Since I enjoy arguing pro gay rights I figure that I may as well not stop now. In this situation I will be discussing the allowance of marriage rights to same sex couples. (refer to earlier piece for set-up) The audience I would be conveying my argument to would be a mix of great indifference, some receptive (ness), and a dash of hostility. The audiences’ attitude would not necessarily stem from my ethos as I am not gay but that could be played wither way. I would say that their attitude would stem more from their feelings on the subject as a whole, and only in some less major regard be influenced by my ethos. Some could say, as I noted, that I not being gay would have no right to banner the cause as it is not my way of life. I would always shoot for an introduction, especially to create favor for my argument in a situation like this. However, if I had an extremely hostile crowd, insinuations would grant me the necessary leverage to get the audience to lay their guns down and pick up their thinking caps. I think in arguments such as these elaborate appeals are more prone to being top-heavy and open for critical attacks from opponent so I would attempt to avoid that. If I were to adopt Cicero’s methods they would be as follows:
• Invoke authority: by not being gay it says something that I see this as an issue to stand in support of
• Point out the effects of success or failure: It helps no one to hold back the will of so many, good kind hearted people, who want little more than equality.
• State of affairs intentional or accidental: The gay community, while well organized and powerful, remains miniscule compared to the agenda makers in Washington.
• Arouse anger: You should be ashamed to, in this age of reason, incapacitate the methods by which one would seek ultimate happiness.
• Imply ignorance: It is less than becoming to move from the subjugation of women and slaves to that of folks with alternative love-lifestyles.
• Violation of community values: Diversity is supposed to be our thing, and while we have come far with understanding and accepting there are still situations like this burning strong, right here, on our door step. If we the people say that this action is just, and sound, and legitimate it by our support, the lawmakers must sway.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
...they wouldn't FEEL me.
I believe that pharmaceutical companies should produce cheaper drugs that are more readily available to those that need them the most… and as impossible a battle as it may be my audience is the company shareholders/executives/bigwigs. I imagine that the initial indifference to my proposition would gain momentum and become hostile in little or no time. Indifference would lie within their lack of concern for reform on current methods. Hostility would arise from the suggestion that pharmaceuticals should switch from the business model to that of a compassionate one concerned for mankind; for those that could and should be helped so long as necessary means are obtainable.
Were I to make an appeal to reason, it would be shot down as their reasoning is not the same as mine. Were I to utilize shame, the attitude of businessman would shine through. Were I to weave an enargeia, the feelings would be lost to the sternness of capitalism.
Nonetheless, I would indicate that more availability means me more credibility and honor for the company. Nonetheless, I would cast down the wrong done by inaction where action would come with ease and without destructive consequence. Nonetheless, I would let them FEEL the pains of those who must go without.
Were I to make an appeal to reason, it would be shot down as their reasoning is not the same as mine. Were I to utilize shame, the attitude of businessman would shine through. Were I to weave an enargeia, the feelings would be lost to the sternness of capitalism.
Nonetheless, I would indicate that more availability means me more credibility and honor for the company. Nonetheless, I would cast down the wrong done by inaction where action would come with ease and without destructive consequence. Nonetheless, I would let them FEEL the pains of those who must go without.
