Commentay- Calvin Steyn

I believe the problem that you address, which is the problem of giving reparations and why it is unethical, is possible to solve. You give a very good proposal on how to solve the problem. You say that ancestors should be given a museum of some sort to show the appreciation compared to give them money or land because that would be ineffective and would not solve anything. You provide good support that backs up your proposal. I liked how you used the quote from George Washington because he is such a well known figure. I don't think a skeptic would doubt the effectiveness of this solution because you do provide a good solution. But, you should really add more support to your proposal to make it more effective and accepted by skeptics. The only problem with your solution is that skeptics may think that it will cost too much, so you should probably find some information to disprove that belief. You also need to add counterproposals, like the facts that it will cost too much and how would you find every ancestor that was affected by slavery?

Commentary" Calvin Steyn

Your overall essay has some good points but there are some parts of it that are confusing. Your thesis is, “For this reason and many more I find the demands for reparations by the people of African descent to be wrong and no real case to back it up. I think as a thesis statement, it should be a little bit clearer on what you are going to be writing on, it is a little bit vague. It also does not tie into your arguments that you are making on why it is unethical to give reparations to the people of African descent.

In your second paragraph you give many valid points on why they should not receive reparations but I think, to make a stronger argument, you should just focus on one specific reason why and expand on that. So maybe expand on the argument that not a lot people were affected so the damage was not great. Your paragraph has a lot of evidence to that argument so cutting out all of the extra stuff would show more focus on the argument you are making.

Your argument for the third paragraph is that the benefit far outweighs the cost of slavery in America and that we should not be giving reparations to someone who was not a slave. While these are very good points, they should be in two separate paragraphs and should also appear in your thesis statement. You support your arguments with valid evidence that backs it up. Maybe add a little bit more to prove why it is unethical. You should also shorten your quotes a little bit and expand more on those.

Your essay does get the point across on why the African descent should not receive reparations, but in some cases it is a little unclear. Make sure the evidence you are giving to support your argument fits with it and doesn’t go off of the subject. Your weighting of the criteria is fair and is equal to any reader. Another thing I noticed was that you did not include a counter argument. Although it is not completely necessary, it shows fairness to the other side and also can strengthen your argument by proving the opposing side wrong and showing them differently. Fix these easy things up and I believe that you make good arguments to support your criteria.

"Vivisection"

Questions

1    1. Is vivisection immoral?

2    2.  How do our emotional responses effect our beliefs?

3.   3. Is inflicting pain on humans different than inflicting pain on animals?

Response

The chapter on “Vivisection” is a perfect example on ethical issues in our society. It explains the good and the bad. The positives and the negatives. For my response I will focus on my third question: Is inflicting pain on humans different than inflicting pain on animals? In my opinion, I can see both sides having good arguments. We, as humans, inflict pain on others and are inflicted by pain for various reasons. We use torture on terrorists and doctors perform surgeries on patients. These are forms of pain being inflicted. Maybe the thought of inflicting pain on another person is not one of the most pleasant thoughts to think about, but what about the positive consequences of inflicting pain? Cutting up a person to donate a kidney to a person who NEEDS one, that’s inflicting pain and that is for a good cause. Scientists pretty much do the same thing to animals. They use vivisection to test certain drugs or perform different experiments on animals to benefit us. The animal usually can feel little or no pain during the procedure, just like humans during surgery. On the other side of the argument, I think it is unfair to the animal because they don’t have a choice. As humans who can speak and give consent, it isn’t bad to inflict pain on them because they agreed to it. It is not fair to the animal because they basically have no rights.

                Vivisection is very controversial and I don’t think there will ever be an agreement on if it is considered moral or immoral. But, in order for society to grow and become medically advanced, vivisection might be the answer. 

"Shooting an Elephant"

Questions

1.       How do people’s opinions influence our ability to make certain decisions?

2.       Did the shooter really want to kill the elephant?

3.       Why did the older men have a different view of killing the elephant than the younger men did?

Response

                For my response I will focus on my first question: How do people’s opinions influence our ability to make certain decisions? The short story “Shooting an Elephant”, by George Orwell, addresses the inner conflict between a British officer and the Burmese people. What the officer doesn’t want the British and the natives to know is that he is against them. He has a dilemma: Should he kill the elephant that is running loose or not?

                I think that the question really depends on what values a person has and how confident they are in them. With the man in the story, he knew that he didn’t want to kill the elephant, but he also didn’t want to be laughed at for not killing it. I think the officer felt lost, living in a country with people he despises. The officer was more concerned with what the people would think about him if he didn’t shoot it. They would laugh. They would think he is scared. They would think he is weak. I think one of the hardest things in life is to not let others opinions effect yourself and the ability to make decisions. We need to stand up for what we believe in, even if others do not agree or will make fun of you, like the officers case. I know for myself, I have been put in situations where I have had to make a decision. I have let others opinions reflect the decision I make. I believe the ability to not let others’ opinions influence your own shows confidence and also maturity. It’s much easier to follow the crowd, but why not stand up for what you believe in and make a statement? 

