Cogent and Fallacious reasoning #4

As I searched on google for a good article, I randomly clicked on a .org website and started scrolling. I hope no one thinks I am secretly a random killer with the two concealed weapons permit posts and now this one. I promise I will not go crazy and start making bad decisions with the right to bear arms and women who still wear make-up :) ( totally teasing I hope you caught that). It was just interesting okay....

Steven D. Stewart, Prosecuting Attorney at Clark County, Indiana posted this article about the Death Penalty. I have to start out saying agreeing with him and believe his reasoning is cogent. If someone is, lets say "bold enough" to take someones life, I don't see why the same shouldn't be taken from them. Now just to clarify, I am talking about murderers. I am not talking about persons who defend themselves in a robbery or other circumstances. I speak of those who murder innocent victims. In the article the article, Stewart stated that
"The inevitability of a mistake should not serve as grounds to eliminate the death penalty any more than the risk of having a fatal wreck should make automobiles illegal. At the same time, we should never ignore the risk of allowing the murderer to kill again." I believe there is a lot of sense in that statement. The "mistake" he mentions here is the possibility of sentencing someone with the death penalty who did not deserve it or who did not actually commit the crime. I still do not know 100% of what it takes for someone to qualify for the death penalty. I would have to say if there is not a 100% surety that the crime was committed by the one being convicted, they should get another penalty. 

While reading this Stewart mentioned the time it takes for one to go through the process and the money it takes to complete the death penalty from start to finish. It made me ask myself, why, if it takes so long and if it costs so much, don't we come up with something else that doesn't take up nearly as much time or cost nearly as much? Why even continue with something that is costing so much money? Or what can be done to bring the cost down and the time it takes? These are some questions I am going to look for answers to now that I have read this article. I believe Stewart's reasons are cogent. Just because there is a risk of making a "mistake" does not mean the death penalty needs to be done away with. Other measures need to be taken or other things need to change.

Refutation

Gina has brought up a good argument. There is a major problem with children and online predators. The facts are there and proven.  Parents most definitely need to be more a part of their children's lives to protect them. Parents have to tip toe the line between protecting their children and pushing them over the edge. Pushy parenting can very easily lead a child in the wrong direction. Not providing enough protection can lead the child into carelessness. The suggestions that were given in the argument was to create passwords for your children or put security measures on things such as your child's phone and computer. These can easily make a child feel like they are being pushed over the edge which can cause them to do exactly what the parent was trying to prevent. This problem alone is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many greater problems that the youth face today that need to be addressed.

I believe that if more parents adopted the idea of teaching correct principles to their children it would not only help solve the problem children face with online predators, it would help solve drug and alcohol abuse in adolescence, it would decrease the number of children being abducted by strangers and decrease the victims of bullying along with many other problems out there in today's world.

The FBI website cites the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children stating every year about 58,000 children are abducted by non relatives with primarily sexual motives.  The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports in the year of 2013 7% of 8th graders, 18% of 10th graders and 22.7% of 12th graders used marijuana in the past month. This is an increase from the year of 2008 in which the same test was conducted. Another website titled Stopbullying states 28% of 6-12th graders experienced bullying, apporximately 30% admit to bullying, 70% say they have seen bullying in their schools. It also states when bystanders intervene, bullying stops within 10 seconds 57% of the time.

So the question is, how do we get more people like the bystanders who stop bullying? How do we resolve the problem of drug or alcohol abuse or child abduction? The answer is simple. Teach your children correct principles in their youth and they will be able to govern for themselves. The Heritage Foundation website discussed 22 studies done on abstinence education. The studies were done on 12-18 year olds taught about sexual abstinence. Of these 22 studies, 17 reported statistically significant positive results while the other 5 did not report any significant results. Understanding these studies were done only on sexual abstinence, the same principle is applied to drugs, alcohol, stranger danger and bullying along with many more topics.

