6 HARSH TRUTHS

6 HARSH TRUTHS

1.       Are people okay with just sitting back and doing nothing rather than going out and getting what they want?

2.       Why are there people that work, who are supposed to be happy, so miserable?

3.       Why do people have to be selfish and not just accept a person for who they are, but accept them for what they can do for other people?

As a 19 year old community college student, I was totally fine my first semester with being at a JC and really just taking my time, thinking I wasn’t ready to go to a 4 year university. I was dead wrong. Going into my second semester I figured out that I was not happy just sitting back, getting my general eds done, working at a minimum wage job; doing nothing with my life. I was too lazy to apply to a 4 year college and came up with the excuses of that I wasn’t read or that I couldn’t afford it. At first I was okay with it, but once I saw my friends around me that were at 4 year universities and in sororities, I realized I had to get off my butt and make an effort to get what I wanted. Reading this article helped me realize that I can’t just sit back anymore and watch everyone else get what they want because they made an effort. I have to make an effort as well. Halfway through this semester I started looking at 4 years, figuring out what I could major in, what I wanted to make as my career, etc. Ive always loved make-up and I want to do it for movie sets, and although it is going to take a lot of work to get there, I will do what- ever it takes; even considering moving to LA. I recently got a job with a make-up company, getting my foot in the door and making an effort with my life. I don’t know how people can just sit there, knowing what they want, and waiting for it to come to them. It’s not going to happen. I agree that David Wong that you can’t keep making excuses for yourself every time something doesn’t go your way. Make the change to make possibilities for yourself.

MASLOW'S ESCALATOR

MASLOW’S ESCALATOR

1.       Do we create ourselves? If not who or what does?

2.       Are people that have Alzheimer’s, still considered to have a self? Or not?

3.       Where did the attitudes of becoming self-assertive and to express all feelings, come from?

Because I’m catholic, I believe that God has created us and has created a plan for each if us, but sometimes our actions can take us down a different road. I believe that in some ways we do create ourselves, but there are things out of our understanding and out of our hands that we can’t change nor create.  Self-creation states that if you feel good, you will attract the things that make you feel good. Although people may believe that, there can be a person that is the happiest person in the world and the worst things can happen to them. We can change ourselves through free-will, which will can that plan that it made for us before we were even born. I honestly believe self-creation is just something that is made up to make people try to be happier. Just because you are happy does not mean that everything you want is going to be handed to you, and just because you are having a crappy day, does not mean everything is going to turn against you. God has created a plan for us and even if for some reason that involves some pretty horrible things, it’s only to make us stronger people. What we make of the situations is what matters and helps to shape us as the individuals we were meant to be. If you don’t handle the situation well and turn your back on the world you are creating a different plan for yourself by free-will, but you never know; that may have been the plan for you all along. You can create yourself to be who you are but there is always the plan that God or a higher power has made for you.

VIVISECTION

VIVISECTION

1.       At what point does vivisection become ‘evil’?

2.       What kind of experiments go on?

3.       If we accept that humans are equal to animals, could animal testing be justified? (question brought up in class)

If we accept that humans are equal to animals, I still don’t think that we could justify animal testing. If you are equal to them, you have to think if you would want the testing done to yourself. Humans would say no, so why would you do that to your equal? There is a sense of morals to it. With human testing, there is consent, but with animals they are not able to say yes or no. there are some testing that are done on humans but unlike animals they are not killed after. Some people tend to believe that animals don’t have a soul or conscious, but even if they don’t (which is something I do not believe) that doesn’t justify for testing to be done on them and then ultimately them being killed after. If they are supposed to be seen as our equals, we wouldn’t kill humans after testing, would we? No. The only way to even possibly justify animal testing is if humans were superior to beast. You would have to base it off of the fact that animal testing is justifiable, which is flawed. Just because you are higher up than someone or something does not mean you can determines their fate. There are morals and ethics behind it.

