1. I am trying to change how people look at and fear Pit Bulls.
2. I am writing my paper to people who believe that Pit Bulls are more ferocious than other breeds of dogs and that think Pit Bulls are not safe.
3. I am trying to appeal to their values by making the situations relatable to them and explaining the reality of the situations. Also by giving emotional examples.
4. My audience should believe me because I am passionate about the topic and use personal examples.
5. The change should be made because innocent dogs are being killed and taken from families. People don't understand that their fears are irrational.
6. That Pit Bulls do indeed attack people.
7. I answer that point by explaining why they attack people and discuss how other dogs attack people just as often.
8. Another argument point is that the dogs have a bad history of fighting.
9. I would answer that by explaining that their history was created by humans so we are equal to blame.
10. Pit Bulls themselves, the dog owners, dog lovers, people who fear the dogs, and myself will all benefit.
Thursday, November 26, 2015
Sunday, November 22, 2015
Paper #3 Rough Draft
Holly Snider
Position Paper
November 21st 2015
Sonia Begert English 101
Year
after year, misunderstood animals are killed in attacks towards humans. Leading
these numbers of killed animals are Pit Bulls. So, people begin to wonder,
“Should Pit Bulls be banned?” Pit Bulls, are “bully breed” dogs. Claiming that
in particular these animals regularly attack people, are not family safe, and
have a high temper. Many people believe these animals are viscous, aggressive,
and scary dogs. But, these accusations are wrong. Pit Bulls are not any more
aggressive or viscous than any other dog. Any dog can be trained or become
aggressive. It simply depends on the dog and the owner, not the breed. How can it
be fair to ban these dogs?
Places
in America have chosen to ban these animals. For example, Aurora Colorado, they
claim to have originally banned these dogs after a series of attacks. But now
are questioning to allow them. Many people in that area have spoken up and
presented their opinions and ideas. Innocent Pit Bulls in this area were taken
from homes and families by law enforcement without warrant. (2)
I have had four dogs that fall into
the Pit Bull category. They have been the best pets and friends anyone could
ever ask for. I would never question my trust or love invested in these
beautiful dogs. They have all played well with other dogs, greeted humans with
joy, and snuggled to their hearts content. My current dog, Kona, completes my
family. These dogs make fantastic pets and friends, taking them from a family
would be destroying the family altogether. Why would that be acceptable? Why
should the wholeness of my family depend on someone else’s opinion? It
shouldn’t.
According
to, HidingTheTruth.com, one of the biggest fears that come from people towards
Pit Bulls is that they so frequently attack people. “Sadly,
pit bulls are often blamed for attacks that were actually committed by other
breeds, furthering the unwarranted fear of these dogs.” The media does more coverage about Pit Bull
attacks than it does other breeds. So when there is an attack it is made to
seem like a more important situation than one with a different type of dog. (3)
Society does not see the severity of other dog bites or aggression because it
is often taken with a grain of salt. Whereas, Pit Bulls are automatically to
blame. These media stories surrounding Pit Bull attacks sell well, which
encourages the media to keep writing them and exaggerating them. (3) Without
the media these dogs could possibly not be blamed for so many inaccurate attack
accusations.
Another
highly common assumption is that Pit Bulls are not family safe pets. People
seem to believe that these dogs cannot do well with young kids. “In truth, pit bulls are
innately wonderful family pets, as capable of love and good deeds as any other
type of dog.” (4) Any dog can be a good family dog, it just depends on the
specific dog and owner. “A century ago, the pit bull was considered a family
dog, featured in family photos and trusted as loving companions for
children.”(4) Ken Foster explains through the book how the Pit Bulls family
image has changed, but attitude has remained. They are still just as capable of
being compassionate, loving family members. In most ways, it really is the
owner not the dog.
A lot of people claim that it is
indeed the dog not the owner. Because people simply are not the problem. (1) Well,
in my opinion this is simply ignorance. Believing that it is a certain group of
dogs that are 100% the problem and humans have nothing to do with it. Some
people would compare that to categorizing one group (or race) of people to be
the problem. Sound familiar? Society considers that to be unacceptable, so why
is it acceptable to blame one group of dogs? Clearly discrimination is part of
the problem. If people treated the animals right, and the dogs were raised with
love and greeted with joy, don’t you believe they would be caring and greet
humans with joy? I do, and I have living proof from four amazing creatures that
I have grown up with through my entire life.
