First, it was a flamingo.”, the writer showcases more sarcasm and irony, and that is what the tone of the excerpt seems to be. Price uses the word “staked” which is a more powerful choice then if she had chosen to say “made”. Price’s diction in the excerpt is powerful and yet simple at the same time. She uses words such as “commensurate” and “extravagance” that shows she is knowledgeable, and keeps such words at a minimum so we can still read it without being confused. The syntax that Price showcases includes similes and indirect metaphors, such as “… like a line of semiotic sprouts.”.
Nonetheless, the omissions and baseless presumptions present in this piece insult the intelligence enough that it is impossible to seriously consider Hardin’s point (which is stunning in its brutality). Consistently, he presents metaphors, comparisons, and ideas which do not hold up to scrutiny. His self-assured statements which at first seem to be logical support for his point become ludicrous when reviewed on their own merits. Hardin first reveals his sizeable bias by comparing the rich countries of the world to lifeboats. (p. 131).
He introduces the reader to the main themes in pseudoscience and key scientific terminology, methodology and statistical analysis, all of which is well illustrated with a wide range of evidence to strengthen his argument and aid the understanding of bad science vs good science. Examples of evidence are used to show what not to do, and he celebrates those that make a positive difference in the field, such as The Cochrane Collaboration. He provides examples of disturbingly unethical practice (especially seen in the newly added chapter 10) that is “baffling and terrifying” (p.192) and shocking, eye-opening information about how the mistakes and misinterpretations can have a very real and upsetting impact on people. Goldacre is fiercely passionate about the delivery and interpretation of reliable scientific experiments and research, and refers to the role of the media and the pharmaceutical and vitamin industries in promoting unreliable and unscientific nonsense for their own financial
It's half a brilliant political satire, half a surreal comedy of errors. Causality of the characters and the “chilled out” dialogues only add to the brilliant script. The acting is top notch, deNiro and Hoffman are hilarious and spunky. The first and second part of the film is full of dark humour, excitement and sarcasm. The last third of the film is powered by too much of conventional drama giving away the ending way too easily.
In Edward O. Wilson’s book The Future Of Life, Wilson writes two passages from two points of views- the non-environmentalists point of view on the environmentalists, and vice versa. He uses name calling along with over the top accusations to create a sense of irony with the juxtaposition of the two excerpts, and ends up completely dropping his credibility significantly in the meantime. One of the very first tactics used on both sides of the arguments was name calling. The ‘non-environmentalists’ stated, “Depending on how angry we are, we call them greens, enviros, environmental extremists, or environmental wackos,” while the ‘environmentalists’ stated, “... we know them more accurately as anti-environmentalists and brownlashers… wise users… and sagebrush rebels.” While we know from history that not everybody’s going to agree on one decision, completely, one hundred percent, Wilson automatically assumes the role as a completely radical environmentalist or non-environmentalist, and it ruins his
A comparison of great satire A satire will always have several life lessons to teach. The question is, will it simply throw it in your face, or will it hit you from the side with laughter? Voltaire’s Candide and Kaufman’s You Can’t Take it with You are two of literature’s greatest satires. While both make similar points against society, they are very different in how they satirize the world. Voltaire uses Candide to throw his beliefs in the reader’s face with the radical extremes of his story.
I do not just possess my pets; I am their companions as they are mine. People who have pets as a working animal rather than a companion may not feel the same connectedness to their animal as I do. They may consider themselves to be owners rather than guardians. But even if an animal is used solely as a utility tool, the owner should still be forced to provide the animal with the maximum care. Weather the animal’s purpose is companionship or work, it still deserves to be treated in the most humane way possible.
It attacks the thoughts and reactions society feels to these people and W.H Auden captures this essence of what society is actually like in the general aspect. This form of Satire is used in a less comical way in this text but still can be an essential part to the understanding and placement of crucial ideas that have been melded into this poem. But the ridicule technique can also be used in a far more comical sense, as seen in The Great Dictator by Charlie Chaplin. Set in the 1940’s it is a film that
THE THEATRE AS A VEHICLE TO SOCIAL SATIRE It could be said that satire is a means of using comedy and high humor to expose social problems and ills. The genre is often lauded as an intelligent form of criticism. Artists and writers use comedic devices to get their message through to audiences without resorting to bald statements. It is a genre of literature, and sometimes graphic and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, and society itself, into improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon.
Always doing the right thing by others led Beowulf to his death, showing that what is believed to be a virtue will not help a kingdom to thrive, but destroys it. However, the Prince was willing to cross the lines of moral goodness in order to maintain his leadership and increase opulence of his kingdom. People are not always committed, and when they don’t believe, they must be made to believe by force. (Bondanella and Musa 258). The Prince’s authority was more effective than Beowulf, due to the nature of morality, or lack thereof, necessary to be a prosperous leader and his judgment was directly affected by the environment and size of the community.