Post #5

Logical Fallacies

It is always important when reading, writing, and thinking to find logical fallacies in your work or in the work of others. Avoiding these fallacies, people can create more persuasive and meaningful arguments. The following is a comment to an editorial (see link at bottom) regarding the banning of handguns. In this comment, I have pointed out a couple logical fallacies in the writer's argument:

I would first like to say that I respect the opinions of this author and the many people who share similar beliefs. In fact, I'm not even writing this to state an opinion on the topic of banning handguns. I am simply writing this comment to cordially point out a couple logical fallacies I have found in this editorial.

First, this editorial begins by listing a few examples of things that have been legally banned in the past, and then links them to banning handguns. The question implicitly asked is, "How can we ban all these things, but when it comes to banning handguns, we are reluctant?" The logical fallacy of this argument is called "false analogy." A group of authors, Maimon, Peritz, and Yancey, have defined this fallacy as, "A comparison in which a surface similarity masks a significant difference." While all these things share something in common (they are all potentially harmful to people and things) the argument ignores the difference between each one, and especially the differences found when each one of them is compared to handguns. Again, I'm not trying to prove that handgus should remain in the ownership of citizens, I just want to show where the logic of this argument fails. Each one of these things compared (pit bull dogs, pesticides, smoking, sexually active homosexuals donating organs, and handguns) has pros and cons, which are not evaluated here. Obviously, courts have decided that the ons of these things, minus handguns, outweigh the pros. However, handguns have yet to fit in with the others. It is possible that the pros of owning handguns outweigh the cons. Therefore, using these other situations to be examples of why handguns should also be banned is a fallacy.

The second logical fallacy that this editorial contains is called "hasty generalizations." Again, Maimon, Peritz, and Yancey offer a definition. They define this as, "A conclustion based on inadequate evidence." Unlike the first fallacy, there is not a specific example of this in the text, but instead, the argument as a whole contains this inadequate logic. The basic argument of this editorial is that handguns should be banned because they cause death and injury to innocent people, and if we don't do so, many more will die. This may possibly be true, but there is no evidence in this editorial that supports it. Isn't it possible that people will find, or even have at hand, other ways to kill and/or injure people? Is it true that by banning handguns people's safety will increase? Whatever the answers to these questions may be, this editorial fails to answer them will enough evidence. Inadequate evidence leaves too many available questions, thus weakening the overall claim.

I hope these logical fallacies are accepted and possible considered in the future. Thank you for writing editorials that initiate thought. Whatever the views of the writer or reader may be, it is always important that we think throught controversial topics such as this one.

http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/pageView.html?id=c1ee8c4417a307f20117ae97aa6100eb&commentId=c1ee8c421faae21a01206ee8bb760609

Post #4

Giving Up or Taking Away?

"Warning: If you are reading this then this warning is for you. Every word you read of this useless fine print is another second off your life. Don't you have other things to do? Is your life so empty that you honestly can't think of a better way to spend these moments? Or are you so impressed with authority that you give respect and credence to all that claim it? Do you read everything you're supposed to read? Do you think every thing you're supposed to think? Buy what you're told to want? Get out of your apartment. Meet a member of the opposite sex. Stop the excessive shopping and masturbation. Quit your job. Start a fight. Prove you're alive. If you don't claim your humanity you will become a statistic. You have been warned- Tyler."

"We're consumers. We are by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty, these things don't concern me. What concerns me are celebrity magazines, television with 500 channels, some guy's name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra."

"You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your...khakis. You're the all-singing, all-dancing crap of the world."

Considering the characters' revolt against "the system" in the movie Fight Club, is their alternative a better one?

Fight Club, directed by David Fincher, is an intriguing story. For those of you who haven't seen the movie, here's the story in a nutshell. A man with severe insomnia meets another man named Tyler Durden. Together they form a club called Fight Club in which people forget their worries and ties to the world and simply beat each other out. The club grows, eventually reaching all the major cities in the United States. It is filled with people who need fulfillment in their lives. In the growth, Tyler changes "Fight Club" into "Project Mayhem" in which the members give up all worldly possessions and terrorize the city. Tyler's ultimate goal is to eliminate social classes by destroying all major credit card companies, forcing America to financially start over. In the end, we learn that Tyler is just a personality that the man with insomnia has created in his mind. He represents what this man wants to be, and throughout the movie he becomes more and more like Tyler.

The "system" teaches that the more money and power you have, and the longer you live, the happier you will be. It teaches that these are the things you must have to be content with life. The primary focus of Fight Club and Project Mayhem is to forget all these worldly pleasures and ties to the world. The people in this club have decided to live their lives with no questions and no regrets. Instead of worrying about how long they'll live, they live to experience life. They don't pursue riches because they find them to be meaningless. Project Mayhem takes these ideas and attempts to spread them to people around the nation. Personally, I agree with their outlook; however, I think their way of living out this perspective is wrong.

The idea that pleasures in this world are not fully satisfying is very true. Millions of people every day wear their lives out trying to get rich and find success. I have found, through experience and observation, that the happiest people in this world are those who have given up or have never had riches. In doing this, we can focus on meaningful things such as love, kindness, and generosity. We stop focusing on ourselves and can focus on others. Giving up our ties to long life will allow us to experience an exciting and fulfilling life. We won't hold back on the fun things in life just because we want to survive.

