A World Without Stars

     What truly distinguishes a man from being either marked, or unmarked? Paul Theroux mentions the theory of the 'male myth' throughout an article he published. He portrays men to be those stereotypical ones in shows, the ones with suits and ones who are compelled to act sophisticated and 'manly' or you'd be disdained by society. Men have to be obedient and military-like, people without feeling, and in his opinion, this portrait of men that society has drawn, is purely insulting. In my opinion, I disagree with his claim that within our community, men are despised if they don't meet the status quo; I say this because today, people are more accepting of others than ever before. We see others for their personality and for their character rather than what we should judge them to be. However, as for this may be the case, we have to consider the time period in which this was written, which is the year 1983. [logos] During that time frame, women might have been more judgmental and critical towards men based on their occupation and character, whether or not they're manly or petite, weak or strong. Theroux might have been struggling through immense amounts of criticism throughout his entire life, that he was picked on for not being what others want him to be. Another perspective of this is derived from women's views, that they 'fear' not picking the right man in the manner that in the future, others will belittle him. [pathos] Basically, rather than love, someone would pick their partner due to their looks and structure rather than their true personality and character. This thus promotes insecurity in both men and women, which is not what we want society to be. Although, with this being said, I also believe that even though in this present time, we don't denounce men as we did back then, as for we are more open and accepting nowadays, we can't deny the fact that we are still judgmental, and everyone is, but in the end we just have to open up and put our distasteful traits aside or it will do us an injustice.

     Would you want your child to suffer, or would you rather her live life freely without worry? The Pillow Angel Ethics article specifically pointed out the situation with Ashley and her parents that her parents would do obscure things such as disabling Ashley. An example of this is that Ashley received high-dose estrogen treatment in order to reduce her height and weight, since she has brain damage, this will make it easier for them to take care of Ashley. The parents also made the doctor remove Ashley's uterus in order to prevent discomfort from cramps and pregnancy, and her breast tissue, in order to aid in her health in the foreseeable future. In my opinion, I do not agree with the fact that her parents gave Ashley this surgery. I believe it is a violation of standard human rights, that Ashley should be able to make decisions on her present, as well as her future. Her parents should not be deciding what she can or can't do. I understand that they want to protect her and care for her, but she is only a mere child, that doesn't give them any authority to disable her, and make her extremely petite. Many people would argue that it was for the benefit of Ashley, and others would argue for her basic human rights. The author of the article, Nancy Gibbs, uses ethos in order to address both sides of the claims, as she includes quotes from ethics committees and hospital workers. These committee members had contrasting viewpoints, some are for her sterilization, and the rest are against her sterilization. This situation was so controversial that it pressured ethical people to go against each other, fighting for which decision was more ethical. When I first read the article, I was disgusted by the fact that the parents would even think about making a disabled child even more disabled in order to satisfy themselves. In the end, I believe that it is unethical to sterilize Ashley because this makes her unable to age or have a baby in the future, therefore it is robbing whatever dreams she may have, and destroying her future. Is it really worth it to protect a child from any potential dangers to only unload the burden of her parents and to eradicate someone's foreseeable happiness?

     Have you ever gotten into an argument over the Internet before? Nick Bilton has, writing an article claiming that social media arguments are pointless, as for it only raises chaos, not resolving anything. Personally, I get into fights through social media all the time, because the satisfaction of victory completes me. I think everyone wants to win, but not everyone places that as their top priority, but I do. Usually when someone disagrees with me, that is completely respectable, because everyone is entitled to their own opinion. This is why I don't fight unless the other party instigates the argument, and when that happens, I go off on them because it isn't right to fight, so I'll try and prove my point the best I can. I disagree with his argument that wars online can't be one, because I've won them countless of times, but his argument is still effective nonetheless. I believe many people have gotten in quarrels online, as for I've experienced them as well. Some are won, some are lost, but in the end, both parties have either learned a valuable lesson, or they stick to their beliefs. Either way, the disputes are something to be learned from.
     Bilton uses many rhetorical devices, such as metaphors and irony. For example, Bilton states, "But being a battleship for most people is really difficult" as a clear indication of a metaphor as for the battleship is a comparison from the base of the heated arguments that occur online. People getting angry from messages online are like 'spitballs on a battleship' (as someone from the New York Times stated), which is a justification that heated arguments are the same as fighting on a battleship. At that point things get extremely tense in the atmosphere and it's a life or death situation. Using this metaphor, Bilton distinctively uncovers that clashes online and in reality are dark stages of life that only brings out one's true monster, only to bring one into the brink of frustration. An example of irony would be when Bilton says, "I know, how could I be so stupid?" when he mentions that he got into an argument on Twitter about Trayvon Martin. The irony is present when the author of this article reflects the insolence back on himself and calls himself the clueless person when this article is meant to inform us about the consequences of fighting. This, in return, lessens Bilton's credibility, which leads us to be indecisive on whether or not to trust his words. However, others may think that this is an excellent incorportation of humor and irony that they'd trust what he says and thus, get persuaded easily. Bilton took the gamble and went with this method, which is truly effective, since it made me enjoy the article as for it was enjoying to read about his rollercoaster of the events mentioned. His use of irony helped his argument in the manner that it increased his credibility (ethos) in order to persuade us that Internet arguments are 'stupid' of someone to create, and that they should not be instigated in the first place.

