I created my own personal website that entails all the different types of personalities I have on a daily basis. Here is a link to my website that defines my true Identity on the web. http://identityofme.weebly.com/index.html
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Essay 2
Stephen James
Professor Mulliken
English 1113
4 October 2011
The Voters’ influence
The two articles, “Stupid Voters Enable Broken Government” and “Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model”, both advocate the voters’ interest towards influencing the government. The main controversy between the two articles is whether or not they will play a critical role in the outcome of elections and if the voter’s are pivotal in the election outcomes then the article is exploring the effects of the voter’s decisions. The position of the article, Stupid Voter’s Enable Broken Government, advocates that voters are making drastic decisions throughout their voting which is causing the government to fall apart, and the second article, Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model, advocates that the voter’s benefit from the election are connected with the voter’s chances of importance to the outcome of the election. The two sources both deal with the question of whether or not the decisions that the voter’s make are effective or not towards the government and the results of how the government is affected.
The two articles both convey rhetorical appeals such as ethos, pathos, and logos but they also have false ethos, extreme pathos, and even some logical fallacies. The article Stupid Voter’s Enable Broken Government by LZ Granderson includes a incident about a former mayor, Marion Barry, who served time in prison and advertised a commercial with him with a crack pipe in his mouth saying “B**** set me up” which convinced the black community to vote for him because by blaming the crack pipe in his mouth was the white people’s fault. After Marion Barry was involved in the commercial and after serving time in prison he still got re-elected for mayor and this is an example that conveys ethos because the fact Marion Barry had taken advantage o his voters due to the fact that he was portrayed as a good man to his voters but a criminal on the inside strengthens Granderson’s credibility because this example supports his argument of how the voters’ enable broken government. The other article, Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model, by John Duffy and Margit Tavits includes ethos as well because they had created experiments in their voter model. The voters were more likely to vote when they thought that their vote was going to count towards an election. This is an example of ethos because the fact that the two graduate students had proved something through an experiment that had been tested strengthens the author’s credibility.
The article by LZ Granderson includes false ethos in a way because he is not an expert on information about the government because he is a Sports Center contributor. The majority of his ethos is false because even though he provides facts about incidents he based his claim from his own opinion about each incident or election in the article. The scholarly article by the Stanford graduates did not really have any false ethos whatsoever because they had provided information to support they claim and the evidence that they had provided was hard evidence. The audience of the article by LZ Granderson does not respect his claim about government because he essentially is blunt about his reasoning and insulting his audience by stating “A lot of us are just plain stupid” (Granderson) as well but, his motives are excellent. The article by the graduate students had an audience that also involved the voters and how they vote or if they even vote at all but their audience would be more subject to respect their claims because they provided laboratory experiments as well as models to support their argument about how voters vote or do not vote towards the outcome of an election. The similarities between the two articles is that both of the articles advocate that the voters should start thinking independently and spend time thinking about who they will vote for rather than jumping onto the bandwagon and voting for whoever is doing the best in each party. The differences between the two articles are that one article argues that voters are so effective that they are breaking the government and the other article is advocating that the voter’s vote is either pivotal or not in the outcome of an election.
The two articles both involve rhetorical strategies such as pathos. The article by LZ Granderson entails pathos because of the tone he is in while he is making his claim seems to be very blunt towards the audience by stating “All of us are at the very least lazy”(Granderson) which may have caused the voters to feel a certain way that is hurtful to the voters. The fact that LZ Granderson had blamed the voters for our broken government by calling lazy and stupid is in the category of extreme pathos because he provides weak evidence to support his claim dealing with the fact that the voters are the reason why our government is broken. The article by the two Stanford graduate students had involved some pathos because the fact that their experiment dealing with voting based on their beliefs caused the voters to feel whether or not that their vote is pivotal or not. Whenever the experimental election involved beneficial opportunities. For example, in one of the experimental elections the voters were offered more money if they voted for a candidate that they agreed with their political beliefs. The article by the two Stanford graduate students did not include any extreme pathos because there are reasoning’s behind each claim that they made. In the article by the two graduate students had used pathos in a way that was not easy find because the majority of the article was filled with hard evidence, facts, and experiments but they used pathos in way that had to be identified beyond the words in the article. In the article by Granderson he had used pathos in a very visible aspect because the expressions that had been place in this article were obviously seen by his own audience. The two articles did not really have similar advocating sides for how they both used pathos rather they had both advocated for opposite sides for how they had used pathos throughout the article. The two articles had described the way they had used pathos in a very intricate way because of the different types of examples used in the articles.
