Second Response

Our non-textbook readings (by Gore and Dalrymple) are opposing arguments on the same issue and will give us a chance to flex our rhetorical muscles and practice some of the tools we acquired during the first week of class. Below, please post a 250+ word response to these readings before 9 AM on Tuesday (January 20). Your response should include some consideration of the pieces' rhetorical techniques and strategies in addition to its subject matter. For instance, you might write about enthymemes used, stasis questions invoked, recourse to the three artistic appeals, audience accommodation, etc. Concentrate on the techniques that you found to be particularly effective and explain why you felt this way. You need not refer to all three of the readings in your response, but do please reference at least two of them. Also consider, when crafting your response, what you've learned from the first chapter of They Say/I Say about responding to other people's arguments. As with last time, feel free as well to respond to others' posts (either in agreement or disagreement).

Super Bonus Assignment

This assignment is not required, but if you choose to take it on, I'll give you credit toward a future response (i.e., you can skip any one of our future response assignments without penalty).

• Bush has taken quite a beating in recent days regarding his handling of the Iraq war. Write a defense of Bush and/or his actions a la Gorgias' Encomium to Helen. Post your response on the EncomiumToBush page before noon on Tuesday, January 16.

"Are you a bad enough dude to save the president?"

In the reading, "Drugs" by Gore Vidal he pushes more toward the logs side of things. He relates drugs to alcohol. He basically says that no matter what there will be people that are going to have addictions to these drugs just like some of the other people are addicted to alcohol or "alcoholics". Basically said that it will just be like other things. He is basically saying that the people should have the choice in order to take such things as drugs just like they do with alcohol. It may just be that people do these drugs more since they not legal, maybe they feel a satisfaction. If drugs were legalized maybe the want for them would go down. If people want to take drugs for any reason it should be up to them not anyone else. He did bring into account some of the things our country was based on such as the Bill of Rights. If you recall the Pursuit of Happiness is a right granted to everyone. It is the right of the people to be happy as long as it doesn't take away from anyone elses right of being happy. People should be able to take drugs as long as it doesn't affect anyone else. So in his eyes should be legalized.

In the reading by Theodore Dalrymple, "Don't Legalize Drugs" he moves toward an ethos side of things. He is basically saying that they Pursuit of Happiness for everyone would not a real things anymore. The drugs that others are doing would fringe on other peoples right of happiness.These drugs are going to take a toll on everyone around the drug user so therefore not all of these people are going to be okay with their addictions.

SororityGirl

Gore Vidal's "Drugs" and Theodore Dalyrymple's "Don’t Legalize Drugs" are two very different readings about the same subject. "Drugs" is about how drugs should be legalized in the United States to lessen crime (particularly that of Mafias). By legalizing drugs, the price would go down as there would be no reason to smuggle them in from other countries which makes the price go up. Without illegal drugs crime would shrivel away as Vidal says “if there was no money in it for the Mafia, there would be no friendly playground pushers, and addicts would not commit crimes to pay for the next fix”.

The reading by Dalyrymple says interestingly that in an argument opposite his (such as Vidal’s reading), the view of less crime is often pushed as there aren’t many ways to glamorize legalizing drugs. Dalyrymple says that even in places where drugs have already been legalized (such as Amsterdam), crime runs rampant anyway. In Liverpool people are allowed heroin and some even methadone treatment but they still commit crime because they feel the need to feed their habits not because they “have” to. Dalyrymple also points out that if a vice is available or free most people won’t turn it down. In Africa, a group of British construction workers building a road were given the chance to buy extremely cheap alcohol. They spent the majority of the time they worked being hung over only to drink heavily again after working. When asked what they wanted to improve work conditions they asked for even cheaper alcohol.

Vidal’s reading came off as very opinionated and personal while Dalyrymple’s came off as informed with examples. Vidal seemed to be trying to make a case for people already in favor with drugs and Dalyrymple made a case that covered more ground and spoke to more than just one group. In comparison, Dalyrymple’s "Don’t Legalize Drugs" won by a mile because it is thought out better and speaks to both sides of the issue.

UnionJill

The two readings, Gore Vidal’s Drugs and Theodore Dalyrymple's Don’t Legalize Drugs both question the legalization of drugs. The obvious difference is that one favors and the other argues. This is a controversy in the works. But, if it weren’t controversial, we wouldn’t be discussing it.

The first reading, Gore Vidal’s Drugs claim that drugs should be legalized. Vidal’s reason is based on the Bill Of Rights in which citizens are able to do what they please as long as he or she doesn’t disturb their neighbor. Vidal also claims the world would be a much happier place with the legalization. The pathos is Vidal’s attempt to make us feel a little more patriotic and agree that we are free to use these drugs safely without harm. In my opinion, the ethos in this reading is terrible. Although I agree women and men should do what they please without harm, I disagree with the author’s idea that addiction doesn’t quite exist from narcotics because he has tried them only once. How am I to be persuaded by his other views then? He should have researched the addiction stats a little more closely or read something like A Million Little Pieces by James Frey before making this assumption.

I questioned my freedom beliefs a little more analytically while reading Theodore Dalyrymple’s Don’t Legalize Drugs . Not only does Dalyrymple state that the crime rate is going to suck at either side of the issue, but ‘’not all freedoms are equal’’. Are all freedoms free then? The pathos for me in this reading was Dalyrmyple’s observation: The drug will not just affect the user, but his family as well. This is obviously common sense but also forgotten with drugs since the affects are mostly individual. Dalyrmple made sure he told us he knew what he was speaking about, which made the logos visible.

When it comes down to it, more people will rely on the experience, stats, and data of a rhetorician rather than beliefs.

RocknRoll

CamelCase

camelcase