     One might find it utterly absurd to compare a dangerous substance to a mere object we use as a convenience. Taylor Pearson strongly argues that toasters pose a larger threat to us than the feared nuclear power, through his article, Why You Should Fear Your Toaster More Than Nuclear Power. He claims that many people derive our fear of nuclear power based on bandwagon, that everyone fears it due to its harmful features, but it isn't as threatening as we exaggerate it to be, therefore, we need nuclear energy. In order to develop his thesis, he uses the rhetorical techniques of logos, as well as pathos, with regard to execute his statement. To further develop his claim that nuclear power isn't quite menacing, he uses logos in order to compare the death tolls from radiation to deaths from toasters. Pearson took the Chernobyl incident as his example, as for he stated that it only killed eighty two people, as for most of the deaths were from people that were highly exposed due to radiation. This may seem like a lot to us, but he attempts to back up this disastrous case by mentioning that other cases were scarce and that if they were there, accidents have not resulted in more than ten deaths; and on top of that, there have been zero nuclear power deaths in the United States within the past several decades, which is astonishing. Ironically, Pearson takes toaster accidents to support his claim as for he mentions that over three thousand people died from toasters in the first year, and after wards, it causes fifty deaths per year in the United States. He wants his audience to be overwhelmed by how safe nuclear power actually is, and that we shouldn't oppose it and see it as a threat. Using the concept of logos, he statistically proved, using death tolls, that what we shouldn't tremor upon could be the hazardous object, in our perception. Taylor Pearson also uses pathos to develop this claim, as for he states, "If you care about saving human lives, then you should like nuclear energy". This quote stated by him is trying to appeal to our emotions, as for us humans value our life, since we only live once. People would not want our loved ones to die, nor ourselves, therefore we are obligated to have a tolerance for nuclear power, as for he attempted to persuade us that it's remarkable. The reason he spoke these words is because he proved statistically that deaths by nuclear power is far inferior as opposed to deaths by coal mining.
     This article is not very effective, in my opinion, as for the evidence is strong, but his analysis wasn't. He had the audacity to compare two concepts that were far different from one another, and he expected that to be a worthwhile argument. As for it was surprising to me that a household appliance can pose more of a threat to me than a harmful substance such as nuclear power, these two things don't coincide with one another, which is one of the reasons why it was personally ineffective for me. Not only that, but he mentions the deaths by toasters, coal mining, and oil drilling using logos, and he explains how these statistics are grand in comparison to deaths by nuclear power. With this being said, I believe this is a poor argument, as for a person would not wish for deaths to happen to begin with. It doesn't matter about the number of deaths, but what also matters is the impact of the deaths, and why it happened. This isn't the best way to appeal to our emotions, since we don't want to hear of a negatively connotated word, such as "death". In order for this piece to be effective, there needs to be more evidence since death tolls isn't something we'd want to read. As a person, I can say that reading about death puts me in a depressing mood, as opposed to how I would feel before I read the piece. Maybe others feel the same way as I do, which is why it isn't intelligent to input negatively connotated words in a text that is meant to persuade us to think positively.

     William Hazlitt wrote a powerful masterpiece titled "On the Want of Money", which was written in the nineteenth century. This work of art is a sophisticated essay in which he clarifies his point that money is the direct cause of greed. The mere concept is that if money is seeked, the efforts will all come down to either success or failure. If you fail, no one is going to be on your side, and if you succeed, people would only praise you for your success and failure. Hazlitt further proves this claim through the use of diction, imagery, and pathos. For example, Hazlitt states, "it is to live out of the world, or to be despised if you come into it" (Lines 3-4). He uses diction in order to convey the meaning that there are simply two statuses in life, one with isolation and one with getting shunned by everyone else if you enter society. His word choice in this line is advanced as to when he develops his meaning, he is discrete about it, and he does not say too much in order to get his point across, which is very brilliant on his side. Another example is when he ironically foreshadowed, "it is to be compelled to stand behind a counter, or to sit at a desk in some public office, or to marry your landlady, or not the person you would wish" (Lines 16-19). This is a clear example of imagery, as for these words aid us to visualize the horror taken place. One would distinctly see why it would be unjust seek money in a greedy manner, since it would only lead to one's own unhappiness if the efforts fail. Money is the center of one's own unhappiness, which leads me to Hazlitt stating, "...with all your pains, anxiety, and hopes, and most probably to fail, or if you succeed, after the exertions of years, and undergoing constant distress of mind and fortune, to be assailed on every side with envy..." (Lines 27-31). The buzz words such as "pains, anxiety, hopes" are a direct representation of pathos since he wants to us relate to how stressful life is, and how no matter how hard everyone works at life, in the end, it does not pay off as well as we'd imagine. Everyone wants to succeed in life, but if it costs you all your sweat and blood, is it truly worth it? I can relate to this essay because ever since I was young, I was selfish for money. My avarice for money only got me in the worst situations possible. I wanted everything, and this only led to my own depression and despair. For example, I'd tend to steal money from my parents, and it was the worst feeling ever. Not only can I relate to this, but I know that everyone else in the world can relate to wanting money as well. Everyone seeks happiness in what they want, not in what they need. This is why money is so important to everyone, because everyone has a want in life, and that want could only be fulfilled truly with money. To prove Hazlitt's claim that money is the direct cause of greed, he uses the three rhetorical devices such as diction, imagery, and pathos; as for he exclaims that the seek for money is a dehumanizing experience, and is only want us selfish humans desire even if it means putting us into a pit of despair.

