Stephen Cruz and The Mexican American Dream

For the longest time Cruz naively believes in the American Dream and believes it is real, it is possible. He then begins to work in white collar America and sees the racial tensions and inequality for every minority. Cruz’s point is he didn’t even know he was being discriminated, just bad people. He also realized that minorities are just as bad o each other as whites are to minorities. In his businesses he could only go so high, and even then it was not because he was wanted for his skill, but for the fact that he was Mexican. Cruz’s narrative here is rhetoric even if not explicit rhetoric. His argument is strong in that it seems as though he is almost just contemplating to himself, baffled at what happened. He doesn’t tell you explicitly what to think or believe about the American dream, in fact he doesn’t even mention the American dream. He is simply telling you what happened, what he has done. Of course, he really is trying to prove a point but he does it in a subtle way. He give you these examples of racism in the job, moving up the ladder only because they needed a minority, tells us how he kept moving up though, questioning what he was doing. he ends the narrative with a punch. He left. He quit and is teaching in Wisconsin. He tells you the American dream is “confused”. He moved up but lost some of himself in the process. His point is different from many of the ones we have already heard in this class. He moved up achieved all he had ever dreamed of achieving and yet it wasn’t what he thought it would be. He makes it sound almost as if he got lucky. Lucky in that they needed a Mexican partner, there he was. He happened to be the most qualified at the moment so they picked him. Cruz makes this personal and uses pathos as a great outlet for his agument.

Chasm Between Classes, Mantsios

I almost laughed after I finished reading Mantsios’s essay and read the blog question. I normally have a set opinion on every topic but I was somewhat baffled by the facts, opinions, and points Mantsios brings up. Ever since I could differentiate my life and the average American’s I have been opinionated on the topic of the chasm between America’s social classes. About a year ago my step mom recapped for me a book she was reading called “The Stakeholder Society”. The gist of the book’s idea is everyone who graduates from high school will receive an eighty thousand grant. No strings attached, spend it how you want grant. Where will the money come from, I asked. A tax would be placed on the upper class of the United States, creating a pool of money that would grow over time. I cannot remember all other important aspects to the book but I know there are many fine points that go along with this idea such as if you go to college I believe that you get more money. I do know that part of the idea is that before you retire you must pay pack the eighty thousand dollars into this pool. This would eventually end the tax on all the affluent Americans because the money you repay would go back into the pool making it possible for new high school graduates to get their part of the stake. I know this book would not end poverty or even come near it but that is not the point the writers of the book are trying to get across. It is an idea focusing on the enrichment of American citizens. They believe their idea would induce Americans to feel like a valued part of society. The whole idea of two people getting together and coming up with this idea for a book fascinates me. It doesn’t solve our problems or come anywhere near it, but it’s a frigging idea! They look at an idea or custom in our culture or society and think, “Something is wrong with that.” That is not an easy thing to do considering a custom is a practice that has been done for a long time. I believe Mantsios is making an analogous point that the gap between classes is great and hard to overcome. The rich are becoming wealthier while the poor are becoming poorer. My position on the topic is unwavering. If you are born into a certain class, it is nearly impossible to move out of it. This is supported by Ehrenreich’s book “Nickel and Dimed”. Read it and try to convince me that poverty level humans can, after years of hard work, become affluent members of society. I don’t believe there is any other way to interpret Mantsios’s data than the rift between classes is incredibly large an attributes to plenty of America’s problems with poverty.

A letter to Jim, Argument

The argument Rebekah Taylor makes in “A Letter To Jim” I well thought out and very personal. It’s a great argument because, as it sounds to the reader, she is very close with Jim and she uses this to her advantage. She first points out the differences in Jim’s and her own beliefs. Jim (like most other meat eaters) believes cruelty to animals is wrong. Rebekah believes hurting an animal in any way, including killing them for food, is wrong. Rebekah doesn’t use much of an ethos or logos argument. She is using pathos to her advantage. She can’t actually (like most other arguments) prove her point, but she can appeal to her audience pathetically. She tells us the story of being a small child and looking into the big, round eyes of a helpless seal and coming to the conclusion she will never eat meat again. She uses this to appeal to Jim’s emotion. I actually thought her point that she decided this when she was five and stuck with it was a good one. She’s is trying to portray that this was not just a childhood decision but one that stuck with her throughout the rest of her life. She also takes Jim’s argument and uses it to her advantage, which is to say if Jim is against cruelty t animals to animals he should be against any kind of cruelty to animals. Her argument is well thought out and she uses all she can to her advantage, I.E. she can’t really prove why cruelty to animals is wrong so she she uses emotional appeal throughout the entire letter

