His example is a quote from Voltaire in which he criticized many people in his writing during his lifetime and therefore certainly believed in freedom of speech. His famous quote, “I wholly disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it…” is said with a sarcastic remark. He appeals to the reader's emotions, by explaining to them that they are not stepping up and defending their rights like they should be. Lippmann states that in a sarcastic tone to portray his claim which is that he disapproves that people are apathetic about their freedom. He explains that the true reason that freedoms should exist forcing agreement from the audience.
He is protesting against the loyalists who want to stay loyal to Britain and not be free. He says in his writing “Your future connection with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first.” He is urging the people who want to stay loyal to think about it.
In the speech written by Patrick Henry he is trying to declare that the American people are under British rule, and are being completely controlled. Patrick says through his speech that if we do not fight now there will eventually be nothing to fight for, because the British rule will take over. In the speech by Benjamin Franklin he talks about some parts of the constitution approve, he believes that the government is right for the people but it was truly not made for the people. These speeches were both written to solve a problem, these two brave men ready to do something to fight that problem, to try to rise against the odds and skirmish for what they believe in. In the speech written by Patrick Henry he starts by setting up others to listen to him by talking about patriotism.
King George didn't allow the colonies to make their own laws, which is an evident sign of him "using" the colonies. King George only cared about the welfare of his own country of Great Britain, not of his oversea colonies. As long as the colonies continued to provide revenue to it's mother country, George was satisfied. In order to do this he employed laws like the Navigation act, which prohibited trade with countries other than Great britain, and the Stamp Act which put taxes on almost everything the colonist bought. These laws, along with many others, upset the colonist to the breaking point in 1776 when they created the Declaration of Independance.
This lets the audience understand that I’m being diplomatic towards Creon by putting the fault on myself and not on him. It also shows the audience how I am being level headed with Creon which also emphasises the respect. At the beginning he also appears as a concerned citizen. I would perform the line “And as your son, my most useful function, is to keep you in touch with what other people are thinking.” I would say second sentence in a voice of reason. This is to show the audience how I am trying to talk sense to Creon and to stop what he is
Stalin’s view is supported by Admiral D Leahy, who in his memoirs writes ‘we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages’ This quote holds a substantial amount of weight to my argument due to Admiral D Leahy’s position as Roosevelt and Truman’s chief of staff, it would be expected for a man of such status to hold a view in support of America’s actions. Nevertheless, it is apparent that while Leahy may have condoned the dropping of the bomb to shorten the war, he would make no attempt to justify his country’s and his President’s actions. The moral implications were made apparent on the British mission to Hiroshima. Not only did the bombs claim the lives of over 200,000 civilians, the
Martin Luther King Jr. states “Oppressed People cannot remain oppressed forever.” (Cahn, 2009 p. 387) As we have seen throughout history, this is a true statement. Oppression is not something that sits well with any type of person that is under the oppression. To resist the oppression, one must carefully chose those laws that they fill are unjust and oppresses them, and once they are chosen then one can make a stand against the oppression. Oppression is unjust law that limits the power of the people that are oppressed into feeling powerless. The United States fought of the oppression over the colonies in the late 1700’s by first peacefully protesting the unjust taxes waged against them.
Often times using figurative language can help your audience understand with more clarity. In the article Cultivating Writers the author states “Creating original figurative language kindles the analogical imagination” (Nelson, 2012). This enables the audience to recreate what you are describing. There are several types of figurative languages that can be used. An idiom is a form of figurative speech that is known by a particular group.
However, Orwell believes that some problems like pretentious diction, meaningless words, dying metaphors, and vagueness should not exist when writing, so why use them? In President Richard Nixon’s State of the Union Address, he uses some of the problems that Orwell does not approve of in order to rally his citizens and to calm the nerves of many. People should recognize that one of the president’s jobs is to rally his people. A president wants his citizens to feel confident in him and know that he will solve most of their problems. Some words in the English language are “strictly meaningless, in the sense that they…do not point to any discoverable object” (Orwell 531).
This makes it easy for the audience to know what argument Lederer’s trying to make. Not to mention being helpful to me, in my efforts to determine if he has adequately supported his claim, which he undoubtedly does. On the other hand, it is up to the reader to figure out what they believe the overall claim of the compilation of King’s quotes is. Which, I interpreted to be, that language and writing are difficult and the only easy thing about it is avoiding them all together. However, the fact that the reader has to do so much work to conclude what the claim is greatly detracts from the effectiveness