Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Rogerian Reflection 1.1
I thought that this essay was one of the easiest to write even if it was longer. I found that the topic I chose allowed me to channel my beliefs into the essay fluidly. I ended up writing about the drinking age after a internal debate between gun control, drinking age, and the morality of chancing and battling Pokemon. The topic of gun control was to obvious and I think I am to passionate about the subject to be able to come to a middle ground. The pokemon topic would of been wacky and new but there is zero scholarly sources and the fact is it is a fictional debate within a fictional world, and it would be irresponsible to write about it in a college essay. I thought that I came to a good middle ground with the drink age topic and am excited to see what comments will be left on my essay.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Rogerian Argument Essay 1.1
Joseph Morris
Professor Henderson
Academic Writing
March 30th, 2011
Joe Doyle,
The other day I was watching Family Guy and remembered all the debates we had over Fox News and political views. I remembered specifically the heated debate we had about the drinking age in the US and thought it would be beneficial to cull the flames and have a reasonable discussion about it with you for once.
I understand that you have lived your life within a very conservative family and you find that this mindset to be flawless. I have the upmost respect for you for being so passionate about your beliefs and ideas. You have the belief that the drinking age should remain the same and that there are more cons to lowering the drinking age than pros. I understand that you think there are health risks and that it will cause more delinquent-like activity for those under 21 years old. We were raised in different environments with different attitudes on alcohol consumption. You believe that a lowering of the drinking age would cause more alcohol related accidents, that it would open up the gates for more social ills such as drugs and unprotected sex, and would cause many negative affects to those 18 year olds who do take the opportunity to drink. While you were brought up with alcohol being looked at as a taboo, I was brought up in a country in which the drinking age is much lower and when with family there practically is no drinking age.
I am sure you are fully aware of my views on the subject by now, but allow me to clarify how I feel on the subject. As I have stated before, I find that having the consumption of alcohol be illegal just contributes to the thrill for those who decide to partake in such activities. College students would not be as irresponsible about drinking if it were not illegal to drink. Those in need of medical services would not hesitate to get help without the fear of being arrested. And as I have stated many times before, the concept that a person can join the military and die for there country yet not take a sip of beer astounds me. At 18 years old someone can buy a house, get married, start a business, join the military and therefore have responsibility over life and death, vote, and many more responsibilities, yet can not have a drink at a bar. I find that the enforcement of the current drinking age is a inefficient, overly expensive, and overall useless endeavor.
We are both vigorously stubborn about our beliefs, but I truly believe that there are things we both are arguing for. I believe there are things we both want to protect and that we care about, and the problem is just that we both have different beliefs on how to protect these things. We both care about the wellbeing of other peoples, we both want to decrease the amount of alcohol related deaths per year, and we are concerned about our peers developing into alcoholics.
You have argued that 18-20 year olds binge drink more than those over 21 years old and that they are more prone to alcohol abuse. This is some where I completely agree with you and I think this is a big problem, but I think that it is the drinking age that has actually caused this to be true. I believe that if its the fact it is illegal that makes it so exciting for this group to drink. I believe that drinking would be done in more moderation if it was turned into a more normalized activity within the said age group. I am sure you would agree that it is an important priority to normalize the drinking habits of teens.
We both agree that people should not take drugs and that there is a big drug problem with teenagers. We both want to come to the same conclusion in which people keep taking drugs, but have opposite views on how the drinking age will effect the percent of teens who partake in illegal drug use. You believe that alcohol consumption leads someone into experimenting more with drugs. I feel that more students are taking drugs due to the prohibition of alcohol. Professor David J. Hanson, Ph.D, of the University of New York, has performed research which supports my belief. When the drinking age in East Carolina was increased from 19 to 21, students were surveyed on their reactions. Nearly a fourth of the students suggested they intended to use other drugs instead of alcohol due to the law. Professor Hanson says that “Anecdotal statements by students indicated the belief of some that it ‘might be easier to hide a little pot in my room than a six pack of beer.’” This suggests that lowering the drinking age will decrease the amount of drug use of those 20 and younger.
