1.) My reaction to this video was that I was somewhat surprised by what i saw. I had thought steroid use was more widespread, according to the video, there is more hype about steroid use and abuse than there actually are cases of it. This video fails to mention or give actual statistics on steroid abuse and on the percent of abusers.users who develop or experience negative/harmful side effects. A weak argument that could result would be thats teroid use is widespread. As with almost anything steroids "can" be used responsibily, but there is almost no practical way to have responsible use enforced. If laws were passed to require doctors to only prescribe steroids in limited amounts then people who wanted more would simply get them illegally, which apparently isn't that hard to do.
2.) Steroid use in undesirable, and should not be allowed for either highschool or proffesional athletes. In this area the standards for both should be the same. All sports should have the same standard on steroid use, which should be that no steroid use is acceptable. I feel that steroid use is not expected in our culture. It is encouraged only in some indivual situations. Such as when coaches or parents push their children/athletes to use them. I feel that by discouraging steroid use we can avoid creating a double standard for athletes. If all athletes simply do their best then the best athlete should win. Testing for steroids can be the right thing to do in certain situations, random testing should only be implemented if an outbreak of steroid use is suspected in a certain area, meaning a certain proffessional team or a local highschool sports team, ect. By discouraging use of steroids and when neccessary, testing for steroid use, society can effectively combat steroid use and reduce its occurence.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Response to: Georgetown Students Bristle At New Restrictions on Parties
Support for restrictions: These restrictions are overall a good idea. While the majority of college student are "adults" because they are over 18 years of age, many of them are still immature and do stupid things, especially abuse alcohol by drinking to much, drinking while intoxicated, etc. These restrictions should hopefully make parties on campus safer for students involved. While it may force some parties of campus those who remain will be safer. Since colleges are some-what responsible for the safety of their students these new rules are justified. Better safe than sorry. Also hopefully these new rules will reduce underage drinking which is rampant on college campuses.
Argument against restrictions: These restrictions are an assault upon the rights of college students. Most college students are adults and have the right to peacefully assemble wherever they desire, if they want to all meet up and have a party with alcohol, that's ok as long as all the participants are over 21. If college students get hurt as a result of their choice to drink in excess then it is their fault. Also, this won't stop much of the underage drinking, it will merely move it off campus where partiers for the most part will be less safe, because for most of them they will have to come back to the university after they are done partying. This could pose a serious safety risk. Apart from being unenforceable, the university has no right to tell adult students when and where they can drink alcohol. That choice should be up to each individual person.
Argument against restrictions: These restrictions are an assault upon the rights of college students. Most college students are adults and have the right to peacefully assemble wherever they desire, if they want to all meet up and have a party with alcohol, that's ok as long as all the participants are over 21. If college students get hurt as a result of their choice to drink in excess then it is their fault. Also, this won't stop much of the underage drinking, it will merely move it off campus where partiers for the most part will be less safe, because for most of them they will have to come back to the university after they are done partying. This could pose a serious safety risk. Apart from being unenforceable, the university has no right to tell adult students when and where they can drink alcohol. That choice should be up to each individual person.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Portfolio #2: thesis statment
For my position letter i will adress the issues surrounding the second amendment to the U.S. constitution. I will adress gun rights, gun control, the arguments for both sides as well as what the constitution says about the issue. The issue has been a hot topic in recent years and continues to be so today.
Blog #4 response
1.) The first article is basically arguing that by making action figures, such as G.I. Joe's, have proportionally more muscles and wider bodies than most humans do that they are encouraging young boys to obsess or focus too much on trying to become "ripped" and "buff". The other article says that they are just toys, which they are, and that the exagerated muscle sizes of them are not important, because most kids don't take toy appearance too seriously or they will want to become more muscular, like the toys, for many other more compelling reasons.
2.) For the first article the ideal audience would be parents who are against "violent" or action toys and possibly teachers who want them banned from schools, ect. The other article is more laid back and relaxed, it would probably appeal more to young boys and teenagers, as well as dads who want their kids to be tough or for them just to have fun.
