ESSAY 2 REFLECTION

This paper was a lot easier for me to write than the first paper. The differences between this final draft and the first one were i just needed to expand on more things that i had discussed. I talked about how persuasive Carr was in trying to show that the internet was doing more harm than good to individuals. Not all of his points added up and some were murky. I made sure not to 'bash' him as a writer but i questioned some of his points and talked about how this generation was different than the last; the internet is used for more things than ever. i stayed true to the rubric of finding examples of pathos, ethos and logos. I understood more about this article than the other and i could agree with some points and thats why i chose this article to write about. Because i knew more about this article i didnt have that much to fix in my final draft other than some grammar and expanding on a few points.

ESSAY 2

Taylor Ann Lawhead

Prof. Christopher Brown

English 1B

March 25, 2013

A Rhetorical Critique of “Is Google Making Us Stupid” by Nicholas Carr

                Every day there is some new technological advancement making its way into the world in an attempt to make life easier for people. In the article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, author Nicholas Carr explains his thoughts on how he believes the internet is running the risk of making people full of artificial knowledge. Carr begins by explaining how he feels that the web is causing his focus issues, how he can no longer be completely immersed in a book, and is the reason why he gets fidgety while reading. He then goes on to talk about how his life is surrounded by the internet and how that is the blame for the issues he has towards not being able to stay connected to a text and how it has changed the way that people deep read . In an attempt to draw the reader in, Carr uses a great deal of rhetorical appeals. He compares the differences of the past and the present, such as advances in technology and the way people read, and how he feels how it has changed not only himself, but others as well and how they aren’t able to comprehend and focus due to the growing nature of the web. While comparing these differences and explaning his views of the web, he accumulated research from several credited writers who feel the same way he does about the effects of the web. Carr uses personal experience, vivid imagery, and analysis backed by research to hook the viewer in and persuade them that in today’s society, the internet is causing mainly problems.

                Although Carr has his own personal experiences with the negative effects of the web, he also did his research on how other writers had agreed with him on the subject to help support his strategies of logos. The use of the evidence from the other writers helps to draw in the reader and show them the effects of the internet with the help of reputable resources. In the article, he states that one of the articles he gained information from had said, “It is clear that users are not reading online in the traditional sense”; that the way we read now is what you would call ‘skimming’ or reading “horizontally through titles, contents pages and abstracts going for quick wins” (Carr). With reading on the web, people don’t read the entire article and it is seen that they bounce from page to page, losing focus quickly. Carr uses this information because the reader can relate to it, like himself. This information that gathered helps his article because it is not in conflict with what he had stated due to the fact that him and the authors that he gained information from, had the same thoughts that he did about the situation. In his article, Carr uses more than one source to back up his argument about the web.

                 Another example of logos that Carr uses is when a writer, Maryanne Wolf, describes how due to text messaging and cell phones we are experiencing a different type of reading today than in the 1960’s and 70’s; a type of reading that “may be weakening our capacity for deep reading” (Carr). This is useful in the sense that it is evidence is aimed towards a younger age, due to how he talks about text messaging and cell phones, and therefore can pull in a different audience. This example, while still logos due to it based on evidence and facts, can also be considered ethos in a sense that he is trying to ‘build a bridge’ in a connection with his audience. Although this seems like a strong strategy to relate to a different age based audience, it could also conflict with others, such as a newer generation that believes that the internet is not harming the mind. In another part of the article he contradicts himself by using the information from James Olds, a professor of neuroscience, when he states that the human mind is very malleable and has the ability to reprogram itself. When using this information, its conflicts with the statement from Wolf about the reading of texts weakening the mind. Although he uses facts from reputable sources to show that he is knowledgeable about the subject, due to the contradicting information it can cause the reader to question whether or not he knows where he is going with the topic.