Perhaps there is a way in which we can come to a compromise on this matter. One of the reasons why I slightly agree with the drinking age is the fact that the age in which Americans start driving is very low and American teens drive a lot more than Europeans do. Lowering the drinking age to anything lower than 18 would be irresponsible, for I believe that 16 year olds are not mature enough to drive let alone have the opportunity to drink and drive. Making it easier for 16 - 20 year olds to drink while the driving age is so low is irresponsible. Perhaps raising the age in which teens can drive while lowering the drinking age would be a good middle ground for our views. It would also allow the age of 18 to become the distinct divide between adolescence and adulthood. It would also save the Government millions of dollars which they spend on enforcing the current drinking age and we can take that money and put it into more education about alcohol and teaching students the appropriate way to consume alcohol.
Doyle, you are a considerate man who cares deeply about the well being of your peers and fellow teens. I know that I can not easily convince you to look at my point of view, let alone change your own view, but I am hoping that this letter has opened your mind on the subject and shown you the bridges our beliefs have between each other. It is a valuable thing to be able to so openly discuss and debate your views with a friend such as you, and I hope you will put as much consideration in your response as I have in what I have written in this essay.
Sincerely,
Joseph Morris
Professor Henderson
Academic Writing
March 30th, 2011
Joe Doyle,
The other day I was watching Family Guy and remembered all the debates we had over Fox News and political views. I remembered specifically the heated debate we had about the drinking age in the US and thought it would be beneficial to cull the flames and have a reasonable discussion about it with you for once.
I understand that you have lived your life within a very conservative family and you find that this mindset to be flawless. I have the upmost respect for you for being so passionate about your beliefs and ideas. You have the belief that the drinking age should remain the same and that there are more cons to lowering the drinking age than pros. I understand that you think there are health risks and that it will cause more delinquent-like activity for those under 21 years old. We were raised in different environments with different attitudes on alcohol consumption. You believe that a lowering of the drinking age would cause more alcohol related accidents, that it would open up the gates for more social ills such as drugs and unprotected sex, and would cause many negative affects to those 18 year olds who do take the opportunity to drink. While you were brought up with alcohol being looked at as a taboo, I was brought up in a country in which the drinking age is much lower and when with family there practically is no drinking age.
I am sure you are fully aware of my views on the subject by now, but allow me to clarify how I feel on the subject. As I have stated before, I find that having the consumption of alcohol be illegal just contributes to the thrill for those who decide to partake in such activities. College students would not be as irresponsible about drinking if it were not illegal to drink. Those in need of medical services would not hesitate to get help without the fear of being arrested. And as I have stated many times before, the concept that a person can join the military and die for there country yet not take a sip of beer astounds me. At 18 years old someone can buy a house, get married, start a business, join the military and therefore have responsibility over life and death, vote, and many more responsibilities, yet can not have a drink at a bar. I find that the enforcement of the current drinking age is a inefficient, overly expensive, and overall useless endeavor.
We are both vigorously stubborn about our beliefs, but I truly believe that there are things we both are arguing for. I believe there are things we both want to protect and that we care about, and the problem is just that we both have different beliefs on how to protect these things. We both care about the wellbeing of other peoples, we both want to decrease the amount of alcohol related deaths per year, and we are concerned about our peers developing into alcoholics.
You have argued that 18-20 year olds binge drink more than those over 21 years old and that they are more prone to alcohol abuse. This is some where I completely agree with you and I think this is a big problem, but I think that it is the drinking age that has actually caused this to be true. I believe that if its the fact it is illegal that makes it so exciting for this group to drink. I believe that drinking would be done in more moderation if it was turned into a more normalized activity within the said age group. I am sure you would agree that it is an important priority to normalize the drinking habits of teens.
