Deborah Tannen's essay, "There Is No Unmarked Woman", attacks a very controversial topic involving gender. Tannen argues that women, unlike men, are always labeled with markers, such as their appearances and their choices. Tannen does an effective job of supporting her claim by providing a personal account in her experience as a woman. She proceeds the essay by describing the different appearances of each women, including things like make-up, hairstyles and clothing. As stated in paragraph 3, "The second woman was older, full of dignity and composure. Her hair was cut in a fashionable style.that left her with only one eye, thanks to a side part that let a curtain of hair fall across half her face." The author continues with more descriptions of other women and their choices of appearance. Tannen believes that women are defined by these choices whereas men are all simplest possible, thus men "unmarked". Although, Tannen supports her valid point with personal experience, I believe she isn't accounting for the entire side of men. As part of the male gender side, I'd say that men are just as easily judged by markers as well. Normally, if a guy is packed with muscle or does strength-training, people would get the impression that the person is more masculine. Now considering the other side of the story, which includes me, the skinny and scrawny kids are less praised. Personally, I found her claim of value about women being "marked" to be a partially positive aspect. Women, in general, tend to have a wider variation of clothing or hairstyles than men have. Alternatively, this displays uniqueness in the female gender. People should strive for their own identity instead of being perceived as every other person. Speaking from experience, I went shopping with girls before and I could not believe the amount of selections women could choose from. Reason behind it in my point of view is that every girl's taste is different, creating the whole concept of individuality. Overall, Tannen makes a valid argument but leaves a lot of opportunities to refute it.

The article, "Pillow Angel Ethics", was a very interesting piece. The speaker of this article proposed two sides to a controversial topic in the least biased way possible. Ashley, a severely disabled child, has been given the opportunity to stop growing at the age of 6, which means breast development and height, and the removal of her uterus. Is this really an opportunity for Ashley though? The author did an effective job of addressing the controversial topic, "What kind of doctors would agree to intentionally shorten and sterilize a disabled six-year-old girl to make it easier for her parents to take care of her", by providing second-hand evidence of Ashley's case. The speaker focused on one piece of second-hand evidence primarily and expanded on it by giving the opinions of Ashley's parents and doctors. As stated in the article, "Dr. Daniel Gunther and Dr. Douglas Diekema, who first revealed the details of "The Ashley Case" in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, think that many of their critics don't understand the nature of this case." The parent's view behind this was a slippery slope as well which weakened the parent's position on this topic. The parents claimed that these operations on Ashley will guarantee that she will be happy but there's no real possible way to tell. This scenario is much similar to the case of euthanasia, whether it should be allowed or not. People claim that this act is considered criminal homicide while some argue that it should be excused. Patients going through pain and suffering sometimes request to put an end to it all and whose to say that they don't have the right to. Regardless, there has been claims of values proposed saying its ethical or unethical, much like Ashley's case, and claims of policy, where people propose to to legalize euthanasia. Sadly to say, my deceased mother gone through somewhere along those lines. I used to have weekly visits to my mother, who was patient with terminal cancer, in the hospital. The pain she is put through just for minimal survival was horrible and it just brought the idea in my head whether it would be better for her if all of this was put to an end. To this day, controversial topics like Ashley's case and my mothers' catches my attention but overall the speaker proposed a lot of elements of an argument making the piece fairly effective.

The pamphlet activity was intended to create an informational piece about one of the types of logical fallacies. Through this activity, it was a very effective method for understanding one of the logical fallacies, slippery slopes in my case. The formula portion basically showed me the format of how a slippery slope looks like. Knowing where slippery slopes are present also helped me to further understand the use of slippery slope and how it can be used to one's advantage. Knowing what a slippery slope sounds like plays a huge role on being able to spot slippery slopes in advertisements or on any platforms in general. I was able to research and learn more about topic and this activity was quite enjoyable too. Overall, pamphlets are a good way for the person creating it to get more familiar with a topic and for the readers to learn  more about the topic. Regardless of the topic, it serves to inform the readers. For example, resorts for vacationing tend to have pamphlets to either display its beauty or activities one can do there. Normally, people wouldn't just choose a place, they would grab a pamphlet and see which whether the resort is convincing enough. One thing to note when looking at pamphlets is the speaker's use of logos or pathos. If the topic of a pamphlet was to answer a question or in general, inform the readers, then it would be reasonable to use logos to make the pamphlet effective. If the topic of a pamphlet was about persuading the audience for a cause, such as stopping bullying, then a more reasonable approach would be to use pathos to get the audience's support for the cause. Pamphlets generally all contains information and argues a topic.

