What is crime?

What is Crime?

1. The general definition of crime that most criminologists would agree on according to Friedman is, “what makes some conduct criminal, and other conduct not, is the fact that some, but not others, are “against the law.”
2. The major difference between a criminal case and a civil case is that a civil case has a life cycle entirely different from that of a criminal case. A civil case can be ended by paying a fee and  will not result in prison time. A criminal case however, the state pays the bills and is considered to be more public.
3. Society is the victim in a criminal case in the sense that the state pays the bills and it is considered a public case.  I believe that it is important for the society to join with the real victim because the crime must be punished even without the victim’s approval.
4. Some examples that Friedman provides of “all sorts of nasty acts and evil deeds are not against the law, and thus not crimes” are lying, cheating and psychological abuse.
5. Friedman repeats the line “crime is a legal concept” because it can lead to misunderstandings about justice and social judgment.

Rhetorical Analysis 2

Taylor Bregenzer

Professor Foss

College Writing 1

9 October 2015

Public Shaming Analysis

The Problem with Public Shaming is an article written by Cole Stryker. Stryker has written many essays about the internet and knows a lot of information on the subject. In this article he writes about the problems that are caused by public shaming and how it can have negative and even damaging effects on people. This essay first appeared in the Nation and goes on to tell people why they should not publicly shame people on the internet.

(Thesis needs to be on the Rhetoric not a summary of what the essay is about)

First off, Stryker chooses to publish this essay in the Nation. The Nation is a very liberal publication that appeals to left-sided individuals mainly young college students. Stryker chooses the perfect audience for this essay and here are the reasons why. One reason is that the essays is targeting people that use the internet more specifically social media, and college students probably are on social media the most out of all age groups. Secondly, he chooses an audience that will listen and take action because most liberal thinkers tend to be very compassionate and seeing the negatives of public shaming might cause them to feel sorry for the victims of public shaming. The third reason is that the audience he is trying to reach are the people that are most likely to publicly shame someone. Very liberal college students are more likely to express their opinions on the internet and are more likely to defend their views and might even insult others that do not agree with them. These three reasons illustrate that Stryker is pinpointing liberal college students as his primary target audience and his trying to convince them not to publicly shame people.

Stryker’s use of facts and reason paired with a calm and intellectual demeanor makes this essay extremely effective. (is it effective or ineffective? You say both in the essay) Stryker brings up many points and supports them with facts, which are usually events that happened that have to do with public shaming that causes the reader think more deeply into the subject. Some of the points he brings up are that public shaming does not fix the problem and that sometimes shaming someone for doing something wrong actually motivates that person to continue doing that particular behavior. For example, people who know that they are racist are not going to change their views just because someone else shames them on the internet. In fact the racists are getting the attention they want and it just motivates them to continue being racist. Another point he brings up is the unintentional consequences that can damage the person being shamed. Some of these consequences being getting fired from a job, accidently blaming and shaming the wrong person for a crime, and getting ridiculed and punished for a statement that a person posted on the internet when they were younger and did not know any better. These are all great points that Stryker mentions and supports with evidence. These points also work well with the intended audience. Liberal college students usually want the world to be fair and understanding, and they are also willing to forgive others under certain circumstances. His audience does not want to see people lose their jobs or pay for something they did a long time ago when they were young and stupid. So, the audience he chose and the arguments he made match up very well. Stryker did an excellent job using facts to support his points, and he also chose facts that would make his particular audience think about what he wrote.

