Post 3

I was very intrigued by the use of fear in our communication with others. Fear is a great driving factor in what decision a person can make. Fear can cause rational people to make irrational choices, which of course never leads to anything good. If a person wanted the masses to do something that they knew was wrong, that person just needs to instill fear. Look at World War II as an example, Hitler created fear amongst his people that Jews were trying to take over and were inferior people. Therefore, the Jews should be eliminated. Sociologists have attempted to study how normal people could do what they did. And that answer is easy, they were gripped by fear. Have we learned our lesson? No, take a more modern example, the war in Iraq. George Bush used fear to justify his invasion of Iraq. He used fear by telling the American public that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when in reality, Bush needed an excuse to topple Sadamn Hussein. So will we ever learn from history? Probably not, but we need to be aware when we are making decisions because of fear.

Post 2

What was your favorite thing about the class? What was your least favorite thing about the class? How can this class be improved?

My favorite part of this class was the group work. I enjoyed doing all the projects and working with people in my groups. The projects were challenging and at times an ordeal because of trying to work out the times with people. As fun as it was working with people, I truly would have liked to change up the groups so that way I could have met more people. That was definitely the challeng of this class, not meeting people. As I stated in my previous blog, having an online class is something I will never do again. What could have been done to make this class better is a mandatory class where everyone meets together. At least changing groups could have been fun because working with other people could have developed more friends.

Post 1

What did I learn from this class?

I learned all about the different ways that we can communicate through non verbal means. Communication is so much more than just speech and what we say. I learned that fear is the greatest motivating factor of people because fear grips people and leads them to do things that they would never do.

On a non-academia level, I learned never to take another online class. At first, I thought an online class might be fun, not going to class and not meeting people. But taking an online class is actually a lot of work. It was not fun having an online class because I never got to meet any of the people in my class except the group I was assigned. I would have enjoyed the class more if we could have switched groups so we could meet more people. Taking an online class is something I could never do again because I get lazy and this class made my laziness come out even more.

Post 3

Chapter 15 was all about cause and effects. A cause is the reason for things happening. An effect is the result of the cause and the two go hand in hand. So much of our lives are about cause and effect. One concept I found interesting was the normal conditions. Normal conditions "are the obvious and plausible unstated claims that are needed to establish that the relationship between purported cause and purported effect is valid or strong." Another concept that was interesting is the "post hoc ergo proper hoc" meaning after this, therefore, because of this. Much of argument has to do with this saying. The book used a good example in explaining how we use this saying in our everyday arguments. Overall, the chapter was helpful for learning about how cause and effect is used in our everyday life. Chapter 15 used good examples and had great ways of explaining everything.

Post 2

What was useful about this website?

This website was not very useful. First, there was too much information for such a subject that does not seem to be of much importance. Also, the makeup of the website is kind of funky. It seems to be almost just another wikipedia style of information. Why can not there be an educational website that is not so boring. Wow, it was hard to get through all the excersises. The excersies are just testing our knowledge of things we should know. The most helpful statement was "Many people distinguish between two basic kinds of argument: inductive and deductive. Induction is usually described as moving from the specific to the general, while deduction begins with the general and ends with the specific; arguments based on experience or observation are best expressed inductively, while arguments based on laws, rules, or other widely accepted principles are best expressed deductively. Consider the following example:

Adham: I've noticed previously that every time I kick a ball up, it comes back down, so I guess this next time when I kick it up, it will come back down, too.

Post 1

What was useful from the cause and effect website?

Of course, the website was helpful. Anytime, we can get away from using the book, I learn. From the book, I barely learn anything so a website is useful in trying to educate. I liked the example of the bicyclist and his/her scenario. The website also not only used just cause and effect concepts, but used concepts from previous chapters, which is always helpful. Then, it had some very useful information about arguments. "These causal arguments, then, follow the form of an inductive argument with one important exception: whereas an inductive argument carries as part of its second premise the implication that there is otherwise no significant difference, these causal arguments carry the implication that there is only one significant difference: for the bicyclist, the truck; for the first driver, the bicycle; for the second driver, the first car. " This was by far the best part of the website. It had the most useful information.