Progymnasmata 6 (Comparisons)
Since I started building PC’s about two years ago plenty of things have happened that prevented me from continuing this passionate endeavor. Financial responsibilities became the foremost issue that grounded my party plane of tech-tronic purchase and assembly. The time has finally come though that I can no longer deny the fact that my, once beastly, graphics card has started slipping in its duties. The former champion, my EVGA 8800gtx, has served me well for countless sessions of slaughter. Unfortunately its life is near an end, and despite the fact that I do not want to shell out a heap of cash to replace it I must. How much will I spend? What kind will I get? Where will I get it? Do I want to plan a formal funeral for my 8800? And so begins the lengthy process of comparison. If I spend more now I will have to pay less later on because I am the type that wears my equipment down into the ground and then moves on…but if I do that I will have less money to generally live on. I guess I will have to budget. Nonetheless there are good deals to be had and since I can always sell and upgrade later so it’s no biggie. The next comparisons I will have to make will be harsh and unforgiving, as I must decide what brand of card I wish to use. Since I have always had good service out of my EVGA products I doubt I will spare my money to any other product. I look at other wonderful companies and the only one I approve of because I know from personal experience otherwise is BFG Tech. While they are a great company, my loyalty lies elsewhere so I must decide upon a thrifty, but still awesome, EVGA card. Now the decision regarding where to purchase the card from needs to me made. Since I am keen to internet parts ordering it is a given that I start there I want the most bang for my buck. I have dealt with Newegg before on numerous occasions so I stop there first. They have a few good deals, but I have also heard NCIXUS is reputable so I give them a whirl. Since it stuck out like a sore thumb I decide instantly upon a steal of a deal I happened to stumble upon, managing a 230$ card for 175$...EVGA… awesome… and clearly with my name on it (Mick’s EVGA GTX260). Bada Bing Bada Boom I have me a new graphics cards and I can begin working on arranging my 8800’s final ceremonies.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
A Thought
Opportunitas is only present when we can identify and successfully utilize kairotic moments to our benefit.
hmmm...
hmmm...
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Rhetorical Activity Ch. 5
Some popular slogans are conclusions or premises of enthymemes. The statement that "Elvis has left the building" is part of a long enthymematic argument whose other premises are never stated. Can you articulate them?
‘Elvis has left the building’
Taking into account that this was actually said when the King left the building, I’ll start there. Clearly, at the conclusion of a set Elvis would leave and his fans (hearts still throbbing) would be alerted as to his departure so that they would calm down and leave as well. However, I have heard this phrase used to describe 2 distinct different enthymematic arguments that are quite a bit easier to understand in passing than they are to articulate.
• ‘Elvis has left the building’ is an endpoint statement referring to an absolute conclusion. Some would even go so far as to say DEATH. I like this one best because when I think of who Elvis was as the performer and I think of the enthymeme’s intent in this regard I am immediately reminded of a phrase that fits well with this one. It’s a little Shakespeare some of you may remember: ‘All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts…’ When we consider these two statements together we can paint a full picture, possibly, of the arguments major premise. Each person is an actor on the world’s stage, and guess what? Even if our audience isn’t left with hearts a throbbing we will certainly have to leave the building at some point.
• ‘Elvis has left the building’ is still an endpoint statement referring to an absolute conclusion but rather than to go as far as death let’s just say FUN. I’m under the impression that when Elvis left and things calmed the cricket convention came out to harp a tune. Since it is quite hard to try and find a good literary example of this I actually turned to my mother’s opinion on the subject. According to her when the fun evacuates a time/place it leaves us with the same result as when Elvis actually left the building his concert was in. I know that at the end of a concert nowadays there is a routine party, but back then the concert was pushing the party line so when the show was over… so was the fun.
I think that the most sound and solid example is that of DEATH but only because it has the ring of utter finality that is in good keeping with the enthymeme. However, DEATH sucks and FUN is so much better so I had to include that assessment as well.
‘Elvis has left the building’
Taking into account that this was actually said when the King left the building, I’ll start there. Clearly, at the conclusion of a set Elvis would leave and his fans (hearts still throbbing) would be alerted as to his departure so that they would calm down and leave as well. However, I have heard this phrase used to describe 2 distinct different enthymematic arguments that are quite a bit easier to understand in passing than they are to articulate.
• ‘Elvis has left the building’ is an endpoint statement referring to an absolute conclusion. Some would even go so far as to say DEATH. I like this one best because when I think of who Elvis was as the performer and I think of the enthymeme’s intent in this regard I am immediately reminded of a phrase that fits well with this one. It’s a little Shakespeare some of you may remember: ‘All the world’s a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts…’ When we consider these two statements together we can paint a full picture, possibly, of the arguments major premise. Each person is an actor on the world’s stage, and guess what? Even if our audience isn’t left with hearts a throbbing we will certainly have to leave the building at some point.
