After reading the article called War and Piste - the battle between skiers and boarders at, http://blogs.smh.com.au/travel/archives/2007/06/war_and_piste_-_the_battle_between_skiers_and_boarders_bitch_fest_or_love_in.html
This question arose,
“Which team do you bat for - Knuckle dragger or double planker? Ever been cut off by a boarder, abused by a skier? Is it a modern day love in with past ills forgotten or does the war still exist?”
This question has so many different answers depending on who you are and who your friends are. Although for someone to say that the war does not exist, they are mistaken. Skiers and snowboarders will always have a bit of a disagreement about the two sports. It could be about the difficulty, the fan basis, or even how cool they each are. Sure, snowboarders have the much more hip look, but you can’t knock the skiers completely. There is that select few of free ride skiers who rock the same outfits as the boarders. At my school the boarders and the free ride skiers would train together and go to events together. They never treated each other different based on what equipment they went down the hill on. Now for racers, that was a different story. The snowboarders always gave the ski racers a hard time for their outfits. They were always black and actually fit around their wastes. But, if a ski racer were to wear a coat or snow pants of a snowboard company they would be ridiculed even more. So in the sense of clothing a ski racer couldn’t win with a boarder.
The argument of what sport is more difficult often comes up. The snowboarders would argue that going twenty feet in the air upside down is much harder that just going down the hill. Then the skiers would argue that going around 70 mph down a mountain on a certain course is much more difficult.
These debates are always happening on the mountain. Friends or not so good of friends will argue about this issue. This argument can be seen as a war because it is one side against the other, trying to be the victorious one, with the idea of victory knowing that they are the better sport. This victory will never be able to be accomplished. The idea of one being better of the other is only an idea, an opinion. There is no facts that will ever be able to prove. Although the sports are similar in the fact that they consist of some sort of long board on your feet while you go down a mountain, which is the only similarity. The technique between the two is completely different. What I am trying to say is that this war should no longer exist. People need to take each sport for what they are individually.
This is a tough thing to do for anyone who skis or snowboards. Skiers will always fight for skiing and boarders for snowboarding. This war is a never-ending war. No persuasion will ever be able to stop this. There simply is no correct side of the argument.
Monday, November 12, 2007
Saturday, November 3, 2007
Global Warming: rhetorical situation
I read an article in the New York Times called Global Warming. The article can be found at, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
The article talks about how global warming is becoming a larger issue and the “very likely” force that is driving the issue is human activity in the last 50 years. The article goes on to talk about how the average surface temperature of the earth has gone up 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1990. They also mention that the debate of humans cause to global warming is no longer the issue but rather how to go about fixing the problem. The article never suggests a way to go about fixing it but it gives good information about how the greenhouse effect works and how it has been changing through the years. When first reading this article, it may not seem as though it is trying to persuade people into believing something. I think the article does so without have to actually state what is being persuaded. The article makes someone think about global warming and realize that it is an issue that does need to be addressed and worked on. For this reason, I believe this article can be considered a rhetorical situation by the definition that Aristotle gives.
The article is interacting with people. For example, I was able to read it and write this blog, which is an interaction. It is not necessarily directly between the writer and myself but it is about what the writer wrote and for the others to discuss. The persuasion that is being done can be difficult to see as persuasion right away, but can be seen because of the reaction the article has on people. The persuasion is about a larger issue. The issue is global warming, which is affecting the entire world. What is being said in the article is that humans are contributing to the cause and that is what needs to change. The change is not something that can be done right away or over night. It is going to take time. This is also part of Aristotle’s definition; it cannot just be done, for example if someone were to tell you to wash your hands. The article is backed up with proof. The author explains how the surface temperature of the earth is rising. He goes on to give predictions if this life style of ours continues. According to Aristotle’s definition I feel that this article is a good representation of a rhetorical situation.
Something that would not be considered a rhetorical situation by Aristotle would be if someone where to just tell someone to do something and the person can just do it on the spot. The example I gave was to wash your hands. You could try to think about it as a rhetorical situation because if you don’t wash your hands, sickness tends to spread. Sickness can be considered a larger issue that would need to be dealt with, but because a person can just wash their hands without thinking about the greater issue, I don’t believe Aristotle would consider it a rhetorical situation. Also what was said was more of a statement rather than a persuasion. It was simply do this. The article in the New York Times, was a statement but it was not telling someone to just do something it was giving facts which then made people realize something needs to be done. I feel this idea is a big difference between the two ideas and what makes something a rhetorical situation according to Aristotle.
The article talks about how global warming is becoming a larger issue and the “very likely” force that is driving the issue is human activity in the last 50 years. The article goes on to talk about how the average surface temperature of the earth has gone up 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1990. They also mention that the debate of humans cause to global warming is no longer the issue but rather how to go about fixing the problem. The article never suggests a way to go about fixing it but it gives good information about how the greenhouse effect works and how it has been changing through the years. When first reading this article, it may not seem as though it is trying to persuade people into believing something. I think the article does so without have to actually state what is being persuaded. The article makes someone think about global warming and realize that it is an issue that does need to be addressed and worked on. For this reason, I believe this article can be considered a rhetorical situation by the definition that Aristotle gives.
