Empowerment Organization

The organization I think I'll do is called the Indianpolis Urban League. It uses 5 points to ensure that everyone, especially minorities, get the help they need in order to succeed. It has youth groups and connections out of state. It helps people become more culturally aware- "building brides" between the races is what it says.

I chose it because I didn't know of any such organizations and I found this one on Google. It has a website : here and sounds interesting.

Cultural Myth

The first step in getting rid of a cultural myth is making sure that people know that it exists. If people don't think that there is a problem, then they won't help to fix it. And to get rid of such a vague, vast and intransigent concept as a myth lots of people need to understand what is happening.

Then you have to educate people against it. A lot of myths (this one too)exist simply because people don't know they exist. I certainly never thought about the misconception of the American Dream until when we read "Nickel and Dimed" over the summer.

Then you address what's wrong. In this case, what's wrong is that people are being discriminated against, are not getting enough payment/economic support and in general don't have the opportunities that could help them achieve success. All this is really hard to do and usually controversial.

I think why the cultural myths still exist is because people don't want to spend the energy needed to fix them. It's easier just to accept them than it is to disagree, and harder still to do something about them

Documentary vs Alger

Compare the reality of the documentary to the reality presented in the reading. Which is more real?

I think that the documentary is more real. Of course, we saw very little of it, but from what we did see, it wasn’t as off-the-wall as the reading.

Alger’s presentation of the world seems to me ridiculous. It’s all very perfect and excellent and unreal. Seriously, who really learns to read and write in a year as an adult, have the opportunity to save a drowning boy and have the father really do something in response? Even if Rockwell didn’t pay the 10,000 dollars he said he would, for Dick, the job he gave is just as good. The main character is just as perfect as the world he lives in. He’s brave and good enough to jump in after a drowning child without thought of reward, thankful for his success, successful and has a loyal friend. Alger’s world is extremely unrealistic. It’s the world we would all like to live in but can’t. I think the word I’m looking for here is ‘cheesy’. At least, that’s how it seemed to me.

Now, the documentary had some ridiculous stuff in it, too. On the whole, though, I think it represents reality more real that Alger does. The people in it are crazy (the rabbit-lady, the one woman who got so depressed because she was the wrong ‘colours’, etc), but they’re crazy in the way all humans are crazy. They’re not perfect. Now, there were some moments, especially in the beginning when they interviewed those singers, that it did border on cheesy. (That’s not a very good word to describe this, but it’s the best I can do). All the interviewees talked about how perfect Flint was, how anyone could drudge up from it, how there were loads of jobs and opportunities, etc., when there clearly wasn’t.

American Dream- Cruz

According to Cruz, the American Dream is not ‘be successful’ but ‘don’t lose’. Being successful, according to him, means getting what you want in life. Don’t lose means that you have to get to the top, no matter what stands in your way or what you have to sacrifice to get there. His problem is that when you get to the top, or near it, you forget who helped you to get there and where you came from. In other words, the Dream is all about you, you, you. He thinks that’s wrong.

I agree with him, somewhat. If you do get to the top, if you manage to overcome the obstacles the wrong way, I think it might be possible to remember to feel thankful for those who sacrificed for you. Cruz got really far and still remembered. Of course, then he dropped out to be a farmer because he thought he couldn’t still manage to be both who he was and who the in-power people wanted him to be. But that’s just him. Near the end, he mentions people who told him that he should stay where he was, influentially, because it helps break the stereotype that the minorities are useless. His response was that he didn’t think the minorities at the top were represented as the rest of people and that he couldn’t ethically stay where he was.

Class Distinctions

Yes, Mantsios’s essay does say that the wealthy are exploiting the poor. He says the false idea that ‘one is not rich because the other is poor’ is wrong. Therefore, according to him, one class is rich because the other is poor. Since we can assume from his argument that the poor are not poor because they caused themselves to be like that, we can assume that he means that the wealthy do exploit the poor. However, that point isn’t obvious.

I personally don’t have another interpretation of the data/a position on the argument. I don’t think that Mantsios makes a good argument- the way he presents his facts, for example is skewed towards his point of view. The people profiles seem to be deliberately made up, especially the last one, to fit his interpretation of the facts. He rushes into some things, like the gender/race inequality thing, without mentioning it before or presenting a lot of thought. Because I only have his version of the data to go on, and a little knowledge of my own, I feel like I agree with him that America’s rich and poor are very divided the way he states it. However, like I said, his argument seems a little shaky, so I’m really not sure if he’s accurate, though he doesn’t seem to be blatantly twisting things around.

