Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts
Showing posts with label claims. Show all posts
Monday, January 11, 2010
Google and Censorship
Many currently believe that Google Inc. is one of the most technologically advanced and culturally spreading companies and search engines available today. However, according to this news article Google is a depriving the public of good media. Apparently Google is filtering the culturally degrading and possibly upsetting media from certain countries while allowing others to still gain access to such material. Google most likely does this to filter the types of results that could be brought up for simple searches of harmless words and the offensiveness of some of the results in other cases. Such censorship can actually be thought of as helpful and harmless when one really thinks about the good of others.
"Don't Panic."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/10/AR2010011002143.html
In his most recent article, "Don't Panic", Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria suggests that an emotional, heavy-handed reaction to the attempted airline bombing last month may be unwarranted, and may in fact be exactly the sort of response the attack was intended to provoke. Certainly this suggestion runs counter to the impulses of most readers (as well as policymakers) and is therefore an "unacceptable proposition."
He cites the unique nature of terrorism as an instrument of effecting change. The real physical damage of a terrorist attack is not important; what matters is the psychological impact. If it did not trigger fear and anger, it would not be effective. Zakaria suggests that Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the botched attack because, although it failed to claim any lives, it still elicited the desire response.
He interprets the attack as an ill-conceived potshot at the US, that indicates Al-Qaeda's inability to mount more effective, large-scale attacks. He argues that to further stifle air travel with security procedures of dubious efficacy would not make the nation safer, and would only serve to dignify a rather desperate and amateurish attack.
In his most recent article, "Don't Panic", Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria suggests that an emotional, heavy-handed reaction to the attempted airline bombing last month may be unwarranted, and may in fact be exactly the sort of response the attack was intended to provoke. Certainly this suggestion runs counter to the impulses of most readers (as well as policymakers) and is therefore an "unacceptable proposition."
He cites the unique nature of terrorism as an instrument of effecting change. The real physical damage of a terrorist attack is not important; what matters is the psychological impact. If it did not trigger fear and anger, it would not be effective. Zakaria suggests that Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the botched attack because, although it failed to claim any lives, it still elicited the desire response.
He interprets the attack as an ill-conceived potshot at the US, that indicates Al-Qaeda's inability to mount more effective, large-scale attacks. He argues that to further stifle air travel with security procedures of dubious efficacy would not make the nation safer, and would only serve to dignify a rather desperate and amateurish attack.
More sex is safer sex
Now you cant really find a more unacceptable title then this one. And I totally do not agree with what he is saying. But I don't have to, I just have to find something that is an initially Unacceptable claim and this fits the bill. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/76faa124-f0f0-11db-838b-000b5df10621.html This is a book by steven Landburg that tries to apply the art of economics to Sexual promiscuity. In there he states that if more people were promiscuous then sex would be safer for everyone. Even though this appears ridiculous he makes the argument that if more people where sexually active then there would be not be a small circle of people with STD's, rather a larger circle of generally "clean" people and therefore everyone would be less likely to get an STD. He makes the argument that sexual restraint is a pollution to those more promiscious. if one was to agree with his dogmatic logic they may come around to his way of thinking and find his initially unacceatable claim to be accetable. But I doubt it.
Raise the legal driving age for teens?
An issue that comes up every now and then is one of if the legal driving age for teens should be raised. Here is a article written by Karl Chisholm; http://www.blueoregon.com/2009/10/raise-the-legal-driving-age-for-teens.html.
His claim is that we need to raise the legal driving age from what it is now. It seemed that the general population that responded did not agree primarily those who are parents of teen drivers.
In his reasonings he gives some statistics that "the rate of crashes, fatal and nonfatal, per mile driven for 16-year-old drivers is almost 10 times the rate for drivers ages 30 to 59" and that traffic accidents are the leading killer of american teens. I like how on the subject for his reasons he didn't just give negative reasons but that he gave some of the positive benefits that would come from raising the age. although some of them were more assuming than more facts. none the less it at least made me think about those things such as traffic and the assumption that the teenagers would increase there cardiovascular activities more. Over all I felt that he did give some good reasons, and specifically at the beginning of his article, he presented his reasons and assumptions well, but for some reason on his last paragraph he seemed to lose some of my trust. he seemed to be very one sided and I feel he didn't think much about what his audience that will have differing opinions claimed. Example as I read I was often saying in my mind "But what about....." He should have read read Writing and Rhetoric haha :)
Stem Cell Research
An issue with much ethical controversy is the topic of stem cell research. In an article by Janet Rowley, http://www.usnews.com/articles/opinion/2009/03/23/embryonic-stem-cell-research-does-too-much-good-to-be-evil-says-janet-rowley.html, the claim is made that stem cell research does too much good to be a bad thing. This claim is quite unacceptable to people because of the issues with using embryos to do the research.
