Blog 10: Pros and Cons About My Research Topic

The question I’m researching is whether or not any vaccines should be required for children. Some of the pro arguments for this issue state that any personal, moral, philosophical, or religious views are not grounds enough to give parents the right to risk the public health. Supporters of required vaccination also claim that vaccines are extremely effective at eradicating disease and preventing serious illness and death. Researchers at the Pediatric Academic Society have found that childhood vaccinations in the United States alone prevent approximately 10.5 million cases of infectious illness and 33,000 deaths a year. Vaccinations against hepatitis B and HPV (human papilloma virus) are considered extremely important because they help children avoid serious outcomes such as cirrhosis of the liver, cancer, and death. Those individuals for childhood vaccinations also feel that the FDA-approved vaccine against the swine flu should be required, as infants and children are more susceptible to the disease. They also claim that many studies refute the notion that vaccines cause autism, that many people who are vaccinated can still get sick when exposed to others who are infected, and that vaccines produce significant economic benefits for our society.

Those against requiring childhood vaccines argue that doing so would violate their 1^st Amendment rights to exercise religion freely. The opposed also claim that vaccines are unnecessary because the threat of death from the disease is so small, attributing the significant decrease in cases of whooping cough, measles, and scarlet fever in the early 19^th century to improved personal and food hygiene, effective sewage disposal, better nutrition, and water purification. They maintain that vaccines can cause serious reactions, trigger auto-immune disorders, brain inflammation, and clogging or disruption of the lymphatic system. To them, these risks are not worth taking, especially since many of the diseases they are meant to prevent are not always life threatening. Some opponents of requiring children to be given vaccines also believe that these vaccines are promoted first and foremost to generate profits and donations for manufacturers and organizations that endorse the vaccines.

Blog 9: 50 Words on Finishing My Rhetorical Analysis

       I was expecting this rhetorical analysis paper to be one of the more difficult and unpleasant assignments I completed for this class, but I guess I surprised myself. I actually enjoyed writing this paper. Pulling apart Churchill’s argument and trying to understand the tools he used to convince his audience was rather fascinating.

Blog 8: 50 Words on Rhetorical Analysis Subject and Progress

       I will be analyzing Winston Churchill’s political broadcast to the United States, “A Hush Over Europe,” for my rhetorical analysis paper. I’ve come up with a thesis and developed a fairly rough outline for the piece, so I still have a little ways to go. But, I have a lot of great ideas I’m ready to put down on paper.

Blog 7: Letter from Birmingham Jail

         In his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, Martin Luther King Jr. alternates between arguments of ethos, pathos, and logos in an effort to answer criticism from his fellow clergymen and convince that now is the time to battle the evils of segregation.

         King begins his address by establishing his credibility and building trust with the audience. He chooses to respond these particular criticisms of his work and ideas because he felt they were “sincerely set forth.” In saying this, King assures his readers that his answers will also be sincere and honest. And since it is clear that he is not wasting his time in writing the letter, the audience can know that they will not be wasting their time in reading it. King also provides an explanation of his presence in Birmingham. Stating his position as president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and the important and influential nature of that organization, he establishes a credible reason for coming to city—he was invited because he has organizational ties there. Thus, King is able to convince readers that he is an influential man who had solid grounds for being in Birmingham at the time of his arrest, not some radical moving from city to city in search of trouble.

         King then shifts his argument in an effort to appeal to the emotions of the white clergymen. He alludes to Biblical accounts, including those of Paul, to establish common ground with his critics in the pursuit of light and truth. He calls them to the realization that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” King implies that if the church leaders were true representatives of their faith, they would oppose the injustice of segregation as fiercely as the author and his followers.

         King also appeals to his audience’s logic. After stating the steps involved in any nonviolent campaign, he assures the clergymen that they “have gone through all these steps in Birmingham.” King claims that “Negro leaders sought to negotiate with the city fathers. But the latter consistently refused to engage in good-faith negotiation.” The African American preacher and other opponents of segregation therefore had no other choice but to take action.

Blog 6: Analytic Snapshot of What Christians Believe

         In his argumentatively persuasive book, What Christians Believe, C.S. Lewis employs figurative language and appeals to the audience’s logic to educate them on Christian belief and convince them that it is reality. According to Lewis, Christianity provides the complex answer to the complex problem of “a universe that contains much that is obviously bad and apparently meaningless, but containing creatures like ourselves who know that it is bad and meaningless”: we live in “a good world that has gone wrong, but still retains the memory of what it ought to have been.”

         Lewis was an atheist for many years, but then he was converted to Christianity—in his words, he “gave in and admitted that God was God.” Because he held both belief systems, the author is educated enough on the Christian, as well as atheist, side to present a solid argument. Having questioned the presence of God earlier in life, Lewis is able to engage in procatalepsis. In making this argument, however, he assumes that his audience is concerned with religion and the greater questions of the universe.

          When expounding on the Christian belief that the universe is at war, Lewis presents the reader with a strong metaphor—that this world is “enemy-occupied territory.” In Lewis’ words, when attending church, “you are really listening-in to the secret wireless from our friends.” This figurative language, although slightly exaggerated, effectively illustrates the Christian view of our war against Satan to those who may not be familiar with the concept.

         Lewis appeals to his reader’s logic when considering the contending Christian and Dualist views of the universe. He begins by elaborating on the Dualist view, but quickly finds a fault. For Dualism to be plausible, there must be a standard of good for one of the competing powers to follow and the other to not. Therefore, there must be a Being who made this standard, who is “farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God.” Christianity answers this problem in believing that God created the Dark Power (who was good in the beginning), but that something went wrong.

Blog 5: Analytic Snapshot of "Diagnosing and Treating the Ophelia Syndrome"

        Thomas Plummer, a BYU professor of Germanic and Slavic languages, delivered his faculty lecture, “Diagnosing and Treating the Ophelia Syndrome”, to the German Honor Society Delta Phi Alpha in April 1990. The purpose of Plummer’s address is to convince his listeners or readers of the dangerous implications of the “Ophelia Syndrome” and to help them avoid becoming ensnared in its web. The lecture’s central message is that we, as students and functioning members of society, need to think, feel, and act for ourselves and not force our opinions on others. The “Ophelia Syndrome” epidemic may have been more apparent to Plummer in his role as a college professor, where he constantly observed student-teacher relationships. He stated himself that the disease is manifest frequently in universities. Thus, Plummer assumes that his audience is just as aware of the existence of the “Ophelia Syndrome” in many parts of the world.

         To illustrate the need to think for oneself, Plummer employs the strong metaphor of Ophelia and Polonius frequently in his address. Opening with a scene from Hamlet in which Ophelia concedes to let her father tell her what to think and feel, the professor asserts that there are a number of Ophelias and Poloniuses in our own society. Those who are ignorant, dependent, and submissive and manipulated into feeling what they are supposed to feel and thinking what they are supposed to think are Ophelias. Those who claim to know answers when they have none, feign expertise by virtue of authority, and seek after the power (the manipulators) are Poloniuses. Plummer paints these characters in such an unpleasant light that most readers would never wish to live such an existence—urging them to avoid becoming Ophelias, and even Poloniuses, at all costs.

         Plummer also describes a number of personal experiences when listing his six ways to treat the “Ophelia Syndrome.” In doing so, he invites readers to relate to him on a deeper level. We learn that he has experienced the effects of the disease himself and fought back. With the professor’s shining example, we are able to move forward in our own battles against the “Ophelia Syndrome.”