Blog Reflection

The blog was really good for me to put my thoughts down and work through them. The peer response with the comments was also really helpful. I liked this as an organizational tool. My blog posts were a basis for my writing. Although it was still a process to bring the information I put in my blog to the classroom or to my writing, it was nice to be able to have a space to organize my thoughts while my peers have the opportunity to respond. I'm not a huge fan of blogging but for this class it was a good tool. I really tried to apply the comments given to me during the mid-term evaluation. I tried to make my posts more thought-provoking while still thoroughly answering the assignment.

Violence in Schools: Brainstorming

I decided to do violence in schools. I'm not sure I can write a whole six pages...but I'm planning on doing some more research to get some background information. Violence in schools is prevalent in today's society. Deadly violence within schools struck fear in the public and particularly school-age youth across the nation. Starting in 1989, there has been an increase in school violence, ranging from verbal harassment, threats of harm, and violent crime. Public opinion is one of concern, especially over the recent school shootings in the past several years. A proposed solution to this could be increased education about bullying and school violence, touring speakers whose hardships have been the result of school violence, and so on. I think if school violence education is more prevalent, then it will raise awareness amongst all school levels and decline.

Hardest of the Hardcore

We read an essay called "The Hardest of the Hardcore". It was an interesting and insightful article, but heavy with facts and not a lot of solutions. The author didn't specifically state this as an issue in the beginning, either. He writes it out like a list..."using mercenaries in war is problematic for six major reasons". It is slightly boring by the end of the piece, and I was left thinking "okay, enough already". Again, he didn't put enough solutions in the piece to make it worth reading it, in my mind. I was also left with the so what? kind of mindset. However, he did laden his argument with ample background information, sources, and statistics. He provides good claims and evidence for the claims, but does not provide the solutions. It comes across as more of an informative essay then a persuasive, solution-proposing speech or piece of writing.

Brainstorming: Euthanasia

EUTHANASIA

Many definitions:
-The Pro-Life Alliance defines it as: 'Any action or omission intended to end the life of a patient on the grounds that his or her life is not worth living.'
-The Voluntary Euthanasia Society looks to the word's Greek origins - 'eu' and 'thanatos', which together mean 'a good death' - and say a modern definition is: 'A good death brought about by a doctor providing drugs or an injection to bring a peaceful end to the dying process.'
-Three classes of euthanasia can be identified - passive euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia - although not all groups would acknowledge them.

Pros:
-Legalizing euthanasia would help stop suffering of terminally ill patients. It would be inhuman and unfair to make them go through the unbearable pain.
-People with incurable diseases or the one’s where effective cure wouldn’t do enough good to their quality of life should be given the option of induced death.
-Though killing in an attempt to defend oneself is far different than mercy killing, law does find it approvable. Similarly, the motive of euthanasia is to "aid-in-dying" painlessly and thus should be considered and accepted by law.
-In an attempt to provide medical and emotional care to the patient, a doctor should prescribe medicines that will relieve his or her suffering even if the medications cause gross side effects. This means that dealing with agony and distress should be the priority even if it affects the life expectancy. Euthanasia follows the same theory of dealing with torment in a way to help one die peacefully out of the compromising situation.
-Euthanasia should be a natural extension of patients’ rights allowing him to decide the value of life and death for him. Maintaining life support systems against patients’ wish is considered unethical by legal and medical law.
-The pain of waiting for death is frightening and traumatic.

Cons:
-Mercy killing is morally incorrect and should be forbidden by law. It’s a homicide and murdering another human.
-Human life deserves exceptional security and protection. Advanced medical technology has made it possible to enhance human life span and quality of life. Rehabilitation centers are better alternatives to help disabled or patients approaching death live a pain-free life.
-Even doctors cannot predict about period of death and whether there is a possibility of remission or recovery with the aid of other advanced treatments. So, implementing euthanasia would mean many unlawful deaths that could have survived later. Legalizing euthanasia would be like empowering law abusers and increasing distrustfulness of patients towards doctors.
-Mercy killing would cause decline in medical care and cause victimization of the most vulnerable society. Would mercy killing transform itself from the "right to die" to "right to kill"?
-There is a possibility of euthanasia being mishandled.
-Legalizing euthanasia could create a 'slippery slope' to involuntary euthanasia.