The last type of rhetorical strategy that each of these two articles appeals to be the logical appeals. Unfortunatly, Duffy and Tavits article does not really appeal to logos because the article is about voters participating in experiments to see if their vote is pivotal. One logical appeal that this article appeals to states that “voting happens because people systematically think that their vote counts more than it actually does, though this overestimation declines with experience” (Duffy and Tavits) appeals to logos somewhat because the authors provide a logical reasoning to why voting actually happens which is also in support of their claim that they are making. The fact that the logical appeals that the article by the graduate students have logical reasoning that logically makes sense means that all the logical fallacies cannot be identified within the article. However, the article by Granderson is the total opposite in regard to logical fallacies. The article “Stupid Voters Enable Broken Government” appeals to logical appeals. The logical appeal that this article states that “Newt Gingrich, who cheated on two wives and is the only speaker of the House to have been disciplined for ethics violations, and yet somehow he is running for the president of the United States as a religious conservative and managed to get eight percent of the votes during last week’s straw poll in Florida”(Granderson) this statement appeals to logos because the logical reasoning is that since he is disciplined for ethic violations it makes it logical for him to a candidate to run for the president of the United State. This statement is actually a logical fallacy called Ad Hominem because LZ granderson is making personal attacks at Newt Gingrich rather than giving reasoning to his original claim about the government. Another type of logical appeal in Granderson’s article states “The fact that he is even on camera discussing the country's sense of morality during the GOP debates should be offensive to any thinking person regardless of party affiliation” (Granderson) is an appeal to logos because he it is logical to be offended by the person because you are a thinking person. This appeal to logos is also a logical fallacy called bandwagon because it he is saying that the thinking people known as other people are convinced to be offended by this person. Another type of logical appeal that this article appeals to states “The biggest reason government is broken is because of voters“(Granderson) which appeals to logos because he is providing reasoning for why the government is broken. This statement involving voters being the reason for broken government is a logical fallacy called false cause because he is making a claim about stupid people are the cause for broken government. The two articles had different types of arguments that had distinguished the articles together. The article by the two Stanford graduate students did not have any logical fallacies therefore there was not any type of logical fallacies that could have discredited the two authors articles but however, the article by LZ Granderson had numerous types of logical fallacies that had most definitely discredited the author because all the supposedly facts that he had made throughout his article are all discredited because some of them are logical fallacies. The effectiveness of the appeals that both the articles had used was equally affective because they both had committed appeals that were interesting to their types of audiences. The effectiveness of the appeals in the article by granderson was effective in a way that had tried to make his audience see their own flaws towards the government and the effects of what that is doing to the government. The effectiveness of the article by the two Stanford graduate students was effective in a way that proved how voters thought that were pivotal towards the outcome of elections and proving that the voters beliefs increase the voters to vote because they believe they are pivotal towards the outcome of the election.
Works Cited
"Stupid Voter Enable Broken Government." Interview by LZ Granderson. CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. Cable News Network, 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. <http://CNN.com>.
Duffy, John, and Margit Tavits. "Beliefs and Voting Decisions: A Test of the Pivotal Voter Model." American Journal of Political Science ns 52.3 (2008): 603-18. American Search Premier. Web. Oct.-Nov. 2011.
