Rhetoric & Writing

Jacques, Renee. ” This Is Why Marijuana Should Be Legal Everywhere.” POLITICS. 24 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Aug. 2015

In this article Jacques explains how marijuana should be legalized and give the example of “since 2 states have already legalized the substance, it should be legalized everywhere.”  In my opinion this makes his point seem weak because it shows that he is “band wagon” his point.  He continues by dividing his article into subtopics where he elaborates more on each individual topic.  He gives such little detail under each sub topic it shows that he is not very knowledgeable on the subject and makes me question his credibility.  He uses his personal beliefs to deeply, when in reality it should be more based on facts.

He starts by mentioning how marijuana has never killed anybody.  Does it have to get to those extremes for people to believe that marijuana is harmful to the body? No, I think whether people have died or not, if studies have shown that it causes damage to the brain and body then it should stay illegal.  His points on this particular sub topic is just by comparing it to alcohol and other drugs.  He could have used people who have actually used marijuana to back up his theory, in order for his point to be stronger.

He continues by saying how 40% of Americans have admitted to using it, that in my opinion does not make it any better.   There are many people that have killed and robbed, does that make it right? No, just because so people do it, does not make it any better.  That would be an example of concession, because he states how people might think using marijuana is bad, but it really just depends on how the user takes it and on how they personally react.

Overall, his points were not very convincing, he pretty much stated topics and explained it, he gave no references and no persuading aspects.

Video

“Real Time with Bill Maher: Ben Affleck, Sam Harris and Bill Maher Debate Radical Islam (HBO).” YouTube. YouTube, Oct.-Nov. 2014. Web. 12 Aug. 2015.

The unique attribute of theocracy in general is that people can have many perspectives on it. When people collide theocracy with politics it becomes chaos and people tend to think very conservative about it. In Bill Maher’s show he discuses how liberals fail when it comes to theocracy. Specifically he is referring to Islam and liberals are “offended” when people criticize Islam. In fact he says that people “treat it like it’s a minority”, but it shouldn’t because it’s the second biggest religion in the world. Throughout the video Bill Maher and Smith argue that Islam is a religion that asserts negative things such as violence and lack of open-mindedness. They also discuss that the idea of Islam is bad and that many Muslims are jihadists (Muslim extremists). The opposing side is Ben Affleck who considers Islam to be a peaceful religion and uses many examples to back up his arguments.

Furthermore Maher and Harris discuss how Islam has failed when it comes to free thinkers, freedom of sexuality, and women’s rights. Harris adds that “we have to be able to criticize bad ideas” and “Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas”. While the audience was clapping for the comment he had made, Maher was reiterating it’s “a fact” during the argument. This escalated the debate and Affleck responded, “racist” and “disgusting”. Affleck was astonished what Harris and Maher said; he gave them an absurd look. To neutralize the argument Harris made, Kristof who is a famous author states the “picture you are painting to some extent is true, but hugely incomplete”. He lists notable people who are Muslim’s such as Malala yousafzai, Mohammad Ali, and Rasheed Rahaman. He then conveyed that not everyone is getting the positive exposure of Islam and what it offers. Suddenly Affleck interrupts and says “what about more than a billion people who are not fanatical, who do not punish women, and just want to go to school”. Essentially Affleck is trying to convey that they are stereotyping Islam as violent religion that disapproves every liberal principle. Later Harris breaks the people of Islam into “three concentric circles”. In the center he says its “jihadists” who are Muslim extremists and want to “die trying”. Then he says the second circle Muslims that want change the things in their government by democracy and don’t want to “blow things up”. He also says that those two circles are “twenty percent of the Muslim world”. Finally in the third circle he says there are the “conservative Muslims” who say they are not represented by ISIS. However “they have troubling thoughts about homosexuals and women’s rights” and “they keep them immiserated”. Harris is portraying that most Muslims are conservative when it comes to sexuality and women’s rights.