Have you ever had a friend whose parents were always involved in their life, always wanting reports and breathing down his or her neck? Maybe that was the kind of parenting style your own parents chose. This can have very serious negative effects. For example, try telling a teenager he or she cannot do a certain activity or hang out with a certain group of friends. What do you think they will do? They will do the exact opposite. They will engage in whatever activity the parent said not to or they will hang out with the group of friends the parent told them not to hang out with. When correct principles are taught to children and youth it has a different outcome. Instead of telling a child or youth they cannot do this or that, if they are taught correctly they will chose for themselves what is better. The example of teaching youth about sexual abstinence is a clear indicator of this.

The concern is much bigger than the things children do online or the websites or Apps they use. There are more issues out there that need to be looked at. The solution is simple. Teach children and youth correct principles and they will be able to govern for themselves. This is not only a solution to the first problem with online behavior, it is a solution to drugs and alcohol abuse in adolescence, bullying within the youth and stranger danger problems. These are all serious problems that need to be looked at and can be solved with one action.

Fallacious and cogent reasoning #3

Even though I already did my first blog on why guns are a good protection and should not be banned I thought I should support that one with this blog post. I came across this again on a facebook ad and it sparked my interest. It supports my idea of the first post stating if someone wants to commit a crime or take a life they can do so without the use of a firearm.

The big debate is how dangerous firearms are and how many crimes are committed with the amount of deaths related to them. In the article I read it states more people were killed from bicycles in the year 2010 compared to the amount of deaths from a firearm from the years of 2000 to 3013. If the debate is the ban of harmful or deadly weapons how can some people justify firearms should be banned and not something like bicycles after seeing this comparison. The article states "Murders with “feet,” “fists,” and cutting instruments such as knives vastly outweigh the number of mass shooting deaths." It ends by asking the questions "What do you think? Do you think the level of attention given to mass shootings is disproportionate to the number of deaths caused by them? Or do you think the level of attention is about right."

The article stands up for gun rights as the title indicates. I agree with the reasoning and believe it is cogent reasoning. If dangerous objects are to be banned, looking at the comparison above, bicycles should be banned also. Other things like knives or other such objects should be also since those objects are responsible for the death of many many people. 

Falatient and Cognet reasoning #2

When I was in middle school the cool thing to do was go to the Electric Theater and listen to the bands and hang out with friends. Although many kinds of people did so, the Electric Theater received a reputation of being a place for all the "skater punks" to go and smoke or do other drugs. I remember a lot of reports of drug or alcohol abuse and lots of fights. My wife even said all that place was good for was for drugs. I have talked to a few different people who have said the same thing.

I found this article on facebook and thought it was interesting because of what I remember that place being back in middle school. I read through the article and thought to myself, this might not be too bad of an idea. After thinking about it and after reading a few of the comments that were posted my ideas changed. The reasoning for the city to do such a thing I believe is fallacious. The city on main street alone has a dozen art galleries. The city proposes to turn the Electric Theater and the neighboring buildings into an art complex for bands, arts, dancing etc...

I live by the Sunbowl here in town. The St. George Rodeo is a big deal. I did not realize this until the last rodeo just a month ago. They had so many people come in to compete they shut down part of 400 E to make a stable for the horses and other animals. Everytime I drove down there it was packed and parking everywhere was such a crazy adventure. I believe with the activities the Sunbowl brings to town it makes a lot more money for the city than any remodel of the Electric Theater would bring. If any project needs 3 million dollars the Sunbowl would be a much better project that would bring better benefits than the Electric Theater would. 

Unless the city was to change what takes place at the Electric Theater such as more adult showings and productions and not bands for younger people, this is not a good project and their reasoning is fallacious. There are other projects that bring in more revenue that need better attention.

First Constructive

              If you could give up one daily activity that you do to be healthier, would you? How about if this activity saved you not only time but money also?  What would you think if giving up this activity would make you be more of yourself? If you think these ideas are great than you would have to agree with me that women would benefit if they stopped using beauty supplies, and not only women but men also.  As I bring that to light you might be changing your mind as to what you thought of when I asked you those three questions. As we break down each of these points it will become clear to you the benefits of stopping the use of beauty supplies.