To support her claim she uses the logical reasoning that the embryonic cells, from in vitro fertilization, will basically just be thrown away if not used. Also she tells of how scientists have been very willing to work with the restrictions put on them and have tried to use alternative methods, so it is not as if they are only doing that which people might not agree with. They are doing it to benefit others, so it is not for 'evil' intentions. Yet stem cells offer so much and research has not found a better source to help so many people. Through using these statements the author is giving reasons to the audience that make sense and is being accurate in her research on what is happening in the labs.
To support her claim she uses the logical reasoning that the embryonic cells, from in vitro fertilization, will basically just be thrown away if not used. Also she tells of how scientists have been very willing to work with the restrictions put on them and have tried to use alternative methods, so it is not as if they are only doing that which people might not agree with. They are doing it to benefit others, so it is not for 'evil' intentions. Yet stem cells offer so much and research has not found a better source to help so many people. Through using these statements the author is giving reasons to the audience that make sense and is being accurate in her research on what is happening in the labs.
Abortion
At the site http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/arg-abor.html Kerby Anderson is making a claim on how Abortion is bad in all different aspects of life. This is definitely an initially unacceptable claim. Although I agree with his claim there are many who do not at all. We can see that in the amount of abortions we have each year. Just in U.S. since 1973, when it became legal, there have been approximately 46 million abortions. Kerby Anderson’s claim is not accepted by all Americans. He starts off using the bible as an argument against abortion. He uses a couple of areas in Psalms, he uses a lot of different scriptures throughout the bible. As he ends he really focuses on a legal code in Exodus concerning a prematurely birth due to a man hitting a women, if this happens that man will die. He concludes that a baby inside the womb has the same legal status as a baby outside the womb and so that it is unlawful to kill a baby inside the womb. For those who do not believe in the Bible he goes on to use medical arguments against Abortion. Some of the main points were the definition of death. One definition is the cessation of heartbeat. So if that means death, than does the start of a heartbeat mean life which starts the 18th day in the womb. He continues the argument by going to legal arguments against abortion. He says that since the Supreme Court does not know how to define when life begins they should have acted “as if” life was in the womb, since they did not know. But they didn’t and ended up overturning state laws that protected the fetus. Lastly he uses philosophical arguments. He gives some of the definitions people have for life or human beings. But if we followed those then we could have an infanticide. Throughout his argument he tries to reach all types of people, Christians, Doctors, and those in law.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Coloured lasers treat epilepsy?
A January, 2010, BBC health-related article claims that coloured lasers can be used to treat brain disorders, such as epilepsy. Apparently, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has discovered a way to use yellow and blue flashing lasers to shut down brain activity.
Here is the link to the artile: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8441983.stm
The claim is initially unacceptable because lasers and epilepsy does not seem a common connection, nor a feasible one. The reader automatically questions, "what do colorful lights have anything to do with brain disorders?," and, "how can lasers cure seizures?" The answer to these questions is obviously not self-explanatory, and this is what begins the argument.
The article goes on to give details of the study and how and why it works. The author is giving reasons for the reader to believe the claim. The study revolves around two genes that need light to make energy. They are called Arch and Mach. Arch and Mac contain the genetic code for light-activated proteins. MIT has engineered brain neurons to express Arch and Mach. In testing they were able to control the brains of animals with yellow and blue lasers because the light activates proteins that lower the voltage in the neurons and stops them from generating an electrical signal. The researchers are working on targeting specific parts of the brain to shut down, eliminating seizures.
The author uses scientific facts and studies that show experiment outcomes to back up his claim. By the end of the article, a clear assumption is made that yellow and blue flashing lasers may one day cure brain disorders.
-Lydia Nelson
Here is the link to the artile: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8441983.stm
The claim is initially unacceptable because lasers and epilepsy does not seem a common connection, nor a feasible one. The reader automatically questions, "what do colorful lights have anything to do with brain disorders?," and, "how can lasers cure seizures?" The answer to these questions is obviously not self-explanatory, and this is what begins the argument.
The article goes on to give details of the study and how and why it works. The author is giving reasons for the reader to believe the claim. The study revolves around two genes that need light to make energy. They are called Arch and Mach. Arch and Mac contain the genetic code for light-activated proteins. MIT has engineered brain neurons to express Arch and Mach. In testing they were able to control the brains of animals with yellow and blue lasers because the light activates proteins that lower the voltage in the neurons and stops them from generating an electrical signal. The researchers are working on targeting specific parts of the brain to shut down, eliminating seizures.
The author uses scientific facts and studies that show experiment outcomes to back up his claim. By the end of the article, a clear assumption is made that yellow and blue flashing lasers may one day cure brain disorders.
