Locate an article, news report, or social media post to respond to. You can also respond to any of the articles or topics discussed in the class.
First, summarize what the post is saying and what you understand them to be arguing.
Second, respond to the article with what we have been learning in class.
- Point out fallacies if you see them.
- Evaluate the argument they are making.
- Explain any bias you see in the post.
- Point out unsupported claims.
- If you agree, help them better support their argument. If you disagree, explain why.
- Notice the use of Ethos, Logos, and Pathos
Make sure your journal response is at least 250 words long. Comment below with a link and your response.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23yfm_qra-4 Simpsons Logical Fallacies: Straw Man Fallacy
Colburn Classroom presents a number of videos on YouTube staring the Simpsons to present different types of fallacies to the viewers. The video starts out with an introduction showing a definition of the Straw Man Fallacy: “to present a week argument that can easily be refuted” so that your argument looks better by contrast. The Simpsons character Troy McClure tries to persuade his audience that the juice loosener is a useful invention by first telling the audience the only way to obtain juice from an orange is by squeezing it against your face. Troy McClure purposely sets up a weaker argument that of squeezing an orange against his face is the only way to obtain orange juice so that the juice loosener by comparison looks a lot better. By setting up a week argument to be refuted Troy McClure makes his argument seems better, therefore creating a Straw Man.
Watching the video was a fun and interesting way to learn an English subject. I chose the Straw Man Fallacy to review for my journal log since it was listed in the logical fallacies on our English blog. When creating a straw man according to our text book “you create a thing of no substance that’s easily blown away” (Barnet et al. 370). Creating a straw man argument would take an opponent’s argument and twist it around to misrepresent that opponent so that they could easily prove them to be wrong even though what they have proven to be wrong the opponent did not actually say.
This woman’s sign has generated a bit of controversy on the internet today, so I decided to post my interview with her from earlier. She tells the story of the father and his 2-year-old from El Salvador who drowned trying to make it to the U.S. “It makes me really sad,” she said. Her sign says “Caution” with the father and daughter who drowned trying to cross the Rio Grande at the southern border. Many people are trying to doxx the lady because people thought she was endorsing Trump’s immigration policies. Many people did not look into why she was doing this in the first place. There is a video of her explaining how sad it was to see this happening and she tells the story of the El Salvadorian father and daughter. She was interviewed by a journalist from MintPress News and she told the interviewer the reason she was doing all of this was to raise awareness and she was known to have created fundraisers. She also drove more have 4,000 miles to deliver two truckloads of goods to millions of the people who are taking advantage of Congress’s refusal to secure the nation’s border.
People should always do their own research before making assumptions by just looking at a picture. Many have wrongfully attacked this lady without knowing the reason behind the picture. If the interviewer did not release the video of her being interviewed, her life would have been in shambles because of the assumptions many have made of her.
This article that I am writing on talks about an agreement that was made by California police departments, after “the shooting and death of Stephon Clark, an unarmed black man.” The article touches on how officers will only be able to use lethal force when necessary and when there are no other options. It then proceeds to tell us how the requirements are vague and there is nothing that really states when the proper time to use lethal force is. They article ends up defending the agreement and giving quotes from educated officials to back up its reasoning behind defending the agreement.
This article is very logical in its approach to this sensitive topic that has been a very been concern and fear in a lot of families. I agree that this is a push forward towards the better standing for the community while keeping the officers safe in the process, but in the end it would be better for everyone if there were just guidelines added to the agreement and not leaving it completely open ended. I understand that every situation is never the same and especially when you fear for your life decision making becomes a lot tougher, but if there were at least more to the agreement than I believe officers could be held more responsible for their wrong actions while keeping the officers that do proper measures safe. In the end this seemed to be more of a political stunt to make people believe things are getting better by pushing this new policy, but it doesn’t seem to be going anywhere.
For my post above
For some police officers do not always bring a feeling of security and safeness, which is how a certain customer felt when officers entered a Starbucks in Arizona. A group of six police officers entered the establishment on the fourth of July when a worker informed them on a customer’s feelings about them being there. Said customer said that they did not feel safe while they were in the Starbucks and asked for them to either leave the shop or to go somewhere out of sight. The group of officers ultimately ended up leaving the store complying with the desires of the people and left feeling disappointed. Starbucks has since released a statement apologizing for the treatment of the officers and promised that is not the views of the company and will take the necessary steps to rectify the problem.
