Horatio Alger Story

It seems a little bit redundant to say that the documentary is more "real" than the story. Horatio Alger is famous for his "rags to riches" stories, most of these being imaginative and unrealistic. Not that a man couldn't get rewarded in this way for saving a child- it is just very unlikely. In reality, the documentary is more true-to-life. This would make sense, seeing as it is, in fact, a documentary- therefore, completely non-fiction. Seriously though, it is extremely hard for people to make a living in this world- and whether or not spending money to try to cover up the poor helps or not is curious. For example, many people would argue that someone that can't afford a house shouldn't buy nice clothes or a cell phone, so that they can save for a house. However, is appearing less poor part of the way on the road to being less poor? if someone can appear more wealthy, doesn't it mean that they are? That's a hypothetical question- there are several different ways to answer it. I just think that it is an interesting phenomenon, this "dressing up" of the poor. (though of course, it is human nature to fit in)

Stephen Cruz

The problem with the American Dream is that it is elusive. It it abstract and unattainable, and extremely materialistic. It is defining happiness by the idea of being able to get money- which is possible, more people are going to be happy when they aren't constantly struggling to make ends meet- but what really defines being wealthy, or happy, or living the American dream? just because someone is near the top of the social ladder doesn't make them happy. However, they are defined as living the American dream. I wouldnt really call an unhappy person "living a dream", unless it's a very shallow dream. This is the problem with the American dream- it has become corrupted, and I defend Stephen Cruz's opinion of that. Everything works through big business, and developing, and nothing is privately owned anymore- the "American Dream" can hardly be achieved by onesself anymore- starting a business- etc. Now you have to work from the bottom up, constantly having some sort of power ruling over you. There is little place for individuality or privacy- you are constantly being watched. This is the price to pay to achieve the elusive "American Dream".

Class System

I dont believe that the wealthy really EXPLOITS the poor, per se. Maybe without realizing it- but I think the problem is more that they simply don't realize the importance of the things that the poor do. I think there are some weatlthy that might use the poor as a means to make themselves look better- by either "helping" them or simply by being different. Many wealthy believe that the poor are poor because they are stupid, which isn't helped by the examples with SAT scores, although this isn't nessecarily a question of stupidity as much as a question of proper education. However, many wealthy live without ever really coming into contact with poverty- they see the, as the book puts it, "dressed-up" poor. Therefore, if the rich really exploits the poor, they do it unknowlingly- as in using them to help get richer, help build their companies, "bettering" poor areas by moving in ( and kicking the poor out), etc.

Essays

I guess I will go ahead and analyze the vegetarian girl essay. This writer reminds me a lot of a girl I knew in middle school, because she had the same vegetarian beliefs. However, the girl I knew was a lot more forceful, a lot more intelligent of a writer, and didn't nessecarily care at all what people thought of her argument. The writer of this essay seems to be extremely passive, which isn't nessecarily a bad thing; except that she isn't really arguing- she's just talking. She gets her point across, but the whole letter just seems aimless. She's not aiming to change the beliefs of her friend; she makes that obvious- but what is she even writing the letter for? It seems like they already understand each other's beliefs; so it's not like they need to find any more common ground. I don't have a problem with vegetarians; and all of her reasons are very valid- but she's essentially not attempting to- and therefore failing to- make any sort of difference. I believe that if she were writing to a different audience, and writing just a slight bit more forcefully (without the whole "now i know you'll never actually change your opinion about anything"- I can't tell if she's trying to convince him not to hate her for her beliefs, or if shes challenging him to change them by saying he can't) then it would be a much more effective essay.

Visual

There is a very cliche saying that goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words"

in some cases, I wouldn't call that true. There are powerful pictures, and powerful pieces of writing; and there are also weak pictures and weak pieces of writing. In a general sense though, we are becoming a very visual society. a good picture can be extremely powerful. The censorship in the news is a perfect example of this- people can shape our ideas by showing very extreme pictures of something and little or no pictures of something else that they deem less important. A picture in and of itself can shape an opinion. However, it is very easy to get burned out on pictures. If a very powerful picture is shown too often, or too many extremely gruesome pictures are shown frequently, a person will get used to them, and therefore will no longer be moved. This is why although pictures are imortant, they have to be used sparingly, and dispersed within a good writing argument. This is the most effective way to use a picture to prove a point.

There are some that i dont agree with. for example, promoting being a good pet owner by only showing pictures of dogs that are neutered. I understand in the instance of the choke collar that the book mentions, but i believe that there is an extent in which some restrictions can violate freedom of speech. However, that is a discussion for a different day.

Ethos and Pathos

I wouldnt say that a writer has a "responsibility" to appeal to Ethos and Pathos in and of itself, because the writer has a right to make any sort of piece that he or she wants. However, creating an effective ethos and pathos is essential to creating an effective piece, because if a person doesn't have any reason to believe the writer, the person won't.

However- and this was actually the question I was supposed to blog on- IN appealing to ethos and pathos, the writer has the responsibility to be real. This would mean, the only true way to appear credible is to actually be credible, and the best way to appeal to a person's emotions is not to bring them down or to shock the person into changing their belief. The Government and the media both have a way of not living up to those standards; because everything is so extreme. Because people are free to make claims (which is not a bad thing in and of itself), people will make all sorts of claims- and many of them are not well backed up. The media uses flashy images and news about people- most of it untrue- in order to gain money and attention. The government isn't really all too different from the media, because politics is essentially the attacking of one group in order to appeal to another (which is obviously not right- and why it doesnt live up to the responsibility). Many political arguments are not well backed, credible, and many of them are very stinging. However, sometimes they are presented with a false sense of appearing so, and though they are not truly credible, they appear to appeal to ethos, and so on.

