Terrorist and Race

The readings this week were about the definition of terrorism and the numbers of race. The first article was about the definition of what terrorism is. The US states terrorism as "Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups o clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience." However, different people and organizations have different definitions. The article also stated areas where terrorist attacks occur. The most occurring place was Latin America while the least occurring place was actually the Middle East. The other article was on the number of the races. The article stated that whites were slowly becoming the minority while Hispanics were becoming the majority. The article went on to say that right now the white population is at about 74.8%. This number is expected to decrease to 52.8%.

First off I agree with the first article on Terrorism. I agree with the given definition in that terrorism is carried out by groups but I also believe that terrorism doesn't have to be a group like Hamas or Hezbollah, it could be one person like Timothy McVay, who carry out attacks by themselves. The Article I also agree with. I believe that Hispanics are slowly becoming the majority. For example, I was up in Indiana last summer and until then Hispanics were "rare" up there. Last summer, I noticed more up there than I have ever seen. Just look around, its true Hispanics are on the rise...

Torture Arguements

This weeks readings were very interesting in that they are relevant to recent or somewhat recent news. Two articles, one favored torture in some cases, while the other article vastly opposed it. The article gave methods of torture such as truth serums and how they could infringe on rights of the accused. However the article did point out that if a 24-like situation were to rise such as the police needed to find a hostage in 20 minutes or else a bomb would blow them up, torture would be justified. The other article was vastly against torture and that it shouldn't be used in any case. They argued that torture only make a person say whatever will get the pain to stop, hence and innocent person could be convicted of triple murder because some cop said, "Confess, or I drip acid on your bare skin." However, the article did acknowledge the behind-closed-doors torture where if it is necessary then, torture away but don't tell anyone.

I am neutral in this argument. I believe that torture doesn't work but rather makes a person say or do whatever their torturer wants just to get the pain to stop. I also believe that if some sick SOB rapes and murders a little kid, then I believe they need the living hell beaten out of them. I also believe that torture to find someone is a just cause. For example, Liam Neeson's new movie, "Taken" he tortures an Albanian mobster in Paris after his daughter was kidnapped. He stabs the mobster with thick steel spikes and the electrocutes him until he gives up the location of his daughter. Obviously this is a movie but it demonstrates my point...

Visual Argumentation

One of the easiest forms of arguments is visual. Visual arguments, obviously, use photos to express a point rather than to have to explain in detail what the writer wants us to see. The old saying goes, "One picture is worth a thousand words", and is it true. For example, if we catch Osama Bin Laden and put him on trial, we are not going to use fancy descriptive language to describe how he orchestrated the attacks of 9/11. Prosecuters are going to use visual evidence that would link him to the crime. Visual arguments are also used to lure us into buying something. For example, if Marboro wanted to sell cigarettes, they would get a photo of either a handsome jock or a good looking woman to say, "buy these, they won't bite."

I enjoyed the passage mainly because I believe I am a visual learner. The article was true in that, with the invention of this awesome thing called internet, we can access almost anything we want, Youtube is a site we all go to. If you want to see a random video of someone kicking themselves in the head, you can. Now you can even watch movies that "shouldn't" be out yet. I liked how the photos were used to show us history, such as the Katrina disaster. Hearing and seeing are two totally different things. The photo of the man being carried out of his house with an oxygen mask really made me feel bad for what happened...

Comprehending Agrument

It is one thing to argue a point, its another thing to understand what you are arguing. The book gave a great example by using the Declaration of Independence. The best, and humorous, way I can explain how the Declaration of Independence explains an argument, is with a quote from the film, Fast Times at Ridgemont High. "What Jefferson was saying was, hey! Ya know, we left this England place because it was bogus, So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, Pronto! We'll just be bogus too." Obviously this isn't the best way to summarize the Declaration of Independence, but it gives people a basic, watered down, pot-induced, Jeff Spicoli definition that we all can understand.

The other topic of the reading was the passage on Graphic Sex in movies. I was surprised to find that the author used great evidence and tried to be as unbias as possible even though he was against it. I believed that he would present an argument that it degrades women and subconsciously produces a sex-only view of women. He used evidence from the top grossing movies of all time and the fact that the more sex a movie has the worse it will do. Overall, it is hard to counter, but I believe that graphic sex doesn't totally ruin a movie. Obviously if you pour too much in it ceases to really be a movie and it turns into a porno. But movies such as Team America World Police, depict a scene where two puppets are having sex in multiple positions. The variations with the positions makes it hilarious, not degrading...

Nature of Arguements

Agruments are a part of everyday life, Every person has been in an arguement is some way, shape or form. We argue to prove points, non-violent fighting, or to promote. We use arguements to prove points by providing evidence to back up ones side of an issue. For example, if one wanted to prove that Stem-cell research is something that should be expanded, they would say that Stem-cell research helps to save lives and to rebuild otherwise destroyed body parts. The other side could say something along the lines that Stem-cell research uses cells from the umbilical cord and thus destroys the possiblity of life. Agruements could be used as a form of non-violent fighting. A good example of this would be if someone is accused of something that is not true, that would combat the lie with a fierce arguement. The last form is an arguement of promotion. An example would be most TV ads, A guy will come on the TV and explain how a new super-absorbant towel will save you tons of money and time. They will agrue that their product is better than the alternative.

The article gave me great insight to all the different forms of agruements. I knew the forms subconsicously but never truely thought about how to approach an arguement. The issue that was raised in the article(s) on airport security really surprised me. The passage that was for higher security was forcused on the past 9/11 attacks and possible future attacks while the passage against was more focused on the violation of our right to privacy. Both were interesting reads but I have to side with the pro-privacy article in that, I believe that the more freedom we give up, the harder it will be to get back...