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. 

"9/11" and "A Few Weeks After"

Questions
1. Was the attack on the US because of modernity?
2. Did the US have any knowledge about this attack before it happened?
3. What was it like to have seen the planes crash into the twin towers? 

            I remember exactly where I was when the twin towers were attacked. I was at home getting ready to go to school. It was my brothers first day of preschool; my mom was so scared to leave him there after the cruel and gruesome things she witnessed on TV. I couldn't even imagine being in New York or on that plane on September 11, 2001. 
            In Sontag's article on 911 she talks about how the reason for the attack on the US was because of modernity, which she disagrees with.  In my opinion, i also do not believe that it was because of modernity. That is just an utter excuse to make Americans "feel better". I agree with Sontag when she says that the government was hiding the truth of the attacks to the nation. If it was an attack on modernity, then why go to war with Iraq? There were obviously other motives by the government. They thought that Iraq had bombs of mass destruction, which they did not. And as for the attack of the US based on modernity, that is just ridiculous. There had to have been other motives, not modernity. They were after something more and they sure did get their point across that they were not happy. They created an in depth and thought out plan to kill the most people possible during one single time. The US government and their alliances definitely instigated this attack. As a country, we tend to have trouble keeping to ourselves. Getting ourselves into war and other country's business has been a big problem, and it has its consequences; 911. 

Believe Me, It's Torture

Questions

1.      Is waterboarding a sufficient way to receive the truth?

2.      Should waterboarding be banished in the United States?

3.      Is waterboarding “less cruel” than other punishments such as the pincer or electrodes?

Response

            In Christopher Hitchen’s article, “Believe Me, It’s Torture”, he describes an experience that most of us will never endure and never want to endure; waterboarding. After reading this article and what he went through, I could not believe that this actually happens to people. He explained the pain and the mental effects waterboarding had on him. It feels like you are drowning, because you pretty much are drowning. Special Forces use waterboarding as a form of punishment to get information out of an enemy. As Hitchens addressed, this really does not work. The enemy is in a state of shock and pain and may not give true information. Even if it did work, no person should be punished with waterboarding to get them to give Special Forces information. That is just cruel and pure torture. It not only causes physical damage, it causes severe neurological and psychological damage. Just because you are not physically hurting them, like electrodes or other forms do, does not mean it is not considered a form of torture. It is torture. As a form of training, it should be allowed but a way of receiving information; no way.  I strongly believe that waterboarding should be banished in the United States because of the damage it does to its victims.

            I am sure that everyone has experienced one time in their life where they felt they lost control in the pool or the ocean, and thought they were almost going to drowned. I know I have. I never want to experience that feeling again and I do not believe that anyone else should be forced to have a wet towel over their face suffocate, that is wrong and it is torture.

Commentary #1- Calvin Steyn

The confirmation for this essay is clear and organized. The thesis is clear on what the essay is going to be about and most of the reasons and evidence support it. For the introduction paragraph, it is a little bit short. You want to engage the reader instead of just talking about the Lady Gaga article. Doing that alone will not interest your reader enough. There needs to be some more reasons and evidence to support the claim. That would make you argument better and more convincing to the reader.

For the second paragraph, it is a little bit confusing on the point that you are trying to get across. When you are talking about driving, it does not really tie into your thesis. I think you should change that part; it would make your claim much stronger and powerful if you added something else instead of that example. The second thing you talk about, Skype in Facebook, is valid and ties in to your thesis. I think to make it a little bit stronger; you should expand more on why it is so effective. You should also make the quote that you put into the paragraph a little bit shorter.

For the third paragraph, I think it is good. The online dating really goes with your thesis and backs it up pretty well. You should add some quotes to make it stronger. I like the example that you used about your girlfriend and how you met her on online dating. The personal experience really adds to your essay because it is something that really happened and it is also something that a lot of people may relate to.

You need to add a counter-argument the your essay. Make sure you include many different views that are clear to the reader. Once you have done that, create a compelling defense to support your claim and reasons. This hopefully will persuade the reader to take your side.

Overall your essay is good. Add a little bit more reasons and evidence that back up your thesis. Adding the counter-argument and more quotations will also improve your essay a lot too. 

Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid

Questions:

1.  How are women supposed to gain power and create a voice during a time of turmoil and male dominance?

2. Is peace more powerful than the use of weapons?

3. Why is it so normal and effortless to kill enemies?

Response:

            How are women supposed to gain power? The article Thoughts on Peace in an Air Raid was written during World War II when women were being suppressed. They were unable to fight for their country and were forced to stay in the home and do work such as making weapons or clothing. Their job was to support men, not their country. I am not exactly sure how to gain power for women, especially during a chaotic time like World War II. I believe that if men and the government actually let women have a voice, they could have had a significant impact on the war and would have given much insight. Men tend to rely on weapons and guns, while women tend to use their words. That has a huge advantage because it is not what people are expecting. I believe that words are more powerful and have more meaning than killing any person in sight.

            In order for women to gain power, it would take a lot of time and effort. Men and society would have to see the impact that women are having for them to believe that women should have power. We can even see today that women are still fighting to have equal rights, it is still a work in progress.