Commentary: Calvin Steyn

                Your essay overall is pretty good. You just need more description and add a paragraph or two on ethos because that is missing from your paper. For your title, you need to add one that reflects what you are going to be writing about. Your ideas in all of your paragraphs are very good and evaluate the success of the three appeals, but in order to persuade the reader, you need to add more evidence and explanation on why it was successful. Your intro paragraph is pretty good. I think you should add a paragraph before that giving a summary of the article that you are writing your essay on so the reader kind of gets the gist of what the article is about and what you are talking about. Your thesis is very clear and it states how all of the rhetorical strategies were successful.

            In all of your paragraphs you have a very clear topic sentence, then a quote with an explanation of how it persuades. To make your paper stronger you should add more detail to your quote expanding more on how the author is successful with the specific rhetorical style you are writing about in that paragraph.

            Your essay identifies specific examples of logical appeals used in the source text. The paragraph on logos does not include any quotes though which I think you should add. All of the information that you provide in the paragraph is sufficient and you use point out very good points that fit into the logos category. The example that you use of when Hitchens was being water boarded is a good example and makes your argument successful. I believe that readers will be persuaded by these appeals, especially if you add a little bit more explanation and detail to persuade the reader.

            Your paragraph on appeals to pathos is very good. You give a quote that strongly fits in with appeal to pathos but you need to elaborate more and explain why the use of it was successful in the article. It is a good start though; it just needs a little bit more added to it to support your thesis. 

"A Small Place"

Questions:

1.       Why is there so much hate between natives and tourists?

2.       Do tourists feel a sense of domination over second and third world countries?

3.       Why does the country of Antigua express so much disgust towards tourists?

Response:

                In Jamaica Kincaid’s book,  A Small Place, she describes the poor life of the people in Antigua and the way they view tourists; “ugly human beings”. Antiguans live in poor living conditions, but it wasn’t always like that. At one time, they were under English rule. During that time the country was very civilized and well taken care of. Today they are no longer under English rule and since then, conditions have gone downhill greatly. This leads me to the question: Why does the country of Antigua express so much disgust towards tourists? Well, first off, most of their hatred is toward American and European countries. That’s not very surprising to me because America and Europeans like to get into everyone else’s business.We like to feel like we are large and in charge at every moment of everyday. We like to help countries that do not want our help. Anyways, when a country, like Antigua, is taken over by a more civilized country, like Europe, this can cause the natives to become frustrated. I think that if America was a second or third world country, like Antigua, and a more developed country, like China or Japan, basically took over America, we would feel the way Antiguans feel about us. Antiguans see Americans and Europeans as these stuck up, rich, and overpowering countries, which we are. America and Europe are some of the most developed and technological advanced countries in the world and we sort of “flaunt it” to other lower countries, like Antigua. They don’t have fresh water or computers or a sewage system. So when tourists come to Antigua, they hate them. They hate that they don’t have what we have. Even if the tourists are nice and show respect towards them, they won’t like them because they already dislike America and Europe as a whole. They sort of have a sense of jealousy, but I don't necessarily think it is bad. If I were in their position, a country coming in an taking over, I would feel the same way they do towards tourist. They do not want any people coming into their country. But, I do believe that Antigua has a sort of grudge held against Americans and Europeans. As the Antiguan civilization continues to struggle so will the hatred of tourists.

"Regarding the Pain of Others"

Questions

1.     1. Should there be restrictions on photography of war?

2.    2.   How does the public react to these grueling photographs of war?

3.     3.  Should photographers be allowed to take a picture of the victim before they die and after their death?

Response

            For my response I will focus on my first question. Should there be restrictions on photography of war? I believe that there should be restriction on the photography of war. I think there are certain benefits and negative aspects to the photography of war. There should be restrictions on photography because a lot of the photos that are released to the public are extremely grueling and grotesque. Most of these war pictures are very shocking. Imagine hearing one of your relatives stepped on a bomb in Iraq and a few days later, you saw a picture of it. That only makes it that much worse.  Like Sontag addressed, these pictures cause anxiety. The public should be aware of what is happening, like the World Trade Center plane crash, but sometimes pictures can be a little bit too much for the public to where it causes anxiety. There is a certain point where those kinds of pictures should not be shared, especially if it is about another country. There is also the concern that many of these pictures can be staged, like Sontag explained in her article. This is basically like propaganda, but doing it through photography. These kinds of pictures should be restricted because it is sending our country the wrong message. Although I believe that there should be restrictions, I am not sure that any will ever be made. The media does a good job at making other countries look bad and the United States look good. Pictures say a lot and get a message across quite quickly, whether it is real or not.