The passage "Don't Fight Flame with Flames Social Media  Arguments: Can't-Win Propositions" made a really good point about fighting online. The speaker explained how arguments are best left to be dealt with in person, not online. The author introduces his article by establishing ethos, "A low point in my life, I did something I'm utterly ashamed of. When I tell you, please understand, I was upset at the time. Emotions were running high." By admitting that the speaker himself also dealt with the same problem, it shows the audience that the speaker is experienced with this problem and it validates his knowledge on this situation. The speaker claims that one can never win an argument because a side taken in an argument can be supported by millions out there online. The author shared his experience of how he was attacked by a mass amount of people for stating his/her views and this was effective in that it shed some light on the real consequences that can arise from digital arguments. Although I was never attacked on controversial topic online, I was on one of the people who supported someone's response to a controversial topic. Evidently, the comments and things people had to say got really heated and that just shows that it's just as intense, if not even more, than arguments in real life. The topic of controversy was more gossip than argument but people simply became very critical and it definitely did seem like a whole bunch of people online ganging up on a minority. Similarly with the heated election that has occurred, words were slurred out by individuals and eventually you find a person being heavily criticized by those who opposed their views. It's a human's desire to want to be right and it's common for people to establish it online rather than in person. The article talks about more examples involving celebrities or public figures and it always results in someone by attacked by people online much like journalists for a newspaper. To simply put it, it is advised by the speaker of this article to avoid digital arguments.

As ridiculous as it may sound, toasters have been proposed to be deadlier than nuclear power. The speaker claims that nuclear power should be the least of our concerns considering there are much more serious sources of radiation out there. Personally, I've used to be fairly light-skinned (not prejudice intended), but over the years, simply going outside in the hot blazing sun in the peak of a summer has done quite a lot on my skin. My parents have always advised me to wear sunscreen to avoid radiation cancer but I disregarded. Knowing my mistake now, I am more concerned with radiation by the sun rather than a nuclear powers. Reason being, chances of nuclear reactors malfunctioning is very slim and so I find myself no need to be concerned with that. Also, with something as deadly as nuclear power, I'm sure that the government would have safety measures suitable for the worst case scenario. With all that said, nuclear radiation is usually a crisis that occurs in movies such as "The X-Men." Movies have had an impact in the way we think towards the situation. Not to mention, with the reported cases mentioned in the passage, there has been no cases of mutated humans. "More specifically, according to a 2005 release by the World Health Organization, thirty-two were killed in the effort to put out the fires...acute radiation poisoning." Supporting what I said earlier, the speaker frequently appealed the audience's reasoning with statistics. This served to show the comparison of death tolls between toasters and nuclear power; emphasizing the over-stress placed on nuclear power. The speaker also used irony, "If you care about saving human lives, then you should like nuclear energy." Nuclear energy has taken lives and the speaker mentions that to save lives, it should be liked. The author says this in a humorously way to poke fun at those whose concerned with this situation when they really shouldn't be. Of course, he does not mean it literally but it helps the reader realize the bigger picture. Overall, the speaker did an effective job convincing me, partially because I'm concerned with radioactive effects and his use of evidence was efficient.

