Tyler+Kreft

Tyler's page

Wow so this is how this is used!

Paper 3 the start to it.... How do you win an argument? Well I was always told you can’t so avoid them. How do you avoid them well just don’t bring things up that you know others will disagree with. Well we all know of the times when this route is not an option, sometimes issues need to be addressed. So how do you address an issue you feel strongly about and win a person or group of persons over to your way of thinking without actually starting an argument and or ruining a relationship with a person? The answer to that question will be addressed as I discuss two articles and explain why one is better than the other, keeping in mind that neither one of them is perfect. The two articles are __Honor Above All__ by Michael Josephson and Melissa Mertz, and Full-Service Fakery: Inside the Life of a Professional Essay Writer and Test Taker by the ABCNEWS. ABCNEWS’s essay, because of the use of a real life example which has a huge appeal to Pathos and causes an appeal to Logos and Ethos is more effective in winning over a reader/ listener to their way of thinking when compared to The Article by Josephson, and Melissa Mertz, which has a very low appeal to Pathos. The ABCNEWS’s essay is more persuasive for many reasons but first I need to explain what the main points are of the two essays. (For the sake of time and a real pain I am going to refer to ABCNEWS as the second essay.) The two articles are overall about the topic of cheating. However, the main point of essay number one—__Honor Above All__ is that cheating is not the problem, that cheating is the sprout from the root of a lack of honesty and integrity and above all honor, and that we need to promote these virtues and prevent cheating. The second essay is about an interview with a college student who writes term papers for students and takes exams for a nominal fee, the main point of this essay is that the college student in the interview, and his clients and people like them are without morals or honesty, integrity, or ethics and they are causing the general publics view of what is right and what is wrong to change for the worse. In the first essay the writer calls the reader to action and actually in a number of words says that we must go and do something about the issue, in the second article the author does not do that instead the author just states his argument and that’s it but he does it by using the words of people that he interviewed. So getting back to my thesis and main question, in order for an argument to be persuasive the persuader must show the reader or listener for that matter their respect for them and gain credibility and trust that is Ethos. The writer must have already a good reputation and always tell the truth and in the writing sound as sincere as possible to make it seem as though you really care about the issue. The writer(s) of the second article do this very well in a very unique way—to gain the appeal of Ethos. To do this the author(s) uses for the most part words from what other people said, Andy the college student, and Michael Josephson, oh and Primetime’s Charles Gibson. He uses either direct quotes or paraphrases what they said. This really helps the writers Ethos because you cant argue with the writer he didn’t say those things they are something that needs to be taken up with the person who wrote them, in a way the person is transferring the argument back to the person who made the statement. This makes the writer quite credible. The other authors appeal to Ethos in a more traditional way but it still works. They use the traditional way of making it clear and evident that they feel strongly about the subject and that there words are from the heart. It also helps their Ethos that they are cited from the Josephson Institute of Ethics. An example from the essay is, “ We are in deep trouble if young people maintain these habits…..”, this is an example of how the authors appeal to Ethos while it is OK to me it was not as effective as the strategy ABCNEWS uses in there essay. The second thing you must remember when effectively presenting an argument is to give a real life example or story of an encounter from another person to back up your claims, because how can you argue with a true story it was that own persons account you can not argue with it, at least the way they viewed it, this is your appeal to Pathos or Emotion. If done effectively with the proper examples you can have an appeal to Pathos as well as an appeal to Logos or logic which is what the author(s) of article number two do.

Journal 3, 2/6/08

Well let me see the argument strategies I used were... Well I dont know what strategy I used I kinda sorta came up with my own I guess it would be similar to that of an induction or more like rogerian style where I gave my thesis showed the views of others and adopted those views and meshed them with my own to come up with my own new idea and gave examples to support them and then gave a conclusions. I think I came across with a fairly good argument because while such a word as character can not really truly be defined I gave some more contribution to it yet I could never truly define it.

friday 2/1/08 9:20 am A3 Brute

Well lets see here why dont I first give a brief definition of the word brute. The word brute can be argued most definetly however coming from my background what I have seen in the past as well as what I have heard in the past brute entails the actions of a human being as of acting not like a normal person doing very unruly and wrng things being loud and voicstrous and having no respect for the people around you being the opposite of a gentleman, lacking kindness, lacking remorse, lacking feeling at all. Thinking before acting. I would have to say that the docter is not a brute but the patient definetly was. That argument we be left for later.

