Edward O. Wilson writes The Future of Life to give different views on the issue of environmentalism. Wilson argues that environmentalists and people first supporters have unproductive disputes with the use of parallelism to demonstrate the childlike behavior and unsupported assumptions each side makes about one another. Wilson’s use of rudimentary language enforces satire in his work. In the very first lines of each side, name calling is used. The People First call the environmentalists “eviros” while they rebuttal by calling the people first “brown lashers.” The naiveté of each group throughout each rant illustrates Wilson’s view that each group has an exaggerated view of each other.
The author also describes the lack of foreign names in America by stating that “nobody without a mask and a cape has a z in his name” (Dumas 605). This causes the reader to think about how many unique names there really are in America, thus leading them further down the rabbit hole of Dumas’s argument. Dumas describes that Firoozeh means “I’m not going to talk to you because I cannot possibly learn your name and I just don’t want to have to ask you again and again because you’ll think I’m dumb or you might get upset or something” (Dumas 606) in American. After a laugh or two, the reader relates with this mindset. Americans want to be accepting of foreigners, but the fear of offending a person of another race sometimes prevents them from starting an interaction.
. The increased human activity at the US/Mexico border which includes vehicle patrols, military and police actions, illegal immigration, and artificial lighting are destroying the fragile ecosystem that the Jaguarundi need in order to survive and thrive. The “Border Wall” separating the two countries restricts its ability to move and communicating during mating season. Another danger the Jaguarundi encounters, especially in the south, are hunters who value Jaguarundi furs. There is no formidable force working for the preservation of the Jaguarundi, the fact that the exact population for this big cat is unknown makes it difficult for conservation groups to petition the respective governments for assistance.
After reading information on the tipping point and freakonomics, I have found NO correlation at ALL. These views are so totally different that they are like oil and vinegar. In the passage Levitt believes that crime dropped in the 1990's because of roe vs. wade (the legalization of abortion).Levitt believes that poor people should abort their unwanted kids, if this takes place crime will decrease. The unwanted children will eventually turn into criminals and raise the crime rate. I personally believe this is so far from the truth.
Furthermore, for an act of murder to take place, there has to be a motive. When evaluating the evidence it is noticed that Lindy Chamberlain had no motive to kill Azaria and there was lack of evidence presented. Many of the statements and observing from witnesses contained contrast and contradiction within the information, rendering the evidence as useless. In addition, it is observed that a majority of the evidence that would’ve assisted the defence’s case was rejected and ignored, giving an unfair advantage to the prosecution. Engineer Harris, who had conducted dingo research, had cited an example of a captive female dingo removing a bundle of meat from its wrapping paper and leaving the paper intact.
Barrett also helped Taylor realise that no one can be trusted, and that she should not always believe everything she hears from the Senator Rox and the government Taylor never paid any attention to ads, and usually ignored them (as she explained in Page 207). Barrett helped Taylor realise that advertising in the Chattering World, was all about the government trying to persuade everyone to vote for them. For example, when Senator Rox lied about the “Q-Plague” disease, so he can come up with a cure for it (Cue-Kill) to gain money and respect from the public. Barrett does not only change Taylor, he also changes himself. Through the book Barrett becomes a stronger and more knowledgeable person, learning many different things that he would not have learnt at Simplicity.
Two theories, sex and drugs, are quickly ignored because of lack of evidence. He mentions, “two of them rank as silly speculation, while the other represents science at its grandest and most useful”. The first theory that was rejected is the sex theory. It says that, the dinosaurs extinct because the male became sterile. The sperm cannot live if the temperature is too high.
Natadecha-Sponsel very discreetly attacks her audience by not considering that Americans are of a diverse culture, full of people who rarely ever agree and to classify them as anything is far fetching. In Natadecha-Sponsel’s article, “The Young, the Rich, and the Famous: Individualism as an American Cultural value” Natadecha-Sponsel comes off too strong and unsuccessfully persuades Americans that individualism is an American cultural value by contrasting Thai and American culture, stereotyping her audience, and using bias remarks against her audience as well. Firstly, Natadecha-Sponsel contrasts the American and Thai family ties to persuade readers that individualism is an American cultural value. She contrasts the family of an American grandmother with Alzheimer’s disease who is only cared for by hired help. Natadecha-Sponsel describes the family’s support of the grandmother by stating that “[the grandmothers] daughter visits and relieves the helper occasionally [but the]
In Caroline Bird’s article “College is a Waste of Time and Money”, Bird attempts to persuade readers to believe that college is not something worth investing time and money into. Bird generates her feeble argument using rhetorical devices such as logos, style, and ethos. Bird’s argument is not effective in persuading any reader, including myself, to accept her claim. Implementing logos, Bird supports her claim using logic. According to Bird, college is “...a graceful way to get away from home and become independent without losing the financial support of their parents” (Point #15, Bird).
The Justice Department had argued Alvarez's statements deserved no legal protection because they had little value, and that there was a larger societal need to "protect speech that matters," in this case the valor and integrity of military heroes who rightfully earned their medals. The high court earlier last year struck down another federal law, this one designed to stop the sale and marketing of videos showing dogfights and other acts of animal cruelty. The 8-1 majority said it was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The federal Stolen Valor Act was designed to "protect the reputation" of military decorations, citing "fraudulent claims surrounding the receipt of the Medal of Honor (and other congressionally authorized military medals, decorations, and awards)." Similar laws have been in place since 1948.