A World Without Stars

     Ever since I was young, I loved to fight. Quarrels, fist-fights, arguments, you name it. My grandparents have always told me that I "bicker" too often, and I thought to myself...well maybe they are right. I love defending my opinion because the thought of winning satisfies me until the very end. My grandparents and my parents were struggling in Vietnam in order to defend themselves against the harsh dictatorship of the communists in that country. This can be further alluded to the Great Depression that happened in the United States, where all money was lost for citizens. This further influenced my grandparents to flee Vietnam, and move to America, where they would have a better life, with freedom, something that a lot of humans don't have. Usually, when you strongly disagree with someone over a heated problem, it is simple to lose sight of your opponent’s logical argument and instead argue against their demeanor. In the advertisement I posted above, is an example of a slippery-slope logical fallacy. Logical fallacies are basically flawed methods in order to use as a basis for someone's argument. A slippery-slope logical fallacy is when someone claims that one event occurs after the other in chronological order, for example, "If A occurs, then B occurs, which causes C to occur, and therefore D will result". The event "D" is usually something negative, in which no one would want to happen. Looking at the advertisement, if you are not religious, then it is considered treason, and therefore a Civil War will occur. This widely influences people to be religious, because no one would want a second war among the citizens to occur, because it is a harsh blood battle.

                                                                                                                                 ~Jessica Wong

     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.