Police officers are supposed to be the peacekeepers or protectors of society and their presence bringing about peace of mind. The customer and even possibly the barista that asked them to leave had a biasedness about police officers. Assuming that they all are bad and abuse their authority, unlawfully arresting and killing the people. While there are officers that do abuse their authority the vast majority of officers are upright law-abiding people. The article uses ethos when describing the officers stating that some of them were veterans that had fought for their country, building off the credibility or reputation of veterans. It is unfortunate that police officers, people that are supposed to keep the peace are being asked to leave establishments or their presence brings about fear in people.
As discussed in class, there is a series of commercials by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) that featured Sarah McLachlan’s song “Angel” and sometimes ever McLachlan, herself. These commercials featured a multitude of photos and videos clips that contained dogs and cats that had gone through serious health issues and sometimes, as implied, abuse. By displaying these photos and video clips, it is clear that the ASPCA was trying to appeal to the emotional appeal of pathos and it seemed to be effective. The commercials by the ASPCA were created in an effort to encourage viewers to donate which helps assist or save these suffering animals. Their appeals, however, did not apply only to pathos.
Recently it was revealed that the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agency has been accessing and analyzing millions of drivers license photos for the purpose of using facial recognition technology to find matches for subjects that are looking for. A clear and easy to understand argument against this practice is that nowhere on any drivers license application does the applicant give his or her consent to having their photos used for any other purpose than for identification confirmation. The revelation is sure to stir up drama on both sides of the political spectrum, with arguments made in favor of the newly uncovered practice and arguments against it. I believe that the argument is an apolitical one, and that both sides should have no problem finding problems with the idea of their likeness being scanned by any government agency, regardless of reason, for future use. Many may argue that if one has nothing to hide, then there are no concerns for the government scanning your face or searching your emails. This is a particularly obnoxious argument as history shows that goal posts move, rules changes, and those who target eventually become targeted. You may be safe today, but leave it to a government agency to discover various ways to use this technology against you, law abiding citizen or not. Luckily, the article ends with some nice examination of this issue aside from the main content of the article, that being ICE’s use of the photos. The issue has proven to be bipartisan, with politicians from both sides questioning its legality and ethicality, but government agencies have not budged from their intention to use, or continue using, this technology. The article does a good job of focusing on the logos side of arguing and presenting the issue without bias, and it is a very good read for those interested in the future of their rights to privacy.
In this article, the planetary status of Pluto is debated. When Pluto was discovered in 1930 by Clyde Tombaugh Pluto became the first “American ” planet. The elation over this discovery drowned out most people who questioned it planethood regardless of its cometlike size. In 1990 this debate resurfaced as more scientific instruments became available revealing that Pluto follows a highly elliptical and oddly angled loop which is an orbit vastly different from those of the eight other planets of the solar system. Pluto was also discovered to be a member of Kuiper’s Belt which consists of mostly asteroid-size objects. As more and more information over Pluto was discovered its classification became more and more debated. What did not help was that there was no formal definition in which Pluto could be measured in order to end this debate.
To resolve this problem the International Astronomical Union (IAU) held a conference to define what a “planet” was. They came to an agreement to define a planet through a hand count of a few that a planet should be defined as “a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit”.
The discrepancy in the accuracy of this definition comes from the method in which they came to the conclusion of the definition. Changing scientific fact by a hand count is not the most adequate way of determining a definition. For instance, if scientists wanted to decide that an element existed they would not hold a vote they would conduct years of experiments and calculate data to determine that the element existed. Along with the inaccuracy with determining the definition of a planet, based on the IAU’s definition many of the planets that are considered without a doubt a planet would also not be planets. For example, Pluto crosses Neptune’s orbit and IAU states that a planet must “clear the neighborhood around its orbit” therefore Neptune would not be a planet anymore. The importance this article highlights on having consensus on a proper definition, allows issues like this to easily be dissolved. The ethos and logos in this article are demonstrated through the various scientific sources used to help define the issue of not having a proper definition over what a is a planet.
Marriage is Scary
In our society the divorce rated has jumped drastically in a study in 1970, 84% of children lived with their biological parents but by 2009 that number dropped to 60%. This affects their children a lot the separation of the family doesn’t help their children develop according to two large meta analyses one in 1991 and the other in 2001 showed that students with divorced parents scored severely lower than other students. In a study in 2009 children living with a divorced parent were more likely to live in a household below the poverty level(28%) compared to other children (19%.) Children could also have multiple issues such as social maturation, lose their faith/beliefs, may change their outlook on sexual behavior, feel less physically, and many more.
