Such devices are comparison and contrast, rhetorical questions and allusions. Downie uses comparison and contrast, in paragraph 2, when making the claim that rather than learning about or celebrating the life of those who made a big contribution to the world, persons engage more in the lives of celebrities. She draws the conclusion when comparing the lives of any one of the major contributors but mainly Mother Teresa’s life to the life of celebrities, it’s nonnegotiable and their work becomes mediocre. Downie also uses rhetorical questions purposely to boggle the minds of her readers to gain a more focused view on life and what it should be rather than what persons see it as. One main rhetorical question she asked was “what is environmental stewardship?” While analyzing her article, I found that she used a rhetorical question as a form of humor (what idiot would want love if that’s all they could look forward to?).
She states that if we continue to participate we will be a “repressive society” which to me seems very one sided, she speaks to everyone in this essay, because she wants everyone to know that if you participate in the pc, we are not only being ridiculous but we are being a “repressive society.” This essay, or what seems to be an essay, is not an effective argument because of the way she argues, she does not see things from both sides, but she chooses to voice her side and why she thinks it is ridiculous! By just reading the essay once, made me believe that this is not a great essay or argumentative essay why? Because she just argues her point and not seeing it through how other people think of it, just her point of view. As I have stated in my introduction,
Through time people have manipulated words and their definitions to mean what they like. Pinker offers the example of Seinfeld saying, ‘“Coffee” doesn’t mean coffee! “Coffee” means sex!”’ to illustrate how connotative meaning has changed and is now very different from the literal meaning. Bacon’s theory about the misuse of words and their definitions still remains strong in society for a few reasons, one being the fear of being labeled insensitive or offensive. In everyday interactions with friends, family and strangers we consciously or subconsciously alter the structure of our speech to be more cordial or friendly depending on how we wish the hearer to perceive us.
Most people are clueless about the laws that are passed in the U.S until they are put into effect. In a column that was posted in The Nation, Williams, tries in relaying her point that the U.S Patriot Act, which was established as a means in thwarting further terrorist acts, is taking away the very rights it is trying to preserve. Throughout the paper she tries in establishing a foundation with the reader. To get the reader to really take her point into consideration, she uses rhetorical appeals. She builds her character and credibility to build up her ethos and how she wants to project herself.
She uses of the fact that attacks on Margret and her uses this fact to make the reader agree with her arguments. She appeals to the reader’s sense of fear. she makes the reader knows anyone who opposes gay marriage will surely end up on the wrong side of history, this is a bit threatening the reader to agree with her
In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, prejudice extends past race and gender to include unethical verdicts. It may be perfectly legal that John Hopkins researchers used Henrietta’s cells, however it is immoral. A consent form demonstrated, on page thirty-one, a vague statement and because of this the existence of Henrietta Lacks cells will always stir controversy whether it is in their origin or the continued usage for years to come and I believe we should have consent to our cells because it our rights as humans and the right to privacy. In addition, it is important for people to know what is done to cells because we should not unwillingly give consent (if we are not fully aware). Ethical dilemmas arise one being the Lacks family had no idea that a sample of her tumour had been taken and sent to George Gey.
A doctor does not have the right to do this because he or she is not God and should not ‘play God’. This is why euthanasia is opposed. Followers of Natural Law would argue that euthanasia, with regards to the quality of life, might end a person’s suffering which was causing them to have poor quality life, but it does not consider that a person could have gotten better if they were not euthanized and their quality of life could have improved. This is why a follower would object to euthanasia. The case study of Dr Nigel Cox can be used.
Many debates have happened whether or not these women approach feminism for their time period. The answer to that is ambiguous and depends on how the reader takes in their writings. One can say that even though Wollstonecraft is so obviously pining for co-education, and in that way to be equal to men, she is not promoting equality for anything else. By not wanting to be equal in anything else, how can she be approaching feminism? Pizan so obviously from the start of her writing, introduces how women should behave (from the perspective of a princess), so that her actions shall be beneficial to her and her husband.
“ The syntax of this part of the story shows that the author is trying to explain the character of Prynne and then compare it to what people believe she would look like. This is important because what it shows is that Prynne is not what the people seem to believe. The sin committed by Prynne, had an effect on her that was very different then the effect of the sin on Dimmesdale and Chillingworth. The effect of the sin on Prynne was very hurtful but the way she took the pain was by doing well in society again and by working and proving that the Scarlett Letter was nothing more than a letter. For a large majority of the story, the Scarlett Letter meant Adultery, but as time changed the letter a meant able.
Many people believe it is a perfectly ethical way to assist in infertility and to help women who desire to get pregnant. Others would say, for example, that it is wrong to take God’s work into your own hands and conceive a child through different means than He intended. There are also numerous things that could sway someone either way. For example, someone who has a friend that is infertile might be more biased to approving of artificial insemination, as opposed to someone who does not. Though there are faults with both sides, everybody has their own reasons for supporting or not supporting artificial insemination.