• ‘Elvis has left the building’ is still an endpoint statement referring to an absolute conclusion but rather than to go as far as death let’s just say FUN. I’m under the impression that when Elvis left and things calmed the cricket convention came out to harp a tune. Since it is quite hard to try and find a good literary example of this I actually turned to my mother’s opinion on the subject. According to her when the fun evacuates a time/place it leaves us with the same result as when Elvis actually left the building his concert was in. I know that at the end of a concert nowadays there is a routine party, but back then the concert was pushing the party line so when the show was over… so was the fun.
I think that the most sound and solid example is that of DEATH but only because it has the ring of utter finality that is in good keeping with the enthymeme. However, DEATH sucks and FUN is so much better so I had to include that assessment as well.
Socrates Debate
Since I put so much effort towards this I felt like putting it up for display:
Aristotle’s Topical Method (shortened version dictated by necessity)
Conjecture:
• What Exists?
o A collection of dialogues by his student Plato
o A consistency in his tone and method throughout Plato’s dialogues
o A physical image that rarely varies from nothing less than ugly
o Mentions from numerous authors that throughout create a rather consistent image of Socrates as a being and a mind (Plato, Aristophanes… and Xenophon)
• What does not exist?
Any concrete evidence that indicates Socrates’ existence in the form of his own writings has been lost or never existed at all.
• What is the size or extent as to what exists?
o Thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to Plato… many of which mention his admired teacher Socrates.
o Plato’s description of Socrates stands deliberately different from Aristophanes’ as it was that Plato himself was his teacher’s most successful pupil.
o Socrates was regarded as less than strapping no matter the occasion aside from a few paintings and statues where the maker could not bear the pain of destroying their conception.
o Although Aristophanes was a counterpoint figure (aka critic) he painted a picture of Socrates that fit with all of the others, although from a differing point of view than that of his admirers. In that time Socrates quick wit and deep thought could blow your mind with discussion, while Aristophanes could put your back in your seat or leave you hanging on the edge of your chair from the drama stage… thus they are two techniques for ‘battle of the wits’ in public forum Athenian style. Socrates’ students maintained a consistency that has passed down through the ages as a timeless method to accessing wisdom and greater understanding of our existence as a whole.
Degree:
• Putting into question the degree of likelihood that a real individual could make this sort of profound difference within society for so long versus the degree of likelihood that an imaginary individual could have this breadth of impact would lead one to believe that it is quite unlikely that Plato and Socrates were as one.
• The degree of likelihood would likewise help one surmise that during this time of intense social diversity 3 separate and equally abstract individuals could have never come to an agreement on an ‘ideal figure of philosophy’ (even a criticized ‘ideal figure of philosophy) to have written about, pondered upon, or discussed in depth.
• The degree of likelihood that Plato could be so profound in his own right as well as in ‘Socrates’ right would help one to conclude that no one man could possess such a powerful mind… especially given that no man before or since has achieved the level of influence as either individually.
Possibility:
• What is possible?
o It is possible that Socrates is a fictional character that embodies a ‘sign of the times’ however it is quite unlikely considering the various consistencies that paint a very deep picture (however unattractive) of Socrates.
o It is possible that Socrates indeed existed and due to some rather confusing writings from his student existed in both actuality and in literary occurrence.
o It is possible that the definition of existence is flexible enough that we could say he existed at all… even though he may never have been a human being.
o It is possible that Socrates was a healthy blend of how everyone described him and indeed existed as a man of flesh and blood.
• What is impossible?
o Unless some major archaeological find presents us with a vast amount of concrete evidence that Socrates existed as a man we will never truly know.
o It is impossible to conceive that in one form or another Socrates did not exist.
o It is impossible to devise a solution to a problem that offers no actual evidence except the kind that, when scrutinized, begins mounting the questions one atop the other. Therefore a logical point of stasis would be that IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER SOCRATES DID EXIST.
p.s. has anyone watched Bill and Ted...?
Aristotle’s Topical Method (shortened version dictated by necessity)
Conjecture:
• What Exists?
o A collection of dialogues by his student Plato
o A consistency in his tone and method throughout Plato’s dialogues
o A physical image that rarely varies from nothing less than ugly
o Mentions from numerous authors that throughout create a rather consistent image of Socrates as a being and a mind (Plato, Aristophanes… and Xenophon)
• What does not exist?
Any concrete evidence that indicates Socrates’ existence in the form of his own writings has been lost or never existed at all.