The Impact of a Visual Argument

As we already know I love the pathos argument. I believe it to be the corner of the rhetorical triangle that will have the most impact and affect your reader best. A visual along with your pathos-oriented argument is even better. It is almost subliminal. When someone looks at a picture or photograph they immediately believe whatever to be portrayed as fact. Its right in front of their eyes, how could it be false? Just like so many other things in our culture people don’t immediately look at a visual and question it. It’s not in our nature. I think the visual argument is strong in a negative sense though. Rarely is a visual used to portray fact. It will show something/one that is not typical. It won’t be what is happening to the majority. Or it won’t be what is truly happening in that moment (think tabloids). The visual argument is really ironic because when a person looks at a photograph they think, I’m looking at a snapshot of time it must be true. But if your using a visual, you get to decide what was happening at that moment. You are in control of what the visual is depicting. That is powerful. I think we are becoming a visual society because anyone with a brain has realized the effect of visuals and no if they want to portray something in a biased way they easily can.

Pathos and Ethos and Our Ethics

All parts of the rhetorical triangle are important. I don’t consider then all to be equally important though. Ethos is important because you cannot write a creditable piece without it. The strongest corner of the rhetorical triangle is pathos. Pathos is what will emotionally connect the audience to a piece of writing. This is very important. The pathos geared argument will interact with the audience’s morals and create conflictions within the contradictor. With both corners of the rhetorical triangle we must be trepidatious of their uses though. Ethos must be used in connection with your ethics because how can your audience trust your claims if you do not have credibility in making them. You want to stick to your ethics always because if your reputation for honesty is tarnished your piece will be more easily deflected as false. Pathos is even more important to be used within the standards of ethics. If we “turn the abstractions of logical discourse into a palpable and immediate story” (p75) and it is misleading or based on false “facts” it is completely unethical. Think of politics today. Did you know Bush got Cs in college?

“Confidential college transcripts and test scores obtained by the Washington Post reveal that neither presidential candidate, George W. Bush nor Al Gore, were shining students during their college days at Yale and Harvard, respectively. Although each earned respectable scores on the SAT college admissions test (a total of 1355 of 1600 for Gore and 1206 for Bush), neither did that well in their college courses. Both earned a mix of B and C grades. Bush's lowest marks were a 70 (of 100) in Sociology and a 71 in Economics, while his highest scores were High Passes in History and Japanese”

Bush at Yale
SAT Verbal Score 566 (of 800)
SAT Math Score 640 (of 800)
Undergraduate Transcript
Political Science/Govt classes 73 (of 100) in PS14a
71 (of 100) in PS13b
Pass in PS48


Source: Washington Post
March 19, 2000
http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html
Unethical pathos arguments are used every day in the news and radio. Pathos is a powerful weapon in an argument, used to mislead is completely unethical and false.

Fifth Grade Finger Grows Back!