Additionally Maher aggressively states “it’s the only religion that acts like a mafia that will [expletive] kill you if you say the wrong thing, draw the wrong picture, or write the wrong book.” Maher is employing that Islam has a dearth of tolerance and is a close-minded religion. He does not believe that Islam is a safe a religion and is ignited by fear. When Maher makes these unorthodox comments, Michael Steele who is a politician argues Maher is wrong. He states there “are other souls who stand up to these extremists”, but these “fighters” don’t get enough exposure. Affleck adds that ‘we have killed so many Muslims” and we should not be “exempted” from actions. He also says bluntly “I disagree with you what you have to say”. Affleck is unhappy about what Maher and Harris feel because he thinks there arguments are absurd.

Overall both sides did have proof, but Maher was stereotyping Islam as a violent religion. Towards the end Maher says “ninety percent believe that death is the appropriate way to leave the religion”. Ultimately Maher is uneducated about Islam and needs to acknowledge the fact Islam is based on principal roots.

Eaves, Lucas. “5 Reasons Why U.S. Isn’t Ready for Public Drone Use.” IVNus. N.p., 08 May 2013. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <http://ivn.us/2013/05/08/5-reasons-why-u-s-is-not-ready-for-domestic-drone-use/>.

In this article, Eaves discusses five reasons as to why the United States isn’t ready for everyday people using drones. The reasons are sound. There is risk of abuse from using drones in a public setting that is controlled by either the local police or your average Joe. Privacy can be invaded and therefore is an issue since people have the right to privacy. Then as it is used in a public setting, it could be hazardous to the public if abused and used incorrectly. Followed by the legal framework that surrounds public drone use; there isn’t much of one. Lastly, the public perception of drones is not so great. With all that has happened like learning that the NSA spies on the public, people do not trust that drones can be used correctly by the local government and other people. By taking a few of these into consideration it is reasonable to agree that the U.S. isn’t ready for public drone use.

Yes, there is a lack of legal framework around drones and they can be used to invade other’s privacy. However, it is possible to create that legal framework. Once the framework is made then there is less likely to be problems with the public use of drone. There are already a number of rules and laws that accompany our everyday products from cell phones and cars so what would be so difficult to create them for drones. As far as invasion of privacy goes, drones don’t make that issue worse or better. People can easily invade your property and record you on their phones and then do with the footage as they wish. There are laws and rules against this but people do it anyways. Same would go for drones but it is not possible to stop everyone from breaking rules and laws.

I do not entirely agree that drones can be dangerous to the public. Anything and everything is a threat to public safety. Especially people themselves since they can go on a rampage and beat/kill others with their hands and anything they can get their hands on. Eaves makes a comparison between a pressure cooker bomb and drones. This is a false analogy since drones that are sold to the public aren’t fitted with weapons and are usually small. If any tampering is done to the drone it is likely to malfunction. In addition, at that point the drone can not be considered a drone, it is now an actual weapon with the intent to harm.

Despite this in the end I still believe that drones and the way they are used shouldn’t be banned or criminalized. There are pros and cons to the use of drones by the public but everything can be addressed correctly. Also, people can be taught what should and shouldn’t be done when using drones. So let them fly!

Ebert, Roger. “Video Games Can Never Be Art | Roger Ebert’s Journal | Roger Ebert.” All Content, 16 Apr. 2010. Web. 11 Aug. 2015.

There are those that argue whether or not video games would be considered works of art, and one of the biggest advocates on the topic is Roger Ebert. In the article “Video Games Can Never Be Art” by Mr. Ebert, explains his reasoning behind his decision for making his outrageous argument. As much as I respect him for what he has done in the past, I’m going to respectfully disagree.

Mr. Ebert starts on by saying that he still stands by his principle that videogames cannot be art. Even after a fellow writer urged him to watch a video by a game designer who was explaining why video games are art, he still declined the notion. Kellee Santiago, the fellow game designer who was the speaker in the video, was explaining how just like how visual art have evolved from cave paintings to something as grand as Michelangelo’s ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, video games have evolved to something more than just visuals in a screen. He argues that video games do not fall into this notion, by basically saying that the cave paintings the Kellee portrayed (the Chau vet-Pont-d’Arc in southern France) were forms of art because of the creativity of the artist behind it. He explains that the painter back then who drew these portraits where considered geniuses at the time because they didn’t have anything to build on in the first place.