Post 3

This chapter was about the different types of reasoning using analogy. I did not see the necessity of this chapter when compared to the last. This cheaper did not seem much different. Reasoning is not something we are born with, it is a learned behavior just like language. It is just whether we choose to exercise our ability to reason to the fullest. When we really truly begin to use reasoning and logic, we are all smart people. But, it just many people do not use reasoning. Many people make decisions on the fly/use their first instinct. I disagree that this is a good way to make decisions. Reasoning is important to being able to see the consequences of a certain action. However, using reasoning, I see that sometimes our plans can backfire. We sometimes may make the wrong decision because of our over thinking. Over thinking can lead to more problems but not thinking is also a problem.

Post 2

The most difficult reasoning to use was inductive. First, I did not have any clue what it meant to reason by induction. I could not find the difference between reasoning by deduction and induction. It seems both are just about reasoning using rationality. But, shouldn't all reasoning be rational? Of course, if we want to reason with someone and get something done, rationality would be the best way to approach it. Rationality should always be a part of every argument/reasoning.

Reasoning is a part of human nature. Reasoning is what defines human versus the animals. Reasoning is logic. Reasoning encompasses all sorts of forms. But, the best form is using fear. Is fear rational? I would argue yes. Fear is a normal part of the human condition. Fear is a big part of life, so if someone wants to tap into fear as a way of reasoning, that is logical.

Post 1

1. Reasoning by analogy - I want to save money on their energy costs, so I reason that solar power is just as effective as electricity, and solar is a cleaner energy form.

2. Sign Reasoning - A person should not drink coffee because it stains teeth so a person should also not drink soda because it stains tooth also.

3. Casual reasoning - We need to be prepared for a tsunami because California has earthquakes and is on the coastline.

4. Reasoning by criteria - My religion says I need to feed the hungry, so I should give money to charity.

5. Reasoning by example - We need to fix our debt problem or we will end up like Ireland.

6. Inductive Reasoning - People should not overspend or else they will go bankrupt.

7. Deductive Reasoning - People need to get out more to experience the world.

Post 3

Fear is the greatest intimidator. It is how many people (including myself) live their lives, out of fear. Fear is what has caused some of history's greatest and most forgetful moments. Wars were started over fear, fear of terrorism, nuclear wars, and religion. It is no wonder that politicians use fear to further their political agenda. Fear is a motivating factor to actually go out and vote. For example, just for reference both political parties use fear and demagoguery, it is just Republicans use more blunt scare tactics; their fear mongering is much less subtle. Republicans try to scare Americans into saying Obama is a socialist who wants to spread the wealth. First, my argument to that is America is already a socialist nation already. We have Medicare, Medicaid, social security, and so on. How do people fear socialism when hello, it is here in America that we redistribute money? We take money from the working people and give it to people who already worked. We take money from the young people and give it the elderly so they can have healthcare.

Post 2

If an officer of the law were to pull me over, of course I would try to get out the ticket. I would make up some excuse like "please do not give me a ticket because I just found out my wife cheated on me." Appealing to emotion or pity would be the most effective strategy for avoiding the ticket. No person should try to appeal to fear with an officer of the law. Nothing really scares an officer of the law, and it is not really a good idea to try to scare the officer into doing something, like not giving out a ticket. Hopefully, the officer would understand be sympathetic to my situation of my wife cheating on me. "See officer that is why I was speeding. I had to go home and confront my wife. Plus, I was angry so my driving was a little fast."

Post 1

An appeal to emotion is an argument in which you try to convince someone using emotions to have the person convinced because of a certain way he or she feels. Of course using emotions in making decisions is a good thing. We should never make a decision based on something we do not feel will help us emotionally. Appealing to emotions has many forms. Appealing to pity is when we want someone to do something based on feeling sorry or helpless to something. The book uses charity as an example, which helps clarify what appealing to pity is. Appealing to fear is what politicians use to get things done. Appealing to fear is using fear to scare people into doing things or buying things. Appealing to fear is the biggest and best appeal to emotion. It has the best track record of emotion appealing. What drives the world is fear. Fear about global warming, war, and nuclear weapons leads us to build the biggest military. Fear about the economy has caused us to dip into our retirement to have money. Oil speculation has caused a spike in global prices. An appeal to spite is when someone tries to appeal by having two wrongs to make a right.

Post 3

Chapter eight was all about general claims. But what are general claims? It was hard figuring out what exactly they were from the reading. This whole chapter was confusing for me from what the definition of to how general claims are disputed. It seems to me that all claims can be general, so why devote a whole chapter to general claims? I was wondering what the chapter means with all the formulas of if P, then Q or something like this. I mean this is not math class, where we need to know formulas. I never knew there was so much in depth analysis of speech. This chapter has really opened up the idea that speech can be so fully disected. I am just a little confused on the effectiveness of this chapter (and maybe this book). What is the importance of being able to disect general claims. I am already aware of bad speeches, just listen to our politicans.