We both agree that people should not take drugs and that there is a big drug problem with teenagers. We both want to come to the same conclusion in which people keep taking drugs, but have opposite views on how the drinking age will effect the percent of teens who partake in illegal drug use. You believe that alcohol consumption leads someone into experimenting more with drugs. I feel that more students are taking drugs due to the prohibition of alcohol. Professor David J. Hanson, Ph.D, of the University of New York, has performed research which supports my belief. When the drinking age in East Carolina was increased from 19 to 21, students were surveyed on their reactions. Nearly a fourth of the students suggested they intended to use other drugs instead of alcohol due to the law. Professor Hanson says that “Anecdotal statements by students indicated the belief of some that it ‘might be easier to hide a little pot in my room than a six pack of beer.’” This suggests that lowering the drinking age will decrease the amount of drug use of those 20 and younger.
Perhaps there is a way in which we can come to a compromise on this matter. One of the reasons why I slightly agree with the drinking age is the fact that the age in which Americans start driving is very low and American teens drive a lot more than Europeans do. Lowering the drinking age to anything lower than 18 would be irresponsible, for I believe that 16 year olds are not mature enough to drive let alone have the opportunity to drink and drive. Making it easier for 16 - 20 year olds to drink while the driving age is so low is irresponsible. Perhaps raising the age in which teens can drive while lowering the drinking age would be a good middle ground for our views. It would also allow the age of 18 to become the distinct divide between adolescence and adulthood. It would also save the Government millions of dollars which they spend on enforcing the current drinking age and we can take that money and put it into more education about alcohol and teaching students the appropriate way to consume alcohol.
Doyle, you are a considerate man who cares deeply about the well being of your peers and fellow teens. I know that I can not easily convince you to look at my point of view, let alone change your own view, but I am hoping that this letter has opened your mind on the subject and shown you the bridges our beliefs have between each other. It is a valuable thing to be able to so openly discuss and debate your views with a friend such as you, and I hope you will put as much consideration in your response as I have in what I have written in this essay.
Sincerely,
Joseph Morris
Monday, March 28, 2011
Rebuttal Reflection 2.2
I found that finishing this essay off was more difficult than with the first essay. I found that, as helpful as the comments my Professor Henderson were, I got more out of a face-to-face review of my paper. I also think I should of taken the opportunity when given to have this essay workshopped because it would of further helped me understand how to address the issues I had with this paper. I am glad that I was able to find sources which did eventually help me with my paper. I have a hard time understanding what a "scholarly" source is sometimes. Usually I just make sure not to use ".com"s as my scholarly sources. In High School a scholarly source was something that was a .gov or .edu, so I am hoping my sources reach expectations
Monday, March 21, 2011
Joseph Morris
Professor Henderson
Academic Writing
March 1st, 2011
Dear Ms Chua,
I have recently read your article on the Wall Street Journal’s website. I have to start this letter off by being quite frank; at some points it felt like a criminal confession. The method in which you described you parenting techniques was so repulsive that I just had to write you a letter describing my feelings on the matter. My biggest problems with your article are that you purposely inhibit your children’s freedom and creative expression, you are preventing their ability to make friends and be themselves, illegally disciplining your children, the potential emotional harm you are inflicting on your children, and the philosophy in which you base all of your ideas off of is extremely flawed.
You mentioned that you do not allow your children to pick their own extracurricular activities, specifically school plays. Creative activities such as drama clubs have a proven positive impact on a student’s development. They teach children how to be self-confident, give them an outlet for there emotions with in a safe environment, and are just fun for the students in general (Downshen). To discredit such a beneficial part of education and forbid it from your children is reprehensible. You may argue that the violin and the piano are enough creative outlet for your children. I believe that the way in which you teach your children to play these instruments takes out all of the beneficialness that may come out of playing these instruments.
