A Case for Skateboarding

Overall, while I agree with Langely's overall assertion that skateboarding is a bona fide sport that should be acknowledged, I do not feel he utilized the arguments in his piece as well as he might have done. The points he brings up are all legitimate, yet it is unclear in my opinion who exactly the audience of this paper is. There was quite a bit of it that I had trouble understanding, and it felt almost as if Langely was addressing other skaters as a fellow skater himself. This is likely due to the fact that it is a culture that is part of his personality, and is easy for him to express, yet I feel it would have behooved him to pick a different persona. You would be hard pressed to find a skater who doesn't agree with him; what he's really trying to do is to convince non-skaters, such as myself, that skating is a sport that aught to be acknowledged by the greater population as a whole. There was almost an assumed knowledge of skater culture in this piece that limited it. Unless you were a member of such a culture - and if you were, this piece was obviously not directed at you - it is easy to assume that much of these details could be lost upon you, as they were on me. On the whole, I agree with Langely. I am not a skater myself, as was previously mentioned, but I sympathize with his plight. His examples allow us as readers to identify more readily with the author, and the piece succeeds in this regard.

Pseudo-Argument

A pseudo-argument is an argument in which one or more of those participating is so set in what they believe that they are not willing to acknowledge that any portion of there belief set might not be wholly correct. In this sense, an argument with such an individual is not an argument at all, but rather a quarrel. This is where the name is derived from; pseudo meaning an occurrence that is not entirely real. Examples of pseudo-arguments are easily found. A very common example, in what I realize must be becoming an all too familiar topic in my writing, is politics. We run into radicals no matter what the party or belief system. They exist everywhere. Be they republicans, democrats, libertarians or independents, there are always extreme members of these groups whose sole purpose seems to be to spread dissent and fear. Whether or not these individuals are aware of this fact is not evident to me. It is the supreme mark of ignorance to consider yourself right, and never consider that you could possibly be wrong. No single opinion or ideal is completely right, and there are always things we could learn from our enemies. We often are just too stubborn to see it that way. Rather life is simply a war that we intend to win. But when it really all boils down to it, there is no right way or wrong way. We just have to live.

Pathos

To appeal to one's pathos is to appeal to their emotions. This is a rhetorical tool used to great effect by many. The reason it is so effective is that it plays with an audiences' fears, their hopes and dreams. In many instances, such emotions can overrule logic completely. Some rhetorical speakers will argue directly with pathos in mind, playing off of the emotions of their audience, using it to further their goals. In fact, we see it more and more today in politics for example. Many political pundits tend to appeal to the gut feelings of their audience, rather than the rational, logical side. This is due to the fact that these rhetoricians do not intend their audience to think (for thinking would invite people to see the number of holes inherent in their arguments) rather they intend to tell their audience what to think. This is not a partisan trait, it belongs to members of each and every ideal set. I believe this was said best by the venerable, Stephen Colbert.

"That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works." - Stephen Colbert, 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner

If used wisely, the appeal to pathos is a strong rhetorical tool. When abused, it can have unintended effects. Throughout history, mobs of people have been convinced by their leaders to do unspeakable things. The secret? Their leader plays on their fears, goading them to actions that would not normally consider. As such, we must be careful how we use pathos. We must not come too dependent on it, it can never replace logic and real facts, but in moderation, it is a strong tool.

The Humanity of Torture

In the article advocating torture, the author makes some valid points while allowing his argument to move at a pace that discourages independent thought. While the author presents us situations in which torture seems to be the only option, he does not give any thought to situations in which torture could potentially not be the best course of action. A simple fact the author tends to ignore throughout the duration of the article is that a person, when placed under extreme duress will admit to absolutely anything. If you placed me under extreme enough pain, I would admit to killing John F. Kennedy, despite the fact that I would not be born for another 30+ years. This makes torture an unreliable method of extracting of information; gaining information that is credible is oftentimes impossible. Another erroneous detail in the article is the author's assumption that we know with absolute certainty who the perpetrator of an attack that has not occurred yet is. This is almost never the case. This assumption is what leads to innocent people being hurt. Throughout the paper, I felt as though I were reading a novelization of the television program 24; a show which I thoroughly enjoy, but usually do not reference in attempts to make an argument. I do however, agree with the author of the article on some points. The fact that he doesn't allow his argument to become too large aids this piece of work. He is not arguing that torture should be used as punishment for crimes, something I agree with. He is also not making the argument that torture is humane or even desirable. He is simply arguing that in some extreme cases, torture is a viable option. This I agree with, however the situations he envisions seem somewhat farfetched. I realize that there are instances in which torture may be the only realistic option; I am not idealistic enough to believe that we can do away with a practice that has been a staple of crime-fighting since humanity began. I do believe however, it should be limited as much as possible and that the scenarios the author envisions are somewhat unrealistic. 

Organic vs. Inorganic Food

I feel that both cartoons in the writing arguments book, while politically biased one way or the other, make a fair point. On the one hand, we do deserve as consumers to know what is in the food we are purchasing. That being said, it, anyone who wants to consumer inorganic foods should be allowed to do so. This is rather a sticky subject all in all, for it's relatively difficult to make a decision either way. In some situations it makes sense to regulate food production, in other instances there is no real precedent to do so. In some countries, simply supplying its’ inhabitants with food and water is the whole battle. There is really no reason to be worrying about what all goes into the production of the food. Now this may sound somewhat ethnocentric, as to imply that our food should be held to higher standards that others food, but I do not mean it as such. Rather, those that have the means to control such aspects of their economy should do so. If not, they should not make it a priority.

 

Arguments

The picture on page 24, as well as the one on page 1, both exist to make an argument, though they differ in several important ways. For one thing, the picture on page 24 makes an explicit argument. What it is arguing is obvious at a glance. The photograph on page 1 however makes a much more implicit argument. It is up to the person looking at the photograph to infer the argument. With the picture of the can of food, the argument being made is fairly apparent. The photographer is suggesting that the consumers of in-organic food do not deserve to know the contents of the food. They do not back up this assertion in the photograph itself with any real evidence, simply playing on the emotions of the viewer. The photograph of the veterans does not itself present an argument outright. Rather it is simply a document. The implied argument however is that those who chose to go to war are honorable people. The picture of the can of food exists simply to make an argument. Therein lies the difference. 

Implicit vs Explicit

An explicit argument is an argument which states a point for which it is arguing then proceeds to try and prove that point. An implicit argument, on the other hand, is oftentimes not obviously perceptible as an argument. The argument itself is quite often more subliminal. Examples of this type of argument include pictures and poems. An example of these differing types of arguments is included in Writing Arguments. The first is a picture of an older veteran hugging a younger one with a prosthetic hand. This photograph states nothing explicit, the details of its' argument must be inferred. From this photo we can find the argument that soldiers are honorable people whose service to their country is something to be honored and applauded. The poem however makes a somewhat unrelated argument explicitly, that war is a dishonorable affair. The poem uses explicit arguments to make its' point. This is the difference between explicit and implicit.