Pseudo argument is a tough term to find an example of. The reason behind this is not that I don’t completely understand the term but that I am a seventeen year old kid. How the hell do I know if god exists or not? Or if abortion is murder? Or following that line of thought, if stem cell research is murder? I only know what I feel is right. No argument is based on fact, we live in one big enthymeme. Therefore, it is hard for me to pick a side of an argument and say that they are being fanatical believers. I would have to pick something simple as an example so I will pick a fifth grade argument I once had. It was the middle of class one day when my friend Alex turned and showed me how one of his pinkie fingers was longer than the other. I was amazed. How had it happened I questioned.
“Welp, one day when I was out back of my house I was whittling a stick and I cut off my finger.”
“Wow!” I answered awe apparent in my voice.
“Yep, it grew back.”
Ok, now I may have been in fifth grade but I wasn’t born the day before. I made a face then burst out laughing. I began arguing with him explaining that it was impossible for any appendage on you body to GROW BACK. Alex was insistent however. The finger had grown back he assured me. It was his body, he would know! I was completely beside myself with his idiocy. We were in fifth grade; it was time for him to know this. After fifteen minutes of heated debate I suggest we go ask the teacher. I’ll bet you can guess who was right. After explaining to Alex the science of our bodies and the only possibility of retrieving what had been cut off (going to the hospital and getting it stitched back on) Alex was still adamant that his finger had grown back. I would have to say this is a pseudo argument considering Alex did not even consider the possibility of getting it sewn back on or his skin growing over that spot that once held flesh.

Pathos

I believe pathos to be the strongest argument in today’s culture. It is the strongest of the three parts of the rhetorical triangle. Most of America isn’t highly educated nor is it concerned with politics or the news. An appeal using ethos isn’t going to grab a high school graduate’s attention nor is logos. Not that the high school graduate won’t be able to understand but an emotional appeal is more effective. The pathos argument is going to insinuate its point, but not be obvious about it. The effect is perfect for America because most people won’t realize the argument until they truly consider it which isn’t likely to happen. The pathos argument is incredibly effective on anyone though. How can I argue against some outlandish story that won’t be likely to happen but I have an incredible emotional connection to? The pathos argument does have its downfalls though. The people likely to make changes in America are going to be well read and look at the ethos of a writing piece. Whatever written must be logical to anyone but an educated adult would look for support, or facts backing the piece up. You can’t use only emotion to persuade the experienced reader. Pathos is also an unique part of the triangle because it is triggering your right side of the brain. Instead of using pure logic toward getting you to see their point of view, emotion will create a personal connection to the piece. The best argument would be using all three of the legs of the triangle.

Fears of AP Exam

I didn’t fully understand what the AP English Exam was until I got to University High School. I didn’t know you got college credit. I didn’t know most students in the AP Class were marking their calendars over it. I read the AP Course Description and the fear I initially had was only heightened. I read all the requirements and one the made my heart stop was
“Therefore, occasionally the exam may
contain multiple-choice questions on usage to reflect the link between grammar and
style. The intense concentration on language use in the course enhances students’
ability to use grammatical conventions appropriately and to develop stylistic maturity
in their prose.” P8
I already feel as though my writing is weak, that my sentence structure is terrible. I like my writing to flow and be coherent by I want it to have my own style. I always find this difficult to achieve. I know that they way you use grammar and sentence structure will impact your voice in what you’re writing, but I find it difficult to organize both of those things. I want college credit and I don’t want this year to be a waste. I fear just because I don’t have great syntax and diction it will hold me back. I have an AP Eng Exam guidebook with example questions and when I skimmed it the questions looked difficult but I could answer them correctly.

What Is A Case For Torture

Michael Levin’s “A Case for Torture” is meant to invoke emotion. This is Levin’s deliberate point. He doesn’t have facts and facts galore. He doesn’t even quote a creditable source. He uses extreme situations to tug at your emotions, situations that may, or more likely may not happen. I read this piece and was immediately indignant. Twice in this essay Levin insults those who disagree with him, i.e. me.
“If you caught the terrorist, could you sleep nights knowing that millions died because you couldn’t bring yourself to apply the electrodes?” paragraph 4
“How can we tell 300, or 100, or 10 people who never asked to be put in danger, “ I’m sorry you’ll have to die in agony, we just couldn’t bring ourselves to…” paragraph 5
I know personally the reason I’m against using torture to get answers is not because I can’t bring myself to do something, but because I believe there is always a third way. There is some other way, some other technique that could be used to get answers quickly. I am not an expert on torture or military methods, but I do know there are other options besides torture.
I also resented that he blames part of Hitler’s reign on the fact that Roosevelt refused to kill Hitler based on moral grounds. Did Roosevelt have prior knowledge of the Holocaust? I am not diminishing the Holocaust or the misery that Hitler inflicted on millions, but that had not happened yet.
I have to give Levin credit though because if I put myself into any of the situations mentioned I would hope the government would do anything to save my life. That is the point of the essay though. Levin wants you to become emotionally attached to what he is saying and agree with him. A clever tactic, especially since this was published in Newsweek magazine, a popular magazine with no political ties.

