Tuesday, September 25, 2012

“More Info on Animals Used for Experimentation” Article Rhetorical Analysis


“More Info on Animals Used for Experimentation” Article Rhetorical Analysis

Intro:

Pathos:
  1.                      Cynical/ accusatory tone

  •      Describes people who experiment on animals as: “cruel”, “cold- blooded”, “crude”, ect.
  •      Implying that people who purchase products from these companies are just as bad.

  1.                     Gloomy/ grisly diction

  •      Grisly: “languish”, “ache”, “blood”, “spikes”, ect.
  •      Gloomy: “loneliness”, “fear”, “cower”, “cold”, ect.
  •      Combination of grisly/ gloomy diction first repulses and then effectively gains audience’s sympathy

  1.                Imagery: gruesome
  •             Text: “locked inside cold, barren cages”, “incessantly spinning in circles”, “shake and cower in fear”
  •             Video: shown at the end in order to depict the imagery described in the text and see the horrors for ourselves

Logos:
  1.                       Number of animals used in experimentation right now and how many are killed yearly
  •              95% of animals being tested on are not accounted for under Animal Welfare Act

  1.                Shocking facts

  •       Many of these tests are not required by law
  •       Tests often produce misleading/ inaccurate results
  •       If products are found to harm animals, they can still be marketed to consumers
  •              List of government agencies that conduct animal experimentation
  •              List of cruelty free products

Ethos:
  1.                         Although this article does not include information about the author’s credibility or the input of credible sources on the issue, this article is contained on Peta.org. Peta, itself, is a credible source because it is an extremely well known organization that focuses on the advocacy for the ethical treatment of animals.

  •       Largest animal rights organization in the world
  •       More than 3 million members and supporters

Conclusion:
How we can help put an end to animal experimentation

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Electronic Literacy Narrative


Shelby Brown
Jack Hennes
English 191- 17
07 September 2012
Online Communication; A Weapon Or A Tool?
I got my first computer when I was in 5th grade. I remember parking myself in front of that illuminating screen for hours at a time, anxiously waiting for a flashing orange box to pop up in the middle of the screen, indicating that I had just received a new instant message. I think my ears would still perk to this day at the sound of the high- pitched “ping” that accompanied every message that flashed before me. By the time I received my first computer, all of my friends were already familiar with and avid users of an instant messaging devise called aim. Aim was revolutionary in that it was the first way in which I could limitlessly and indirectly communicate with all of my friends and peers. However, I soon discovered that such unfiltered communication over the Internet could be intimidating and dangerous. This realization has affected my writing over electronic devises today and ultimately served the purpose of teaching me to write with caution and civility when using the Internet.
            When my first computer was set up, I could not wait to hop on and create my new screen name so I could add all of my friends and begin chatting with them whenever I wanted. Before receiving this computer, the only means of communication I had access to was an old home phone that plugged into my kitchen wall or simply stopping by the neighbor’s house and asking “Wanna play?” Aim was easy to access, whereas you simply log onto your account, find your friends who are online, double click on their personalized screen, name neatly organized in alphabetical order in a long, rectangular box containing your list of friends, and begin to chat. Writing to peers on a computer was an enticing and new experience. Messages were kept brief and simple by using abbreviated words and phrases such as “lol”, “brb”, “omg”, and “ttyl”, a cool new language that every kid during those days seemed to effortlessly understand. Instant messaging was also appealing in that there is a comfort in concealing your words behind a computer screen. I could say absolutely anything I desired on aim. Not only were my words hidden from those around me because I did not have to speak them out loud over the phone or in person where my parents could potentially over hear my conversation and judge or scold me, but I could also take ease in the fact that communication through writing from behind a computer screen was indirect. Therefore, I was able to be more confident in my writing and what I said to others because I was not directly speaking to them so I did not have to show my true emotions or witness the person’s on the other end of that radiating square box containing our digital conversation. This once alluring aspect of aim, however, soon proved to be a misleading and jeopardous feature of Internet communication.
            At first, I used aim instant messaging as a simple way to see what my friends were up to and discuss the events of our day, however, in time it seemed that aim was being used increasingly more as a means of confrontation. As I moved onto middle school especially, I began to notice the language online becoming increasingly filthier, more derogative, and more offensive due to the fact that digital conversations over instant messaging were not monitored or filtered. It was easy to attack someone over instant messaging because parents could not see your written words and tell you that that is hurtful and not appropriate to say to someone. Effrontery was also common over aim due to the fact that conflict was not conducted face to face so it was easy to say disrespectful, insulting things to others that you would not normally have the confidence to say to someone in person. I still recall the burning sensation that radiated through my chest and the way that I could almost feel a scarlet hue seizing my face as a girl from school’s screen name flashed on my computer screen followed by a small print line filled with a spiteful combination of words my mother had always warned me against and tried to protect me from hearing aimed directly at me. I can’t put all of the blame on other kids at school though. Being a generally passive, non confrontational person my whole life, I found myself writing things to people over aim that I would never possess the bravery to say in real life. After several miserable middle school years being attacked and attacking others concealed behind a computer screen, I did gain an essential lesson in learning to conduct all of my future digital writing conscientiously and congenially.
            Communication through digital means is essential in modern society. In fact, it is nearly impossible to live without. Though Aim’s popularity began to recede over time, social networks such as MySpace, Facebook, and Twitter took its’ place as online means of communication and gained prominence in society. Unlike Aim, however, conversations on social networking sites are broadcasted to all friends and followers online, forcing me as well as other users to take caution in what is said about one’s self and others over the Internet because online words are now instantly publicized. While writing on the Internet is considered to be a necessary and convenient tool today, it can also be used as a weapon. Through my bad experience with Internet communication, I did gain the useful lesson of filtering what I say online because what is posted on the Internet, stays on the Internet so be cautious about what you write because it can come back and haunt you.