Assessment 2

1. Identify the nature of proof in Frank's monologue, citing evidence he used in Charlie's defense.15 Points

Frank uses Ethos as proof, pointing out that the school claims to be educating future leaders in the political and legal careers.  He continues to discount the school’s Ethos as building leaders who are out for themselves rather than building character.  Frank says that someone offered to buy Charlie’s loyalty.  If Charlie told on some of his fellow students to the dean, he would be rewarded, otherwise he would be expelled.  Charlie chose to not snitch on those classmates, a credit to his integrity and ethics.

2. Of the four styles of dramatic or vicarious proof, which did Frank exploit to turn attitudes around about Charlie? How did this style function in terms of reason? 25 Points

Pacino’s character uses Anecdotal to turn attitudes around about Charlie.  Frank talks about  his personal choices and how he was faced with his crossroads and he himself could have chosen the right path but chose the easy way and his reason was that the right path was just too damn hard.  Charlie knew what the right path and has stuck to his personal beliefs.  He explained that Charlie has chosen a path of courage.  He defends Charlie’s decision to not divulge names, labeling the decision as an act of honor.

3. What cultural myths or images were employed to increase the appeal of Frank's argument? How did this influence his attempted shift of opinion? 20 Points

The Cultural Myth and Image can be identified as the Value of the challenge.  Charlie stands to lose everything he has worked for.  He came to the school on scholarship. He is being used as a scapegoat by his classmates because of what he witnessed.  Therefore, he takes up the challenge to fight and stay enrolled to a prestigious school and clear his name by means of the hearing.  In doing in so Charlie shows that he iss is a “bear man” by demonstrating the values the school is trying to instill in it students.  He is fighting a system that rewards the rich while punishing the poor.

4. Which of Reich's parables apply or applies to Frank's reasoning? 5 Points

the parables the works best here is the Rot at the Top. the dean does not care who confess to doing the vandalism he just want to punish someone .  The rot at the top comes in to play as the dean cares more about keeping the school funded by its alumni, who are wealthy businessmen.  The dean does not want to go after any of the wealthy sons in fear of losing funding for the school.  This situation is a prime example of the “malevolence of powerful elites, be they wealthy aristocrats, rapacious business leaders, or imperious government officials”.

5. What was Frank's reasoning in terms of logical appeal? 10 Points

Parallel Reasoning is in the works as Frank, Col. Slate, shows the contrast in what the school is trying to instill in its students and what it is actually teaching them. Frank says that they're going to reward the rich kid and punish Charlie, the poor kid.  Frank says that the only thing they are building is a rat ship.  Rats will turn on each other and the ship goes down.  He questions where the pride of the school really is.

6. How did Frank's paralinguistics impact his expression and the meaning of his words? Please give specific examples – three will do. 25 Points

Frank's paralinguistics, his body posture, gestures and verbal intonation dramatically demonstrate his outrage of the unethical nature of the situation.  He uses dramatics by saying if he was the man he was 5 years ago, he would take a flamethrower to the school.  He uses colorful language, such as telling the dean “this is such a crock of shit”.  He also raises his voice at times of impact and slams down his cane to demonstrate his rage.  He uses these tools for effect, perhaps to shock the audience, in pointing out what a sham the hearing truly is.  

Post 3:Reichs cultural Myths

Rand paul does a good job of using persuasive rhetoric in his campaign speech for announcing his is running for president. He hits on the Triumphant Individual of Reich's Cultural Parables.

http://time.com/3773964/rand-paul-presidential-campaign-launch-speech-transcript/

Rand paul uses The Triumphant Individual in his speech.  He places himself as the the little guy who believes in himself and works hard.  He sees himself to be the one that will return America to prosperity.  He puts himself in the comparable light of triumphant as he has slowly gained wealth through his labors.  He is uncompromising in his ideals as he states, “The truth is, I love my life as a small-town doctor. Every day I woke up, I felt lucky to be able to do the things I loved. More importantly, I was blessed to be able to do things that made a difference in people’s lives”.

Rand Paul's speech relies heavily on the process premises of Attitude.  His whole speech is framed for the little guy to stand up and take back America from special interest groups.  This succeeds because it targets the 18-40 year age group.

working: Speech outline

Persuasion speech 8 min long

Thesis Statement: Church is not needed to create morals and values in society.

• where does worth come from.: events, sports, common interest gatherings

• common morals and values: safety, freedom, love, connection, community
• people can still have morals and values without having to go to church.

introduction

America is getting less religious than previous generations.  The current generation, labeled Millennials, are letting go of religious dogma in favor of guiding their lives with common morals and values.