Yet, he doesn’t realize how much creativity and skill developers need to have in order to make a videogame. Game developers have to use their creativity to create characters that are relatable and interesting to the player. They also need to have the skill to create the environment and scenarios for the character to interact with to feel the emotions that they want you to feel. They are very brilliant minds and talent behind the “mindless videogames” that Ebert does not see. Such as Shigeru Miyamoto, many of you may not know him by name, but he is the creator of Super Mario Bros. He was able to create a timeless character that everyone can recognize and the game franchise that has last 3 decades which still brings many smiles to many people in the world. In the gaming world, he is considered a genius because of this.

Later on he goes on to say that, “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win games. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite an immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, a dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.” In a way this is kind of ironic because Roger Ebert is a big advocate to film, and many including himself have argued that movies can make you go through emotional experiences. So why say videogames can’t? This isn’t true now a days due to the fact that many videogames are more than just games with a clear objective, they ARE experiences that focus on choices. There are many games nowadays that make you go through many arrays of emotion throughout the game with the choices you chose. Such as “Final Fantasy XIII”, one of the main aspect of the game was to make you feel a connection towards the characters. So whenever something happened to them, you would generally feel mad or even upset because the fact you made them go through their scenario through your choice. Sure it’s true that many games are just mindless entertainment, however we cannot characterize those early games with the majority of games nowadays. That’s like saying a movie like Scary Movie is on par with Citizen Cane and Casa Blanca (which many considered to be the greatest movies of all time by the way)

So as much as I respect the man as a well-known critic, I have to disagree with his notion. Video games have evolved to be more than just simple games. They are works of art that can take you inter journeys that you can’t always experience in the real world. Whether it’s the bonds you make with your fellow soldiers in the Call of Duty franchise, or the friendships you formed with Donald and Goofy in Kingdom Hearts; video games can make you think, and feel through their engaging stories. Just like how a painting can make you think and feel the same way.

Tomczak, Larry. “4 More Reasons to Reject Legalizing Marijuana.” christianpost.com. The Christian Post, 10 Jan. 2014. Web. 11 Aug. 2015.

I stumbled upon this lovely article, which states 4 reasons not to legalize marijuana. The first reason is to “maintain maximum mental capacities”. He starts out by saying that a majority of Americans believe our country is going “in the wrong direction” and that there are “apocalyptic warnings” around us. He then rambles on about controversial subjects which is obvious he isn’t in favor of such as “abortion, gay marriage, Islamic terrorism…” and much more. He goes on to say that marijuana “affects motor skills, causes brain damage, your IQ will drop…” and names many more reasons. The second reason is to “protect public safety”. He is aware of the marijuana/alcohol comparison and even cites statistics. He says alcohol should stay, but safety shouldn’t be worsen by allowing another addictive on the streets. The third reason is “don’t relinquish control of your life” by saying that marijuana is a gateway and that we should not give in Letto sin. He then says that many media sources are publishing on the negatives on marijuana and that pop culture needs to inform the public that it’s not good. The last reason is “be responsible and care for our children” in which he says kids aren’t given a clear message, pressuring Christian parents to inform their child, and cites statistics on how kids can get addicted and such.

The first logical fallacy I encounter is actually in the 2nd sentence, “Apocalyptic warnings seem to be swirling all around us amidst accelerating moral decline.” He is appealing to force by implying that there are warnings and that if marijuana is legalized, something horrible is to come. He then uses the same flawed argument by quoting 1 Pet. 4:7, NIV which states “The end of all things is near. Therefore be alert and of sober mind so you can pray.” By using a source that he knows his audience will agree with (the Bible), he tries to scare them. This claim says if you keep your mind sober (clear of sin) and you pray, then you won’t have to worry about the end. He uses a slippery slope by coming up with the idea that one would start out smoking joints outside and next thing you know they’re “driving high down the highway” and the next day he’s “next to a judge with a weeping father who lose his loved one and his three children”. This implication is stating that simply by smoking, you’ll be inclined to make foolish decisions, which in turn turns out to be dangerous. Ad hominem is used by stating “Fearful and selfish parents are caving because they don’t want to alienate their children…” in which in he basically tells his audience (Christian adults) that if you don’t inform your child of the “dangers” of marijuana, you are a “coward” and selfish.