Another argument that society discusses
is that Pit Bulls have a higher and less predictable temper than other breeds
of dogs. This is not true. This is just another myth. (3) According to a study
by Dr. Joel C. B, on average Pit Bulls do better in a temper test than the
whole dog population. If these animals could not pass the test they would not
be put up for adoption, which is not the case because many of these dogs are adopted
each year. If Pit Bulls had an unpredictable temper they would not serve as
therapy dogs, search and rescue help, educators, and pets in many homes. (4)
Many people still believe that
Pit Bulls are fighting dogs. But, what they forget to realize is that people
are the ones who taught them and most of the time forced them to be fighting
animals. When it comes to banning these creatures or worse, it is wrong.
Repeatedly blaming this breed, is making no progress and is an accurate
judgement. It so clearly goes far beyond that. The owners and abusers are the
ones to blame. Any animal or human can be taught and display aggression. Most
of the time out of fear. Therefore the dogs are fearing the humans. So
shouldn’t the humans be considered the “scary” ones?
Are the fears directed at Pit
Bulls irrational? I certainly believe so. Are these animals scary and
aggressive? Absolutely. But so can another breed of dogs along with people.
Blaming these dogs in only exhibiting cruelty. If it Pit Bulls are banned, or
worse, they will be taken from their loving families, destroying the family. It
is never a good thing when families are torn apart. It is false that Pit Bulls
are not family safe pets. Claiming that have a high temper is inaccurate,
proved by Dr. Joel C. B. All in all, the most appropriate thing to do is treat
these creatures with respect and love. “Blame the deed, not the breed.”(3)
Thursday, November 19, 2015
In Class Lab: 11-19
Should pit bulls be banned?
no
In this article it explains that pit bulls aren’t the dogs people
always refer to them as. “What may surprise some people is that pit bull is not
a breed of dog. Instead, it is a term used to describe several breeds of dogs
including the American Staffordshire Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier,
The English Bull Terrier and the American Pit Bull Terrier. Some organizations
also include the American Bulldog.” (quotation from hidingthetruth.com)
general information and opinions-news article
In 9news says that pitbulls have been banned from Aurora after a
series of attacks…now the debate is whether or not to let them come back into the
city after being banned. (paraphrased from 9news online article)
myths
According to myths about pitbulls on dogsbite.org, “the
outdated debate, "It's the owner, not the breed," has caused the pit
bull problem to grow into a 30-year old problem.1
Designed to protect pit bull breeders and owners...” later in the article
another one of the common myths are shown, “Pit bulls have the highest propensity and
frequency of any dog breed to be involved in a severe mauling.
Media members understand this and are quick to report such attacks.”
(dogsbite.org)
https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=fZW1CgAAQBAJ
Works Cited
“Pit bull myths.” DogsBite.org. DogsBite.org, 2015. Web.
19 Nov. 2015.
“Pit bulls dangerous or just
misunderstood?” 9news.com. Tegna,
2014. Web. 19 Nov. 2015.
Dr. Joel C. B “Should Pit
Bulls be Banned?” HidingTheTruth.com. TheBlog,
2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2105.
Ken Foster. I’m A Good Dog: Pit Bulls, America’s Most
Beautiful (and Misunderstood) Pet. New York: Penguin, 2012. Print.
Wednesday, November 18, 2015
Katherine Spriggs Response
#1. Spriggs has convinced me that this topic matters by using multiple reliable sources, sharing opinions and providing facts. Along with, background information and comparisons between bug and smaller farms. She establishes the importance of her topic by using those comparisons and making it relatable and reasonable to a large group of people everywhere.
#2. The author considers the opinion of labor costs. She explains that locally grown food is usually more expansive than industrial grown food. Which is usually because of labor costs. She responds by examining what happens to that money. How it stays in the local economy instead of being shipped all around.
#3. I think that the most effective part of the essay is the conclusion. She does a great job of giving a summary while still leaving in impact. It does have persuasive parts to it. She provides an explicit position, background information, and most importantly relates well to values. She appeals to emotional values, ethical values, and logical values very well.
#4. In the essay there are multiple pictures, and I think that it helps with the overall message. They all show things that are part of the farm business, but also that people have seen. They each have a take on each side, for example the picture of the semis give a negative point while the picture of the organic squash is more positive.
#2. The author considers the opinion of labor costs. She explains that locally grown food is usually more expansive than industrial grown food. Which is usually because of labor costs. She responds by examining what happens to that money. How it stays in the local economy instead of being shipped all around.
#3. I think that the most effective part of the essay is the conclusion. She does a great job of giving a summary while still leaving in impact. It does have persuasive parts to it. She provides an explicit position, background information, and most importantly relates well to values. She appeals to emotional values, ethical values, and logical values very well.
#4. In the essay there are multiple pictures, and I think that it helps with the overall message. They all show things that are part of the farm business, but also that people have seen. They each have a take on each side, for example the picture of the semis give a negative point while the picture of the organic squash is more positive.