Important Dates

1950- The World Medical Association votes to recommend to all national medical associations that euthanasia be condemned "under any circumstances." In the same year, the World Medical Association issues a statement that the majority of doctors do not believe in euthanasia.
1990- Jack Kevorkian, MD, assists Janet Adkins, a Hemlock Society member, in committing suicide in Michigan. Adkins death is the first of many suicides in which Dr. Kevorkian assists.
1994- The Oregon Death with Dignity Act is passed, becoming the first law in American history permitting physician-assisted suicide.
1997- The Supreme Court rules in Washington v. Glucksburg and Vacco v. Quill that there is not a constitutional right to die.

Response to Chapter 14

In Chapter 14, it discusses writing a classical argument. It describes the two components: truth seeking and persuasion. It's interesting how they explain these two components as a paradox. Also, I really like how they explained how argument in our society has been cast as such a negative thing...how it misrepresents argument because it makes people fight and grow apart. I think the general idea of a classical argument is an interesting one, but one that has been beaten in to my head since I was in middle school. We've always been taught to make an argument, provide examples, and then tell how the examples provide evidence of the argument. I think it's important for the claim that you are arguing be one you really feel strongly about, otherwise, how do you expect to persuade others of your idea? I also think the ability to link your ideas to the ideas and beliefs of the argument is one of the most important in arguing a point. If an audience doesn't think it applies to them, they're going to turn off of the subject and not want to hear anything you say. But one thing, like explained in this chapter, that you have to be careful of is logical fallacies. These create untrue statements and will alot of times also turn the audience off to what your arguing because they believe your creating a generalization about them. In the end, understanding a classical argument is all about creating an argument and relating that argument to your audience so they'll see your side of view about it.

Formal Response to Mark Edmundon's Essay

I wanted to post some of the issues I had with writing my formal response to Mark Edmundson's essay...just a response and hoping I can sort them out before the next formal response (: In the beginning, it was definately obvious to me that I agreed with what he was saying. It's apparent around JMU, seeing the brochures and website as a senior in high school that it was very aimed towards a consumerist culture. I couldn't quite grasp the actual assignment until halfway through my first draft...it was hard for me to consider both the rhetorical aspects and Edmundson's views at the same time. I ended up having to separate them and approach them separately then combine them for the final product. Another big problem I had was providing enough examples to support my claims, which ironically was what I was arguing Edmundson does very well throughout his essay. Overall, I felt like drafting and redrafting, as well as making outlines and webs helped me organize my thoughts, because there was so much in this essay and assignment to consider.

Chapter 14 & Classical Argument

The sample argument I chose was gay marriage should be legalized because doing so will promote faithful, monogamous relationships among lesbians and gay men. The appeal to ethos in this argument is based on the credibility. You could say they have done extensive research, or simply demonstrate how much they know about gay and lesbian marriage, causing the readers to trust you. In addition, briefly acknowledging the opposing side to gay marriage would show the readers that they are aware there is another side, but your side is better. Also, if you relate to your readers and to a feeling or a belief you already know they share will demonstrate your trustworthiness and show the readers you care about their beliefs. Appealing to logos would require you to show your readers that the logical, simple answer is to legalize gay marriage. Stating facts and statistics to show why it is a good idea and how it would be beneficial to them and to society would help tremendously with the appeal to logos. Appealing to pathos with this argument would be touching on the emotions of the readers. Evoking sympathy, such as making them think about if they couldn't marry the person they love, would accomplish this. Although the audience could be of mixed beliefs (both for and against gay marriage), you could appeal to the audience's emotions by telling them it would create more faithful, monogomous relationships. Not many logical fallacies could be used in this argument, but possibly either/or reasoning. Overall, this argument would be most effective when appeals to ethos and pathos were used, as this is a touchy subject in our society today.