While their motives were great, Tyler Durden and his club brought these ideas to an extreme, going too far. Living your own life for fulfillment is one thing, but we should never force that upon others by terrorizing them and creating havoc. The idea of forcing one's ideals on another has been a reoccurring problem in world history. Violence is not the answer. So while Tyler's basis of his actions was pure, I cannot say that I support his actions. His alternative to the system was too extreme and will only lead to failure. Giving something up for yourself is one thing, but taking something away from others is another thing...a thing that we have no right to do.

Post #3

The Fear of Nothing

The sure extinction that we travel to
And shall be lost in always. Not to be here,
Not to be anywhere,
And soon; nothing more terrible, nothing more true.

This is a special way of being afraid
No trick dispels. Religion used to try,
That vast, moth-eaten musical brocade
Created to pretend we never die,
And specious stuff that says No rational being
Can fear a thing it will not feel, not seeing
That this is what we fear - no sight, no sound,
No touch or taste or smell, nothing to think with,
Nothing to love or link with,
The anesthetic from which none come round.
- Philip Larkin


This poem is an expression of the narrator's fear of death. It is broken into two parts, which is significant. The first section of the poem can be seen as the introduction. It shows the meaning of the rest of the poem. Although abstract and ambiguous, the meaning of this introduction can be inferred. It points out the inescapable fate that we all have...death. The attitude toward death is sad, expressing a fear of nothingness.

The second section of this poem builds up to the narrator's reason for this fear of death. By paraphrasing this section, we can see with more clarity what the narrator is saying: There is a special fear that nothing can drive away. Religion has tried to drive it away by saying that we don't actually die. Some have tried rationalizing, saying that you can't fear something you can't feel. But that is the very things we fear...no sight, sound, feeling, taste, or smell. Nothing to think, love, or connect with. We are nothing when we die. It's like taking an anesthetic but never waking up. The fear is not the process of dying but the nothingness which is death. The narrator takes what other people say about death, how they try to comfort the fears, and points out the idiocy of the rationalizations. The narrator thinks that the religious beliefs of an afterlife are ridiculous and were only thought up to answer the many questions about death. Just like the Ancient Romans changed Christianity to match their lifestyle, religions have created the thought of an afterlife to cope with their fears. Nothing can comfort the fear of the inevitable nothingness.

The narrator is able to draw this conclusion with the supporting examples of religion and rational thinking. When the reader looks back at the poem, after breaking it apart, he or she can understand that this very conclusion is what the introduction, the first section of the poem, is saying. Larkin did not directly state what the poem was about. Figurative language, ambiguous thought, and the mood of the poem make the reader question the meaning of the art work. When that reader breaks it apart, it is made clear what the issue is.

Post #2

"We shall fight them on the beaches" - Winston Churchill.

This speech by Winston Churchill instilled patriotism and determination not only in the people of England, but in people around the whole world who feared and/or abhorred the tyrannical power of Hitler.

Act: Speech to the Parliament
Scene: June 4, 1940; House of Commons
Agent: Winston Churchill, Prime Minister
Agency: Parliament
Purpose: Update the Parliament about the war and instill determination in them.

Winston Churchill is known around the world for his speeches and actions during World War II. During a time when the liberty and safety of the world was at risk, Churchill rose up as a leader and fought against the tyranny. This particular speech, given on June 4, 1940, really shows his love for his country and his world.

By analyzing this speech using proper context, and the pentad (act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose), we can determine the motive behind the words spoken. England was struggling in the war. Just before this speech was given, they were forced to evacuate their soldiers from Dunkirk, France. This was a dangerous mission and an example to the Parliament of the extreme perils of the war. The French and the Canadians were fighting alongside England, but the United States had yet to offer their military support. Churchill saw a need for a military boost. The basic act and scene of this situation was a speech given to the Parliament in the House of Commons on June 4th. By observing Churchill's tone of voice and word usage, it is clear that his purpose was not only to update the Parliament about the current issues, but also to motivate and inspire them to fight hard and long against the Nazis. It is also clear that he does not want his world to fall into the hands of a corrupt leader. I can confidently state that Churchill's motivation behind his speech is his love for his county, freedom, and security.

The end of this speech is so memorable and effective due to the use of repetition. Repeating the phrase "we shall fight," Churchill makes it clear what must be done; England would not cower from the war. On the contrary, they will fight with all their power to avoid the tyranny of Hitler.

With confidence in himself and in his country, Winston Churchill delivered an effective and memorable speech from the heart.

-link to full text: http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=393

Post #1

Blogging allows me to be myself and express my opinions creatively. Not being confined to the rules of MLA, APA, and other standard writing formats, I can be free to be who I was created to be and say what I want to say. I believe every person was created uniquely. We see and experience different things throughout our lives. My perspective of this world is my own, and blogging is a way for me to depict that perspective in a creative way, through pictures, music, sounds, writings, and other documents. I will not be afraid to share my opinions, beliefs, and ideas in this blog. I should never be afraid to do so...but that is easier said than done. This blog will show my unique way of seeing the world.

My unique self...my way of seeing the world has been influenced by many, but there is one person who outweighs all the others. A man who lived a long time ago taught me to be the best I can be. He taught me how to live, and then he died for me, so that I can have hope after death. Jesus Christ is the most influential person in my life. I try to base my life of Jesus' life. "What Would Jesus Do?" It sounds cliche, but it is so meaningful. Because of his love, I want to share love. My favorite place in the world, a place where Jesus' love overflows, is the El Sauzal Orphanage in San Antonio de Las Minas, Mexico. Every summer I go down there with a group to see the kids and help out however we can. Jesus gives hope to all, even these children who have virtually nothing.

This is me and what has made me to be who I am. I'm not ashamed or embarrassed.