Pseudo arguments

A pseudo argument in the real world would be a statement without any backup. Either that, or soemthing that is just simply debatable. The example used in class was "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla" which is just an opinion. Any opinion could be called a pseudo-argument, depending on the way it is expressed. Therefore, all world and national politics are pseudo-arguments, because they are all opinions on how to make the world run better. Of course, polititians give reasons as to why their view points are "better", and it could even be arguable that politics does have a true right and wrong, its just that nobody really can say what that is. If the entire world were polled about chocolate and vanilla ice cream, whichever one that wins could potentially be the "correct" argument, but even that is arguable. Therefore, in a way, all arguments could be said to begin as pseudo arguments- it is the back up and the process of getting a point across that differentiates it.

pathos

The idea of "pathos"

well.

As I have not been able to pry out of my brain since some distant etymology class, "path" means feeling.

Pathos therefore, in a form of rhetoric, would mean to appeal to a person's feelings or emotions. i.e., using the "guilt trip" method. However horrible that sounds, it is, in fact, a very effective form of argument. Okay, to appeal to pathos doesn't nessecarily mean sending the reader on a guilt trip. It could be the opposite- appealing to someone on a personal level, using human examples in order to stir a person's anger or agreement. However it's used, it is essential. It's sort of like saying "millions of people were killed in the holocaust", as opposed to telling the story of a few individuals and what they had to endure. In forms of sheer numbers, of course the killing of millions of people seems worse- but it is, alas, sheer numbers. There is no personal level, and without a personal level, there is no argument. People are going to much more touched by the story of a life, because they have their own life themselves, and all humans have something that they can connect with another, even if it is down to the level of simply sharing the same set of emotions and feelings.

The case for torture article makes a (in my opinion) rather futile attempt to appeal to pathos. He does try to send his readers on a guilt trip and make them look twice at themselves, but he sort of ends up looking bitter in the process. However, his attempt is more effective than if he had never even tried at all, and had only used facts and statistics.

Therefore,

pathos is important.

In fact, people may argue with me, but I think it is the most important, because before a person can look at the facts of an argument, they need something that will catch their interest and appeal to them first, and that is exactly what pathos does.

thank you and good night.

-Tina

AP Exam

This will sound very strange, because the blog I am supposed to write was supposed to be "what scares you the most about the AP exam?". it seems very anticlimactic for me to write "nothing". I am not trying to be smart, or "fearless", or whatever else- it just, well, doesnt really intimidate me. I am taking a class to prepare for it, am I not? Some people go in and take the exam without ever taking a class. In fact, (this is why one of my good friends is morally opposed to taking AP classes) the class is tailored to the exam. Therefore, I should have nothing to fear. Most of us have been thoroughly trained in English and writing ideas most of our lives; much of my 7th and 8th grade classes were spent talking about rhetoric and argument; in fact we even made a small book of literary devices.

not to say that an AP English class is anything similar to a middle school one. However, English is the primary tool that humans use in every day life. Everyone posesses the ability to decipher a piece of writing; just not everyone is trained how to do so. That's what this class is for.

therefore, I am not intimidated by the AP English exam

although,

i am a little worried about handwriting those esssays.....

mainly just for the sake of the poor examiner who has to try and read it.

Torture

This is a particularly hard entry for me to write, simply because I don't have an opinion on the subject. The essay was very well-written and persuasive, and I don't like to think of myself as being swayed easily by argument, but the idea of torture as a device to prevent people from being killed seems valid. There are some circumstances that it should never be tolerated, such as, as punishment, because it can't change what has already happened. Also, often times, if a person knows they are going to die anyway, they will lie. In fact, I've always seen torture as a very unreliable way to extract information from someone, because the only threat one can use besides death is more torture, and if a person lies they will likely be killed anyway, or they will be killed after there is no need for them anymore. At least, that's what years of dramatic movies have taught me. For that specific reason, I don't believe that torture is the best way to go. However, I understand the argument behind it, and why in some cases, it would be effective in preventing disaster. However, I dont think that torture should ever take the place of investigation.

Ads

The way an argument is presented is an extremely powerful tool in putting forth the opinion. That having been said, the two pictures in the book were presented in two very different ways, although they were both criticizing the "other side". The comic presents a moral dilemma, and creates an animosity toward the man with the corn, making the point that witholding genetically engineered foods is witholding food for the poor. This is valid, seeing as another part of the argument is that there isn't enough food in the world without genetically engineering it. This argument isnt nessecarily true, because the fact that people can't get food has more to do with money and the way things are produced than sheer numbers, but that's beside the point. The other picture in the book was an ad against genetically engineering food; or at least informing people what is in their food. Personally I think that it is realistic and should be required that all food states what is in it (I think by this time it might be required, though I'm not sure), but although the argument isn't as strong as the opposite side, it presents a more realistic and more accurate point. For argument's sake, comic on page 1 is stronger, because it really does make the reader stop and think- however, the strongest argument isn't nessecarily the correct one, which is why it is always good that both sides are looked at impartially.

Arguing

There is a clear difference between an implicit and an explicit argument. though an explicit argument seems like it would be the most effective- something such as a political debate, or even less obvious than that- a poem that states something controversial; that TELLS its opinion. However, an implicit argument is something that is less stated, more implied. Something such as a picture, or a poem that explains a life experience could be an implicit arguemnt. An implicit argument doesn't state; it implies- it strikes the viewer, gives them some sort of emotion, before they even realize that they're being "argued" with. A good photographer is generally very good at achieving this, because photographs are exempt at moving people. Often times, there are things that could fall on the line- such as a poem. Different people could percieve differently whether or not it is an implicit arguemnt or an explicit one; it all depeds on the way the reader percieves it.