Essay 3
Stephen James
Professor Mulliken
English 1113
4 October 2011
A Falling Government
In the opinion section of CNN.com a CNN contributor named LZ Ganderson wrote an article titled “Stupid Voter Enable Broken Government”. LZ Ganderson states the government is falling apart due to the voters that choose to elect the people who run for government. In order for the government not to fall apart, Ganderson argues that voters need to take the initiative and start investing their time and mind into a candidate before they elect their favorite candidate.
In order to support his claim, Ganderson uses different kinds of rhetorical strategies that appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos. The author first immerses the reader by describing the footage of a politician named Marion Barry in a room of crack smoke who says “B**** set me up” (Ganderson). Marion Barry’s actions in the video footage had no negative impact on the voters’ minds. The voters had still re-elected as mayor after he had been released from a federal prison which is “because he convinced African Americans that the video of him with a crack pipe was the white peoples fault”(Ganderson). Even today, Marion Barry now serves on the City Council. LZ Ganderson analyzes this incident as an example to prove that there is something wrong with our government.
The author earns the reader’s respect because of the facts that he displays throughout his article and through his logical presentation about why the government is very broken according to Ganderson’s argument. In support of Ganderson’s position, he refers to a member of the speaker of the house, disciplined for ethics violations, Newt Gingrinch who has cheated on two of his wives. The most ironic thing about Newt Gringrinch is that he is actually running for president of the United States of America as a religious conservative who surprisingly got eight percent of Florida’s votes in the straw poll. LZ Ganderson strongly disagrees with what Gringrinch is doing and what he has accomplished while he has been running for president which supports Ganderson’s argument even more. In response to the incident about Newt Gringrinch, Ganderson states “Are you freaking kidding me?”(Ganderson). LZ Ganderson also emphasizes the importance of how alert voters should be in electing any type of candidate by stating “The fact that he is even on camera discussing the country's sense of morality during the GOP debates should be offensive to any thinking person regardless of party affiliation”(Granderson).
LZ Granderson appeals to ethos that pertains to his argument by using an example that deals with the Arizona government. In the Arizona government incident, a lady named Jan Brewer who said last year that law enforcement officials had found headless bodies in the dessert which was done by a Mexican cartel but was forced to say that everything she said about the law enforcement officials finding headless was all false information by saying she had “misspoke”. The worse thing about the whole incident was that Jan Brewer had a relationship with private prisons that are set to profit because her campaign manager and her spokesman were both former lobbyist for private prison companies. The voters had still elected that woman to become governor of the state of Arizona which is another reason why this incident supports Granderson’s argument about how the government is still broken. LZ Granderson states in his article exactly what his argument by stating “The biggest reason government is broken is because of voters.
Let's face it. A lot of us are just plain stupid.Or at the very least lazy”(Granderson).
Throughout, Granderson’s personal feelings are strongly stated directly in this article. As a CNN Contributor, Granderson openly expresses his opinions about his argument but express those opinions in a way that are supported through current events that have recently occurred and different types of facts that are expressed throughout the article. The type of audience that this article appeals to are regular voters which essentially may weaken the solution as well as the effectiveness to his argument about why the government is so broken because the approach that Granderson is taking is in an impolite manner. However, words that Granderson uses to describe the voters such as “stupid” and even “lazy” appeal to pathos according to the reader because of the harmful descriptions that he uses to define many of today’s voters and basically blame them for the reason why our government is broken. Granderson’s choice of words may also weaken the solution to his argument that he is trying to make. Even though Granderson’s approach is a little blunt he is arguing that voters should educate themselves with facts and candidates involving political issues that will affect the voters future and in support of his argument he states something that entails that the government does not have to be perfect at all but goes along the lines of the voters as well as the people to be able to make smarter choices by stating that “We have to move away from easy-to-repeat campaign slogans and promises of easy solutions, because we're a country with more than 300 million people, a complicated racial and religious history and the world's largest GDP. There are no easy solutions.”(Granderson). LZ Granderson makes his argument in a very blunt and informational way that will hopefully change the readers perception on electing candidates.
