain way for a long period of time. We can not discuss one topic and bring another one in and assume that it will support the orginal topic. Infacticide, for example, is going overboard. If he wants to talk about abortion he needs to stay on topic. Life is special and it is important that one understands that. I agree with him on this topic. But one has to understand that when a baby is born life begins in a new era.
Proactiv uses imgery in their advertisment. It explains how beautiful one's face will become, when one uses it. On the website it states " Proactiv heals acne today, and prevents it for tomorrow". This sentence convinces one that it is a quick solution. They do this because nobody is patient enough to wait. If it said it takes a month, nobody would show much interest, therefore just by their langauge tools are they able to persaude people that it works and works quickly. When people look in the mirror and are not satisfied with what they see, an image may come into mind of a clearer better-looking face. The image of the Proactiv advertisment will appear.
It also says it heals acne "today". That means quick results. This is an overstatement. There is no way that this will work in just one day, but it just means quick results. Proactiv also says in their advertisment that " Get the clear skin you deserve". I am not sure what language tool, but this is a sales tactic. They are using ethos to let people know that they deserve good skin and that Proactiv can do that for them. It makes you assume that Proactiv is helping you,which may be true, but in reality Proactiv just wants your money.
In verse three it states, "Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be spent in the service of thy God. Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer". He tells him he will be safe with his brother Nephi, who is a very righteous son of Lehi, who has been a leader for Jacob, as he was growing up. He tells Jacob that he knows that he will be redeemed through the Lord Jesus Christ. If I were Jacob I would feel special and want to listen to my father Lehi because he is declaring how good of a person I am.
Kurt explains basically the rest in his analysis to this great discourse. He explains the Logos, which Lehi used after he had used Pathos to reach his son.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
In his speech, Mr. Stevenson argues the bill being unethical with respect to the nature of cats. His point is that "It is in the nature of cats to do a certain amount of unescorted roaming"(par. 5). This "begs the question" on what constitutes "a certain amount" of roaming around. Do cats just need to stroll around the yard or should they be given an entire town as their stomping grounds? Apparently those who are supporters of this bill feel that cats are over-stepping their bounds whether they be natural or not. By saying "a certain amount," Mr. Stevenson indirectly justifies the actions of cats that have caused a drop in the bird population and thus disgruntled the people of Illinois.
He also oversimplifies one aspect of cats help society. "Cats perform useful service, particularly in rural areas, in combating rodents"(par. 5), is only one side to the issue. Though seeing cats killing rodents as beneficial is logical, there is also a downside. If a stray cat wanders into a farmer's barn and eats a mouse that feeds on oats used for the horses, then the cat is doing the farmer a service. However, cats are known to leave the corpses of their prey around. If a dead, possibly diseased mouse is left in the feeding bin and goes unnoticed, the food will be poisoned and horses and other animals could be exposed to illness and even death. This would be an incredible diservice to the farmer, his animals, and those who depend on the livlihood of the farm like the farmer's family.
He further generalizes the effects of the cats on the community. He argues that Illinois policy should not be so concerned in "a cat visiting a neighbor's yard or crossing the highway," and declaring it a "public nuisance"(par. 5). If this bill has raised enough attention as to "[be] introduced in the past several sessions of the Legislature, and it has, over the years, been the source of much comment"(par. 4), then obviously the problem entails more than cats wandering into neighbors' yards, but causing harm to the bird population.
By generalizing the issue at hand, Governor Stevenson makes his argument appear logical, practical, and the only rash and mature answer. However, his logic is falsified because he didn't take into consideration other sides of the issues that prompted this bill.
Friday, October 9, 2009
I read Mike's analysis of Melinda French Gates's article titled "AIDS and India". I feel like her use of emotional appeal as a means of persuasion deserves further analysis.