     Hillary Clinton is an American politician whom is a current candidate in the 2016 presidential election. Many people like to neglect the fact that she was the former secretary of this country, and this is why her ethos is unappealed to in a lot of people. In my opinion, I believe that Clinton's speech is extremely effective in appealing to her audience through the use of ethos, pathos and logos. She was the former secretary of the country, as well as being the wife of the former president of this country, Bill Clinton. This is the basis of Hillary Clinton's own ethos, but she also established her own ethos in her presidenital speech when she said, " To all of you whose hard work brought us here tonight and to those of you who joined this campaign this week, thank you". Clinton is establishing her own ethos by putting the fact out there that she has a campaign that funds several different industries, which has raised approximately 516 million dollars, which is truly impressive. Not only that, but she thanks a lot of people throughout the text, such as Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders, therefore whoever supports those famous politicians, then they'll support Hillary as well. Throughout Clinton's speech, she incorporated an abundance of pathos within the text. For instance, Clinton said, "Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart. Bonds of trust and respect are fraying". This quote from the speech indicates the havoc the United States is currently facing, and how it is affecting our country and our nation. She wants to appeal to the audience by connecting with their emotions, to get them to be melancholic about the situation at hand. By stating the wrongs that are happening, she wants to appeal to the citizens' hearts. Lastly, Clinton uses logos to appeal to her audience effectively. For example, she stated, "Look at what happened in Dallas after the assassinations of five brave police officers...Nearly 500 people applied in just 12 days". With this factual information, Clinton uses statistics to draw her audience closer. This makes her have more morality, as the audience would know that she is not a type of person to lie, and that she is someone who honestly knows what is going on in America, therefore she'd be a suitable president. With this being said, Hillary Clinton was clever in her presidential speech as she uses these three rhetorical devices in order to persuade her audience.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      ~Jessica Wong

   Former president George W. Bush was the leader of the United States of America for two terms. His presidency extended from January 20, 2001, all the way to January 20, 2009. He was the president during the attack towards the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Using three rhetorical strategies; ethos, pathos and logos, With a speech, George W. Bush attempts to appeal to the country in order to unify the nation. For one thing, this man has credibility, since he was the president. Later afterwards, he made an attempt to appeal to the citizen's emotions by expressing, "The victims were in airplanes or in their offices..." (Line 5). This quote expresses how he was relating to everyone's feelings by giving them his condolences, as for he sounds grieved about those who have passed. By stating some of the fields the deceased were located in, he tries to touch the people's hearts by stating such. Also, he stated, "filled us with disbelief, terrible sadness, and a quiet, unyielding anger" (Line 10). This is George W. Bush empathizing with everyone, as for he depicts the emotions of everyone. This sets the mood as tragic and sorrowful. Using facts, Bush pointeed out, "pictures of airplanes flying into buildings, fires burning, huge structures collapsing" (Line 9). With the use of logos, he stated what happened throughout that way using descriptive words and in detail. He admittedly stated what happened so that everyone could recall how brutal the situation truly was. Later on, pathos is used again, as for our former president attempted to unify the nation by saying that the country is strong, and that no matter what happens, everyone can get through this together. In my opinion, Bush was unsuccessful in delivering his speech. Just because he has the ability to use descriptive words and that he was able to set the mood of the listeners, does not mean that his words are pure. He may sound depressed about the attack, but he could also be deceiving the people as well, in order to receive respect. I believe that Bush should not be recalling the past events, but he should have be grieving the lost lives more, as for one's life is priceless.

Greetings, my name is Jessica Wong. I have the ability to type 160 words per minute maximum and 130 words per minute on average on a mechanical keyboard. I love to play video games such as League of Legends, Overwatch, Counter Strike, Minecraft, etc. I broke my Macbook Air about four years ago. It makes me feel uncomfortable when the mouse sensitivity is extremely low.
I am really good at HTML and CSS, so basically, I like to code and program.
Salmon sushi is the best...but why is it so expensive?