-Lydia Nelson
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Obama's Healthcare Plan
An issue that is constantly being debated today is President Obama’s healthcare plan. In his youtube video “The Obama Plan in Four Minutes”, Obama explains his plan for healthcare. This video can be found at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/. In his video, the President makes a few claims that are aimed at convincing the American people that his plan for healthcare will be the most cost-effective and best way to ensure healthcare for everyone. One of the main claims that Obama makes is that universal healthcare will not increase taxes. This claim is initially unacceptable because providing healthcare for every American, no matter what their economic status, seems impossible without increasing taxes. Obama states that his healthcare plan will not add more money to our already substantial national debt and will make healthcare affordable to all Americans. He seems to avoid this issue by focusing his argument on how great our new healthcare system will be, without addressing the price tag. Throughout his argument, I can see the benefits of Obama’s plan, yet I am unable to tell how exactly all these new reform programs will make healthcare more affordable. Maybe I just don’t know the specifics of Obama’s plan, but it seems to me that by making healthcare cheaper for someone, it makes taxes go up for someone else. Although Obama’s claim states that healthcare will be cheaper for all, I fail to see how this could actually happen without increasing taxes at some point.
Cats feel superior to dogs
On the great website of Yahoo! they have a few "news" posts that they cycle through for the day. On such was a video of a cat ridding a Roomba (I believe they are those robot vacuum cleaners that roam around our home vacuuming so you do not have to). The caption for this video on the Yahoo! page read as such: "When it comes to dogs, some cats think they're superior — but this one thinks he's invincible."
To read the Yahoo! post go to : http://m.www.yahoo.com/?r0=1263071513
To watch the cat go to: http://video.yahoo.com/network/100284668?v=6646643&l=3774740
The claim that they are making about this video is that when it comes to dogs, some cats think they are superior.
The reason they use is that this cat is riding a Roomba and swatting a dog which apparently makes that cat feel invincible.
The complete arguement with the claim and reason is: When it comes to dogs, some cats think they are superior because this cat is riding a Roomba and swatting a dog, making him feel invincible.
The assumption they are using is: Whatever cat is riding a Roomba will make that cat think that they are superior to dogs.
The audience at first could understand that some cats do infact think that they are superior to dogs becuase of their own expereinces with observing some cats taunting acts infront of dogs. So the assumption they use could be valid to audience members if they understand that some cats act as though they are superior to dogs. However, though some of the audience my not initally accept that cats feel superior to dogs. The audience is drawn to the claim because at first it does not seem acceptable with the reason they are using to back up the claim.
Personally, I think this arguement is very weak, though it does draw the attention of viewers becuase of the unexpected video photoage. How many people have seen a cat riding a Roomba? I haven't until this moment. But just because a cat is riding a Roomba and swatting at a dog does not mean the cat feels superior to dogs. Cats do weird things just becuase they can and no one can actually figure out what the thought process is of a cat. You cannot get into a cat's head and see their thoughts. The assumption they are using is guilty of commiting the fallacy of jumping on the bandwagon (just becuase many people believe that the claim is true does not actually mean that it is true).
To read the Yahoo! post go to : http://m.www.yahoo.com/?r0=1263071513
To watch the cat go to: http://video.yahoo.com/network/100284668?v=6646643&l=3774740
The claim that they are making about this video is that when it comes to dogs, some cats think they are superior.
The reason they use is that this cat is riding a Roomba and swatting a dog which apparently makes that cat feel invincible.
The complete arguement with the claim and reason is: When it comes to dogs, some cats think they are superior because this cat is riding a Roomba and swatting a dog, making him feel invincible.
The assumption they are using is: Whatever cat is riding a Roomba will make that cat think that they are superior to dogs.
The audience at first could understand that some cats do infact think that they are superior to dogs becuase of their own expereinces with observing some cats taunting acts infront of dogs. So the assumption they use could be valid to audience members if they understand that some cats act as though they are superior to dogs. However, though some of the audience my not initally accept that cats feel superior to dogs. The audience is drawn to the claim because at first it does not seem acceptable with the reason they are using to back up the claim.
Personally, I think this arguement is very weak, though it does draw the attention of viewers becuase of the unexpected video photoage. How many people have seen a cat riding a Roomba? I haven't until this moment. But just because a cat is riding a Roomba and swatting at a dog does not mean the cat feels superior to dogs. Cats do weird things just becuase they can and no one can actually figure out what the thought process is of a cat. You cannot get into a cat's head and see their thoughts. The assumption they are using is guilty of commiting the fallacy of jumping on the bandwagon (just becuase many people believe that the claim is true does not actually mean that it is true).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)