The above fallacies mentioned are just a drop in the bucket compared to the whole article, which contains many, if not all the types of fallacies to exist. Many arguments against the drug are not backed up by credible sources and half the article does not even focus on the drug, but focuses on Bible verses and making the audience feel bad. It is evident he is pushing his agenda upon his readers with little to no intent to actually focus on all the aspects of the drug, but just cherry picks the whole article.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/4-more-reasons-to-reject-legalizing-marijuana-112398/

Sanders, Bob Ray. “Don’t Remove Jefferson Davis Statue – Rather, Learn from It.” Star-telegram. Star Source, 15 May 2015. Web. 11 Aug. 2015.

Chevelle, Innocent.  “NO! Do NOT sign his hateful thing. The premise that Jefferson was some kind of white supremacist is wrong, absurd and doesn’t have any factual basis. Davis and his wife adopted an abused orphan black child named Jim Limber Davis who lived with them and their own children. After the war, Union soldiers kidnapped and murdered Jim Limber. Davis was a US hero of the Mexican War, a US Senator, US Secretary of War, and was elected as president of the CSA. This was truly a great man who should be admired, similar to George Washington. People such as Zim are free to make fools of themselves, as he has done with this moronic ‘petition’.” Facebook. 17 May 2015. 10:32am [11 August 2015. <www.facebook.com>]

A major incident recently hit the media. A teenage boy named Dylann Roof murdered a group of African Americans at a local bible study in South Carolina. When investigators researched him, they found Roof with Confederate pictures. Following the release of Roof’s Confederate pictures, a new wave of hatred towards Confederate-related symbols rose up in America. Along with the many other attacks towards these symbols, most University of Texas students oppose the Jefferson Davis statue being on campus. As the majority wishes this statue be removed, other students wish that wed keep the statue on campus. A current UT student, Innocent Chevelle, poses herself as an unreliable source when she uses fallacies to claim that the Davis statue petition is wrong.

This is where Chevelle’s post and Zim’s comment can be found.

Chevelle uses an Ad Hominem Argument to open up. “The premise that Jefferson was some kind of white supremacist is wrong, absurd and doesn’t have any factual basis,” she attacks Zim for assuming that Jefferson was a white supremacist. I disagree, because Jefferson spent a good portion of his life fighting for slavery to be legalized. I feel that her argument is illogical, because she gives no clear evidence as to how Jefferson was not a supremacist. She goes on by saying,”Davis and his wife adopted an abused orphan black child named Jim Limber Davis…After the war, Union soldiers kidnapped and murdered Jim Limber Davis,” (Chevelle). Chevelle doesn’t thoroughly explain how this adopted slave ties back to Jefferson not being a white supremacist. As the readers, we don’t know if Thomas Jefferson adopted a slave because he wanted to use that slave for house work. We don’t know if he actually wanted to save a slave from working under someone.

Chevelle appropriately labels Davis’ roles, which is acknowledged by the reader. Her use of facts and appeal to ethos makes her more credible. Chevelle uses Name Calling by saying, “ People such as Zim are free to make fools of themselves, as he has done with this moronic ‘petition’.”. Although, Chevelle feels that Zim is a fool and moronic for commenting about the petition, personally attacking Zim leads her to lose her credibility. Chevelle also fails to explain herself. Why did she feel that his petition post was moronic?

Overall, Chevelle based the majority of her argument on fallacies. This does not make the readers feel she is a trustworthy person, because she uses little evidence and no explanations to backup her claims. The audience, people who read this blog, should not believe this post. Chevelle’s claim is not backed by any evidence that would support her argument. Also, her heavy appeals to pathos overwhelm readers, because they feel as though Chevelle is just talking randomly in an angry way and not organizing her reasons in the right way. Appeals to pathos are heavily shown when Chevelle demeans the author through her use of negative adjectives and the style she writes this in.