• What is the size or extent as to what exists?
o Thirty-five dialogues and thirteen letters have been ascribed to Plato… many of which mention his admired teacher Socrates.
o Plato’s description of Socrates stands deliberately different from Aristophanes’ as it was that Plato himself was his teacher’s most successful pupil.
o Socrates was regarded as less than strapping no matter the occasion aside from a few paintings and statues where the maker could not bear the pain of destroying their conception.
o Although Aristophanes was a counterpoint figure (aka critic) he painted a picture of Socrates that fit with all of the others, although from a differing point of view than that of his admirers. In that time Socrates quick wit and deep thought could blow your mind with discussion, while Aristophanes could put your back in your seat or leave you hanging on the edge of your chair from the drama stage… thus they are two techniques for ‘battle of the wits’ in public forum Athenian style. Socrates’ students maintained a consistency that has passed down through the ages as a timeless method to accessing wisdom and greater understanding of our existence as a whole.
Degree:
• Putting into question the degree of likelihood that a real individual could make this sort of profound difference within society for so long versus the degree of likelihood that an imaginary individual could have this breadth of impact would lead one to believe that it is quite unlikely that Plato and Socrates were as one.
• The degree of likelihood would likewise help one surmise that during this time of intense social diversity 3 separate and equally abstract individuals could have never come to an agreement on an ‘ideal figure of philosophy’ (even a criticized ‘ideal figure of philosophy) to have written about, pondered upon, or discussed in depth.
• The degree of likelihood that Plato could be so profound in his own right as well as in ‘Socrates’ right would help one to conclude that no one man could possess such a powerful mind… especially given that no man before or since has achieved the level of influence as either individually.
Possibility:
• What is possible?
o It is possible that Socrates is a fictional character that embodies a ‘sign of the times’ however it is quite unlikely considering the various consistencies that paint a very deep picture (however unattractive) of Socrates.
o It is possible that Socrates indeed existed and due to some rather confusing writings from his student existed in both actuality and in literary occurrence.
o It is possible that the definition of existence is flexible enough that we could say he existed at all… even though he may never have been a human being.
o It is possible that Socrates was a healthy blend of how everyone described him and indeed existed as a man of flesh and blood.
• What is impossible?
o Unless some major archaeological find presents us with a vast amount of concrete evidence that Socrates existed as a man we will never truly know.
o It is impossible to conceive that in one form or another Socrates did not exist.
o It is impossible to devise a solution to a problem that offers no actual evidence except the kind that, when scrutinized, begins mounting the questions one atop the other. Therefore a logical point of stasis would be that IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER SOCRATES DID EXIST.
p.s. has anyone watched Bill and Ted...?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
4th Progymnasmata
Gay Marriage
Prologue: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship as defined in Wikipedia (not usually a source but it works for this definition). The cornerstone of marriage as an institution is based upon two people of differing lineages coming together and creating a collaboration that in essence unifies the two individuals and creates a family.
Contrary: Laws prevent same sex unions in this day and age for no clear reason other than the presumption that ‘same-sex’ anything is a slight on the natural and blight on piety as well as society in general.
Exposition: However the institution of marriage stands the same trial of time as everything else and must broaden its horizons in order to survive as important and necessary. Marriage’s survivability already has enough problems on its own, but to stifle future miracles is to devalue the institution as a whole… while successfully making it like an exclusive country club.
Comparison: Marriage is a joke anymore. People do it in Vegas after a 20 minute marathon… erm roulette game. People get married to doctor taxes, or pull benefits for kid. All the same, people rid themselves of marriage like they would a rabid monkey clinging to their back. Clearly neither the beginning nor end of marriage is taken seriously so why in this instance take what happens between so seriously?
Intention: Same sex marriages often come at great scrutiny and cost to the participants, but they want the union so they persevere. In this way same sex marriages are tempered even before they can happen, or be confirmed legally. How’s that for taking marriage seriously?
Digression: If marriage is not allowed to broaden its horizons and get with the day and age we are in then it may well continue to lose its value and truly become a husk of its former greatness.