Post 2

The first assignment was useful for many reasons. The first reason is that knowing what an editorial is can be useful for knowing opinion journalism vs. fact based journalism. A growing trend is in the media is opinion journalism. Different personalities on Fox News and MSNBC tell news using their opinion and sometimes do not use actual facts in their journalism. Recognizing opinion vs. facts can help people see clearly whether the news he or she receives is news or opinion. Then, being able to break down an editorial even further is very useful as well. Some people (including myself) like reading editorials because it can open your mind to other opinions, and if the opinion is good enough, can even change my mind about a subject. Also, it seemed that the first assignment helped us see what a good editorial should encompass, a description, and a valid argument. An editorialist job in writing the article is to try to get the reader to see his/her point of view. I recognize what an editorial is, but some people cannot, and that is sad.

Chapter 8

All general claims can be contradicted in some way. If I claim that college is a waste of money, someone can obviously come in and contradict this claim by saying college is not a waste of money, but in fact is a great investment. General claims can of course be contradicted because they are so general. General claims can involve the use of some and all. Some meaning everyone except one, and all means there is no exception. Some people, instead of using all, say every. I like to use all more often, because every always conjures up more arguments than necessary. More common of the two is definitely “every”. I use every more often because it is more common vernacular. Using every does create problems sometimes because people, when they hear every, always want to pick apart the claim and try to find that one exception to the rule. I guess it kind of goes back to the use of the word every. We use every in exaggeration of things that should not be used for every.

Post 3

In chapter 7, the beginnings dealt with raising objections. Raising objections is so important to how and why we learn what we do. By raising objections to statements of opinion, people begin to question the status quo. Someone may make a claim that sounds good at the time, such as women should not be able to vote because they are not as smart as men. Can you imagine if no person would have raised an objection to this common belief or opinion?  Raising objections is how we learned what we learned in school. People in high places argued over the curriculum of the school, but through time, objections have been raised over the content of the education. People raised objections to the portrayal of blacks in history or popular beliefs in science.  What is also so great about raising objections is an action usually is done for the progress of society.  Raising objections to homelessness and poverty is why charity is helping homeless people.

Post 2 2011.03.09

Chapter 7 deals with counterarguments. A counterargument is important in any dialogue/argument. Lawyers use counterarguments all the time in court, but we use counterarguments too. Sometimes if someone is deciding to do A or B, he or she will argue and counter argue in their head about the best possible outcome.  When we argue with someone other than ourselves, we can refute an argument directly or indirectly. There are three ways to refute an argument directly. From the list in the book, the best way I see to refute an argument is to show that the conclusion is false. A good debate requires that the people make good points and good premises, but the conclusion is where they differ. Republicans and Democrats argue over the role of government. Both sides make good points, but Republicans conclude that government is bad because of its many failings. Democrats would not argue that government has not failed, but to then jump to the conclusion government is bad is where the argument occurs.

Post 1 2011.03.08

Chapter 6 was all about compound claims. A compound claim is a claim that has more than one claim, but should be viewed as only one claim. The book used a good exam for a compound claim. I feel that we use a lot of compound claims in our rhetoric. Compound claims seem to always use and/ or statement. But this however does not make the statement a guarantee for one happening over the other. The book also mentions that not every sentence with two claims is a compound claim. The distinction can be hard to notice unless some sort of knowledge of communication. Compound claims can make a person sound smarter. Many politicians use compound claims all the time in their arguments. A politician always makes statements that put every situation in black and white terms. The United States needs to repay its debt or it will face bankruptcy. Politicians use compound claims to make their points, saying if someone does not follow my point, a disaster will take place.

Post 3 2011.03.04

This chapter dealt with advertisements and rationale discussion. Society highly values products, especially ones that make our life easier. It also talked about repairing arguments. What does that really even mean? I want to talk about how advertisers are great at what they do because we fall for their tricks. Advertisers play on people who cannot comprehend the idea that his or her life will be fine without such a product. Advertisements are everywhere. We have just become so use to advertisements; we do not really notice them all around. The way the book says to question advertisers is to use personal experience. Advertisers do a good job of trying to convince the buyer that this product is genuine and works. They sometimes use "doctors" or experts in the field to persuade someone to buy the product. The point I am trying to convey is that just because advertisers use a good narrative in trying to convince someone to buy the products, it may or may not be of use.