“The so-called millennials (Americans born between 1982 and 2000) are far more diverse, educated and tolerant than their predecessors. They’re also the least religious generation in American history – they’re even getting less religious as they get older, which is unprecedented – and the majority of them identify Christianity as synonymous with harsh political conservatism”.  (Times News)

“As older, more religious generations fade away and younger generations replace them, the societal midpoint shifts. And this trend is going to accelerate in coming years, because the millennial generation is big. They’re even bigger than the baby boomers.” (Times News)

Leaving religion behind is showing a shift from conservatism to liberalism. one's epistemology does not come from being labeled and being boxed in but from experiencing life. this expands one’s thinking and creativity.

#1 self worth

Self worth comes from seeing one's own accomplishments being achieved. the present generation gives self worth to having more diversity in careers. this means that they have involvement in more than one career and have multiple skill set that can be utilized.

helping others is another key aspect in gaining self worth. the current generation is not worried about getting head by themselves but wants to bring everybody along with them as well.

#2: common morals

The growing generation, millennials, are not necessarily atheist, nor against God.  Instead, they place value and judgement on laws of justice.  They scrutinize laws, politicians, etc through the common values and morality of humanity.   They want everything to be fair across the board.

“in the state of nature “[t]he notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice have no place.  Where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no injustice.”  But no atheist has to agree with this account of morality, and lots of us do not.  We “moralistic atheists” do not see right and wrong as artifacts of a divine protection racket.  Rather, we find moral value to be immanent in the natural world, arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and to respond to those vulnerabilities and capacities in others.”

#3: morals/values without church

churches are not held up on a pedestal any longer. everything and everyone is and should be questioned.

“the [churches] can no longer claim to be the sole source of morality and virtue, nor can they expect to assert their will in political matters and be obeyed without question. Instead, they’ll have to muster evidence and make their case in the marketplace of ideas like everyone else.”

Everyone, regardless of church membership, is an equal in the political platform and equal in opinion of morals and virtues.  

looking at the argument, examining the facts rationally and not through emotions, brings us to the “...consequences of pinning morality to the existence of God.  Consider the following moral judgments”

•         It is wrong to drive people from their homes or to kill them because you want their land.  

•         It is wrong to enslave people.

•         It is wrong to torture prisoners of war.

•         Anyone who witnesses genocide, or enslavement, or torture, is morally required

to try to stop it.

These are the same moral actions that our forefathers have taken in the name of religion.  

“To say that morality depends on the existence of God is to say that none of these specific moral judgments is true unless God exists.   If God turned out not to exist — then slavery would be O.K.?  There’d be nothing wrong with torture?  The pain of another human being would mean nothing?”   (New York Times)

conclusion:

“Things don’t become morally valuable because God prefers them; God prefers them because they are morally valuable.”  

  

http://theweek.com/articles/450205/why-are-millennials-less-religious-not-just-because-gay-marriage

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/18/good-minus-god/?_r=0

Larsen post 2

The artifact that I will be talking about is an interview with Paul Rand. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kEZroWTlK5I" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The interview with presidential candidate, Paul Rand links Orwellian dystopia to today’s use of technology within our current government.  His persuasive interview hits on the same concepts of “Presence of Conspiracy”, within Larsen’s six traits of Persuasive Cultural Premise.     

To build his argument, he pulls us into our common knowledge of high school literature, one book in particular, Orwell’s 1984. He sites his emotions then, when he first read the fictitious novel, dismissing the idea it could happen.  But he has now changed his mind and emotions, pointing out that...“when I was a kid and read 1984, in the 1970s, probably, I say I was somewhat comforted because we didn't have the technology to spy on everybody all the time. Now I think we literally do have the technology, and a large amount of data and information can be gotten from metadata. Some people say, "Oh that's just boring old medical, or boring old business records," but the thing is, you put it all together, and a lot can be determined about a person”.  Everything we have, technology wise, has a built in backdoor.  There is access to our personal lives in every device we use and the data we look at.  

Paul then refers to General Hayden’s statement: “the Fourth Amendment doesn't protect records at all”.  He sites the commanding case of his point, Maryland v. Smith.  He continues his point by stating “that worries me. I think we need to have another ruling at the Supreme Court level, because I think the information in the cloud should get the same amount of protection as the information in the castle”.

Rand Paul uses the common cultural myth in America to persuade and influence his audience to trust him to lead action as president in the coming election.  Paul specifically uses Larson’s fourth cultural myth, the presence of conspiracy.

It is interesting to note that Rand Paul points to the emotion of fear, the feeling at the root of conspiracy.  “I do think that people use fear to try to allow government to grow larger and that the surveillance state and Patriot Act and all of that stuff has come out of fear. And I want people to know that you can stop terrorists, you can collect the records of terrorists using the Fourth Amendment”.  

Rand Paul succeeds in making his point by specifically pointing to a common myth.  The belief, all American’s who have read Orwell, that governmental spying is invasive and eventually controls our very existence against our will.  He was effective in the way he built his argument as he referenced Orwell’s 1984, reminding us that it preceded the technology, therefore it wasn't a real threat.  Now that the technology is here, and being utilized by our government, we are at risk of living in a totalitarian society