Thinking about divorced families the empathy you feel for the children involved but with these statists you really see the effects this has on the children involved. I come from a divorced family all the way up to my grandma everyone below that is divorced and seeing these it statists I feel you have to be unselfish parents at that point so it doesn’t jeopardize your children in the long run. Your marriage may not work but why fight about it your child or children lives and ruin them. Parents are so bitter after a divorce that mindset rubs off on their children then they become the same bitter person the parent is or the parents can work together and resolve their issues so they can give their children/child the best life they possibly could have with both of the parents involved. Now in certain situations this isn’t always the case of parent cheats mom or dad and your parents’ divorce the parent that got cheated on has to be positive still no matter the pain because that child is more important in that moment more than anything. So I believe parents need to step up and influence their children to be the best possible human beings they can be and never let their divorce ruin their children.
Recently this video went viral from Candace Owens an American conservative commentator and political activist. She is known for her pro-Trump activism and her criticism of Black Lives Matter and of the Democratic Party. YouTubers TYT (The Young Turks) The Largest Online News Show in the World reported that Candace Owens was going to report that these detention centers are like living like royalty. That what we here and see in the news are all fake. She also states that she saw children doing Zumba and other activities that supposable are own people don’t have. They also state that a company that operates detention centers paid Candace Owens to shoot a positive video for them. So you could already she miss leading her viewers. Her followers right away attack her by stating you by talking not showing any type of evidence it’s not reliable. Also states that she was going to release a documentary and showed to the public later which later they found out that wasn’t true.
I believe it’s a Hasty generalizations statements without sufficient evidence to support them. They are general claims too hastily made, hence they commit some sort of illicit assumption, stereotyping, unwarranted conclusion, overstatement, or exaggeration. Since she was at the detention center she made it seemed that she already made the trip inside and saw nothing wrong and yet she didn’t showed any picture or video of the detention center. She also use strong words she even threw the “F” word to like she was very upset that we as people were fooled and yet she didn’t show any proof.
This clip by the name of “Teen Goes Crazy,” is a part of a marijuana propaganda film from the 1950’s. It depicts someone trying to expand his market of cannabis buying customers. He does this by finding a presumably teenage at night with nothing better to do and invites him to a party a friend is throwing. The boy ends up saying yes and going to the party. After a while of him being there, he is approached by a man who offers the boy what he thinks to be regular tabaco cigarettes. Little does the boy know, what he is about to consume is a one-hundred percent marijuana cigarette. He take a few inhales of the substance and starts experiencing signs of paranoia. Soon after the boy throws a mean under-hook straight to the man’s (who gave the boy the marijuana) gut.
In this short clip there’s a lot to be said. Mostly pointing out the use of appealing to fear. This film tries to correlate paranoia and violence as typical reactions to the herb. Immediately, the boy see’s everybody laughing and instantly thinks the laughs are directed towards him. Right after he proceeds to throw a punch straight at the man in front of him. Most people today would look at this clip today and laugh. Even people that don’t use cannabis. It’s just too exaggerated to seem realistic. Fear is a basic and primal human emotion that can be implemented to push political agendas and ideals very effectively. This is a common theme used against marijuana even the present day. With claims like marijuana being the “gateway drug” still floating around, an appeal to fear still shows its effectiveness.
Yesterday Iran broke the enriching limit set on uranium which was established in 2015 by former president Barack Obama. This has caused a dispute among the United Nations. Iran came out and stated that the wold powers will not be able to negotiate a better deal. Because of this outburst the United States vowed to Islamic Republic that It will never receive atomic weapons again. Iran is determined to receive nuclear weapons where the U.S is constantly reassuring its citizens as well as neighboring nations that Iran will never receive any. Because of this occurrence, Iran has threatened to resume development on its nuclear weapons.To attempt to resolve this situation peacefully, French President Emmanuel Macron is going to send an advisor to Iran in an attempt to de-escalate the tension with the U.S.
I found this relateable to our class discussion as the black and white fallacy. Iran is determined to get the point across that this is the new deal with nuclear materials or there will be problematic results. This threat has pushed some of the other nations to an alternative solution, making sure Iran never gets their hands on nuclear weapons. Iran does not want to propose alternate solutions. They are merely showing that it is either this, or that. Which for the Nation that the U.S is, we did not take kindly to a threat of that manner. Hopefully if everything ends well with the french representative, the tension as well as inflammation of uranium by Iran will decrease.
“Simpsons Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem”
Comments are closed.