Advertisements 2011.03.02

Advertisements are all around us. They used to only be on television and in magazines, but with the escalation of the internet, advertisers began using this median. It was hard to find a specific advertisement on the web, but when I use the search engine, yahoo, there are advertisements on the side. Specifically an advertisement on the web, I found was on http://www.menshealth.com/. I use this website a lot for advice and different work outs, but many times when someone enters the URL, an advertisement pops up wanting the user to subscribe to the magazine.
The reason we tolerate pop ups and advertisers is because we are so used to them, we have gotten use to them. We have become tolerant to advertisers need to try to sell their products. Advertisers know we cannot help it. We are drawn to certain advertisements, such as my men’s health because I believe in what they are trying to sell to me.

Post #1 2011.03.01

Repairing an argument requires adding a premise or conclusion if it satisfies all three of the following:
1. The argument becomes stronger or valid
2. The premise is plausible and would seem plausible to the other person.
3. The premise is more plausible than the conclusion.

Argument: Charlie Sheen is crazy because of the interviews he has given lately.

Analysis: The argument could become stronger if there were specifics as to why the interviews would lead someone to believe he was crazy. Adding detail to the argument would cause people to see why he is crazy. Another question arises, is this even an argument? People who have seen Charlie Sheen lately would say Sheen is crazy because of his recent television interviews. The unstated premise is that all people who act like Charlie Sheen would most likely be labeled as crazy. Not many people would argue with someone on that statement.

Post 3 2011.02.16

I didn't really understand the necessity of this chapter. I understand the concept of why arguments are good and bad. Of course, someone makes a bad argument if there are illogical ideas, misinterpretation of info, and/or missing facts.
Arguments can be challenging situations. We need to leave all the arguing to the politicians and old people. We ( my generation) argues too much and for all the wrong reasons. Arguments should not be an effective way of communication, yet it is probably the most popular. Arguments should only be dissected and analyzed the way they do by lawyers (most of which go onto politics).
The biggest reason people hate politics is because of the misinterpretation of what it really happening in America. People will believe anything if one person says it right. I feel this is what arguments has come to because of politics. If one politician says something eloquently, his or her audience will believe it.

Post 2 2011.02.15

Strawman
It's easier to knock down someone's argument if you misrepresent it, putting words in the other person's mouth.
This fallacy seems to involve arguing with a person who is too stupid to comprehend what is being said. The person arguing wants to do is sound smarter by misrepresenting the information. A real world example is Fox News' coverage of President Obama. During this past midterm elections, President Obama was campaigning. While campaigning, President Obama made a comment some tried to tie to racism. President Obama said that Republicans can sit in the back of the car in regards to saying "No" to all of his (Obama) policies. Fox News commentators took this to mean that President Obama meant Republicans could sit in the back of the bus referring to the Civil Rights Jim Crow laws. Fox News tried to convince its audience that Obama was a racist. This is a classic example of the lies Fox News uses in its message and theme of anti-Obamaism. Clearly, the commentators were putting words in Obama's mouth that he did not say.

Excersise page 225 2011.02.14

My neighbor should be forced to get rid of all the cars in his yard. (claim) People do not like living next door to such a mess. (claim) He never drives any of them (premise). They all look old and beat up and leak oil all over the place. (premise) It is bad for the neighborhood, and it will decrease property values. (premise)

Yes, this is an argument.
The conclusion is that all the cars in the neighbor's yard should be gotten rid of because of the reasons stated.
Subargument: "It is bad for the neighbohood..."
Good argument? I don't think it is a good argument because the reasons for getting rid of the cars are not strong. Having cars that leak oil does not decrease property values.

This excersise would be helpful if I knew the correct answers. The excersise can only truly be useful if the answers were going to be known to me.

Post #3 Epstein Chapter 3 2011.02.10

What did I find interesting in this chapter? I found that arguments in general are much more complex than I would have imagined. I never would examine and/or analyze an argument in such depth. It was news to me that an argument could be worked out as to its effectiveness like a math problem. Arguments come back down to the fundamentals as to whether it is a strong, valid, invalid, or weak argument. I think some of our politicians could learn a few lessons about argument being considered strong or not. It is sad how much of our political discourse comes down to argument. Politicians argue amongst themselves trying to score political points but in reality mostly the extremes of each party get the say. Both the extreme left and right use arguments when looked at are not valid or strong. If politicians could actually begin to use stronger valid sense worthy arguments, then our political discourse could change for the better.

