Ragged vs. Cruz

Stephen Cruz’s story contrasts sharply with Horatio Alger’s Ragged Dick not in how the protagonist achieved his dream but how he thought about that achievement. In both, the protagonist, through a combination of luck and skill, gained success when others around him were failing. Ragged Dick doesn’t take his achievement for granted, but neither does he question it. He accepts his good fortune and moves on to the good life. Cruz does not. He realizes that much of his success is due to the fact that he is Mexican, and that people attempting to cover up the racial discrimination going on in business hire him for the big bucks.  Cruz is angry, and attempts to seek out the truth about the racial issue surrounding business. However, the racism inherent in the people he meets, and their desire to save their jobs by not rocking the boat prevents him from getting anywhere. Even with other minorities, self-interest defeats his attempts to unify. Cruz eventually sacrifices his high-paying job in order to escape the hypocrisy of being paid because of your race, whereas Ragged Dick presumably continues to cash in on his own good fortune.

Ragged Dick

The piece is making an implicit argument about the necessity of circumstance and great character in order for success to be achieved. Without great luck, Dick would never have gotten his opportunity. He was in the right place at the right time, and was lucky enough to have the skills necessary because of past experience. On a normal day, Dick would never have been on the boat, and only fate allowed him his chance at success. Once chance had set up his opportunity, with the child falling off of his boat within his view, character comes into play. Had Dick been a lazy man, or a dishonorable man, he never would have jumped in to save the boy. However, because he was a good man, he jumped (haha) after his opportunity without fear for himself. Because he took a chance, and risked his own security, he was successful and eventually became a success. When fate aligns the right circumstances with a man noble and skilled enough to take advantage of a situation, a success story is born.

Ragged Dick

Visual Arguments

Some say we have become a visual society because we have transformed our way of getting information. No longer do we read books, or speak to one another, but rather we can receive all of the information we need quickly from television and from the Internet. Because we no longer need to invest much energy in finding out that which we want to know, in some ways we have lost the ability to do so. Information must be handed to us because we can no longer reach out and grasp it. In the society we have created, a visual argument has gained much more sway because it communicates quickly. It is the difference between the long list of data and the graph: one has the full story, but it takes much more effort to find it. Our society is not willing to invest that energy, and so sees more value in the graph that gives only a basic understanding, but gives it quickly and attractively. As long as our society limits itself to being fed knowledge visual arguments will always hold great power.

Ethical - Pathos + Ethos

An author has an ethical responsibility to use Ethos and Pathos in a way that clarify an issue rather than confuse it. One cannot morally use either of these argumentative strategies in a way that drives the reader's attention away from the issue, hiding the real argument one is making behind a screen of emotional force. Only when an argument is enhanced or made more clear by an appeal to Pathos or Ethos is the author legitimately using the two argumentative strategies to drive forward his point. 

Our media today fails to live up to this ethical code on a widespread basis. In standard TV shows real issues are portrayed in blatantly altered ways, where soap opera drama shifts an issue into an entirely new state, destroying the original idea. While this is allowed because it is described openly as fiction, people's ideas can still be unethically shifted by the use of Ethos and Pathos in TV.

However, the obfuscation is not limited to fictional shows. In the news there are often examples of biased information that are skewed by uses of Ethos and Pathos to limit the viewer's ability to understand the real issue. Many news media groups have a prejudiced political bent for example, and show issues about current candidates in completely off-color, out-of-context ways that turn a harmless comment into hateful speech. 

Langley

David Langley effectively uses many different types of evidence to create an effective, cohesive argument in support of skateboarding. His most apparent and clearest type of evidence is personal experience. Being a skateboarder who was accosted by the police, Langley is in the unique position of being able to personally describe the abuses skateboarders are subjected to by police. His description of his near-arrest clearly shows how unfairly police treat skateboarders, supporting his claim. His next type of evidence is an interview where he asked policemen certain questions, showing again how policemen can bend obvious rules without being chastised by superiors. He also puts differing views in a subordinate position, pushing aside claims that skateboarding tears up the city and focusing on his own assertions that they in fact help clean it up. He uses his evidence clearly and succinctly to support his argument, making an effective claim that cities should more fairly treat their skateboarding citizens.