ETHICS ARGUMENT FIRST DRAFT

Taylor Ann Lawhead

Professor Brown

English 1B

15 April 2013

Ethics Paper Rough Draft

                Usually when parents decide to place their child up for adoption, it is due to the fact that they are unable to raise them because of financial issues or that the parents are too young and are not mentally capable of raising the child. In 2012 there were over 9,000 in the US, many of which were due to the reasons of finance issues or mental ability of bringing up a child. In early 2013 a South Carolina couple decided to place their child up for adoption, but the reason for doing so was not ever heard of before; they were giving their 16 year old daughter up because she was gay. These parents, the Chadwells, were the first couple to put their child up for adoption due to their sexuality. The girl’s parents stated that they thought about the situation and sought help from a local church, who helped them pray for weeks, before deciding to give their daughter to the state due to that “don’t know how to handle someone who decides to live a lifestyle that [they] do not agree with” (Mrs. Chadwell). I believe that the parents’ decision to give up their daughter for adoption because of something she cannot control is very unethical.                

                The definition of unethical states that it is lacking moral principles or unwilling to adhere to proper rules of conduct; a principle of parenthood is loving the child unconditionally. The parents in this case seem to be doing the exact opposite of what this principle is. When this girl is placed into the foster-care system, she will face bullying by others inside of the system, studies show. If other parents of gay/lesbian teens see this as a way out of handling their child’s life style, more of them will end up in foster-care or group homes, and due to the bullying inside of the systems, they will be more subjected to being discriminated against, becoming depressed, or even unfortunately committing suicide.

                In survey taken in 2005 about gay bullying, it was reposted that the number two reason they are bullied is due to their sexual orientation; number one being their appearance. Teens are at a pivotal point in their young adult lives when they are trying to find out who they are and who they are about to become as adults. This is why being teased, bullied and harassed is something that could negatively affect a person's self-esteem and view of themselves for the rest of their life. Throughout history “homosexuality has been viewed as an illness, a sin, an abomination, and a crime” (Uribe, 168). An example of one probable source of this attitude is in the Bible (Leviticus 20:13), which in many translations says that homosexuality is an abomination and is a morally unacceptable life-style. Data shows that teens that struggle with issues of their sexuality that do not receive the necessary health care services or support from loved ones and from schools and community are in jeopardy of serious emotional and social difficulties (Remafedi, 1987). . According to recent gay bullying statistics, gay and lesbian teens are two to three times as more likely to commit teen suicide than other youths. About 30 percent of all completed suicides have been related to sexual identity crisis, and in addition, the San Francisco State University Chavez Center Institute has found that LGBTQ youth who come from a rejecting family are up to nine times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. The bullying that causes these attempts and sometimes successes at suicides can come from any type of people, whether it be school, a rejecting family, or even a child-welfare program where they are patiently waiting for an accepting family.

                When people think of placing their child up for adoption, they believe that they are giving them a place to be safe and to be taken care of. This unfortunately is not the case for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender teens that are in the foster-care system and although changes in the mainstream attitudes have made it a little easier for teens to ‘come out’, but it does not mean that foster parents and child-welfare agencies have kept pace with the changing times. The parents of the young girl that are giving up for adoption due to her sexuality don’t understand just exactly how she will be treated in the agencies and if she will ever get adopted but a family. The child-welfare agencies are only as good as the foster families and many foster families refuse to take in a gay teen. A survey was taken by Jerry Walters; vice president for foster-care services with the Jacksonville-based boys’ home association, showing that out of 246, only 21 said that they would be willing to take in a gay teenage; only 8.5%.   These teens are facing discrimination every day and almost all have reported verbal abuse; 70% have been subjected to violence; and 78% have run away or have been removed from a placement due to reasons related to their sexuality (America Bar Associates 2008 guidebook for Child-Welfare Lawyers and Judges). Cindy Watson, who directs a center for gay youth, states that “kids question their sexuality more” and that “the system is not a safe place” (Cherkins). These young teenagers have it hard already due to the fact that they were most likely tormented at school and that their families don’t accept them, but they also have to deal with being bullied in a system where they are trying to find a new family. These teens are trying to find a safe place to live and are instead being bullied and in some cases run out from the only place that they have. The Chadwells might believe that what they are doing for their daughter is the best thing for her, but they are putting her into more harm than good but putting her up for adoption rather than keeping her at home where she has a safe place to live.

