Reflection on The Male Myth, 12/17/2016

As a woman living in this contemporary world, I have hands full of problems. The society keeps pressuring me into the standard of "femininity" -- an ideology that has no real use but to make one's life miserable -- and having to fight back is a time-and-thought-consuming process. It is only natural to forget that women are not the only people on the battlefront for their identity. Men, similarly to women, are held to a fabricated, unrealistic expectation of "masculinity".
Paul Theroux reflects on the expectations men are held to in the NY Times article "The Male Myth".

He provides with some insights on how this myth of manliness traveled from his youth to his adulthood, becoming more and more demanding and toxic. While Theroux did bring up an important issue that needs more vocalization -- as Throux did mention, it is unusual to think of men as "weak", but they are human too -- he lost me, as a female reader, when he brought up feminism.

What a good author would do is show sympathy to both sides, We, as people, are all pressured into acting or looking a certain way, regardless of gender. Though we do have different societal expectations to live up to, we are in this together.

What Theroux did, however, was bash women and the feminist movement. Feminists were the ones who brought issues like this to the light. They were the ones who started the deconstruction of social pressure and how we're raised to fit the mold. Feminism is not about reducing the struggles of men and emphasizing the struggles of women, it's about doing both. But it seems like Theroux doesn't quiet understand that. And for that reason, I found his piece to be extremely one-dimensional and underdeveloped. 

Reflection on Pillow Angel Ethics, 12/3/2016

The controversial case of Ashley, a brain-damaged six-year girl who, as willed by her parents, has undergone numbers of hormonal and surgical treatments to "deal" with her disability, has spurred many conversations and debates nationwide. One of these conversations was held in Midwood High School, as I and thirty other students deliberated whether or not the "Ashley Treatment" was an ethical, according to American values, decision. The article we had to base our response on, "Pillow Angel Ethics" by Nancy Gibbs, brought into the light both sides of the coin. While the author cautiously underlined the treatment as unethical, she respectfully discussed the benefits that come along with this decision, such as better mobility, lack of menstrual cramps, and the ability of her parents to take better care of her due to her smaller and lighter frame. On the other hand, the treatment violates basic human rights, is not safe due to a lack of proper research and practice, and does not involve Ashley consent. In the beginning of the debate, I had no real opinion on the treatment. But as I got to argue the side of opposition, I began to feel more and more intolerable of Ashley's parents and what they have done to her. I found their actions to be extremely selfish. While it "makes her life better", it was initially done to make it easier for HER PARENTS to take care of her. They wanted to remove discomfort that comes from her size and female nature, so that they can carry her around easier. This makes me think of Ashley as a chihuahua - the "mini" version of a full sized dog that doesn't take much space and is easy to carry in a purse. Of course, Ashley is a human being and not a dog, but her parents' attitude is somewhat similar to that of pet owners'. Why going through the struggle of taking care of a full grown woman, when you can freeze her in her childhood and never have to struggle with the "fallouts" of her adulthood. On the down side, Ashley is deprived of ever having a chance to express what she wants, since this treatment has most likely stopped any natural development of her brain. Well, I guess it did get easier to "provide her with needed comfort, closeness, security and love", right ?

Logical Fallacies Reflection, 11/27/2016

Logical fallacies are everywhere. On every corner, you hear things like "If you do this, you will be that" or "Since everyone is doing it, you should too". Because it's so deeply integrated into our lives, sometimes it's hard to notice the logical error in such statements. I think that the lesson we had in class helped me better understand how widespread these errors in reasoning are, and how commonly they are used in advertisements and media for the purpose of swaying the public from one side of the argument to another. 

Let's take a look at a Subway commercial that came out in 2012, starring Michael Phelps and his mother Debbie. This advertisement is several logical fallacies at once. Firstly, it's an appeal to authority. Michael Phelps is a very successful athlete, so if he says that Subway sandwiches are good, it must be true. It's also a false cause fallacy, because it traces a connection that if you want to be like Michael Phelps, you should eat Subway. Lastly, the advertisement uses an appeal to emotion fallacy when it shows the interaction between mother and her son. "Look, she is bringing him food because she wants him to be fueled during his training, and recover quickly afterwards. Isn't it sweet?" But in the end, all of these statements are false. Neither Phelps' authority nor his mother's caring character signify that Subway sandwiches are good or helpful in accomplishment of one's goals. 

What did make me want to eat at Subway was the food closeups at the end of the clip. More cheese-pulling and bacon-juice-dripping please!