I made a substantial addition to the brute definition here it is (2/21/08)
Well let’s see here why don’t I first give a brief definition of the word brute. The word brute can be argued most definitely, however, coming from my background what I have seen in the past as well as what I have heard in the past brute entails the actions of a human being as of acting not like a normal person doing very unruly and wrong things being loud and voicstres and having no respect for the people around you being the opposite of a gentleman, lacking kindness, lacking remorse, lacking feeling at all. Not thinking before acting. I would have to say that the doctor is not a brute but the patient definitely was. That argument should be left for later.(Addition to essay Feb 21st 08) To argue this I feel that being a brute is having an ego that generally only satisfies our basic childlike instincts and not our conscious for what is right or wrong or perhaps it is because they have a lack of conscious, either way a person with a general brute like personality in most aspects would be a person who does what they want regardless of what’s right or wrong or how it makes other people feel, it doesn’t really feel remorse at all. I think the doctor is not a brute because even when he acted like he did at the time he did not feel remorse but later on he realized it and felt really bad, everybody has their moments of frustration and he was only at the time letting his emotions get ahead of him and doing what he had to in order to help the patient. The patient on the other hand was the brute because he doesn’t care about the doctor and the fact that he is trying to help him and that he is under arrest and needs to respect people, he just doesn’t have control over it he has no conscious of what is right and wrong, he only acts on his basic caveman instincts, and afterwards he doesn’t feel remorse or any emotion for what he has done. So we can think like brutes all day long but not until we project out our instincts and they go against what I would call societies general interpretation of right and wrong and we do this in our everyday lives without any remorse, guilt or feelings of wrongness of our actions do we truly become brutes.
 * A3 Brute on page 376 **

Monday 2/4/08 Word Definition Essay =**Read This!!!**=

In the Sigma Chi fraternity to become an active brother one must go through pledging which as defined by an Alma College Alumni Nick Green, is “some of the most serious personal introspection and you will think about your life in different ways than you did before”. Before pledging though an individual must be given an invitation to join the fraternity. To be given an invitation a person is evaluated by all of the active members of the fraternity chapter. The individual is evaluated to something called a Jordan Standard. The requirements of the Jordan Standard read—A man of good character, a student of fair ability, with ambitious purposes, a congenial disposition, possessed of good morals, having a high sense of honor and a deep sense of personal responsibility. On this essay I would like to look at what it means to have good character or for that matter bad character. The definition of character according to Merriam-Webster is one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual. I have done a lot of researching around on the internet and asking friends what they believe to be a definition of character and from all of that I have come up with my own definition. My definition of character is this—How an individual acts and reacts to situations in life, how that person presents six ethical values that we base our decisions on as described by the Josephson Institute as the six pillars. These six pillars are trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship. An individual who presents these six pillars in their life has good character. Now that I have evaluated that much now I must look at each pillar of character and I will begin with trustworthiness. This can be looked at with as much complexity as character so I will try to keep it shorter. To be trusted by others is just a quality that a person must build. If I am going to lend money to a person I am going to want to know that they will pay me back. It’s a matter of credibility am I able to determine based on past events that I can trust this person. Trustworthiness is a very complex idea where we are held accountable by not only our friends but ourselves. To be trustworthy entails even more values such as Honesty in truthfulness, sincerity and not imposing obligations on others, also integrity, reliability, and loyalty. As you can see character is a difficult word to define. I believe that a person can never have a perfect character but should always strive for it in every situation in life. I also believe character can be characterized in many ways but while on the internet I have stumbled upon countless quotes and throughout this essay I would like to share them with the reader, this one from an anonymous person reads, “Everyone tries to define this thing called character. It’s not hard. Character is doing what’s right when nobody’s looking.” This I believe to be very true, this however is only just another way that a person can present good character. The next broad pillar of character I would like to look at is respect. As defined by the Josephson Institute it is “The Golden Rule—do unto others as you would have them do unto you—nicely illustrates the Pillar of respect. Respect prohibits violence, humiliation, manipulation, and exploitation. It reflects notions such as civility, courtesy, decency, dignity, autonomy, tolerance and acceptance.” I think a good example of respect is how a Judge in a court of law judges a person in his courtroom. Deep down within every human being no matter how immoral and how unethical a persons decisions may be there is always a little bit of good, and it is the judges job to find that in a person. To no matter how bad they may be to treat them with respect, dignity, and courtesy just as they would want to be treated. Another quote I feel fits this Pillar is one by the Famous Dale Carnegie reads, “Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain but it takes character and self control to be understanding and forgiving.” The next Pillar of character is responsibility; again I would like to use the definition that the Josephson Institute has come up with which reads—“Being responsible means being in charge of our choices and, thus, our lives. It means being accountable for what we do and who we are. It also means recognizing that our actions matter and we are morally on the hook for the consequences. Our capacity to reason and our freedom to choose make us morally autonomous and, therefore, answerable for whether we honor or degrade the ethical principles that give life meaning and purpose.” It also means to be always mind-full of your actions in your work to always try your best and to always try to do better to strive for excellence, to have perseverance and a positive attitude. A person of responsibility must also have restraint from certain things in life that they know are bad for not only others but themselves. I think responsibility derives from ones thoughts of knowing what to do but then doing it, and here is an anonymous quote I think is fitting for this idea of responsibility,--“Watch your thoughts, for they become words. Watch your words, for they become actions. Watch your actions for they become habits. Watch your habits, for they become character. Watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.” The next Pillar of Character is fairness. I think it means doing to right thing but how do I define that, well again I look to the Josephson Institute to define

that one and they define it as, “adherence to a balanced standard of justice without relevance to ones own feelings or inclinations.” I would like to define it

through an example of the judicial process which is to settle a certain dispute and it is the job of the courts to to this by not waiting for the truth to come

to them but to seek out the truth and decide on a impartial basis without favoritism or prejudice the right decision to make the situation just and fair. I think

of back in high school when the teacher would have a pop quiz and one of the students would say, but this is not fair, and the teacher would reply with no

its not the fair is down on barns street during the end of July and the beginning of August. That I just laugh at not know whether it is fair or not because

with every situation there are so many extenuating circumstances. Fairness is just another way that you can treat others.