Page 80 Response
Wednesday, Nov 18, 2015 04:00 PM PST
(Credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson/AP/Jim Cole/Photo montage by Salon)
No, really, I’ll only vote for Bernie Sanders — and Paris helps explain why
This is a once-in-a-lifetime chance to vote for Bernie Sanders and I'm not going to waste it
Topics:
Hillary Clinton,
Bernie Sanders,
Rand Paul,
2016 Elections,
Iraq,
liberal democrats, Politics News
(Credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson/AP/Jim Cole/Photo montage by Salon)
Before
I explain why the Democratic National Committee needs to be taught a
constructive lesson by responsible voters, let me dispel some myths.
These conspiracy theories revolve around the view that I’m a closet
libertarian, or Republican, based upon one article
written solely from an anti-perpetual war vantage point. For the
record, I’m a lifelong Democrat who feels that perpetual American wars
are the biggest moral dilemma our country currently faces.
President Obama sent troops back to Iraq in late 2014, so I grudgingly wrote the article because I didn’t want another American to be sent off to never-ending counterinsurgency wars. Since half to two-thirds of all the Americans killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were the victims of IED blasts, I felt a need to write something provocative. Writing it was bizarre, and I even stated within the piece that, “If Rand Paul picks Mike Huckabee as his running mate, I’ll ‘evolve’ towards Hillary.”
It’s
amusing to me that I was more willing to vote for Hillary Clinton back
then than I am today, especially considering that certain detractors
have accused me of being an ardent Paul supporter, even when the title
of the piece used to disparage me reads, “I’m a Liberal Democrat.” For
the one millionth time, I certainly am not a supporter of Rand Paul and
believe he’s on the wrong side of history on almost every issue. I’ve
never voted for a Republican in my life and won’t because of one
headline.
In hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have written the article, but at least I never voted for the Iraq War, opposed gay marriage until 2013, supported an environmental disaster in the waiting named Keystone XL, opposed the decriminalization of marijuana, or had the FBI investigate my emails. Imagine somebody doing all those things and expecting to win the Democratic nomination? At least I hope the FBI isn’t investigating my emails, but if they are, I’d have no need to plead the Fifth like some people.
To further dispel certain ad hominem attacks, please follow me on a trip down memory lane. My first piece in Salon was published last year and titled “Paul Ryan’s Much-Needed History Lesson: What He Really Needs to Learn About Urban Poverty.” I’ve written articles in the Hill titled “Illegal Immigrants Benefit the U.S. Economy” and “The Confederate Flag Is ‘America’s Swastika.’” Many months back, before I realized Bernie Sanders was needed at this point in U.S. history, I was published in the Baltimore Sun advocating “O’Malley Is Better Than Hillary Clinton. Here’s Why.” As for my view of female presidents, I wrote, “Elizabeth Warren, Not Hillary Clinton, Should Be the Next President of the United States.”
Before writing primarily about Bernie, my Huffington Post blog posts ranged from titles like “Tea Party Hatred of Obama Has Always Been About Race” to one piece titled “America Will Be a Stronger Nation When Gay Marriage and Marijuana Are Legalized Nationally.” I’ve also had the honor of being on HuffPost Live to discuss race in America. I’m a regular on Ring of Fire and “The Benjamin Dixon Show” and once debated Jesse Lee Peterson on illegal immigration.
Am I liberal enough for you?
If not, just watch my March 2, 2015, appearance on MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell,” discussing the “SNL” skit on ISIS and why America shouldn’t listen to the war hawks (like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News) about sending more Americans to fight in the Middle East.
Just by glancing at my state-of-the-art website, one can tell that I’m far to the left of the average Clinton voter, and my 60-second YouTube segment offers enough reasons to vote only for Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Also, there’s not a soul on this planet who’d say that George Orwell would vote for Hillary Clinton, and I explain why Orwell would only vote for Bernie Sanders in this YouTube segment. If you’re certain that Clinton is the pragmatic choice in 2016, I also highlight here why the former secretary of state is unelectable due to negative favorability and why only Bernie can win.
President Obama sent troops back to Iraq in late 2014, so I grudgingly wrote the article because I didn’t want another American to be sent off to never-ending counterinsurgency wars. Since half to two-thirds of all the Americans killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan were the victims of IED blasts, I felt a need to write something provocative. Writing it was bizarre, and I even stated within the piece that, “If Rand Paul picks Mike Huckabee as his running mate, I’ll ‘evolve’ towards Hillary.”
ADVERTISING
In hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have written the article, but at least I never voted for the Iraq War, opposed gay marriage until 2013, supported an environmental disaster in the waiting named Keystone XL, opposed the decriminalization of marijuana, or had the FBI investigate my emails. Imagine somebody doing all those things and expecting to win the Democratic nomination? At least I hope the FBI isn’t investigating my emails, but if they are, I’d have no need to plead the Fifth like some people.