Don't Fight Flames With Flames, 11/19/2016

Social media has slowly taken over our lives. It is hard to imagine what the world would be like if internet just suddenly disappeared. Besides serving as a collection of all imaginable and unimaginable information, social media is a platform where people can communicate with each other. We all have thoughts and opinions, and websites such as Facebook and Twitter allow us to freely share them, as well as discuss our disagreements. However Nick Bilton, the author of the article “Don’t Fight Flames with Flames”, believes that arguing online is a waste of time – besides often ending in anything but consensus, arguing on social media can lead to an entire digital mob that will “circle” around its target and throw bitter and vulgar insults its way.  Personally, I agree with Bilton's statement. I find social media to be extremely toxic, and many of its users, who think that there could be no punishment for their words, utilize their freedom of speech in the most degrading and insulting ways. I believe that the main cause of such actions is not cruelty, but rather a blurry line that separates an insult from an ordinary negative comment. What can offend one person, might go unnoticed by another, and unless you know an individual personally, you would not know what topics could trigger them. If each one of us attempts to, before engaging in an online conversation,learn a little more about one another - browsing one's profile can do the deal - the dialogue could be more productive since we know what line not to cross. 

Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power, 11/5/16

Claims of fact are well known for raising controversy and challenging popular beliefs. Taylor Pearson, the author of an epideictic article"Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power", develops an argument that nuclear power is not at all dangerous to human health, and the fear of nuclear power is nothing more than the media over-exaggeration.

In developing his argument, Pearson mainly uses second-hand evidence. When addressing the "the likelihood of a nuclear power plant killing large numbers of people", the author brings in historical example of the Chernobyl accident, "the worst and most lethal nuclear incident to date." He combines it with several pieces of quantitative evidence, such as "the incident has killed only eighty-two people", "thirty-two were killed in the effort to put out fires", and "thirty-eight died...as a result of acute radiation poisoning." Such use of evidence can be called effective - not only does he bring in an example and then support it with factual evidence, Pearson's diction, such as the use of "only" and "few", further contributes to the argument of nuclear energy not being as dangerous as it is often believed to be.

Besides historical examples, Pearson uses expert opinion, another form of second-hand evidence, to persuade the audience of his position on nuclear power. John McCarthy, a computer science professor at Stanford, and his studies are used to prove that "nuclear waste problem is exaggerated." The author also heavily relies on various organizations, such as U.S. Energy Information Administration and U.S. Food and Drugs Administration, to push his agendas forward. Using other experts and organizations in Pearson's argument develops his ethos - credibility - and the reader is more likely to believe in his claim, since he is not the only person who thinks that nuclear energy is not dangerous and is needed - there are others.

In the last section of the article, Pearson for the first time uses his "I". He does so in his development of "limitations" of the topic, "I've done a lot here in an attempt to defend nuclear energy, I still acknowledge it's not perfect." This "acceptance" of "non-perfectness" makes Pearson more trustworthy in the eyes of the audience - he is not just bluntly defending nuclear power and rejecting its negative effects, he agrees that it could be managed in a more efficient and "clean" way. And this is how, with the use of first and second-hand evidence, Pearson created a successful argument of fact.

On the Want of Money Analysis, 10/21/16

     As humanity evolved, both socially and culturally, money has become an important part of people’s lives. One often finds him or herself in the pursuit of it – to have money means to have a place to live in, food to eat, and access to most, if not all, necessities of life. In his essay “On the Want of Money” William Hazlitt, a nineteenth-century English author, developed an analysis of money and how people’s lives revolve around it. He has little appraise of money in the essay, and holds a negative position in its regard. With the use of with the use of diction, humorous tone, and syntactic strategies, Hazlitt argues that it does not matter whether one does or does not have money – in both scenarios, the person will end up unhappy and distressed.   

     Diction plays an important role in the development of Hazlitt’s position on money.  Words with negative associations tied to them are used all throughout the essay. Words such as “scrutinized”, “neglect”, “thrall” and “exile” serve the purpose of evoking feelings of sadness and vulnerability in the audience, and since these words are describing money, money itself becomes something negative.

To develop his position on money, Hazlitt maintains a humorous tone throughout the essay.

Hazlitt makes several joking expressions, “to marry your landlady” and “return home with a liver complaint”. Such use of humor connects Hazlitt with his audience, and as he proceeds with his argument – the want of money controls people’s lives and eventually makes them end up in sorrow and regret – it is taken more seriously.