3.) My parents never denied me a toy for any reason, being a male i am more inclined to support kids playing with action toys. The first article is very serios toned, however they seem to be making a big deal out of nothing really. The second article is again more laid back and "chill", it appeals more to the idea that kids play with toys they like, and that they do not neccessarily want to become like them.
2.) For the first article the ideal audience would be parents who are against "violent" or action toys and possibly teachers who want them banned from schools, ect. The other article is more laid back and relaxed, it would probably appeal more to young boys and teenagers, as well as dads who want their kids to be tough or for them just to have fun.
3.) My parents never denied me a toy for any reason, being a male i am more inclined to support kids playing with action toys. The first article is very serios toned, however they seem to be making a big deal out of nothing really. The second article is again more laid back and "chill", it appeals more to the idea that kids play with toys they like, and that they do not neccessarily want to become like them.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
English free write 2/10/2009
If i were given unlimited funds to conduct a persuasive parade in D.C., the parade would be a pro-second amendment parade. I feel that the second amendment is one of the most important amendments to the U.S. constitution. It is the right that garuntees all the others. This is because if people didn't have the right to own guns then they would not be able to defend themselves, or be able to resist the gov't if it tried to take away the rights of citizens. while the second point might seem far fetched to some today, it is still a possibility that could happen sometime in the future, however unlikely. Also without citizens right to bear arms our country may not have been created, this is reffering to the U.S. revolution. In D.C. the second amendment has been horibly violated, only police and criminals have guns therefore, a citizen can not defend himself or herself from an attacker. The criminals do not care what laws are passed and will continue to illegally use guns in crime.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Blog #3 responses: Why do people starve themselves?
Blog #3 responses:
1.) Pro-Ana websites are encouraging an unhealthy lifestyle. They encourage people to become way too skinny, almost to the point of starving themselves. Fasting and trying to have an anorexic life style are unhealthy and wrong. True people should try to stay in shape and be fit, losing fat is OK, but when a person tries to be so skinny that it is comparable to being starved, then that is too much. Without these sites, perhaps less people would try to have anorexic lifestyles.
2.) Even if someone has a very un-popular opinion on something, they are still entitled to express that opinion. This right is garunteed in the first Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Also, people who are pro-ana are merely living out a lifestyle that they are willingly and freely choosing to do. They can do what they want in terms of how they choose to live. Even is being so skinny or trying to be anerexic is unhealthy, that is their choice. And allowing people to have the freedom to pick the type of lifestyle they want, is one of the things that makes America a great country.
3.) Being pro-ana is not a crime, though it is unhealthy. It is wrong to try to force your views about pro-ana on others who aren't interested in adopting that lifestyle. But again if a person wants to have an anerexic lifestyle then it is their choice to do so. But again, people who are against it have the right to protest it and say that there should not be any pro-ana websites allowed. Overall, if people respect others' right to coose their own lifestyles, as long as they don't force their views on others then two or more groups with opposing ideas can co-exist.
1.) Pro-Ana websites are encouraging an unhealthy lifestyle. They encourage people to become way too skinny, almost to the point of starving themselves. Fasting and trying to have an anorexic life style are unhealthy and wrong. True people should try to stay in shape and be fit, losing fat is OK, but when a person tries to be so skinny that it is comparable to being starved, then that is too much. Without these sites, perhaps less people would try to have anorexic lifestyles.
2.) Even if someone has a very un-popular opinion on something, they are still entitled to express that opinion. This right is garunteed in the first Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Also, people who are pro-ana are merely living out a lifestyle that they are willingly and freely choosing to do. They can do what they want in terms of how they choose to live. Even is being so skinny or trying to be anerexic is unhealthy, that is their choice. And allowing people to have the freedom to pick the type of lifestyle they want, is one of the things that makes America a great country.
3.) Being pro-ana is not a crime, though it is unhealthy. It is wrong to try to force your views about pro-ana on others who aren't interested in adopting that lifestyle. But again if a person wants to have an anerexic lifestyle then it is their choice to do so. But again, people who are against it have the right to protest it and say that there should not be any pro-ana websites allowed. Overall, if people respect others' right to coose their own lifestyles, as long as they don't force their views on others then two or more groups with opposing ideas can co-exist.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Fallacies 2/2/2009
1.) Faulty cause/effect
Tom plays counter strike and other violent video games, Tom vandalized the school playground last week. Playing violent video games causes youths to act violent and commit crimes.
