Perry's Scheme & Project II

Writing an argument is different from speaking an argument. When writing, you're trying to win by persuading the readers that you have valid points and that those points are better suited for a certain situation. You do that by appealing to the readers using Ethos, Pathos and Logos and by proving that you understand the opposing views. When writing an argument, you have to be two people. First, you have to be yourself so you can express your views and your side of the argument. Second, you have to be your opponent so you can better persuade your readers to accept your views. You have to literally argue with yourself. Writing is also less personal.
When speaking an argument, you don't have to be two people. Unless you're giving a speech about an issue, you will have an opponent to argue with. It's more personal because you can look your opponent in the eye when you're arguing. You're speaking to someone and you're having a conversation. You can also tell how you're doing by observing your opponent's facial expressions and body language. But you have to be able to work under pressure when speaking an argument. You never know what your opponent might do.
But whether you're speaking or writing an argument, you're trying to appeal to your audience and get them to take your side on a certain issue. You're persuading them and convincing them that your views and ideas are the better ones.

I don't think I stand on just one part of the spectrum of Perry's Scheme. I might be at the "Pre-Commitment" stage because I see the necessity of making choices and committing to something but I don't always commit. I tend to do the assignment that appeals to me most and sounds most interesting. And I tend to avoid and procrastinate on the subjects that I have no interest in or that I find tedious and annoying. That is not the case for this class. I find this class very interesting and project II was fun. The topic I chose was interesting and that motivated me to write. It's so much better than to doing Chemistry homework.

Project III

I am most interested in the first option for project three (Rhetoric in Action). I found it to be the most interesting one because we're asked to pick a significant topic and argue for its significance and for social change. It's very personal and that helps with my arguments. I find it easier to argue about something that I truly care about rather than a random topic. I like it because this essay is about changing how people think and making a difference. I also chose the first option because it had a very in depth description of what the project is about. The other two were kind of confusing.

I like the essay portion of this project but I'm not so excited about the "action" part because in order to act on my suggestions, I would have to pick a topic that I definitely support. That makes the topic choosing portion more difficult. But it shouldn't be too difficult because there are thousands of topics to choose from.

Project 1

My plan, as of now, is to analyze King's use of ethos, pathos, and logos. I think I'll be focusing more on ethos and pathos because I couldn't really find any examples of logos.
I might also examine his use of diction, syntax and metaphors in the letter...and anything else I can find.
So far, I have divided my essay into several parts. One paragraph for ethos, one for pathos and so on.
I think it might have been more helpful if we had looked at more examples of this essay and gone over it in class. I have looked at several examples and they were slightly helpful.
I really think it's going to be difficult for me to "not" turn this paper into a long summary.

Rogerian Argument

This seems...interesting.
I like how the Rogerian arguments think about opposing positions and describe them fairly. I think it's a smart approach during an argument. It helps when someone is thinking about the opposing side because it might help them strenghten their points and deliver their message in a more effective manner. But it might also confuse them and cause them to support the opposing side. It might also confuse the readers/audience.
I think if this type of argument is done properly, it might serve as a very powerful way to state your beliefs and get people to agree with you.

Response to the Letter

The letter was very well written and the topic was well argued. You were very persuasive. After reading this letter, I have to say that I am more aware of what's going on. It's sad when you see people being abused and lynched for no good reason. It's sad when you see tears running down the face of a child in any situation. But in this particular situation, it's even more depressing. How exactly do you explain to a 6 year old that she can't go to "Funtown" because her skin color is darker? At that age, they have the mentality that the world is a happy place. They can't comprehend that the world is actually separating people based on physical appearances. I understand why parents would participate in protests and marches. They want a brighter future for their kids. They want their loved ones to be treated equally and with respect.
But right now, the world is not an equal place for these people. You participate in non-violent actions thinking it might lead to something. You think those people who run this society will finally understand your side of the story. The truth is, they will not understand. They will continue to treat your people the same way. They will continue to arrest you. Your explaination of unjust and just laws was clear and it made sense. But those who oppress you are the ones who made the "unjust" laws. Breaking them would mean breaking the law no matter how much you disagree. And not many people will understand your choice of disobedience.
Dr. King, thank you for explaining your motives for such actions and decisions.

~ Random Stranger

Test

abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.1234567890~?/":;'][