Essay 4
Stephen James
Professor Mulliken
English 1113
1 December 2011
People of the Web
Technology has significantly changed over the past years as well as the people using our diverse technology. People have a tendency to reveal more information about them online than to give their information to someone in person. Although, people may reveal too much information online there are also people that may only put a small amount of information online.
People on the web tend to show a bountiful amount of personal or private information on different types of internet sites. The abstract of an article, Revealing only the superficial me: Exploring categorical self-disclosure online, uses a research study of 48 students and non-students to observe their attitudes towards online relationship formation questionnaire and relationships, personal matters, interests, and intimate feelings questionnaire. The research results show that people are more likely to reveal their information online the more positive their attitude towards forming relationships online. The research results from the abstract supports the argument that deals with the fact that people self-disclose their information on the internet than they would in real life. On a site dealing with forming relationships, it is human nature to reveal more and more information about yourself because of the type of attitude of wanting to be in a relationship with someone else online. The results from the research only dealt with one type of scenario of putting personal information on the internet that dealt with forming relationships on the web but there are also other types of examples of exploiting peoples information on the web that may come with consequences or benefits.
Not only do people display personal or private information on internet sites dealing with forming relationships but they also are displayed on social network sites as well. One type of example of information being displayed on social network sites is facebook. For example, whenever you go create your own facebook profile it asks you to reveal work, education, sports, art, entertainment, activity, interest, basic, contact information as well as pictures and things that maybe on your mind to all be revealed on your facebook profile. The reason why people may display all of the different categories of information on their facebook profile page is because there are privacy settings that can make all your information private or limited to who can see your information such as friends and family which also supports the argument about people displaying information on the web than in person. There are also consequences to revealing personal or private information on the web as well.
The fact that people tend to reveal information on the web than in person can cause a dangerous situation. The dangerous side to putting information on the internet are that there are computer genius’s that have the ability to hack computers if they want to, having a public facebook profile page, and even going along with computer scams on the internet. Consequences that will go along with putting information on the web is that once someone has your personal or private information from the internet, it can be very difficult to delete or cover up someone’s information on the web which can be used in a hurtful and embarrassing way against the person who put their information on the internet. A public facebook profile page can also be dangerous because it gives other people an opportunity to know everything they need to know about you without even knowing you on a personal level and can use all the information however they please. Internet offers can also be a dangerous situation because some sites may offer things that are pleasing to the eye and request all of your personal information and then the offer is actually an undercover computer scam that just wanted your information. There can also be benefits to revealing information on the web as well.
Consequences play a major role in revealing information on the internet but benefits play a major role in revealing information on the web as well. It is very rare, but it is possible to benefit from putting information on the internet because every internet web site does not always offer something that can somehow turnout to be a computer scam that scan cause virus’s on your computer or even be detrimental to you. For example, a friend of mine was looking for scholarships for college on the internet and while he was on a scholarship site he saw an offer for a free dell lap top at the top of the screen. The only thing my friend had to do is complete a Netflix movie trial and put in his address to send him the free laptop. My friend had to pay money to be able to go along with the Netflix trial but after he put his mailing information into the information box his free laptop had suprisingly showed up at his front door step within about two to three weeks. This supports the fact that putting information online seems more protected and beneficial rather than just giving someone you do not know your personal or private information.
People usually do not give other people their personal or private information if they do not know that person. It is not common for people to give their information in person because you can visually see that person and not on a computer screen which makes it less convincing to give information in person based the type of body language, tone, and attire of that person. The reason why people do not regularly give their information in person but instead online is because information such as credit card, social security, drivers licence, address, and contact information are not fully protected by a person based off of their human nature. Privacy settings can be applied to certain internet sites on the computer but there are no privacy settings you can apply on an actual human being because people cannot always be trusted especially people that you do not know. This logical reasoning supports that people display more information online than they would in person.