                While using the strategy of facts and evidence can be effective, Carr also uses vivid imagery and detailed wording to reel the reader in. The author uses the strategy of pathos to make the reader interpret his views the way that he sees them himself. An example of this would be when he talks about the way he loses focus in a text and that he feels he is “dragging his wayward brain back” to whatever he was reading (Carr). Carr uses this metaphor, giving an action to an object, to show the reader exactly the difficulty he has staying focused on a reading and how he has to almost ‘physically’ bring his mind back to the text. Another example of this strategy of pathos would be how he says that he “once was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now [he] zip(s) along the surface like a guy on a Jet Ski” (Carr).  He attempts to pull the reader in by using this vivid imagery to show how he used to be fully immersed in a book but now due to the Net, he just skims the readings and doesn’t get to see what is below the surface. The use of the imagery and the figurative language can be very effective due to that it can pull in every age of audience because it appeals to a person’s imagination. Because the appeal to the readers’ imagination is so broad, it can help his argument, due to the fact that it is able to work on every age; thus being able to have more people on his side.  I believe that the use of pathos, when done correctly, can be very moving and persuasive. Carr used the right language to pull the reader in and to show how he was feeling without being too over the top, and was able to persuade his reader to the effects of the web in today’s society.

                In Nicholas Carr’s article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, he uses the rhetorical strategies to try to persuade his audience into believing that due to the Web being used so much in today’s society, that it is causing more harm than good. He uses backed up information to get his point across while also showing his character to connect with the audience. Carr also uses the strategy of pathos to appeal to the readers imagination to pull them in to show what he experienced. I feel that although I may not agree with everything he is stating, the things he used were persuasive enough to keep the reader reading, and some agreeing with him that the internet is causing more harm to the human mind.

REGARDING the PAIN of OTHERS

REGARDING the PAIN of OTHERS, SUSAN SONTAG

1.       Is it fair to the families of those that had died in war, for the photos of the soldiers’ death to be shown nationally or even around the world?

2.       Is it even necessary to have the disturbing and also violent pictures of war to the public?

3.       Should the photos that we see of war be censored more than it already is?

I’m going to answer question one. Considering that I have a cousin in the air force, I don’t believe that it is fair at all for the families to have the pictures of the deaths shown to the public. Death is something that is personal and especially if It’s with soldiers dying in war, which should not be displayed through the media. If my cousin was to die while on duty, and the photos of his death were displayed nationally, I know myself and my family would be hurt and also very angry. I believe that the government or whoever has these pictures should somehow notify the family of the deceased soldier and get there consent about the release of the photos. I believe that there should be family consent before anyone else sees the photos.

I don’t think that the public should see the photos of the deaths in the war. I don’t think anyone really needs to see that, especially if young kids were to see the images or footage.  There are some images that are just too violent to be shown especially if it is regarding soldiers’ death. I think that the public should be kept up to date with what is happening in the world, such as what is going on in the war, but Ithink it can be done without having to show the gruesome pictures.  I believe that showing some pictures are fine but if they have some censorship or if they aren’t about soldiers dying or getting critically injured.

9/11

9/11

1.       Since the tragedy of 9/11, has our country come closer together?

2.       Was the US at fault for 9/11?

3.       why does Sontag view the terrorist as cowards?

I agreed with Susan Sontag that the attack on the United States was not justified and that it was not the United States fault for the attack on this country.  Sontag discusses how the attack on the United States was not to get back at us or to get even with us, it was seen as making a statement. The terrorists wanted to show that they are stronger than what we think and also this mass murder of innocent people show how they don’t care at all for what they caused. Although the US was on bad terms with Afghanistan, this cold blooded attack was not justified and the US did not deserve this at all. There is never a justifiable reason to kill innocent people.  The terrorists do not believe in a lot of things that the US believes in. Sontag states that it was “an attack on modernity and capitalism”.

Sontag see these terrorists as cowards because they won’t show their faces and they are fighting out of reach from us; up in the sky. They are also “willing to kill themselves in order to kill others”. Why not just kill the other people and save yourself? They don’t want to have to deal with the retaliation, so they basically get rid of themselves and whatever was to follow after the attack. They won’t have to watch us grieve and mourn over the lives that were lost; nothing happens to them. They won’t have to ‘pay the consequences for their actions of the attack on the US. They just kill themselves so they won’t have to deal with any of it. 

WHAT'S SO BAD ABOUT HATE

WHAT’S SO BAD ABOUT HATE?

1.       Should the confrontation between the two neighbors really be classified as a hate crime, or should it be seen as a natural reaction?

2.       What should be classified as hate crimes?

3.       Should we show tolerance instead of trying to get rid of hate? Over time has society grown tolerant of things that would have caused hate crimes in the past?