The fifth Pillar I would like to discuss is Caring. I believe this one to be one the most important and one which needs to be addressed in today’s society

because it is very much lost in our world. Its as if it has gone dormant in humans. To survive as a society we will have to reawaken this trait for the ability

to care for one another is what sets us apart from all other creatures on earth. I was watching the movie H. G. Wells the time machine today and this was

depicted that thousands of years from now the trait of caring for the well being for others lied dormant. It took the actions of the time traveler to reawaken

that trait. I think I need to define that trait though as just putting the well-being of all others before yourself. I think I am a good example of that for I would

do anything for anybody even If I really dislike a person will even make that ultimate because I have that in my character to have empathy for others an

emotional response to another person’s pain or pleasure. This is what the Josephson Institute defines as the highest form of caring—the honest

expression of benevolence, or altruism.

The sixth and final Pillar I will discuss is the idea of Citizenship. How I would define it is a good model citizen who knows the laws and obeys them. It

however should not be limited to that, this person is involved with his or her community; he or she has the civic responsibility to vote, to take a part and

contribute to society to make it a better place for others now and the future generations, always giving back more than they take to their society, from any

point of view this person should always be doing what is best for the whole the people and the environment, without concern for themselves.

“Those who preserve their integrity remain unshaken by the storms of daily life. They do not stir like leaves of a tree or follow the herd where it runs. In their

mind remains the ideal attitude and conduct of living. This is not something given to them by others. It is their roots… it is a strength that exists deep

within them.”—Anonymous Native American. As you can see there are many ways to define the word character but the fact of the matter is at least from

what I have seen and taken in during my life is that character is not the ability to have these six pillars in your thoughts but to use and apply them in your

life through your actions, and also to influence them upon others to make society a better place for us all. As I discussed in the beginning of this essay

the Sigma Chi fraternity and the Jordan Standard with the seven qualities the first being a man of good character the rest I believe to be just manifestations

of good character. I think my definition of character is one of many which can be argued for hours on end yet I think my definition covers a lot while I may

not have covered it all what I have covered cannot be argued as not being part of the ideal definition of the word Character.

=Paper 1:**Read This and the paper above!!!**= As I sit here and read my article over for the third time trying to find something to persuade readers on—I can not help but think that this is one the hardest persuasive writing assignments I have ever done. When I write a persuasive essay the question is either yes or no, should this happen or should this not happen, sort of a black and white question, also the issue is usually something I truly care about. In this situation I am given an article and have to take my own response from it and find an issue with it that I think at least to me is relatively important and I truly care about. With the notion that the English language should be declared the official language of the United States up in the in- I am disgusted. How—in a world with so many issues at hand can human beings dispute over something so trivial? These individuals are wasting my oxygen. I suppose I have found my main argument, which is the fact that human beings need to stop worrying about trivial matters and actually solve and or help alleviate some of our worlds more important issues. While being able to communicate with other human beings in the United States is important it really is not a problem worth my energy. If it were up to me I would do nothing I would keep things just the way they are, I would not accommodate for other languages by building new infrastructure and mandating laws that everything be in this that and the other language. Nor would I mandate that you must learn English to be in America. Capitalism and the economy will naturally control these issues. We never did anything drastic in the past, so why should we now? Instead of discussing and debating how we should make English the official language or how we should accommodate all languages, we could have been putting that time to issues like finding a cure for cancer or AIDS. My next point as to why in my view the issue is irrelevant is that it is a waste of time and money. First of all think of all the money you would be paying congress to pass such an act. Then if a Bill was passed that English was the official language, money would be pulled out of taxpayer’s pocket books to pay for classes to teach the English language. Then you would have the issue of what should be taught, how much we should charge the taxpayers, should accents be an issue. The costs would be astronomical—the issues that would arise would be endless. Our world has many issues that need to be assessed if you have time to read this you have time to do something about them. I try to think about it on a smaller scale. Picture this—your father just had a heart attack and was just rushed to the emergency room. You and your sibling are driving to the hospital and all your sibling can think about is what he/ or she is going to eat for dinner. Now consider if it were mandated that we must accommodate to other languages. If we do it for one language we must do it for all languages—everywhere. Our highways would be cluttered with signs of every language. When you read an instruction manual it would be like a dictionary. I feel this phrase fits the situation—if it is not broken, do not fix it. If human beings were not so inherently concerned about themselves but others the world would be a better place. The idea here is that helping others is a win-win situation. Everything goes full circle, if you look out for the well-being of others they will in turn look out for you. If you step back and handle the biggest problems first most of the smaller ones will solve themselves.