The article is interacting with people. For example, I was able to read it and write this blog, which is an interaction. It is not necessarily directly between the writer and myself but it is about what the writer wrote and for the others to discuss. The persuasion that is being done can be difficult to see as persuasion right away, but can be seen because of the reaction the article has on people. The persuasion is about a larger issue. The issue is global warming, which is affecting the entire world. What is being said in the article is that humans are contributing to the cause and that is what needs to change. The change is not something that can be done right away or over night. It is going to take time. This is also part of Aristotle’s definition; it cannot just be done, for example if someone were to tell you to wash your hands. The article is backed up with proof. The author explains how the surface temperature of the earth is rising. He goes on to give predictions if this life style of ours continues. According to Aristotle’s definition I feel that this article is a good representation of a rhetorical situation.
Something that would not be considered a rhetorical situation by Aristotle would be if someone where to just tell someone to do something and the person can just do it on the spot. The example I gave was to wash your hands. You could try to think about it as a rhetorical situation because if you don’t wash your hands, sickness tends to spread. Sickness can be considered a larger issue that would need to be dealt with, but because a person can just wash their hands without thinking about the greater issue, I don’t believe Aristotle would consider it a rhetorical situation. Also what was said was more of a statement rather than a persuasion. It was simply do this. The article in the New York Times, was a statement but it was not telling someone to just do something it was giving facts which then made people realize something needs to be done. I feel this idea is a big difference between the two ideas and what makes something a rhetorical situation according to Aristotle.
Join the Army
The movie I am discussing can be found at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=AwS1bmggoZ0
This movie is a normal commercial for the army, but in the end they add reasons why someone should not join the army, possible injuries that may occur including death. They make it seem like pharmaceutical disclaimers. The message the movie gives off is very strong. It is basically explaining everything that goes wrong in war and all the terrible effects it has on people. The comments about it are very mixed. Some support the message the movie gives off and others see it as a total disgrace. I wasn’t sure what to think about the movie when I first saw it. I actually laughed, but not because what they were doing was funny but more because a lot of what was said was true.
After watching the movie for a second time, the movie seemed to me as a form of persuasion. It is a persuasion against the war or it shows how the real commercials are a persuasion to join the army. When the real commercials come on TV, they show all the hard work and strength that goes into the army as well as the skills soldiers acquire, but they leave out some of the consequences of war. For most people these consequences are obvious: injury, death, depression and so many more, but when the commercial is seen by the viewer, they only see the idea of fighting for their country. If commercials were to look more like this one, not necessarily blaming certain people, but just reminding people of the effects war can have on a person, a person would think twice about joining the army.
This brings the idea of what orators do when they make speeches. They tell the audience what they want them to hear. What they are saying may be the truth, just not the complete truth. Things that would go against their ideas are not mentioned so that their persuasion does not become contradicted. In this commercial they show the hard work that has to be put in by these men to become soldiers, which is very true. They also show that with this hard work the soldiers become very skilled in what they do, which is also true. What they don’t show is some of the effects of the war on the soldiers, which is also part of the truth. Only one side of the entire issue is shown in the commercials, making them an incomplete truth. This commercial shown on youtube, is not the complete truth either because it consists of opinions about how the war is being handled. What this commercial did for me is bring up the idea that these commercials should be as close to the entire truth as possible because the effects of war can be so traumatic
This movie is a normal commercial for the army, but in the end they add reasons why someone should not join the army, possible injuries that may occur including death. They make it seem like pharmaceutical disclaimers. The message the movie gives off is very strong. It is basically explaining everything that goes wrong in war and all the terrible effects it has on people. The comments about it are very mixed. Some support the message the movie gives off and others see it as a total disgrace. I wasn’t sure what to think about the movie when I first saw it. I actually laughed, but not because what they were doing was funny but more because a lot of what was said was true.
After watching the movie for a second time, the movie seemed to me as a form of persuasion. It is a persuasion against the war or it shows how the real commercials are a persuasion to join the army. When the real commercials come on TV, they show all the hard work and strength that goes into the army as well as the skills soldiers acquire, but they leave out some of the consequences of war. For most people these consequences are obvious: injury, death, depression and so many more, but when the commercial is seen by the viewer, they only see the idea of fighting for their country. If commercials were to look more like this one, not necessarily blaming certain people, but just reminding people of the effects war can have on a person, a person would think twice about joining the army.
This brings the idea of what orators do when they make speeches. They tell the audience what they want them to hear. What they are saying may be the truth, just not the complete truth. Things that would go against their ideas are not mentioned so that their persuasion does not become contradicted. In this commercial they show the hard work that has to be put in by these men to become soldiers, which is very true. They also show that with this hard work the soldiers become very skilled in what they do, which is also true. What they don’t show is some of the effects of the war on the soldiers, which is also part of the truth. Only one side of the entire issue is shown in the commercials, making them an incomplete truth. This commercial shown on youtube, is not the complete truth either because it consists of opinions about how the war is being handled. What this commercial did for me is bring up the idea that these commercials should be as close to the entire truth as possible because the effects of war can be so traumatic
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)