This essay is full of logical facts and reason but lacks any type of emotion. This hurts the essay because it does not motivate the readers to do anything about public shaming. The essay tells the reader that it is wrong and gives countless reasons why not to publicly shame but it does not provoke action. The essay basically makes the readers think about the subject and that is it. This is when a little bit of pathos would have boosted the essay to the next level. Stryker could have included more emotional stories of how much stress victims of public shaming go through, or better yet elaborated on how much pain was caused to the multiple “Ryan Lanzas” that were falsely accused of the Sandy Hook shooting. Instead Stryker just mentions that this happens and then moves on to his next point. The essay could have had so much more impact if the reader could sympathize with some of these victims instead of just simply knowing about it and that is it. Especially since many people have probably never been publicly shamed before and therefore have no idea about the troubles it can cause. If Stryker would have added this pathos to his article he would have a strong logical argument that also provokes action that might decrease the amount of public shaming that goes on in today’s world. (I like that you mention how pathos could have made this essay better and use examples as to where pathos could have been used and don't just leave pathos out of your analysis even though there is none in the essay) Another downfall is that this essay can get boring because of the lack of emotion and energy. The article is great for people who prefer just analyzing facts and using reason, but is not so great for people who like to feel for others and are emotional. This also opposes Stryker’s intended audience because Liberal college students have a stereotype for being idealistic when it comes to helping others and are known to be very caring and compassionate. So, Stryker should have took advantage of this but decided to leave out emotion completely and went with a more logical and intellectual type of tone.

In conclusion, Cole Stryker wrote a very well thought out essay that does cause readers to think about public shaming and even convince them that it is wrong and even pointless. However, his essay falls short when it comes to producing change. This is because the lack of emotion does not inspire readers to do anything about public shaming at all. That article simply states the problem and then tells them why it is wrong and how it can negatively affect someone’s life. It is effective at provoking thought, but not at inspiring change.

I think this is a very good essay.  There are just some things you can touch up and expand on.  I like your paragraph on the pathos of the essay and how you think the writer can include more.  I think you need to be more concrete on whether you think this essay is effective or ineffective or say right off the bat that you think it is both effective and ineffective. Also you just need to fix your thesis to be on the rhetoric of the essay and not just on what it is about.

Rhetorical Analysis Essay Workshop

Holly Babcock

College Writing I

Professor Foss

13 October, 2015

A Dangerous Argument: How Not To Make an Argument

What makes an argument stand out is the passion and directness that makes it different from all the others. In the essay, In Defense of Dangerous Ideas, the well known psychologist and professor, Steven Pinker argues that dangerous idea are only considered that by an ignorant society and its standards. Pinker speaks to an educated audience of scholars and young students as he attempts to effectively argue that ideas are only dangerous because people make them that way. However, his argument is in itself dangerous because of how ineffective it is: Pinker utilizes poor ethos through lack of structure, poor diction, and a bitterly sarcastic tone.

An argument is only understood if the organization is clear and well defined. However, Steven Pinker’s essay disregards structure and carries on in a rambling, lazy stroll that makes the argument droll and repetitive. At the beginning of the essay, Pinker attempts to appeal to the audience’s pathos by asking taboo questions. The issue is instead of asking just a few questions, he continuously asks questions over and over again such as, “do men have a tendency to rape?” (Pinker 362). Asking a few certain questions may drive the pathos of the argument but he fails at building any ethos.(how do these questions appeal to pathos? what do they make the reader feel?) Pinker asks question after question for a full page. He has yet to define what a dangerous idea is or clarify what the essay will be about. The entire first paragraph tires to build up a strong pathos but when disregarding ethos, the argument falls short of effective.(talk more about pathos (and logos) don’t switch to ethos right away) Pinker’s ethos lacks despairingly throughout his essay and the poor structure is only one many examples of his shortcomings. Pinker does break up the essay into sections, however these sections lack definition and often repeats ideas. In one section titled Explore All Relevant Ideas, the author strives to convey that a person should consider all possibilities before judging an idea or belief. The issue taken is that the section is extensively long with no clear structure and repeats some ideas without explanation. He rambles on, “should we treat some ideas as dangerous...there is another argument against treating ideas as dangerous...at that point we will be in better position to convince others that is is false then if we had let it fester in private.” (Pinker 366-367).  Pinker argues on and on but his sentences contradict each other without giving clear, concise answer as to what his idea is trying to say. He never states if an idea should be considered dangerous, instead he rambles on avoiding the answer. He drives on in an ambiguous structure that lingers on for far too long. If the author had cut out his long repetitive tangent and stuck to clear, precise support and answers, not only would the essay be a lot shorter but would be tremendously more effective. An argument can only be as good as the person arguing it, however, Steven Pinker’s disregard for ethos makes his argument lacking and ineffectual.  