Response to Mark Edmundson's Essay

I have alot of thoughts about Mark Edmundson's essay, way too much to put in a single blog post, but here goes. I think he overgeneralizes about us "spoiled college kids" and oversimplifies about how we live and are treated. However, I do agree with him that we are more sheltered than previous generations. We have grown up with our eyes shielded from many things in the world. He also talks about a lack of diversity, which I completely disagree with. Our freshman class alone at JMU represents over 90 countries. I don't see a lack of diversity there, which is another example of him overgeneralizing. He also talks about a 'commercializing' of college education. This is an interesting concept. He talks about students being "customers" that professors are afraid to challenge and hold responsible. He discusses American society's fear of failure due to competition, so therefore universities sell themselves. They "advertise" beautiful campuses, delicious food, and a friendly atmosphere, among other things. But isn't school about getting a higher education? He states that college is simply a "club Med", where college allows students to get what they buy. He believes society blames parents, administrators, and professors, instead of the real antagonist- the students. Therefore, he states, it is up to the students to change, and I completely agree with him. We shouldn't be afraid to test or challenge ourselves. We shouldn't be afraid to express ourselves. We need to be challenged so that we can succeed in our future relationships and careers.

Question/Interest on Chapter 6 Reading

I think it is very interesting and helpful on the way they laid out the 'strategies' sections of this chapter. The column style really makes it easy to refer to and use for writing. While reading through these strategies, I was pleasantly surprised to see that they really will help with my writing. They plainly lay out the strategies you can use and how to use them, as well as examples. In addition, they give you questions to ask to really delve in to whatever it is your trying to do. Overall I like these columns and the style of this chapter.

Response to Chapter 6

The first exercise explored in the chapter, thinking critically, is very important when exploring rhetorical reading. It poses questions aimed to really delve in to the piece and take it apart. It also pinpoints why college-level reading is difficult (vocab, unfamiliar content or genre, lack of background knowledge), which I think is a very useful tool. It outlines reading like an expert, which I found very helpful and plan on using in the future. I really liked how the book put it in chart format- it made it very easy to follow. The 'reading with and against the grain' exercises were somewhat similar to the 'agree/disagree' exercise we did earlier. I think this is very interesting and helps, again, with college-level reading and rhetorical reading in general. The question-asking strategies will also prove extremely helpful, and I plan on using them. They're displayed in a user-friendly format. The summary of drafting and revising was also well-laid out and explained the concept completely. Once again, the strategies for rereading to stimulate ideas for a strong response is laid out very similarly to the strategies discussed above, and again presents a student-friendly table format that's easy to refer to and use. The paragraphs on writing a thesis, shaping and drafting, and revising really explained fully the ideas. It also discusses briefly questions for peer review, which I think is an invaluable resource for students.

Excercise from book

PART A
(Positive)

I'm sitting outside my dorm on the bench. The weather is cool and there's a breeze in the air. There are people walking up and down the sidewalks, talking and sharing ideas. The beautiful white stone architecture the Integrated Sceince and Technology and Health and Human Services building is glaring in the sunshine, brightening the picture. Cars, people and buses are busy on their separate paths. The grass is green and the air clear.

(Negative)

I'm on the bench outside my dorm. It's cold and the air is sharp. People are everywhere, talking loudly and blocking the sidewalks. The glaring white stone of ISAT/HHS is too bright, causing an eyesore in the mostly green and brick landscape. Cars, people, and buses are too loud and distract from the campus's natural beauty.

PART B

It was interesting to see the different points of view in my writing. I kind of had to force myself to make the negative part, but it was definately interesting to focus on the bad aspect. I used some connotations to really create the images. Looking back, I could've put more emotion in to it. I tried to vary sentence structure to emphasize or de-emphasize my ideas.

Assignment #4: Response to Chapter 2

Chapter 2: Thinking Rhetorically About Your Subject Manner

The first concept discussed is "wallowing in complexity". I think this is an interesting idea. I agree that college students are too quick to head straight for the solution to a problem. However, I think that that kind of quick thinking has its time and place. Nevertheless, a college course is designed to help students create new ways of thinking that can help them sort through new ideas. I agree with the idea that students come to college as dualists, believing only in a right or wrong answer. I think this stems from what we are taught in high school for the most part. It was interesting to think about different academic disciplines as fields of argument. Different questions were posed for each disciplines such as psychology, history, sociology, and women's studies. This led the reader to really delve in to their thoughts as it pertains to each disciplines. I really like the concept of free writing. I think that it really allows the writer to produce a stream of consciousness without worrying about grammar, spelling, or transitions. Topics that the writer couldn't think of before suddenly come pouring out of their minds, and this is really the point of free writes. I also like focused free writing. Although more structured than a plain free write, I think it allows for the same freedom of thoughts as a free write. Idea mapping still has the same theme, but I like it for its organization of ideas. It encourages the writer to connect their ideas in to conscious themes, which is very important closer to the actual production of a paper. I don't find talking to classmates as productive, however. Sometimes people shut down in face-to-face interactions in fear of being criticized or attacked by classmates. I played the believing and doubting game in the last assignment, and I thought it was definately an interesting way of responding to a piece of writing. Although I didn't agree with the article, writing the 'believe' part of the assignment opened my eyes to different points of views and what other people could think. A strong thesis statement is essential to a good piece of persuasive writing. I agree that it should be surprising, and should invite the reader to think about your point of view. I also think it's obvious the point should give meaning to the particulars. A paper should provide support and reasoning for the thesis statement.