                Although what the Chadwells are doing might seem ethically and morally right to them, they are actually placing their daughter in danger; whether it be emotional or physical. By wanting her to be adopted by another family and placing her in a foster-care system, they do not realize that inside these agencies she will end up being bullied by the others that are not gay. Gay teens are already getting bullied more and that she is being rejected by her family will make her more likely to become depressed and eventually maybe trying to commit suicide. This situation is ethically wrong due to the fact that the parents should have their child’s well-being in mind and wanting them to be safe, the opposite of what the Chadwells are doing.

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.

Rhetorical Critique of "Is Google Making Us Stupid?"

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 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; but at the same time says how and why the web has been a ‘godsend’ because he is a writer. 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 and how he feels how it has changed not only himself, but others as well and how they are able to comprehend and focus due to the growing nature of the web. While comparing this, 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”. 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. Like in the article he uses to support his case, he agrees how people, like himself, lose focus rather quickly when reading on the web, and it is causing people to lose focus when looking at physical readings. This information that gathered helps his article because it is not in conflict with what he had stated. 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 the kind of deep reading”. This is useful in the sense that it is evidence is aimed towards a younger age 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 that already have a set perceived notion about these effects. 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 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. He is trying to show his struggle to the reader. 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.” 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. 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. 

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

Questions:

1. Is the internet,or technology in general, causing more harm than good?
2. Due to the present generation using the internet more and more, will their ability to focus and have an imagination suffer?
3. Is reading on the internet causing people to lose focus easier than before?

Response:

With the internet, and different technological advances, being as new as it is, and with myself not being old enough to see a significant change from when there was not internet, I tend to believe that the internet is doing more good than harm. I have been using the internet since before I was even in middle school for homework and connecting with family that doesn’t live in the same state as I. Although the internet can cause harm, by causing people to lose focus easier, I feel that there in the long run the internet is more helpful. People nowadays can use the internet to communicate with people, apply for jobs, and in fact are actually reading more. Although it may be a different type of reading, people are able to read articles, books, magazines, etc. on the internet. Technological advances, like in the medical field, have come so far and have done so much good for people now than ever before. People that aren’t able to go to the pharmacy and refill their prescription, can now just call it in or even take a picture of it on their smartphones and send it in. The advances in medical technology and just technology in general is coming so far and is coming up with so many different ways to help out different communities. For older people that live at home and cannot go to the grocery store to buy food, they can order from the store on the internet and have it sent to their house. While some people may believe that the internet and technology is harming our minds because “the more we use the net the more we fight to stay focused” but on the contrary there are technological tools that help to extend our mental capacities. From what I can see, technology is helping the people today and is helping them with things and making it easier to do day to day things.

Essay 1: "Losing Touch with Society?"

Taylor Ann Lawhead

Professor Christopher Brown

English 1B

20 February 2013

Losing Touch with Society?

            People today are more in tune with technology than ever before and we use technology in almost a religious fashion now. Everywhere we go there’s a smartphone or a tablet within reach. Technology in this generation has seems to have taken over almost all parts of the world. Whether it is a social networking site, much like Facebook or Myspace to bring people together, a technological device, there is very limited personal interaction. Although there is very limited to no face-to-face interaction with another person, I see all these technological advances as a way to keep connected with people that you could not normally get to interact with if it weren’t for a cell phone, social networking site, or even email. In a poll taken by TIME, 84% of people said that they could not go a single day without their phone. In a separate poll, it is found that there are almost 488 million users of Facebook mobile. While many people see that the time spent in front of this technology as damaging to the human brain, but studies have shown otherwise. Everything has an intent that created it, technology is no exception.  Although popular opinion suggests that technology is harming the way people interact with each other and the way the human brain works, on the contrary, it has enabled social interactions that would have never happened had technology not existed and has helped the skills of those who use it.