              There have been many studies done on the effects of beauty supplies and the chemicals each of them are made of. There is a list of harmful chemicals in an article titled "Chemicals of Concern" on the webpage of "The Campaign for safe cosmetics". In this article there are listed the most common chemicals found in beauty supplies and the dangers of them. It also lists what kinds of products these harmful chemicals are found in. In studies, scientists have found that these chemicals are absorbed through the skin when applied. This does not even begin to discuss other effects of beauty supplies such as makeup which can cause dryness or clogged pores and acne. Isn't it funny how some people use makeup to cover acne when all in all it is a big factor as to why people experience acne?

              In an article titled "beauty or bust" it states the average woman spends 20 minutes per day applying makeup. Not only do women spend that much time applying it but it takes almost as much time taking it off at night before going to bed. How many moms would kill for an hour of more time per day? How many things could a mom get done in an hour if not spent on applying or removing makeup?

               In the same article "beauty or bust" it states the average women spends $15,000 dollars in their lifetime just on makeup. That does not include hair products, lotions, nail polish etc... Another article titled "beauty at any cost" made this comparison of one year of tuition and fees is roughly $6,185; five years of beauty products savings is $6,423. Moms and dads, how big of a stress relief would it be knowing that your child's college would be paid when he/she becomes the age? This is just one useful thing one could do with the savings they would gain not spending money on beauty supplies.

               Not only does beauty supplies effect our health, time and our wallet, it can effect women psychologically.  On the website named debatewise the question is posted 'Is makeup bad for you?' In this article it states bad psychological effects. It states "makeup causes women to become dependent to an artificial mask and to have a negative image of their true selves." An example of the psychological effects would be this: how scared are girls/women to have their significant other see them without makeup for the first time? Ask yourselves how long it took you as a woman to have a man around without wearing makeup. As for the men, ask yourselves how long it took for your significant other to be comfortable enough to not wear makeup around you for the first time. If it takes so long for girls/women to feel comfortable enough to do so, how true is the statement above? Also stated in this article, "it promotes a shallow view of the world where beauty can be bought with money."

              There are many  benefits to stopping the use of beauty supplies. Not using these products means the opportunity to have more money and time to do other things that are important to us. It can help us be healthier and reduce the chances to get deadly diseases later on in our lives. It can also help us be our true selves and allow our natural beauty shine. I believe everyone would benefit in some if not many ways if these products were not used.

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning in Mediated Communication Assignment #1

As I was looking at my Facebook not too long ago I came across a news report showing a man with the title underneath "Good guy with a gun stops second beheading...". I am waiting to take the concealed weapons permit class to get mine so I clicked on the link interested to see what it had to say. Although a lot of this news article talked about how the Muslim religion is a terrible thing I wanted to focus on the fact that a life was saved by a man carrying a firearm having  his concealed weapons permit.
This news article was all for the right to be able to carry a firearm as am I. A lot of people, on the other hand, say this is a huge reason as to why there is more violence in todays world and why more people die. I am not convinced because there are people out there with firearms having a concealed weapons permit there is more violence and death in today's world. I still believe the people who decide to take other lives will do so with or without a firearm. For example, the man who was shot had decapitated a women and was in the process of doing so to another woman. There was no firearm involved in this incident. The man had a knife and was stabbing his victims and succeeded in decapitating one of them. The man was stopped in his tracks only because another man shot him with the firearm he was legally carrying.
In the post it talks about how many people dial 911 in a crisis like this waiting for the "good guy with a gun" to get there. It also states that "we, as a society, trust a person with a gun as long as they have a badge on".  I believe this to be true. I do not believe one person would have questioned this incident if a police officer had shot and killed the man. Since it was a regular citizen who held a concealed weapons permit it is now questionable to some people. One comment on this news article stated "for every one life that a gun saves, there are 100's that are killed". Again, as I said above, if people want to take another's life they can do so without a firearm and have done so many times in the past.
I believe this reasoning is cogent. People are convinced since firearms are the most used weapon causing death that they all should be banned. This does not mean the people who use them to commit crimes will not get their hands on them if they are banned. It also does not mean that crimes will stop taking place if they are banned. Crimes will always take place whether firearms are allowed to be carried by people who carry permits or not. Lots of crimes, such as this one, have been stopped and lives have been saved because of people who hold a concealed firearms permit and carry a firearm. I believe most people, if the situation was presented, would use a firearm if either they or their family was the victim in a crime such as this one.