I take a lot of offense to the fact you prohibit your children from having a play-date or a sleepover. I can not think of any other reason you would prevent your children from doing these things unless you thought that they do not need friends till later in life. You seem to purposely want to isolate your children from other children so that they do not have ‘distractions’ or some excuse such as that. This is wrong on so many levels. As stated by Steven Downshen, MD, in an article on TeensHealth website, extracurricular activities helps develop creative insights on the world and people around them. To prevent your children from making friends like that is to prevent the development of basic communication skills, preventing them from being introduced to the fundamentals of all future relationships, prevents their ability to accept others and show trust and affection to others, and to cause the child to feel like a outsider and lonely (Downshen)
In case you are not aware, not allowing your child to eat drink or even go to the bathroom for any reason, especially for something as trivial as finishing a piece of music, is abuse. It’s not potential or arguably abuse, it’s the actual legal definition of abuse. As stated on the website for Child Welfare, a website provided by the US Department of Health and Safety, abuse is:
- "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm". (www.childwelfare.com)
What you did to your child is what’s called emotional and physical mistreatment. It’s also arguably neglect of the child’s basic needs. To call your child ‘garbage’, ‘stupid’, or ‘worthless’ is emotional abuse that cause and has caused serious psychological effects.
- "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm". (www.childwelfare.com)
What you did to your child is what’s called emotional and physical mistreatment. It’s also arguably neglect of the child’s basic needs. To call your child ‘garbage’, ‘stupid’, or ‘worthless’ is emotional abuse that cause and has caused serious psychological effects.
You have argued that western-parents are too easy on their children and that they settle with A minuses and Bs because they do not believe enough in their children. I think this is a horrible thing to say. Western parents believe in their children and accept them for who they are. You seem to think that a child trying their best is not good enough. You made a ridiculous comment in which you criticized western parents for only being able to ‘ask their kids to try their best’. You have described a parenting style in which you aim so hard at having your children reach the top that they you force them to dismiss all other parts of life that are so numerous in our years as middle school and high school students. You force your children to give up on anything they want to do that you do not want them to do and turn them into grade producing, socially inept machines. The fact that I believe you would take the last sentence as a complement is sickening. No child should be put through the teaching and parenting styles you describe in your article.
In your article you spend a lot of time telling the reader what western parents will think and do in situations. You talk as though you have any room to be telling the reader how a western parent think. An example of this is where you say “Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feeling about achievement, and try to persuade themselves they are not disappointed about how their kids turned out”; this is a very arrogant thing to say. As long as the parents know that their child is trying their hardest and are happy, a word you seem to not understand not have in your dictionary, these parents are proud and happy themselves. You project your own feelings about grades and parenting on others which only weakens your argument and makes you come over as contemptuous.
Another big point I disagree with in your article is the philosophy that children owe their parents everything from birth. This philosophy that the parent is always right and that the children must only do things to please their parents means that the children will never be able to develop intrinsic motivation and have initiative beyond the idea of pleasing their parents. Their development into self-sufficient human beings will be drastically stunted by this process. This is the kind of ideal that encourages situations of child abuse. Abusive parents often have a mindset that their children owe them their lives and that they can do anything to their children without repercussions. And as stated earlier in this essay, you would classify as an abusive parent. Your article is a recipe on how to emotionally and socially cripple your children and make them dependent on your approval for the rest of their lives.
Work Cited
Work Cited
"Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect." Child Welfare Information Gateway. July 2009. Web. 21 Mar. 2011. <http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/define.cfm>.
Dowshen, Steven. "Extracurricular Activities." KidsHealth - the Web's Most Visited Site about Children's Health. May 2010. Web. 21 Mar. 2011. <http://kidshealth.org/teen/school_jobs/school/involved_school.html>.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Reflection 2.1
I found that trying to find 'scholarly' sources for a subject like chinese mothers and parenting styles is difficult due to the vast amounts of information that is purely opinion and less factual. These sources shouldn't be disregarded but they do not help with the ethos appeal of my rebuttal if they are purely opinion. To find where I could put factual information within such an opinionated paper was quite difficult for me. I also am curious on the reaction of those who will critique my paper on some of the more aggressive and passionate statements I have put in my paper. Whether or not they will think of it as a good pathos appeal or if they think its a little unprofessional will be interesting to see. This was a fun paper to write but with it's difficulty. I feel if it wasn't a research based paper it wouldn't of been so hard to write.
