If the reader were like me, they would have been sentimental and found this passage very uncomfortable. After all, the inmate did something to lock them up in the first place. I find this appeal unfair to the reader, because, if the reader is not educated in the prison system or aware of the reason the prisoner is locked up in the first place, they may feel differently towards the treatment of the prisoners, compared to basing their opinion off just Abramsky’s article. Secondly, Abramsky supports
Even though I think flogging is humiliating and painful, it is clearly a much easier and cheaper way of locking up a criminal rather than putting them in prison, and that we should consider bringing it back for non-violent crimes. In Jacoby’s article, "Bring Back Flogging," he talks to the readers about the flaws of today's criminal justice system and tries to persuade them to bring back flogging as a punishment for some crimes and other instances. Jacoby’s thesis is directly in his title “Bring Back Flogging”. His title is an attention grabber and it also makes the us think about his essay. He starts his essay with a knowledge on the puritans justice system, and how they dealt with criminals back in the old days.
Answers 1. In the beginning I wouldn’t behave that bad, but the longer the thing goes on, the more you get in to the role of being a mean prison guard. I’ve too much of a human compassion to treat people badly, but as I said, the more I get in to the role of being a prison guard the more I surely become meaner. 2. Because maybe they were afraid of the bad guards, that the bad guards would do something bad against them as well if they tried to do something “nice” to the prisoners.
At the same time Gates could have tried to understand Crowley’s view of the situation and could have spoken respectfully to Crowley. The reports cites research that shows people’s feelings about a police encounter depend significantly on whether they feel the officer displays respect and courtesy. I feel people of color tend to over exaggerate and most of the time play the racist card. I do feel sorry for officer’s that do play by the book and still gets the short end of the stick. Communication is supposed to be the key with dealing with people so they do not misunderstand you, but then again it is hard to deal with people who are so strong
He tries to appeal to the readers’ emotion whenever he can. He uses information that appeals to himself and other readers as opposed to Bruck’s essay. In contrast, in “No Death Penalty” written by Bruck, it seems that the majority of the essay was just quotes and cold hard facts that Bruck found before writing. He quotes Koch several times and tries to convince the reader that Koch’s information is incorrect. Overall, I am more convinced by Koch’s essay than Bruck’s essay just because it appeals to me on a more emotional level, and causes me to want to keep the death penalty.
When it comes to the Alton Logan case there is an automatic red flag thrown up on the attorneys decision to remain silent and a lot of critical comments are being thrown toward the attorneys because most of us find this silence by the attorneys to be unacceptable and very unmoral. When we start to read the details of this case we could easily begin saying that the two lawyers who represented Andrew Wislon should have spoke up and that saving an innocent man was more important than the attorney-client privilege law but then again it is easy to argue that the lawyers did the right thing by not breaking the attorney- client privilege law and if you’re willing to keep an open mind and try and see where these two lawyers are coming from in this moral decision they made, you might be swayed a different direction or at least understand the attorneys decision a little
He only presents one premise, that laws facilitate the segregation between smokers and nonsmokers, and consequently allow organized crimes harassing smokers to occur. The grounds for his premises are weak, as he does not provide concrete and reliable information to support his cause. Scott’s basic premise is that laws encourage the violation of smokers’ rights. He begins his argument with, “The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and a host of anti-discrimination laws notwithstanding...” With that commencement, Scott proves that he does not understand the concept of discrimination. He continues by claiming that denying housing and employment for smokers is a form of public hostility.
Although Sullivan feels that this definition is not the final definition of hate, but it serves to better define the word and helps understand the true meaning behind the word. Sullivan has more of a problem with hate crimes than he does with the word hate. He feels that hate serves as a “blanket” since it does not refer to the acts of an individual but it serves to make it refer to a general group of people instead (Sullivan 315). He provides the interesting insight that any “sense of belonging is followed by an unequal sense of unbelonging” (Sullivan 309). This seems to be a direct result of our strange tendency to classify people, objects, and even ourselves.
In this passage George Orwell makes the assertion that amongst the confusion of long literary or political critiques, the writing often becomes meaningless as a result of improper language and jargon. The use of such “meaningless” words allows them to be openly interpreted and often abused in political writing. What one might regard as Democracy, another would describe as Fascism, but neither carries a definition in this instance, but merely a positive or negative connotation. Consequently, these meaningless words often allow the reader to be deceived by the author. Orwell’s Six Rules 1) Do not use metaphors that you are use to reading in other texts.
This question does not suggest that your audience is stupid or uneducated. As we saw in Chapter 1, there is a great deal of confusion today about such matters as free will, truth, knowledge, opinion, and morality. Many intelligent and educated people have fallen victim to ideas and attitudes that cripple their creative and critical faculties. In many cases, your audience will appreciate your insights only if you first help them get beyond their misconceptions. Is Your Audience’s Perspective Likely to Be Narrow?