2.) non sequitur
The county school board wants to have highschools start later because teens aren't getting enough sleep.
Tom plays counter strike and other violent video games, Tom vandalized the school playground last week. Playing violent video games causes youths to act violent and commit crimes.
2.) non sequitur
The county school board wants to have highschools start later because teens aren't getting enough sleep.
Blog #2 response: joggers are not runners
Blog #2 responses:
1.) My initial reaction to this add was that it had an extremely effective attention getter and brought up an interesting "fact". The theme of the add definitely stood out the most, it seemed pretty original, as far as running adds go.
2.) I did track and cross country throughout most of high school, i do not run as much anymore, but i still consider myself a runner. I feel it effected my response, in that I know first hand, that runners do sometimes run in remote areas.
3.) The artwork of the add, lend it appeal to people who know what running conditions can be like. Running shoes get dirty fast when running through a forest, and places where people often run are not always well lit. So the elements of the add help fairly well to persuading a reader to believe the content.
4.) Running off the beaten path, and in remote areas are both promoted, as well as the underlying theme of staying in shape. Jogging, and running where everyone else runs is discouraged.
5.) This add may portray joggers as less athletic than runners, but that for the most part is true. Dividing them may help runners feel better about themselves and possibly but this companies products to show that they are runners, and not joggers.
6.) I would say that for both adds pathos has the strongest appeal. Neither add has a strong base in logic or credibility. It is true a runner may find a body in the woods or may puke at the end of a race, however that, especially the first one, does not always occur. However the thought of finding a body or running so hard that puking occurs certainly would appeal to the emotions of being adventorous and pushing one's body to the limit.
7.) I would definitely pick the Pearl Izumi add because it appeals to runners and athletes, who are more likely to buy products from companies who advertise themselves as athletic or running companies who sell things that are "specialized" for certain activities, such as running or other sports. I would not pick the other add because it promotes running easy and not pushing yourself. This may appeal to out of shape people or joggers, who may buy athletic things but not as much as runners do. Many joggers are content with wearing anything that feels comfortable and therefore may not feel too compelled to buy athletic things from a athletic company. So for marketing purposes it would be better to appeal to runners, who are more likely to buy running or athletic gear from companies who "specialize" in those products.
1.) My initial reaction to this add was that it had an extremely effective attention getter and brought up an interesting "fact". The theme of the add definitely stood out the most, it seemed pretty original, as far as running adds go.
2.) I did track and cross country throughout most of high school, i do not run as much anymore, but i still consider myself a runner. I feel it effected my response, in that I know first hand, that runners do sometimes run in remote areas.
3.) The artwork of the add, lend it appeal to people who know what running conditions can be like. Running shoes get dirty fast when running through a forest, and places where people often run are not always well lit. So the elements of the add help fairly well to persuading a reader to believe the content.
4.) Running off the beaten path, and in remote areas are both promoted, as well as the underlying theme of staying in shape. Jogging, and running where everyone else runs is discouraged.
5.) This add may portray joggers as less athletic than runners, but that for the most part is true. Dividing them may help runners feel better about themselves and possibly but this companies products to show that they are runners, and not joggers.
6.) I would say that for both adds pathos has the strongest appeal. Neither add has a strong base in logic or credibility. It is true a runner may find a body in the woods or may puke at the end of a race, however that, especially the first one, does not always occur. However the thought of finding a body or running so hard that puking occurs certainly would appeal to the emotions of being adventorous and pushing one's body to the limit.
7.) I would definitely pick the Pearl Izumi add because it appeals to runners and athletes, who are more likely to buy products from companies who advertise themselves as athletic or running companies who sell things that are "specialized" for certain activities, such as running or other sports. I would not pick the other add because it promotes running easy and not pushing yourself. This may appeal to out of shape people or joggers, who may buy athletic things but not as much as runners do. Many joggers are content with wearing anything that feels comfortable and therefore may not feel too compelled to buy athletic things from a athletic company. So for marketing purposes it would be better to appeal to runners, who are more likely to buy running or athletic gear from companies who "specialize" in those products.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)