Essay 2: Rebuttal Assignment
Joseph Morris
Professor Henderson
Academic Writing
March 1st, 2011
Dear Ms Chua,
I have recently read your article on the Wall Street Journal’s website. I have to start this letter off by being quite frank; at some points it felt like a criminal confession. The method in which you described you parenting techniques was so repulsive that I just had to write you a letter describing my feelings on the matter. My biggest problems with your article are that you purposely inhibit your children’s freedom and creative expression, you are preventing their ability to make friends and be themselves, illegally disciplining your children, the potential emotional harm you are inflicting on your children, and the philosophy in which you base all of your ideas off of is extremely flawed.
You mentioned that you do not allow your children to pick their own extracurricular activities, specifically school plays. Creative activities such as drama clubs have a proven positive impact on a student’s development. They teach children how to be self-confident, give them an outlet for there emotions with in a safe environment, and are just fun for the students in general. To discredit such a beneficial part of education and forbid it from your children is reprehensible.
You may argue that the violin and the piano are enough creative outlet for your children. I believe that the way in which you teach your children to play these instruments takes out all of the beneficialness that may come out of playing these instruments.
I take a lot of offense to the fact you prohibit your children from having a play-date or a sleepover. I can not think of any other reason you would prevent your children from doing these things unless you thought that they do not need friends till later in life. You seem to purposely want to isolate your children from other children so that they do not have ‘distractions’ or some excuse such as that. This is wrong on so many levels. To prevent your children from making friends like that is to prevent the development of basic communication skills, preventing them from being introduced to the fundamentals of all future relationships, prevents their ability to accept others and show trust and affection to others, and to cause the child to feel like a outsider and lonely.
In case you are not aware, not allowing your child to eat drink or even go to the bathroom for any reason, especially for something as trivial as finishing a piece of music, is abuse. It’s not potential or arguably abuse, it’s the actual legal definition of abuse. It is what’s called emotional and physical mistreatment. It’s also arguably neglect of the child’s basic needs. To call your child ‘garbage’, ‘stupid’, or ‘worthless’ is emotional abuse that cause and has caused serious psychological effects.
You have argued that western-parents are too easy on their children and that they settle with A minuses and Bs because they do not believe enough in their children. I think this is a horrible thing to say. Western parents believe in their children and accept them for who they are. You seem to think that a child trying their best is not good enough. You made a ridiculous comment in which you criticized western parents for only being able to ‘ask their kids to try their best’. You have described a parenting style in which you aim so hard at having your children reach the top that they you force them to dismiss all other parts of life that are so numerous in our years as middle school and high school students. You force your children to give up on anything they want to do that you do not want them to do and turn them into grade producing, socially inept machines. The fact that I believe you would take the last sentence as a complement is sickening. No child should be put through the teaching and parenting styles you describe in your article.
In your article you spend a lot of time telling the reader what western parents will think and do in situations. You talk as though you have any room to be telling the reader how a western parent think. An example of this is where you say “Western parents have to struggle with their own conflicted feeling about achievement, and try to persuade themselves they are not disappointed about how their kids turned out”; this is a very arrogant thing to say. As long as the parents know that their child is trying their hardest and are happy, a word you seem to not understand not have in your dictionary, these parents are proud and happy themselves. You project your own feelings about grades and parenting on others which only weakens your argument and makes you come over as contemptuous.
Another big point I disagree with in your article is the philosophy that children owe their parents everything from birth. This philosophy that the parent is always right and that the children must only do things to please their parents means that the children will never be able to develop intrinsic motivation and have initiative beyond the idea of pleasing their parents. Their development into self-sufficient human beings will be drastically stunted by this process. This is the kind of ideal that encourages situations of child abuse. Abusive parents often have a mindset that their children owe them their lives and that they can do anything to their children without repercussions. And as stated earlier in this essay, you would classify as an abusive parent. Your article is a recipe on how to emotionally and socially cripple your children and make them dependent on your approval for the rest of their lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)