1. A recent argument that I had with one of my good friends was in regards to the quality of life of severely mentally handicapped individuals. He holds a strong belief that if the quality of a person’s life is threatened to the point where they have no control over their thoughts or actions then the option of euthanasia should be on the table. I disagreed with him emphatically, but as we discussed the situation in depth I realized that we were coming from different levels of Kaufer’s five levels. The frame of reference for both of our morals were completely different, what he found to moral and what I found to be moral were complete different in definition. The evidence about the quality of life that my friend was introducing was not “evidence” for me, instead it was an opinion that I could not understand or compete with logically. Looking at the entire argument we both were arguing for the most part on the level three of Kaufer’s
2. Savio’s analogy to A Brave New World was the perfect description for the censorship that the university was imposing on students. The audience’s background on the book is understood, but the idea of censorship and absolute control is played out in the university and Savio uses this analogy to show how the school is perpetuating this problem and not engaging in dialogue with the student’s in the proper manner. Savio challenges the university by claiming they are engaged in a conflict that is on a local value because the university won’t accept a new school of thought. What Savio holds to be a value does not match what the university thinks of and know.
3. The Bullard article was probably the most thought provoking article for me. The use of stasis of cause was apparent in the article, but Bullard’s aim is for future acts to be fair and equal to the poor African American communities that are hit by natural disasters. By arguing with anecdotes Bullard is being direct and forward with his audience, Savio and Wells-Barnett could have used more anecdotes or direct quotes from both situations. Wells-Barnett begins to use the stasis of cause to appeal to the audience but the facts do not give the audience a personal experience. The appeal is lost to the audience in the lynching article because of the lack of evidence that could appeal to the ethos of the audience. Bullard uses an example in detail that helps the audience understand his aim.
I also thought that Savio's use of Brave New World really intensified his argument. The extremes presented in the novel's dystopian society are almost unimaginable to an American used to the many rights and freedoms given to us. So by comparing the censorship of the school's bureaucracy to the civil rights movement and the society in Brave New World, Savio is specifically picking a fight with the structure and procedure of the ruling party. Is it possible that he takes this too far though? I wondered about this when I responded to the question, and although this comparison makes his argument automatically very serious, does the issue of students having to follow certain school rules seem to fall flat in comparison? When you think about it, the power given to school administrations over students, while like a government, is not nearly the same as genetically altering human beings during birth and determining what class they belong to. So in the broad scheme of things, is he actually (and accidentally) pointing out that their protests are somewhat akin to a child whining because they want more dessert?
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you place Bullard's arguments in the cause stasis. I felt that he was operating from fact/conjecture. Now I have to re-think my paper!
ReplyDelete