     In "On the Want of Money" , Hazlitt created one long, extended sentence that reaches for over 40 lines. In this single sentence, he describes one effect of money after the next without slowing down or stopping. Such syntax is symbolic for the struggle that people face when pursuing wealth – one obstacle after the next, the negative effects of money, sorrow, disappointment, regret, keep piling up as the time goes on, and it seems as if there is no end to it.

Ambien CR Advertisement, 10/9/16

               The Ambien CR advertisement is an interesting work of rhetoric. With the use of ethos, pathos, and logos, this sleeping pill commercial presents a sophisticated visual argument – “this stuff is great, buy it now.”

               A woman wakes up in the middle of the night in a small, empty room. A rooster is sitting in front of her. This bird is symbolic for insomnia – an issue this woman has been struggling with for a while. She gets up and goes to work. The woman just sits there, silently staring at the bird, while her co-workers throw pitiful glances in her way.

               The colors surrounding her are dull, lifeless; the motion of the camera is slow, with long, immobile shots. Everything is constructed in the way to give the viewer a feeling of this woman’s hopelessness. We all have those days when we can’t sleep, or go to bed too late, or wake up too early – it usually feels terrible the next day. The creators of the advertisement play on this tiredness, and as the audience begins to feel bad for the woman on the screen, they utilize pathos as a way to sell the product.

               When Ambien CR pills are finally introduced, the setting immediately changes. The color scheme is now brighter than ever, the woman is smiling and her face looks rested, even rejuvenated. She wakes up in a large room with white walls, and, to her surprise, the rooster is gone. “The pills work!” – says the woman’s facial expression. This detail acts as ethos – “Look how refreshed she looks; we [consumers] want to look (feel) like that too!”

               Logos plays an important role in this advertisement as well. During the clip, narrator describes how this medication works, its benefits, as well as potential side-effects. They don’t lie about possible consequences –dependency, dizziness, depression – and this approach can either attract or scare away consumers. The majority, though, might appreciate the honesty and contact their doctor to find out more.

               Through this advertisement, Ambien CR gives a bit of hope to people who struggle with insomnia. The use of pathos, ethos, and logos is effective and works well with the concept and plot of the commercial, and as a whole, this commercial is a successful visual argument.

Response to Trump's Speech, 9/24/16

With the presidential election slowly approaching its due date, Americans stand bewildered by the ridiculousness of the two leading candidates -- Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Who's worse? Who's better? Who will lead this country to greatness, and who will set it on fire? While I can't quite answer these questions, I know one thing for certain -- Trump writes (or, at least, presents) far better speeches than Clinton. 

Trump perfectly incorporates the three components of rhetoric: ethos, pathos, and logos. Throughout the speech, he continually develops his ethos as he promotes himself to be the "savior of America." "...Our plan will put America First...My plan...I will..." Furthermore, Trumps heavily criticizes Clinton's agendas (e.g. : "This is the legacy of Hillary Clinton: death, destruction and weakness" ), and by "bringing" her down, he "builds" himself up. With pathos, Trump chose fear as the driving force of his speech. By speaking of murder, terrorism, poverty, Trump makes his audience feel threatened and scared for their lives and the future of America. Overall, the speech sends the message of "If you're scared - vote for me." Finally, Trump brings in statistical data and historical references to develop his logos. "Homicides last year increased by 17% ...Household incomes are down more than $4,000...In 2009, pre-Hillary, ISIS was not even on the map..." Trump lays out the struggles of our nation, then backs them up with statistics , and therefore sways the audience with his reasoning. 

Trump might be a little crazy, but his speech is the Art of Rhetoric at its finest!

Reflection on Bush's 9/11 Speech , 9/17/16

 After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, George W. Bush needed to address the nation with the words of comfort and encouragement. With a confident, furious tone, he spoke of the horrors that filled the hearts of millions with grief and despair. Throughout his speech, Bush creates a sad, eerie mood with the use of words such as "evil," "terror," "chaos" and "retreat." He "connects" with the audience by putting himself in the "our" and "us." However, to me this speech sounds more violent than it should have been. When people are as vulnerable as they were on that day it is rather easy to play on their emotions, and instead of calming them down, he evokes more fury and anger. Consider this sentence: "A great people has been moved to defend a great nation." This is a call for violence, a call for more blood and destruction. I do not think that this message is what the country needed. Americans had to be united, but not for the intentions of war, but to survive through the pain and pay tribute to the victims.

Introduction, 9/15/16

Hello Ms. Moccia!

How are you doing?
Here is a little something about me.
I like books. And movies.
And cats.
And being alone.


Okbye