However, by presenting both sides of the argument one can understand the reasons why it shouldn’t be read and why it should be read. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, should not be read because of the racist, harsh, and critical language in the book. However, it should be read because it helps teach personal morals and judgments, as well as important themes like friendship or love. You can never “candy-coat” material to protect teens from reading such material. Sooner or later they will have to find out.
The major premise of his argument is that “the display of swastikas or Confederate flags clearly falls within the protection of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.” Thus, though he regrets that the students involved behaved in this fashion, Bok claims that censorship is dangerous and goes against the value of communication and American principles of democracy. He concludes his argument by suggesting that instead of enforcing codes, and thus violating the right to free speech, it would be better either to ignore such communications or to speak with those who perform insensitive acts. Rhetorical analysis Derek Bok organizes his argument by first describing the problem, then presenting both sides of approaches to resolving it, and finally explaining his personal stand on the issue. The rhetorical structure of such approach allows Bok present the argument fairly by conceding to the proponents of speech code enforcement that display of Confederate flags or swastikas is indeed insensitive and offensive. This pattern of organization also allows Bok to distinguish between the
The text states that euphemisms and weaselers have uses but only if we are speaking, writing, listening, and reading carefully could we even distinguish prejudicial uses of these devices. It further states that photographs and other images are not claims or valid arguments but can be used to affect the reader’s decision making. They are invalid because a photograph may not state the exact truth and can be used to mislead the viewer. 3. What are some methods you might use to determine the reliability of the data you gather?
The following behavior, extra linguistic behavior, includes the pitch or level of a person’s speech, how quickly or sluggishly he or she communicates, and if the individual tends to interject during conversations. The final type of behavior study is spatial relationships. This is how people handle individuals getting in to their comfort zone around their bodies. The ethical risks involved is because the researcher is limited the legitimacy of what is to
If we are not intending a purpose for our words, either spoken or written, they will bear no fruit – they are useless. We are also reminded that sometimes our communication has consequences, even when we think there will be none. Therefore, let us take heed before we speak. This is not meant to deter us from speaking or writing as often, but to make sure they have an intended purpose. When asked to speak, have something meaningful to say.
Normally, we would not argue about children, but the statement that was made by me was taken out of context. We ended up settling everything, but that just goes to show how things can go left if you are miscommunicating with other people. Miscommunication is described as a lack of clear or adequate communication. In order to make sure that a miscommunication does not happen in the future, you have to make your voice well heard. Make sure that you are saying things in a way that it cannot be mistaken for anything other than it is.
When the quotation is wordy or provides only basic facts, you will want to paraphrase the material. You should also paraphrase to avoid overuse of quotations: your paper should not be a series of quotations linked by an occasional transition sentence (of course, you must cite paraphrases just as you would a quotation). Finally, indicate where you will conclude your
This element refers to attitudes or level of approval individuals hold regarding morals and laws in general as well as specific deviant behaviours. In Akers’ model, deviant behaviour does not require positive acceptance of the behaviour; instead, morals or conventional values that are weakly held or temporarily neutralised may be sufficient to generate deviance. Clearly, such a proposition has important implications for the intimate violence: the less likely they are to resort
The bases and biases are named as autonomy versus binary, historization versus ethnocentrism, transparency verses lingosentrism and logocentrism verses teleological bias. The bias of oral language This paper will discuss Habermas’ basis of public sphere in transparency of language and his underlying bias of lingosentrism. Habermas suggests, correctly so, that language provides the opportunity for rational discourse, which eventually leads to the identification of norms, which are a foundation for consensus. However, he however overlooks the important aspect of written and non-verbal communication, by stating that oral speech represents events in the most transparent and objective way,
As James Rachels said, “Cultural Relativism might be true, but it might lead to some consequences, such as no longer being able to say that the customs of other societies are morally inferior to ours, or we could decide whether actions are right or wrong just by consulting the standards of our society and even the idea of moral progress would be called into doubt.” Cultural Relativism has some good advantages; it helps us to keep an open mind about other people´s beliefs. On the other hand, Cultural Relativism is not a good system that should be followed by each culture separately because there are some universal rules that should be followed, for instance no murder. Laws should be created under morality, and they might not be perfect, but they are the best rules that we as humans have. Even though societies still have arguments about their beliefs because it is impossible to have complete peace because of our differences. For example, For the Greeks it was believed that it was wrong to eat the dead, whereas the Callatians believed it was right to eat the dead, or the Eskimos saw nothing wrong with infanticide, whereas Americans believed infanticide is immoral.