Pseudo-argument

An example of a pseudo-argument in the real world is the conviction of terrorists, continuing in the same vain as last week’s blog. These people are utter fanatics, believing in the necessity of killing and destroying others in order to spread their message. They are so dedicated to their beliefs that they are willing to sacrifice their lives in order to argue against people who believe differently. The September 11^th attacks were an argument against America’s belief system. The terrorists responsible believed that their moral and religious codes were the true way to live, and that no other people could have differing opinions. Terrorists are unshakable in their beliefs and spread their arguments through fear and violence rather than listen to anyone who disagrees.

Pathos

An appeal to pathos is a powerful rhetorical device because of the impact personal experience can have. As stalin said: One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. Listing countless impersonal reasons for your claim gives you only numbers. If you can force your audience to identify with what you are saying, they are invested in your argument and can much more easily see your side. The plight of a working mother widowed by the Iraq war has a much heavier impact than a listing of the thousands who have died because we can imagine our own families torn apart by such a strife. Our minds cannot so easily grasp the faces of the thousands who have lost their lives. People are creatures of emotion, and few can stay completely removed from their feelings. When you introduce emotion into your argument, you can often remove the necessity of providing appeals to logos or ethos, because your audience has been blinded by the emotions they now feel.

Torture

I agree wholeheartedly with Levin on this issue. Torture is morally reprehensible, I agree, but I am also able to distance myself from the visceral response the idea of torture brings. I can logically approach the issue with an open mind, and if one can remove emotion from the issue it is quite clear that torture is a necessity in certain situations. One must balance the numbers and calculate that the suffering of one is a small sacrifice for the survival and well-being of the many. When we adopted societal constraints as humans, we adopted the necessity of sometimes sacrificing an individual for the benefit of society. When terrorists deny the people they attack the basic right to life, how can we allow that to occur in order to protect their rights? It is madness to allow torture on a grand scale by avoiding it on a small one. If we can defend the lives of our people, we must make every effort to do so. While torture may not be one hundred percent effective, we must allow that it does give a greatly increased chance of success. In order to maximize the probability of a positive outcome, we must take every chance we can in stopping terrorism.

Biotech

The biotech debate about labeling genetically modified food is in essence a battle between cost-effectiveness and the right to information. The pro-biotech side argues that this new food is produced more effectively for a lower cost, and does not offer any disadvantages to counter the benefits. The other side states that the new science is dangerous, overstepping its limits, and that people have a right to know if their food is genetically modified. I side with those arguing for genetic modification. Their products have been shown to be safe, and allow for much more widespread distribution of cheap food. Those claiming they are unsafe provide bad examples with little data to back them up, and nearly all scientists agree that the science has been safely tested. Starvation is a terrible affliction in the world, and if we can in any way diminish its effects through the use of safe, reliable technology, why wouldn’t we? It seems ludicrous to demand even increased labeling of these products, because the costs of such a pursuit would be enormous, when the labeling is useless. The products are essentially identical to normally grown goods, and there is already labeling in place for those goods which differ substantially.

Genres

The purpose and message of these two pieces are very different, as are their genres. The first is a humorous comic implicitly stating that genetically modified foods can help those who are hungry, and that people seeking to protect themselves and others from these “frankenfoods” are wasting perfectly usable food. Its genre assists its message because it uses a clear, attractively drawn comic to show its point. It uses humor to persuade the reader to ridicule those against genetically modified food. It is a visual argument with captions but no accompanying description. The ad on page 24 is also a visual argument, but it has accompanying text describing its views, and the visual aid is a photograph rather than a drawing. It also uses some humor in the picture, satirizing the nutrition fact label, exaggerating their claim in a very obvious manner.  Its text also outlines the point it is trying to make, attempting to convince people logically that leaving labels off of genetically engineered foods is wrong. It also gives extra information for those interested in their message.