Melinda is writing to the people in the
Melinda isn’t writing to everyone in the
Diction is her first technique to create sympathy in her reader. Phrases such as "crippling poverty," "AIDS catastrophe," "the epidemic," and “disaster” appear in the first paragraphs. Her use of these words paint a dismal landscape where AIDS infects men, women, and children from North to South and East to West. Often times these words seem almost unavoidable. Nobody can escape an epidemic. Everyone is damaged in a catastrophe. Being crippled by poverty makes it seem insurmountable. This word choice becomes more effective when she cites projections that "as many as 20 million Indians could be infected by the end of the decade--that's more than twice the population of
Just as important are the words she doesn’t use. 4 million and 20 million are pretty big numbers until the reader realizes that if
Melinda then capitalizes on the created sympathy by shifting the argument; in the fifth paragraph she says, “A range of HIV-prevention measure are working in
She uses another concrete example, this time about truck drivers who have been educated about condoms. This example does the same as its predecessor, allowing the reader to see that his money will be put to good use. This time however she focuses on the fact that these people knew nothing about AIDS before the people got there. Many of the readers instantly will feel sorry for the wives of these truck drivers and the sympathy grows even more after thinking that it if the husband wasn’t educated about AIDS he could contract it and then pass it on to the family. This creates the need for a foundation like hers. The reader sees that there is more work to do in order to reach all of
The next endeavor at creating emotional appeal, “a woman whose husband dies of AIDS is often blamed for his death, and thrown out of the home with her children” illustrated again how dire the situation can be at times but after reading this the reader may question, “How can a woman be thrown out of her own home if her husband is dead?” because he probably doesn’t know that extended families live together in
She closes her article with the donation and call to action pitch. In her pitch she says, “rich countries” in an off-handish way that reminds the reader that they may not have everything they want but they have a lot more than anybody else. The most effective portion of her pitch was that she provided other organizations that could be donated to, which shows that she’s more interested in helping the people rather than getting more money for donations. She doesn’t care if she is the one helping or if it is somebody else. She concludes by bringing back her concrete example of the sex worker “women like Gita really shall overcome” which is her last attempt to make the reader feel connected to these people and that they can help them. Her use of the phrase “shall overcome” is an allusion to the song “We Shall Overcome” which was a very popular song associated with the Civil Rights Movement. The Civil Rights movement was very successful and now she is throwing her cause along with that one, something positive, something that will work. This was her last move to use emotion to sway her audience into action, all the while assuring that their efforts would be effective
Monday, October 5, 2009
Fraser's one solid example of pathos might not build enough sympathy towards those affected by health care problems to back her solutions or instigate reform. She uses some other ideas to bring out some emotion. For example, "At this rate, I might have to let go of one employee just to keep health insurance for the other two." She also states, "to pay for insurance inflation they should shift more of the cost to his employees, one of whom has a wife with multiple sclerosis."These types of problems bring Americans into attention of an author. Fraser tries to paint the scene of businesses as so pitiful because of health care problems. She makes the reader feel sorry for all health care workers and patients. This type of phrase helps paint the picture: "Insurance costs him $41,000 per year," and "Even at this rate, his employees still have co-pays for all doctor's services." Saying "even" paying this much we still have co-pays for "all" doctor's visits brings feelings into the readers head. Such feelings could be "unfair," "still?," or "that's outrageous." If these are the circumstances we are faced with then the reader feels an automatic conviction that something should change in health care. We feel this way because most Americans have been affected by the rapid incline in unemployment. If this can be fixed by reforming health care then the American people are behind it. While all these explanations are true we must recognize that there are much more deliberate ways to bring out pathos in this article. The description could be much more bleak than it is.
On the other hand she might have wanted to portray a more subtle scene. In some cases building up pathos too much can be to the authors detriment. In comparing Fraser's article with James Lovelock's article on Nuclear Energy, I feel distracted by Lovelock's use of extreme pathos. He says that "20,000 people died from overheating in Europe last summer," without citing his source. It seems slightly farfetched. Fraser seems more believable because of her soft use of pathos than Loveock does. I believe that she could provide two or three more examples throughout her article to remind the reader that the solutions presented are going to help people. In analiyzing the article we need to remember that there are different audiences that will read this. If she was targeting a realistic, but educated audience I believe her use of pathos could be perfect. If she is going for an audience that needs to feel the scene of health care problems to be convinced she should provide more emotionally provoking evidence.
The way he really brings logos into the picture is by shocking the reader with facts that make you look for solutions to convincing problems. by saying, "20,000 unfortunates from overheating in Europe last summer," he gets the readers attention by alluding to those 20,000 possibly being you or me if we don't find an answer to global warming. In the moment we look for a solution he offers an unlikely possibility:
series of volcanic eruptions severe enough to block out sunlight and so
cool the Earth. But only losers would bet their lives on such poor odds.
Whatever doubts there are about future climates, there are no doubts
that greenhouse gases and temperatures both are rising."
In a different light, I would say that he uses pathos a little too extremely. His statistics and large number ratios make me skeptical of his credibility. this damages his ethos and doesn't give the desired pathos effect on me. Then, he tries to connect them to get me motivated. It could work on some audiences and possible his specific audience. I do get his urgency; however, I feel less inclined to act on his connecting ideas than if I believed his argument fully.
A Slightly Heated Topic by Larz Watts analyzes Lovelocks article saying that he "continues to support the theory of Global Warming, until he feels he has proved it enough. Then he is able to take all of that proof and apply it to his principal argument: that we should switch to nuclear power." I must agree that Lovelock continues to support his theory again and again, but I don't think it was as effective as Larz does. In saying that because of the melting ice cap that Greenland will melt faster I don't feel the connectivity that Larz does because I'm skeptic of the whole idea that Lovelock presents. I'm skeptic because he presents it so abruptly and without citing his sources.
I see convincing connections between nuclear energy and global warming, but I also see some holes in Lovelocks argument.