Proposal arguments response

I chose to respond to the Stone's End no tips policy argument. The problem that Wilson addresses is that the hosts for Stone's End restaurant do not receive tips. Wilson addresses that tis is not fair for the amount of work they do, and how that the lower income they receive can make the unhappy, which is detrimental to the overall success of the restaurant.

Wilson addresses this proposal to the CEO of Stone's End restaurant. Wilson does this by using sophisticated vocabulary, and correct grammar. It is a very well written paper. Wilson also addresses the "numbers" surrounding this argument. Wilson discusses the pay of a host compared to a server who receives tips. Then he breaks down the tips into an average hourly wage to show the ratio of the two wages per hour. This is effective because it shows the CEO how much more the servers are being paid per hour. Wilson proposes that the servers tip their hosts 1% to 2% of their tips, which on average would be one to two dollars. It would hardly "dent" the servers income, but it would greatly increase the hosts income. This was a well thought out proposal made the a CEO. The CEO would probably be more willing to make a change, if the servers were paying the hosts extra and not the company. The CEO probably wants to receive more money, and not pay employees more, but with this solution the CEO wouldn't have to loose any more money. Wilson also states that this would benefit the host, which in turn would benefit the company and it's overall success, which in the business world means overall profit. The CEO is interested in doing what's best for success, so I believe due to the effectiveness of Wilson's argument that the CEO would be more willing to change the policy.

Wilson did a great job on choosing the audience and what to highlight about this argument. His proposal would make the employees happier and give the company more profit, which is what a CEO should want for their business. This was a very effective proposal, and if I were the CEO, I would definitely accept it.

I.C. progress #1

For my inquiry contract paper I decided to argue whether or not males should have rights when it comes to women having abortions. I decided to do this because men do not have rights to thier child being aborted or not. We all know their is debate whether abortion is right or wrong, but I don't think many of us have thought about the men that are involved with the women that have abortions. I believe it will be a unique paper and it will be a new veiwpoint for the abortion argument.

I haven't started typing the paper, but I researched whether or not men have rights to their child being aborted or not. In my research I found that there is no law giving the father the opportunity to have a say in the decision of a child being aborted, but there are many sites that have debates on whether or not men should have a say in the decision. I believe that the final decisions should be joint, unless the women was raped, or the father says that he doesn't want anything to do with the child. I also want to explore if it's fair to make a father pay for child support, if he says at the beginning of pregnancy that he didn't want the child. I will research some more and try to get some cases of these happenings.

Inquiry Contract ideas

Because Lamags told me I can’t argue chocolate or vanilla, I’m not really sure what I want to argue about for our inquiry contract paper. I’m thinking about either writing about abortion issues, in which I would argue why pro-abortion is wrong, or writing about a plan against terrorism.

If I decided to write about the abortion argument I will be able to have a lot of statistics and it would be pretty easy to interview people for quotes. I also want to think about a guys perspective of abortion, and discuss whether or not the male parent has a say in abortion because as far as I know they don’t.

The idea of terrorism and what we should do about it would be more difficult for me to write. I hate terrorism, but I don’t know much about it. I would have to do more research and it would be more difficult to come up with a solution and argue why it’s my plan would work. For right now I’m leaning more towards the abortion argument, but it may change depending on what I feel like writing about in the future.

C.P. Ellis

Ellis’s story does not offer a credible way of overcoming misunderstanging and hatred between races. Ellis begins with telling us how he got involved with the Klan. To me he never truly hated black people to begin with, but he was sort of in a depressed state. He constantly reminds us that he was a low-income white person. He was also bitter from the fact he does hard work 7 days a week and barley has anything to show for it. When he was offered to join the Klan it gave him a feeling of belonging. He then felt like he was doing something. I think that he got so involved that he was practically brainwashed into believing the “Klans” ideals. I mention this because I feel he was never truly racist to begin with. Hating blacks was a way for him to have a reason for why his life sucked, and it was what everyone else in the Klan was doing.

Ellis becomes the president or Cyclops of the Klan. Because he is the leader of the Klan in Durham, he was invited to a meeting. At the meeting would be people of all walks of life., from whites, blacks, Jews, Catholics, and liberalists. Most of the people at the meeting wanted things in life to change. They were willing to make a change. In our society I don’t believe the majority are as willing and wanting for change as those people were. Ellis’s situation is also conditional. I don’t believe that doing what Ellis went through would work on a large scale. There are too many variables in his story. To say that it would work would be assuming that everyone in this program went through similar circumstances, and the only way to assure success would be if they people in this program were exactly like Ellis. Since we are all individuals and different, a large scale effort would not work for our society. We’ll just have to do it one person at a time.