Biotech Foods

In the debate between biotech foods and conventional foods there are many facts you need to know. The argument for labeling biotech foods is mainly we don’t know what the long term effects of the foods are and some of the studies on these foods may be flawed. The argument defending biotech foods is labeling the foods would just confuse consumers and the foods have been tested. However it was not specified whether it was long term. The essays both seemed well thought out and highly noted. I lean heavily toward having our foods labeled though. Turner is right. We don’t know whether or not these biotech foods will have a long term effect. Council writes, “There hasn’t been a single case of an illness caused by biotech foods.” P 41. Well, I’m glad there haven’t been any illnesses, but what about cancers or problems like that? I want to know how much of the food I’ve been eating has been biotech. I hadn’t even heard of this until I read these essays. I think that even if biotech foods aren’t hazardous, we should have the right of knowing when we’re eating them or not. I think that using the argument of “many consumers don’t care to know” is weak. I think they just don’t really know what biotech food is, where problems can arise in eating these foods. I think that if we as a consumer want information about something as important as what we are eating, it should be our right to have it.

Political Cartoon vs. Public Affairs Advocacy Advertisements

When I first opened my political arguments book I opened to page 1 with the political cartoon on it. I did not know what genetically modified meant but I knew whatever it was it looked like it would be beneficial to food and third world countries stricken with poverty. Now after reading part of chapter 2 I understand a little bit better the argument being presented in the political cartoon. The political cartoon is a visual argument, having a strong emotional appeal. As a person whose goal in life is to make a difference in the world, I immediately sided with the author of the cartoon and thought he was making a great point, without even knowing the opposing side’s argument. The political cartoon is a perfect example of an illicit argument. Before I even had considered other possibilities I thought this cartoon was making a great point. Now after reading the other side to the genetically modified food argument I can take a much more educated stance and be able to understand all points of view. The picture on page 24 is both a visual argument and a public affair advertisement. It has emotional appeal and yet it has “an explicit bias and ignores the complexities of the issue by focusing strongly on one view.” I think the political cartoon is less “in your face” and better at tricking you into seeing the authors side. Although the picture did catch my attention and made me feel a little more strongly toward the other’s belief, I was more doubtful of his point.

Implicit and Explicit Arguments

Implicit and Explicit arguments are two different features to an argument. The implicit argument implies the point the source is trying to get across or sometimes does not even make known there is an argument involved in his/her document. The explicit argument is a direct point made known with reasons or evidence backing it up. I believe both are crucial to a captivating argument and each pack a punch. The explicit argument would be used by debaters or lawyers, or especially my step mom. In order to change any rules in my house you have to convince my step mom of your proposal. In order to do that you better be well-read on the topic (why it isn’t all that unhealthy to eat oreos every night after dinner), really believe in what your point is (I would rather be able to eat what I want than stay out thirty minutes later, thus the better choice of an argument would be the food), and listen to my stepmom, the opposing side. I think the implicit argument may be better in my own personal opinion though. The implicit argument gets you to feel something before you can stop yourself. Many times at the beginning of an argument have I heard a different perspective and before I really absorb what that person is about to say, I stop myself and think about why I don’t believe in what their opinion is. The implicit argument is smooth and successful even if the opposing side won’t admit it. The picture in the book caught my attention and immediately I was drawn to the old man and the understanding passing between these two individuals. I then truly looked at the picture, realized its true meaning, and closed my mind of to it’s possibilities. I thought that the suffering and loss these two men must have shared is immeasurable and terrible at the same time. Although the bond between these is like non other, it’s a bond that they shouldn’t have to have none the less.