I don’t believe that it is right to take someone’s life based on the color of their skin, their religion, or their gender.  The deaths of Matthew Shepard, James Byrd Jr., and Barry Winchell were unjustified and brutal and I don’t understand why someone would want to take another persons’ life due to things that that individual cannot control. Events such as murder or hurting someone based on their skin color or anything like that should definitely be considered a hate crime, but a confrontation between 2 neighbors where some anti-gay slur words are used is, yes rude but not a hate crime. Situations like rape, which is technically a hate crime towards women, should of course have consequences such as jail time.  However, with the case of the fight between the two neighbors, the one neighbor did not physically hurt the other but only voiced his opinion and put grass clipping on his porch. I’m not saying that what he did was not rude and hurtful, because I have been there where people have made very rude comments due to my religion; Catholicism. There is a line between hate crimes and making comments to another human being.  There are so many different forms of hate, that when it comes to what should be classified as a crime or not, it tends to get murky.

I believe that over the years people have grown tolerant of the situations but not hate. Society now has different views of gays, blacks, etc. Back then, there were more hate crimes because people didn’t know how to deal with their hate, and they didn’t see these people as real individuals with lives of their own. Through the years society has become tolerant of the situations and at times maybe the hate. 

BELIEVE ME IT'S TORTURE

BELIEVE ME IT’S TORTURE

1. 1.       Is waterboarding an effective use of torture? How accurate would the information be?
2. 2.       Is there anything else besides torture that the government can use to get information?
3. 3.       Could the government argue that this is an acceptable way to get information from people although it is immoral and could possibly cause death to the person being tortured?

I have never been involved in waterboarding, so I feel that a person who has experienced the pain could fully explain the experiences and what they would say to get it to stop. Although I have never had it happen to me, from reading Christopher Hitchen’s “Believe Me It’s Torture”, he states how he would do or say anything to get the torturing seized. Being waterboarded basically feels like you are dowing, and you cannot breath at all without the feeling of suffocating. Due to this it seems that this type of torture will be able to make the suspect talk and give information, but how accurate will the information be? I feel that if they are under that amount of immense pressure and are basically scared for their lives, they will say anything, even if that means giving false information,  to be able to escape the feeling of drowning.  Hitchens states that the prosecutors would barely have any time to ask any type of questions before he agreed to give answers, even if that meant they were falsified.  I don’t believe that waterboarding is at all an effective way to get information at out anyway. What they could be saying, could be extremely false and maybe not even relevant to what is being asked, just so they could breathe again. I feel that the government could come up with another way to receive information from people that does not involve putting people in the mindset that they are dying, where they will say anything just to get the pain to stop. If the person they are waterboarding were to maybe unfortunately die, then they have no way whatsoever to get the information from that individual.

LADY GAGA and the DEATH of SEX

LADY GAGA and the DEATH of SEX

1.       Does Paglia believe that Lady Gaga is not worth the success that she has gained as an artist?

2.       Is Lady Gaga setting a bad example for the kids/teens that listen to her music?

3.       Does Lady Gaga’s music represent the problems of the generation that her music is geared too?

While I was reading “Lady Gaga and the Death of Sex” by Camille Paglia, I felt that the whole purpose of the piece was to just bash Lady Gaga and the messages that she promotes about loving and being yourself.  In Lady Gaga’s music you can hear that she is a firm believer in loving yourself and being who you are, but Paglia argues that there was little information to show that she was ever a “misfit of life” because she had a comfortable upbringing. I think although Lady Gaga may have had an upbringing that was better than others, does not mean that she can’t try to help the ones that have bullied. If you look at the music of this generation, it’s all about loving who you are and being you. More and more teens are being bullied and are having self-esteem problems and I believe that she is trying to be considerate to that and telling her audience that they are loved. Paglia says how she believes that Gaga sees her fans as “damaged goods in need of [Gaga’s] therapeutic repair”.  She goes on to compare Gaga to past singers like Madonna and Hollywood sex icons such as Marilyn Monroe and Clara Bow. Times have changed from then and it’s not like the 20‘s or 30’s anymore. Lady Gaga’s attire is very different from what a majority of people would wear but she has almost made people immune to it because we have seen stud like this from social media. Due to her outrageous wardrobe, Paglia goes as far to compare her to drag queens, but says they are sexier than she will be. Lady Gaga is a different type of person, but she does what she wants and I believe should be respected as an artist and a person. She goes along with what she states about loving who you are and being yourself, even if that means wearing funky clothing.