To further dispel certain ad hominem attacks, please follow me on a trip down memory lane. My first piece in Salon was published last year and titled “Paul Ryan’s Much-Needed History Lesson: What He Really Needs to Learn About Urban Poverty.” I’ve written articles in the Hill titled “Illegal Immigrants Benefit the U.S. Economy” and “The Confederate Flag Is ‘America’s Swastika.’” Many months back, before I realized Bernie Sanders was needed at this point in U.S. history, I was published in the Baltimore Sun advocating “O’Malley Is Better Than Hillary Clinton. Here’s Why.” As for my view of female presidents, I wrote, “Elizabeth Warren, Not Hillary Clinton, Should Be the Next President of the United States.”
Before writing primarily about Bernie, my Huffington Post blog posts ranged from titles like “Tea Party Hatred of Obama Has Always Been About Race” to one piece titled “America Will Be a Stronger Nation When Gay Marriage and Marijuana Are Legalized Nationally.” I’ve also had the honor of being on HuffPost Live to discuss race in America. I’m a regular on Ring of Fire and “The Benjamin Dixon Show” and once debated Jesse Lee Peterson on illegal immigration.
Am I liberal enough for you?
If not, just watch my March 2, 2015, appearance on MSNBC’s “The Last Word With Lawrence O’Donnell,” discussing the “SNL” skit on ISIS and why America shouldn’t listen to the war hawks (like Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Fox News) about sending more Americans to fight in the Middle East.
Just by glancing at my state-of-the-art website, one can tell that I’m far to the left of the average Clinton voter, and my 60-second YouTube segment offers enough reasons to vote only for Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Also, there’s not a soul on this planet who’d say that George Orwell would vote for Hillary Clinton, and I explain why Orwell would only vote for Bernie Sanders in this YouTube segment. If you’re certain that Clinton is the pragmatic choice in 2016, I also highlight here why the former secretary of state is unelectable due to negative favorability and why only Bernie can win.
Voting for Bernie Sanders-and Paris explains Why:
An Explicit Position: She believes that democrats need to be taught a lesson and republicans have the correct points of view, specifically right now on the Syrian crisis.
A response to what others have said: People call her a "closet Libertian". She responded with "Am I liberal enough for you?"
Appropriate background information: The author explains information about previous democratic decisions and debates. Along with military decisions. She explains her personal views and how they have changed.
A clear indication of why the topic matters: Its politics. Almost everyone cares. She talks about current relatable issues.
Good reasons and evidence: There is good reason for writing the article but it is mostly her opinion so there isn't a lot of "good reason" or "evidence". There is actual information about the past.
Attention to more than one point of view: There is brief overview of the other side but it is mostly one opinion that is explained and discussed.
An authoritive tone: I think she presents her opinion very strongly and uses a good authortive tone.
An appeal to readers values: Logical views are pointed out. A little bit of emotional views but not much are shown. Ethical views are in the article and appealed to depending on the way the article is interpreted and read.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Possible Position Topics
Possible Topics for Paper #3:
Pitbulls
Abortion
Standardized Test
Social Media
Technology in general
Climate Change
Environmental Change
Racism
Sexual Education
Immigration
Pitbulls
Abortion
Standardized Test
Social Media
Technology in general
Climate Change
Environmental Change
Racism
Sexual Education
Immigration
Homework Responses
Leah Nieman
Grace deMeurisse
Holly Snider
Bela Burns
There were many differences and similarities between our analyses between videos, as three watched the same video, and one watched a different video.
Leah Nieman, Bela Burns, and Holly Snider all watched drinking and driving, and I (Grace deMeurisse) watched texting and driving.
Leah, Holly, and Bela all report that the drinking and driving analysis all use ethical appeal and credibility, because there is many different people reporting on the story (from mothers, fathers, various members of churches).
They use as well many ethos (emotional appeal) to appeal to the viewer as well from sad music, to facts and heart wrenching stories.
The video on texting and driving uses many ethos, and not as many logical appeals as there were no statistics or facts shown in the video
Grace deMeurisse
Holly Snider
Bela Burns
There were many differences and similarities between our analyses between videos, as three watched the same video, and one watched a different video.
Leah Nieman, Bela Burns, and Holly Snider all watched drinking and driving, and I (Grace deMeurisse) watched texting and driving.
Leah, Holly, and Bela all report that the drinking and driving analysis all use ethical appeal and credibility, because there is many different people reporting on the story (from mothers, fathers, various members of churches).
They use as well many ethos (emotional appeal) to appeal to the viewer as well from sad music, to facts and heart wrenching stories.
The video on texting and driving uses many ethos, and not as many logical appeals as there were no statistics or facts shown in the video
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)