William Hazlitt's essay, "On The Want Of Money", showed his perspective on the true value of money and I am on the same standpoint as Hazlitt when saying money is the root of problems. Hazlitt used repetition frequently throughout his essay. Hazlitt reiterated "it is" a lot in that excerpt and it serves to act as a method of listing consequences of being in want of money in prose. There were a lot of real-life scenarios mentioned and it helped strengthened his argument through the use of examples. One of those real-life scenarios really stood out to me, "it is to be compelled to stand behind a counter, or to sit at a desk in some public office." I strongly agree with that due to my personal experience. I've been getting more active in working part-time jobs as I'm maturing. Sure I'm making money but I've been so distracted by school and work that I barely get to enjoy myself. A good percentage of our lives is dedicated to making money, only leaving us very little of our time to reward ourselves. Hazlitt's word choice "envy, back-biting, and falsehood" also has a very negative tone to it. Those words were used to emphasize how money is one of the main factors the drive jealousy and eventually that jealousy will cause one to be untrue. Take gold diggers as an example; their primary focus when seeking out a mate is money and in turn it causes them to possess this character of being "fake". One can say it's due to the fact that they are in desperate want of money and therefore creating this character of being a gold digger. Hazlitt's connections to real-life scenarios was an effective method of getting his claim across to the readers.

The advertisement about feeding meat being child abuse stuck out to me the most. It was partially effective simply because it can be very misleading to some people. Now the reason I said that it was partially effective is because the speaker did a good job of emphasizing his point. By choosing a chubby child over a skinnier child, it serves as pathos, invoking a sense of fear into the audience that consumption of meat is consequential. That also applies to ethos, in terms of being a testimonial, a chubbier child would probably be credible to believe rather than a skinnier child in this scenario of fighting obesity. The methods of the speaker convincing the audience to "fight fat" was fairly effective but also misleading. Saying "feeding meat is child abuse" can engrave this idea that simply eating meat will lead to unwanted weight. With personal experience as someone who has started becoming more aware of my health, I can say that not all meats are equal. There are healthy meat alternatives to hamburgers. Additionally, a lot of factors play into overall weight such as activity level. Therefore I believe that the use of logos (the portrayal of the hamburger and the child) was not as efficient. I would also like to note the part where it says "child abuse". Reports of child abuse worldwide has always involved a situation where a caregiver is imposing injury, death, or harm to the child intentionally. Simply feeding their child meat should not be child abuse. Food is a necessity and moderate amounts, along with right choices, are not going to do any harm. Therefore, it's safe to assume that feeding meat to a child is not child abuse, unless actual acts of violence are given off. Overall, the advertisement was strong on some parts but lacking in others.

Comparing the two speeches, I believe that Trump's speech was more effective. Although I do not agree with his vision for his future, I can see his standpoint in this. Clinton offered up a more positive for the future but unfortunately it did not look realistic. Clinton did use a lot of ethos by attacking Trump as provocative and mentioning her previous roles in the government therefore making her seem like the position suited her. However, I felt that she was lacking logos when she illustrates her plans to make America great such as free college tuition for the middle class or more available jobs. Clinton failed to include how she was gonna achieve that and if that was possible, why hasn't it been done? Her plan was not clear enough. Whereas Trump claimed to stop gangs and mass immigration to make America great again and his plan was to forge a wall. Although it may not be agreeable, it does seem more effective because of his use of logos. Trump also used pathos really often invoking fear to motivate the people. Sometimes fear can be a dangerous tool. Ethos also appeared a few times, when he demoralizes Clinton and blames America's downfalls on Clinton, stating how this was her legacy: "death, destruction, and weakness." By doing so, Trump is able to make himself look better in front of the people's eyes. Overall, Trump's speech was potent.

George W. Bush's 9/11 speech was an impressive text. Bush did construct a lot of fear, with his descriptions, into his speech and only decided to compose a small portion of his speech with comforting words. However, I believe that the quantity of those comforting words doesn't matter, instead its the quality of those words. Bush engraved a sense of pride and unity against the "evils" into the readers and that's what make its effective in my opinion. "Our country is strong." Take that for example. It might be four words but it's enough for me to understand Bush's point. Nationalism is a strong tool and it can be very advantageous to a country. Bush has implemented logos by announcing the plans he made to deal with the situation. The same goes for pathos, with his descriptive words. Overall, it was an effective piece.

About Me 9/15/16

Hi, I'm Jacky. I want to go home and sleep. I like to sleep and eat. I like to use the bathroom too.