EDIT: After our class discussions on this, I changed my mind a little on the subject. But I forgot what I changed my mind about so I won't edit my orginal thing. :)

Argument Evaluation

The middle argument- the one about the pornography law in Minnesota was the best. It set out by setting the scene, then describing the effects and then the Ordinance. It had language that flowed well and was easy to understand. The end thesis- that the law was morally sound but too broad to be put into use- is presented very efficiently. When the author first introduces us to her point of view, it comes as a bit of a shock, because she had been somewhat sympathetic to the opposite point of view up until then, in a sort of implied way. However, the author’s thesis is well-explained and the argument as a whole is pretty strong. The examples she cites are strong as well. They have to be, because the way she presents the argument, it’s almost as if she’s re-explaining herself. She states and explains the horrors of the case, then she argues against a law made to protect the victims. However, she’s either smart enough (on purpose or not) to say that she supports the idea behind the law, just not the way it is presented. In other words, she agrees with the warrant that such a law is needed. However, she disagrees that the exact law proposed is the one necessary.

Visual Argument

A visual argument can be more persuasive if done right. Some people take pictures much more seriously than words. Take the 'cruelty to animals' paragraphs we looked at yesterday. Some people might just say- 'Oh, well, that's bad, but I really like chicken and don't care'. If you showed them pictures which showed them a chicken suffering, they might feel more sympathetic towards both the cause and the chicken. Graphic pictures have a tendency to shock people into believing something.

Of course, there are a lot of variables to take into account when creating a visual argument. The book goes into great and tortuous detail about fonts and positioning and things like that. Visual arguments use little process of thought (they don't state explicitly their reasons and grounds in great detail) but rather imply what they mean. It's a little more imprecise than written argument because people might extract different things from the same argument. An example is the tomato-killing people I talked about last time. A pro-tomato enthusiast might put up a picture with a tomato bleeding juice with a knife in it. Some people would go- "OMG, the poor tomato!". Some people would get hungry and eat a tomato. Some people would think it's just weird.

But generally speaking, people who make visual arguments are able to make arguments that make sense to people.

Ethics of Ethos and Pathos

The Question: What ethical responsibilities does an author have in using ‘ethos’ and ‘pathos’? Does our media, or our government, often live up to those ethical expectations?

~~~

When you use ethos and pathos for an argument, in order for it to be ethical, your argument must be ethical. To you, at least. Now this is sort of obvious, but it's what the question asked. If you thought that eating tomatos was unethical, to write an argument advocating the consumption of tomatos would be unethical. The use of appealing to such powerful rhetorical devices such as ethos and pathos would not only make your argument less ethical (from the tomato-lover's point of view) but much more powerful as well.

So basically, the ethical responsibilities are to keep the argument within the bounds of moral reason.

Another thing that I believe is an ethical responsibility, though some people will disagree with me, is that in an absolutely ethical argument designed to convince, one should appeal to logos and ethos the most and leave pathos out of it as much as possible. Logic, to be truly logical, is unbiased. It is based on conclusions drawn from facts. There may be one or more conclusions drawn from said facts, but if they are presented merely as logical options, then they are not swaying you towards one or another because of feelings. If you appeal to pathos, you're then clouding the judgment with emotion, distracting and influencing you away from considering all options equally. While in an argument designed solely to convinced, it is practical to do that, however in an argument that takes into account ethics as well, it is not quite so ethical.

I hope that makes sense.

And the major, most obvious question concerning ethos is that you should not claim credibility when you don't have any. If people discover your lies and lack of credibility, they will be angry.

As for the second question- of course the media and government don't live up to those expectations. The expectations are ideals. No one or thing is perfect. The media is usually at least a little biased towards something, and the government is the most biased thing on the planet. Look at all the political issues that to be a successful politician you have to pick sides on.

Pseudo-Argument

A pseudo-argument that I encountered in the real world was an argument about whether Macs were better than PCs. It was a pseudo-argument because it's impossible that one is better than the other. It simply depends on the preference of the person using them. People who say Macs are better are simply better suited for the features of that particular model of computer. I was on the side of PCs. Or at least on the opposite side of iBooks. There's no right or wrong answer as to which computer was better than the other. But I still argued about it. Neither of us won because neither of us could produce evidence that was capable of swaying the other to their side. In that sense, it was an unreasonable argument as well.

Appeal to Pathos

Pathos is one of the corners of the rhetorical triangle. It is the appeal to emotion. It makes the reader feel sympathetic to the writer's claims. The writer can use it by making an emotional response in the reader. For example, Michael Levin in his Torture Essay appeals to pathos by making us feel guilty about babies dying. Since the human being is influenced by emotions far more than logic in most cases, when you appeal to pathos you make a powerful argument. Sending people on guilt-trips is a good way to do this. If people believe that something is unethical, then they will disagree with it whether or not it is logical. The torture essay is an example of this- torture wasn't logical, but Levin made an excellent appeal to pathos and so loads of people agreed with him. But that isn't the only kind of appeal you can make. You can make someone feel that this argument is good because it makes you feel happy to read it. People like to feel happy. So they'll agree with you. My point is, if you can sway the person's emotions so that they believe your argument is good, then even if you make no or little sense, then people are going to start agreeing with you. Most people, anyway. At first until they look at the other sides of the triangle. Pathos is good for a first impression but fades when you read deeper.