Assignment #3: The Believing and Doubting Game

Believe
Although I severely and wholeheartedly disagree with the statements made, there is an alternative side to the argument. First off, the revenue would be the major plus of the spectacle. As he describes, if you take the amount of people in America that are in favor of the death penalty, and charge them anywhere between $25 for bleacher seats and $300 dollars for a ringside view, you would come away with quite a bit of cash. The person being executed would get a cut of this, of course. It could go to whomever he pleases, such as family, the prison in which he was held, charity, and other related venues. Another benefit of making executions public would be discouraging the people watching from committing a crime so heinous that you are being put to death. The pomp and circumstance surrounding the display would also be a plus, with the national anthem, a blessing, and a lavish entrance for the convicted. Maybe this option does have it’s perks, but I feel that it is completely overwhelmed by the negatives.

Doubt
I disagree with Miller's view. Executions are in no way appropriate to be public events. Although a person that has been convicted and is being executed for a capital offense like murder, it is a loss to that person’s family and friends, and should be respected as such. No human being, however gruesome their crime, deserves to be put to death in front of a jeering crowd of spectators. I am personally in favor of the death penalty, but it’s disturbing to me that a person would want to watch this horrible act, especially one completed by an electric chair. How is burning flesh and smoke seem like an appealing entertainment option? The thought of someone singing the national anthem, as if it were a basketball or football game, at someone’s execution is sickening. Someone paying upwards of $200 dollars, as suggested, to one of these events is equally offensive. Just the mere thought of conducting someone’s death in the same manner as a sporting event is completely, morally wrong. It should be a procedure done precisely and accurately so as to inflict the least amount of pain possible, as outlined in federal law. It is a possibility that executioners and those contributing to the act could change the procedure and cause the person pain, to make it more entertaining for the crowd. It is also possible that people who aren’t murderers could consider the act just for 15 minutes of fame. In addition, he discusses a person bringing their children, for “an intense educational experience”. There is a reason that movies in this day and age have ratings, to shield children from things deemed inappropriate for their maturity level. How is this appropriate for a child? To watch, among thousands of people, a person take another human being’s life? Especially by an electric chair. It is completely impertinent. I could go on for hours about how incongruous and abominable this idea is. The bottom line is that a death is something to be made personal and private and it is not right to broadcast it to thousands of people for entertainment purposes.

Assignment #2

In the book The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing, it defines a strong thesis as "usually containing an element of uncertainy, risk, or challenge. A strong thesis implies a naysayer who could disagree with you...a strong thesis surprises the reader with a new, unexpected, different, or challenging view of the writer's topic."

When reading through the school newspaper, I came across an article orginially found in the Washington Post ("Virginia Looks to Shift Toward Wind Power") about Virginia's quest to start using wind power. The author's thesis statement is strong, stating that the mountains that hug the state's western border could "hold the key to Virginia's search for alternative energy sources". Although suggested frequently, this energy source has not been implemented very often. Therefore it gives the reader a new and challenging view of energy sources, a characteristic of a good thesis statement as defined by the book above.

In addition, the book describes an effective thesis statement that addresses a question or controversial issue, "surprise requires an argumentative, risky, or contestable thesis". It also explains that a thesis statement in this respect must adequately answer the reader's question. In the article, the author continues to give reasons why wind power is cost-effective and beneficial. It also goes to explain the opposing side of the argument without bias. Overall, the article was successful in it's thesis statement and a strong supporting argument.