Although, people that have a tendency to reveal more information about them online than they do in person there are others that feel that this idea of revealing more information online than in person should be prevented. In the article, Ads Discourage Teen Girls from posting photos or info on myspace, friendstar, the national center for missing and exploited children believe that revealing more information online should be prevented because they are launching a think before you post campaign. The national center for missing and exploited children are launching this campaign because they want to discourage teenagers from posting personal information online due to the fact that one out of seven teenagers are sexually solicited or approached over the internet who post personal information online. The society today is definetly based on young sexual advertisement throughout the web because the youth are selected online due to posting all their personal information. People should stop posting all their personal information online period because the majority of the social networks have become a necessity of staying in contact with friends and family. If we step away from all the technology advances for a little while and go back to the old methods of staying in contact with people you know then maybe people would be more cautious of how they use the many types of technological devices that we have today.
People do not always think to not post any personal information online completely because posting personal information on any type of internet site can always have room for dangerous situations. The idea of not posting any personal or private information online simply means that your information cannot be hacked, used, or even used in computer scam whatsoever. For instance, one day as I was checking my personal e-mail an ad popped up on the middle of the screen telling me to claim my free ipad and a hundred dollar gift card. The prizes looked very pleasing to my eye because it was something I really wanted but even though I wanted the cool looking prizes I turned down the offer. The reason why I turned down the offer to claim my prizes because I knew that if I had given all the information the site had requested to receive my prize and if it had turned out to be a scam then my computer would have virus threats that could possibly damage the quality of my computer. This example proves that it is better to not take a risk at putting your personal information online which is in support of the fact that people should not display personal information on the web.
Revealing no personal or private information on the internet with less revealing information in person is never bad but it can sometimes be unfortunate. The reason why it is unfortunate to not display personal information on the web is because you never know if the offers on the web sites are computer scams or if they are actual real offers that actually let you receive what is offered to you. It is rare for a computer offer to actually let you receive what has been offered to you but it is not something that could not happened. If you are offered something online that you want and you put all your information to receive it then after awhile you actually receive what you were offered simply means that you got lucky.
People feel more obligated to display more of their personal or private information online than they would in person. Even though others feel that people should not display personal information online the fact that there different types of settings on the internet that make your information private proves that people feel safer displaying their personal or private information online.
Works Cited Page
Gonzales, Alberto. "Ads Discourage Teen Girls From Posting Photos Or Info On MySpace, Friendster." TechWeb (2007). LexisNexis Academic. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.
Attrill, Alison, and Rahul Jalil. "Revealing Only the Superficial Me: Exploring Categrical Self-disclosure Online." American Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
My Presence on the Web
Diversity of the Web is a blog that I have been using for my Composition I class since the beginning of the semester. Throughout this semester, I have posted revised essays, opinions about articles, and even responses to other people’s blog. The topic essay’s that I have wrote about and discussed were very intriguing on a very intellectual level. I felt that my response to the essay topics were positive considering the fact that my points were valid and researched but the grammar that I used to explain my valid points were not exactly a positive influence. The use of grammar that I used on my essay’s were negative but all of organization and structure was quite positive. My response to all the articles that were selected by my English teacher were completely based on my opinion about what I thought each article. I felt that my response to each of the articles were positive considering the fact that my response was own opinion. My opinion to the eyes of other people may be offensive to them because my opinion may not agree with whatever opinion that other person has. One of my opinions was that people have the reason to whine about whatever they please on Facebook. I had felt that facebook had a purpose to display whatever is on your mind. This opinion may not be the same opinion as someone else’s opinion. My presence on the web is a very positive identity towards all the things I have done in my English class.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Dippin Dan
One day while I was doing my blog post about an article that I read, I figured I go head and respond to one of my friends named Dan Lindblad. One of his posts talked about the reason why some people wine about things in their life on Facebook. He agrees with the fact that some people have a good legitimate reason to wine on facebook because it could be a serious matter that could involve a family death. I felt that everybody has a good reason to wine about whatever they want even if it is good or bad because that is the whole reason why facebook was created.
here is a link to dan's blog http://danimal25.tumblr.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)