How and when language is used has a great impact on the ethos of an argument because it conveys clarity and dedication taken into making that argument as strong as possible. Steven Pinker has an issue with his use of language, more precisely, his diction. He consistently uses run on sentences. This would not be a major issue if it happened a few times, but he does it consistently. His run on sentences are long and repetitive, they often times seem more like a tangent than an essay. In one instance, Pinker speaks about how an individual should not be judged, he goes on to say, “Even if it turns out, for instance, that groups of people are different in their average ages, the overlap is certainly so great that it would be irrational and unfair to discriminate against individuals on that basis.” (Pinker 364). The major issue is that the run on sentence disregards clarity or focus. Instead it seems more like a train of throughout that derails a careful and considerate diction. This poor use of diction then overshadows the ethos and makes the argument fall flat.(Expand, say why it overshadows his ethos) Diction comes in many forms and Pinker uses another fine example of poor use of diction. He switches from first to third person but complicates the diction and hinders the ethos. In example he states, “we love our children and parents, are faithful to our spouses, stand by our friend…selling their children, or selling out their friends or their spouses or their colleges or their country.” (Pinker 365). When switching from first to third person, Pinker is attempting to distinguish one group of people from another. The complication is that it is not clear who is who so the language choice is confounding. The constant switch between persons only hinders the ability for the argument to come through. Who is the author referring to? What is the point of switching? Why does the author need to do this? None of the questions are answered. In response, the use of language is confusing and unclear making the ethos lack which makes the argument ineffective. (You keep repeating that his ethos is lacking but say more of how using this language will make him less credible, believable etc.)

How an argument is conveyed is important to how the ethos will build up the argument. In other words, the tone of an argument either adds or decreases the value of the argument. Steven Pinker’s tone comes across as bitterly sarcastic. The problem is that his essay speaks mostly to detached scholars using this for research or studies. If his argument is condescending, then instead of building up his own ethos he is just trashing another’s which only comes across as whining. In one instance, he refers to groups of ideologies and refers to them in mocking tones but never explains why that matters to his own argument. “For millennia, the monotheistic religions have persecuted countless heresies, together with nuisances from science such as geocentrism…” (Pinker 363).  The complication with his bitter tone is that he is not adding to his own argument but instead complains about others. This creates a whining, almost juvenile tone which ineffectively portrays ethos which destroys his argument.(good!) Tone portrays the care and reasoning of the argument. If the tone is consistently negative then the argument itself will be negative. The author uses a bitter tone to help bring down other arguments but never really establishes his own. In one example “only children and madmen engage in “’magical thinking,”’ the fallacy that good things can come true by believing in them…” (Pinker 366). By complaining about the way other people believe, Pinker never establishes what they should believe in or how to correct their thinking. Instead his tone is bitter and unwarranted. This angry tone never displays any reason or clarity as to why it matters to the argument which hinder the use of ethos. The use of tone needs to be carefully considered in order for ethos to correctly portray an argument so it can be effective.

What does or does not make an argument effective is dependent on the care and dedication put into it. While Steven Pinker has a quality idea, his lack of ethos is hindered by his lack of dedication. Had he put more thought and care into his argument, perhaps he could have been an interesting and powerful one. Yet, his lack of structure, poor diction, and careless tone give him an unconcerned air that destroys his argument. Without passion and clarity, an argument is only grain of sand, undistinguished from the millions of others.

I think your essay is very well written.  You have very strong and clear topic sentences at the beginning of every paragraph making your essay easy to follow and understand. You also have an established idea of who Pinker's intended audience is, but you could probably expand a little bit on the intended audience and say why you think it is who it is. Also, I think you did a really good job making your essay solely on the rhetoric of Pinker's essay and not on your own opinion of his topic but try to expand on why his ethos is bad and how his questions appeal to pathos etc. You need to touch a little bit more on Pinker's pathos and logos though because your essay stresses mainly on ethos. I like all of the examples you take and quote out of his essay and I think you explain them very well too.