Rejection of Pity: Perhaps it seems wrong to agree with the wishes of those who you cannot understand, and this is why we choose to deny the option of same sex marriage universally; alas it is not. It is never wrong to attempt to streamline and make the world a more understanding and inviting place for everyone who wishes to fall within the general flow of norms in our society.
Legality: If unification and kinship are the goals of marriage than anyone (within reason) who wishes to wed another should be allowed to at their own discretion, without sex of the opposing partner being a factor in the decision on whether or not it’s ‘allowed’.
Justice: It is clear that same sex marriage is not only beneficial but well over due in the court of marriage.
Advantage: The proposition to allow same sex marriage will rejuvenate the institution and truly allow everyone to participate.
Possibility: Not only can an institution be changed here folks, but the rust can be broken off of CHANGE and we can get on with progress and living happily while achieving it.
Prologue: Marriage is a social union or legal contract between individuals that creates kinship as defined in Wikipedia (not usually a source but it works for this definition). The cornerstone of marriage as an institution is based upon two people of differing lineages coming together and creating a collaboration that in essence unifies the two individuals and creates a family.
Contrary: Laws prevent same sex unions in this day and age for no clear reason other than the presumption that ‘same-sex’ anything is a slight on the natural and blight on piety as well as society in general.
Exposition: However the institution of marriage stands the same trial of time as everything else and must broaden its horizons in order to survive as important and necessary. Marriage’s survivability already has enough problems on its own, but to stifle future miracles is to devalue the institution as a whole… while successfully making it like an exclusive country club.
Comparison: Marriage is a joke anymore. People do it in Vegas after a 20 minute marathon… erm roulette game. People get married to doctor taxes, or pull benefits for kid. All the same, people rid themselves of marriage like they would a rabid monkey clinging to their back. Clearly neither the beginning nor end of marriage is taken seriously so why in this instance take what happens between so seriously?
Intention: Same sex marriages often come at great scrutiny and cost to the participants, but they want the union so they persevere. In this way same sex marriages are tempered even before they can happen, or be confirmed legally. How’s that for taking marriage seriously?
Digression: If marriage is not allowed to broaden its horizons and get with the day and age we are in then it may well continue to lose its value and truly become a husk of its former greatness.
Rejection of Pity: Perhaps it seems wrong to agree with the wishes of those who you cannot understand, and this is why we choose to deny the option of same sex marriage universally; alas it is not. It is never wrong to attempt to streamline and make the world a more understanding and inviting place for everyone who wishes to fall within the general flow of norms in our society.
Legality: If unification and kinship are the goals of marriage than anyone (within reason) who wishes to wed another should be allowed to at their own discretion, without sex of the opposing partner being a factor in the decision on whether or not it’s ‘allowed’.
Justice: It is clear that same sex marriage is not only beneficial but well over due in the court of marriage.
Advantage: The proposition to allow same sex marriage will rejuvenate the institution and truly allow everyone to participate.
Possibility: Not only can an institution be changed here folks, but the rust can be broken off of CHANGE and we can get on with progress and living happily while achieving it.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Rhetorical Activities #3
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/
The issue here under debate is Global Warming. This argument is pro-‘Global Cooling’ which is amusing to say the least. The argument may exist that scientific evidence was doctored, which is a problem .This does not, however, eliminate Global Warming as an issue entirely. I would define the true issue here as scientific ethics and established credibility based upon them. In the event that documents were doctored this is an issue because it seriously degrades the integrity of the argument that Global Warming is a serious issue. I feel that the position being argued against here though is the whole idea of Global Warming. Is stasis a possibility? For the individual who clearly doesn’t believe in global warming? I highly doubt it.
The issue here under debate is Global Warming. This argument is pro-‘Global Cooling’ which is amusing to say the least. The argument may exist that scientific evidence was doctored, which is a problem .This does not, however, eliminate Global Warming as an issue entirely. I would define the true issue here as scientific ethics and established credibility based upon them. In the event that documents were doctored this is an issue because it seriously degrades the integrity of the argument that Global Warming is a serious issue. I feel that the position being argued against here though is the whole idea of Global Warming. Is stasis a possibility? For the individual who clearly doesn’t believe in global warming? I highly doubt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