Strong vs Valid Arguments 2011.02.09

Valid arguments differ vastly from strong arguments. Valid is defined as having a good base for something. An argument that is valid has truth and reasoning behind it. An example is (premise) The Green Bay Packers won the Super bowl. (Premise) Aaron Rodgers is a Green Bay Packer. (Conclusion) Aaron Rodgers is a super bowl champion. The argument is valid because both premises are true and the conclusion is true. The definition of a valid argument is one in which the premises are true, therefore the conclusion must also be true.
Strong arguments on the other hand derive from the fact that there is merit and fact in the argument. In valid while the premises can be false and still be considered right, in a strong argument, the logic must be present. The above valid argument is truthful and logical, but valid arguments can be illogical. Strong arguments need true premises and therefore a true conclusion. My example is one I have heard plenty, men is mortal. Socrates was a man, therefore Socrates was mortal.

Valid Argument or Not? 2011.02.08

President Obama is President of the United States. All Presidents of the United States are American-born citizens. Therefore, Obama is an American-born citizen.

An argument can be weak or strong. The strong arguments have three criteria to be considered a strong solid argument. Arguments lead to many of the political problems we encounter.
In this argument about President Obama, I try to dispel the notion of his non-American citizenship. The premise is plausible; Obama is without a doubt the President of the United States. He was elected President with a majority of the Electoral College without dispute. As for the premise being truer than the conclusion, this too is true. Many people do not believe President Obama was born in America but was born in Kenya. People do not however try to dispute the validity of him being the President. The argument is valid and strong because Obama would not have been able to be elected President if it was not for his birthright citizenship status. People can try to invalidate his Presidency because they do not believe his citizenship.

Assignment #3 2011.02.04

Definitions of words play an important role in our speech. Being vague in how we use speech leads to many problems. How someone defines something as being "wrong", someone else might view as being what is considered right. This is where many arguments can and do originate. If I get into an argument with my friends over what we should do because of boredom, we may all share different definitions of what constitutes entertainment. If we were to use a more clear definition or synonym of entertainment, we might not run into so many screaming matches about whether seeing a movie or watching television are good forms of entertainment. Another problem of unclear definitions is the discourse we use can be hurtful. Politics is the prime example. Some might say Obama is a socialist, when the reality is no evidence supports such language. These people who claim Obama a socialist do not know the true definition of a socialist. Stalin was a socialist not Obama!

Assignment 2 Ambigious Sentence 2011.02.03

My mother and I were talking about finances, specifically about the tuition fee hikes and how hard it is getting to pay for college. I conjured up the idea about maybe dropping out of college because of the expensive price tag of a college degree. When my Mother heard this suggestion, she questioned me about how a big decision like this one would work in terms of a career. I told her about how I could find a job, then save the money earned to pay for college later in life. My Mother then said to me an ambiguous sentence, "You are doing nothing in your life to suggest you are skilled enough to do this." An ambiguous sentence is a statement that is open to interpretation. What makes my Mother's quote ambiguous is what does she mean by not "skilled?" Does my Mother think I am not smart or can not perform certain physical skills? My Mother's statement made me decipher the true meaning. This is the definition of an ambiguous sentence.

Assignment #1, Subjective and Objective Claims

David Kennedy

Professor Perez

Communications 41

2 February 2011

Different Claims

What people believe to be true statements are callled claims. People believe in truths and theories. Subjective claims are claims that can not be proven and therefore are open to interpretation. An example of a subjective claim I have recently heard is that President Obama is a bad President. This claim is a matter of opinion and open to argument. I heard this claim while watching political satire television. Many people feel that President Obama is socializing and bankrupting America. Particualr media outlets amplify this particukar claim. And certain experts and historians help try to justify and convince people of these beliefs.

An example of an objective claim I have heard is the Green Bay Packers and Pittsburg Steelers are playing in The Superbowl. Obviously, with the big game fast approaching, all the sports news and buzz is around the superbowl. An objective claim is a declarative statement that can be proven true. When history books about the superbowl are written, it will say superbowl forty-five was played by the steelers and th packers.



Biography

Hello, my name is David. I am a somphomore at San Jose State studying psychology. I do not know what it is that I would like to do with this degree, but I am hopeful and optomistic some career will come my way. I enjoy spending time with my roomates and friends, watching sports, and hanging out with all types of people.
I am from South San Francisco, CA. I have an older brother and a dog. I took a communications class at San Francisco State University and enjoyed it.