D^2 diversity and discrimination

To Stephen Cruz, the American Dream is wrong because of the racism that controls the business industry. He talks about how he was always making a good amount of money and that he was always hired for jobs he was qualified for, but he also got them over an equally qualified person, because he was Mexican. I agree that this racism exists in the business world. Everyone wants to have a diverse group of employees because it makes them look good, and it makes them look like they aren’t discriminating. By picking people to work for you based on race (even if it is hiring and not firing) it is discriminating. Discriminating isn’t only when you do something bad to a certain race, its when you single them out for being that race. There may not be “racism” as much as there used to be, because more and more people are tolerant of other races, but they are still separating them, and using them to make their company résumé look better. By using diversity to make you look like you are diverse and tolerant, is just negating everything you are trying to do by hiring a minority. The stereotypes of races also play a big part in hiring for diversity. If its an accounting job, they are more likely going to hire the Asian, because Asians are good at math right? Or they might hire the Mexican because he will get along with anyone? Businesses want the outside to know that they have minorities working for them because it makes them look good, but they don’t let the public know that the minorities’ ideas may not be heard.

class is now in session

The essay makes the case that the wealthy are exploiting the poor by being the ones who have all the jobs and are making the money, and getting richer, while the poor are getting poorer, and just getting by in a world run by the rich. It assumes this by talking about the myths and realities that are present in American society. Other ways this could be interpreted is that the wealthy are just the ones who are trying harder, and the poor aren’t trying enough to get above the rich. I think that our society is run by the wealthy. I also think that there aren’t that many “rich” people, and that most people in America fall into the large middle class spectrum. I still think that there are many people who fall below this spectrum, and are the poor. The poor out number the rich, and the middle class out number both. You would think that the middle class would run society because they are the largest class. This isn’t true because the middle class is always working to be “rich.” They are always working for rich people, and are trying to attain what they have. In fact, they will never reach this status at which they want to be. As they gain money and continue to get “rich” the rich are also gaining more money and still will be richer than them. There will always be a poor, middle, and upper class, no matter how much each of them earn. The poor could be earning a million dollars a year, but the middle class would be earning 10 million and the upper class 20 million. I just don’t think that the classes matter that much because there will always be a difference in income and the jobs that people have. People wont just start earning the same amount for being a janitor at a hospital and being a doctor at the same hospital.

I like my meat, thank you very much

Claim: Jim should be a vegetarian
Reasons: because of animal cruelty
Grounds: examples of animal cruelty
Warrant: animal cruelty is wrong
Backing: religious beliefs, and personal narrative
Rebuttal: meat is a valuable part of a diet
Qualifier: buy from local/ organic farmers


I think that this author argues her point well. She says why she thinks he should be a vegetarian, and gives logical reasons as to why he should stop eating meat. She uses stories and appeals to pathos by explaining what happens to the animals on large factory farms. She then realizes that Jim, her audience, is not going to become a vegetarian, and suggests that he buy his meat from local and organic farmers who do not use animal cruelty to make money. She thinks that if he has to eat, he should eat the meat that is prepared in a human way.

watch the movie, dont read the book

Visual arguments can be more persuasive. Often times, an arguments could be well written, but if they aren’t written in a way that that certain person can understand and connect to, then it isn’t effective. Almost all people can connect to a visual argument. Its easy to see something put before you and to understand what it is telling you. As a visual society, we like to take the easy way, and just use the visual argument because you know just about everyone who sees it will understand it and agree or disagree. With a written or verbal argument, the audience may not understand what your claim is, or what your reasons are. Visual arguments are most likely equally as persuasive as a non-visual argument, but if given the choice of which to use, a visual argument may be more effective. Either one could be more persuasive, but the visual is more likely to get an audience.

Ethos much?

The ethical responsibilities the author has to the reader, is to be knowledgeable about the issue and to be fair. To be knowledgeable about the issue, you have to know both sides of the argument. You have to know what your claim is and all the reasons that could help you support it. You also have to know the rebuttal and all the reasons you could shut down those rebuttals. To be fair, and to improve the ethos, if you show that you understand the other viewpoint, you are more likely to get the reader to listen to your argument with an open mind. If they listen to your argument with an open mind, they are more likely to change their mind and agree with you.
Our media and our government do not often live up to these responsibilities of argument. They are often not fair and don’t present both sides of the issue. They usually just present the one they want people to believe and that’s it. That is a big reason as to why a lot of America is ignorant on political and world issues. They only listen to one thing and just believe it and don’t try to confirm it, or listen to other sides.

pseudo or irrational?

This is an argument that has happened many a time, with this person who shall remain nameless. (but not really because who else would argue this with me?)
Argument:

Me: Showing cows isn’t the same as showing horses.
Opponent: Yes it is.
Me: No, all you do is walk your cow around the ring.
Opponent: All you do is walk your horse around the ring.
Me: No, we don’t walk around the ring. There are multiple classes we enter, some we go around the ring to confirm soundness. Sometimes they are to see the way of going, others we jump courses. So, that is not the same as walking a cow around a ring.
Opponent: Yes it is, you just go around the ring.
Me: Do you RIDE a cow? No, I didn’t think so.
Opponent: That doesn’t matter.

Now, as you can see, this is clearly not an argument, because I am giving clear reasons as to why they are not the same. The other party is just using the same reasoning over and over. This is a pseudo argument because, it doesn’t go anywhere, and one side is irrational in their reasoning.

Pathos = pathology or empathy?

When arguing, using pathos is a powerful rhetoric device because of the way it gets people to read or listen to the argument. We get the words sympathy and empathy from the word pathos. When you make up a scenario that someone can relate to, like in The Case for Torture, when he uses the dying babies, you get a different reaction out of the reader than if you were to just say, “torture is right.” When you use an example like the dying babies, of course the reader is going to think, “DYING BABIES? THAT’S HORRIBLE! WE SHOULD TORTURE PEOPLE FOR THAT. ” And then, you have won your argument. The audience agreed with you because you put them into an emotional situation. Its also hard for people to think in a rational way when things that our society have decided are wrong start happening. Of course its not ok to steal, its not ok to kill someone. When you use arguments that put peoples emotions into it, it gets people to think about it differently and more personally than if you were to just say what you thought.