Yoshino and the "mainstream"

Yoshino argues that the term “mainstream” is a myth. He feels that “mainstream” is just a synonym for “normal,” which he feels no one can truly achieve. He feels that it is impossible for someone to be 100% normal because being normal is opinionated.

I disagree with his argument. Being “mainstream” does exist. I see the term “mainstream” as a synonym to the word majority. I believe that in life a lot of time decisions are made by the majority, for example the president is the “majority” of the electoral votes, passing laws goes through a system where the “majority” rules, when I have dinner with my family the majority chooses where we eat. Therefore I feel our society is a majority rules society. So, the mainstream is what the majority of the society chooses.

Linda's freedom

Linda manages to get her freedom by getting to the north. She gets there with the help of many people, which includes her son, Benny, her Uncle Phillip, and her friend, Peter. She reaches New York, but she still wasn’t free. The daughter of Dr. Flint came to reclaim her because she was never released from her ownership. Mrs. Bruce then hires a man to negotiate with Mr. Dodge for Linda’s freedom. Mr. Dodge the lets her go for 300$.

Linda wasn’t happy with the fact that her freedom was bought. She still feels like she is property to someone. She felt that as a person she wasn’t something that should be bought or sold, and on top of all of that she was sold in a free state. She is very compassionate about this, but even though she is upset with how she was freed she is still happy that she is now a free woman.

Jacobs use of honesty

The passage I chose to show how Jacobs uses her honesty to establish credibility is a powerful one. Jacobs decides to tell us her reasoning for having children with another man besides her master (pg 49). To me this is a very powerful passage. For her to tell the reader such a personal decision that she made must have been difficult. I find this very effective. She’s audience are people that have never been slaves. She is trying to show the reader exactly how it was to be a slave. She would be willing to have children with another man not because she loved him but because she felt it was a way to be freed for sexual harassment of her owner, and quite possibly get away from him. She goes on the say, “you never knew what it is to be a slave; to be entirely unprotected by law or custom,” because it qualifies her reasoning for what she did. Some readers may be disgusted in her decision, and they may look down on what she did but because of this statement she makes the reader think twice about what they may have thought. She also asks the reader to pity and pardon her for her actions. She comes out of the style in which she is writing to ask the reader specifically for them to forgive her for what she did. That to me is very powerful.

The passage I chose did a good job in establishing her credibility. She pulls on our emotional strings with this part of the story and begins to show us that we don’t have any idea of what you may have to do to escape that situation she was in. She does this so that the reader beliefs she was a slave who was in a very bad predicament. To me one of the most powerful ways to win a person over is through your own personal experience. In this book, Jacobs does that well. She convinced me through her personal accounts that slavery is indeed tortuous and I am even thankful now that I myself am not a slave.

Douglas

To me, Douglas is saying that the 4th of July has no meaning to black people. He states that even though we became a separate nation the slaves were still slaves. There is no meaning for celebration for the slaves because they were not freed. He uses logos to show us how slaves should be freed. He turns the beliefs of people who have slaves to show that slaves are indeed men. He turns all the slave owners argument against themselves. He also states that since a slave gets punished for certain actions that’s admitting the had premeditated thought, and what separates humans from animals is the ability to think about our actions. So therefore a slave is indeed a man. Not only can a slave think he can also do a list of things that a white person can. That to me is a good way to argue his point because giving a lot of examples to support his argument makes his point a lot stronger than if he had two examples. He relates to pathos by asking how white people would feel if they had the flesh ripped of their backs from flailing. Thinking about something so brutal makes strong connections to the human emotions. He appeals to ethos with all of his evidence, i.e. using the Declaration of Independence to show that the slave should be free because all men are free in the document and earlier he used logos to show how a slave is indeed a man. The point overall is that the 4th of July doesn’t mean anything to the slaves until the slaves are freed.

Parrillo

According to Parrillo the socialization process is when “individuals acquire the values, attitudes, and beliefs, and perceptions of their culture or subculture, including religion, nationality, and social class. Generally, the child conforms to the parents’ expectations in acquiring an understanding of the world and its people.” The process goes on talking about how children are impressionable and accept the parents values without question knowing no better. Thus we learn prejudices of our parents and others, which eventually become our own beliefs and values. Then when we grow up we unknowingly shape our judgments on these prejudices, even if false, with sometimes out even knowing. I believe that this is true. When we are children we learn from and act like our parents It is nature for us to learn from them. When you are little you don’t know what is right or wrong and you don’t have any prejudices when you are born. Being prejudice is something that is taught and not something you were born with. So I believe that we inherently learn our prejudices from our parents and use them in our daily lives and own personalities.