             When social networking was invented, its use was to bring people together and to keep a connection. By having this advantage, “Facebook is changing the way we communicate with our friends” (CBSnews). Because of distance we are able to share many intimate moments together through social media; however, some people believe that people “may be missing out on experiences that help develop empathy, understand emotional nuances and read social cues like facial expressions and body language” (NYTimes). This however is not true as social media can bring people together and develop empathy towards individuals that are not nearby. For example, my cousin from West Virginia and I had not spoken in almost 12 years, but because of Facebook we reconnected and have grown very close. Due to being able to talk through social networking sites, my cousin and I have realized how similar we are; for example, how we both were dancers in high school and how we wish to work with special needs kids when we are older. Although it may not be a face-to-face in person interaction, without this technology, we would not have this connection that has been established. When Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook, he had said that “you could share information with the people you care about”, and that’s exactly what we are using this technology for (Mark Zuckerberg). Although this technology can be used for good, some people use it to damage other peoples’ lives; like online bullying. A person that does this would be what Julian Dibell would call a griefer, someone who “is the one player whose fun depends on finding that elusive edge where online levity starts to take on real life weight” (Dibbell, Griefers). This type of person gets off on the fact that the damage they are doing to a person on the internet, is actually effecting them in the real-word, and that to them is exactly what they want. A prime example of this would be from a story that happened in 2007 when a mother made a fake MySpace account that ended up causing a young girl to commit suicide. ). The harming that was done over the internet by this mother of a former friend, was causing a real-life dilemma for the 13 year old victim. Cyberspace has in some points come to be a place where one can damage another one’s life without physically seeing them in person, with some sort of barrier being created; a social networking account. Although there are the people that use the technology of social networking sites to inflict pain without having to do so with a face-to-face interaction, there are more people that use the sites to do what they were created for; to share information and to keep a connection and interaction with the people they care about.

            Technology has advanced so much in the past years that they have become our end all be all information tool. While some people have argued that the time spent in front of technology is harmful to the human brain, there are scientific studies to prove otherwise. According to Dr. Gary Small, a neuroscientist and professor at UCLA, “technology can train our brains in positive ways. Surgeons who play video games, for example, make fewer surgical errors. Those who play video games have improved reaction time, better peripheral vision.” Although it can be looked at that technology is harmful if spent too much time in front of, it is actually very helpful. Without it, it would not being helping out the people it does today. Brains are malleable, much like computers. If we spend a lot of time engaged in a repeated mental task, the neural circuits will strengthen. While it is shown that technology can be very useful and helpful at times, others will argue that it is damaging to the people in society and that as time goes on, people have start to become more reliant on their computers, including the internet and cyberspace and all that it entails. Mark Slouka states that the new technology “threatens to make us stupid, makes us collectively, gullible as children” (Slouka 2). For example phones can be used to send pictures and communicate. Joseph Sexton, interviewed by the New York Times, states that “basically [he is] walking around with a minicomputer in [his] pocket” (New York Times). Since the phone has many applications, people can use social media apps on their phones such as Facebook to find out what other people are doing and what is happening in their lives with the swipe of a finger. “People have argued that 54% of teens would text rather than talk face-to-face which is only 33%”. This can cause a problem because a text doesn’t portray emotion or have any tone in the language. The downside of such immersion in technological devices is that they’re not having conversations, looking people in the eye, or noticing verbal cues. Although some people believe it is socially impairing to teens and/or adults to use so much technology, I believe that it is more useful in helping the human brain which can be used for so much; for example, being used to help surgeons and to help reaction time which can be very imperative.

            In conclusion, although popular opinion suggests that technology is can be harmful to how people socially interact and how the brain thinks, to contrary belief it actually helps social interaction and how it has improved the with how people learn. Technology is a great way to keep in touch with people from long distances, make connections with people that are acquaintances, and help train the human brain. However in order to make use of these benefits, society needs to use technology in moderation and not use it as a means to all form of human communication. Technology will only get more sophisticated here on out, it’s up to the people to not let it take over their lives and use it efficiently.