Introduction: The first Amendment grants Americans five basic freedoms: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom to peaceably assemble, and the freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The exact wording of this amendment follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." However, these freedoms are not to be taken at face value.
Constitutionality and Consistency: The freedoms in this amendment are not to be taken at face value, however. There are several side notes and exceptions to these freedoms. One reading this amendment would assume that it granted all Americans the five freedoms mentioned without hindrance. However, it does not. There are several exceptions and points of clarification to be looked at in regards to this amendment. The main concern is the misinterpretation of this amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is no law known to me about congress choosing a preference of religion; however, there is evidence of a religious preference by the government. Take swearing Justices in on the bible, "In God We Trust" appearing on currency, scripture engraved in government buildings, and "under one God" in the Pledge of Allegiance for examples. Also, the freedom of speech is not so free. Speech that is deemed to be a danger to the public peace is not supported in the First Amendment. This is why you can not yell fire in a crowded movie theatre. You can not make speeches of libel or slander, and you can not make speeches that are considered to be obscene either.
Justice: Citizens who believes that they have a right to say what's on their minds, or when the government claims to have no preference of religion, they should be sure to check the exceptions and asides to this amendment. Law suits can be filed against people for things they say, and the government has been under severe scrutiny for it's strong connections with Christianity. In fact, certain companies can sue a person for voicing their opinion about their product. Therefore; when the First Amendment states that American citizens are granted the freedom of speech, it is not explicit, and some speech is considered unacceptable and intolerable.
Expediency: It is not expedient to have all of these exceptions and loopholes in the First Amendment. This amendment should be revised to say what it actual is. It gives an image of freedom that isn't really there. But that's just my opinion.
Practicability: It is not practical for the First Amendment to be so ambiguous. It's not clearly written; therefore, it's not understood. What good are these freedoms when Americans aren't able to understand all of the laws associated with these freedoms? It has the potential to leave Americans asking if they are really free and to what extent is their freedom free.
Conclusion: To allow for better understanding of the First Amendment, it should be explicitly stated as should all other amendments. Only then can citizens fully understand how free they really are. Once this is done, hopefully the freedoms granted under the First Amendment can be seen for what they really are: freedoms with strong limitations.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Thursday, March 4, 2010
It's Her Choice
Abortion is a highly controversial topic. Recently, there was a pro-life commercial aired in the Super Bowl that provoked even more discussion on the topic. Pathos is the obvious appeal that is targeted in controversy. If I were to try to persuade an audience why I am pro-choice and why they should be pro-choice also, I would certainly employ various strategies of the pathos appeal.
In order to appeal to my audience's emotions, I would have to understand my audience's views and a bit of background on them. Women who would attend such a speech would most likely have some feelings about abortion. These women could be mothers, women who have lost a child, women who are unable to conceive, women who are very religious, or women who know someone who had an abortion.
These women are most likely to be audience members because they could all potentially have an emotional tie to the topic. For example, the mothers understand the love and connection that they have with their child. They understand how precious this relationship is. They know what it's like to give life; therefore, they want to protect this. Women who have lost a child understand that pain. They know what it's like to be expecting a child and then have it taken from them. They are probably against abortion because they don't want anyone to "waste" a life. Women who are unable to conceive may feel the same because they want a child, but are unable to have one and may be envious of women who can have children. Religious women will probably have a strong emotional interest in the issue because abortion is not acceptable in most religions. Women who know someone who had an abortion could feel strongly in either camp--pro-life or pro-choice. If the person they know had a positive experience with their abortion (e.g. their life was in jeopardy, and they chose abortion to save their life, or their child had a chance of being severely disabled; therefore, they chose to abort and were thankful for that option), they may feel strongly for pro-choice. However, if the person they know had a negative experience with an abortion (e.g. regret and guilt), then the person might feel strongly about pro-life.
I am pro-choice because I believe a woman should not be told what she can and can not do to her body. Having an abortion is a personal choice and the reasons vary greatly from person to person. I would never have an abortion; I would also never tell a woman that she can't have one. I would try to persuade my audience to feel the same by using the following pathetic proofs:
Enargeia: I would describe a situation in which a woman needed an abortion such as being a rape victim and becoming pregnant or having a pregnancy that was life threatening to herself. I would play up the dilemma of having an abortion or not as best I could to allow the audience to become interested and invested in the scenario.
Honorific language: I would use honorific language when discussing the ways in which being pro-choice can benefit women. I would talk about the values of freedom that Americans cherish so much with honorific language because being pro-choice is a matter of the freedom of the woman to choose abortion.
Sympathy: I would call on their sympathy to understand how this decision is too big to let the government make it for the woman. I would use the scenario from the enargeia to get the woman to care about the woman's right to choose.
In order to appeal to my audience's emotions, I would have to understand my audience's views and a bit of background on them. Women who would attend such a speech would most likely have some feelings about abortion. These women could be mothers, women who have lost a child, women who are unable to conceive, women who are very religious, or women who know someone who had an abortion.
These women are most likely to be audience members because they could all potentially have an emotional tie to the topic. For example, the mothers understand the love and connection that they have with their child. They understand how precious this relationship is. They know what it's like to give life; therefore, they want to protect this. Women who have lost a child understand that pain. They know what it's like to be expecting a child and then have it taken from them. They are probably against abortion because they don't want anyone to "waste" a life. Women who are unable to conceive may feel the same because they want a child, but are unable to have one and may be envious of women who can have children. Religious women will probably have a strong emotional interest in the issue because abortion is not acceptable in most religions. Women who know someone who had an abortion could feel strongly in either camp--pro-life or pro-choice. If the person they know had a positive experience with their abortion (e.g. their life was in jeopardy, and they chose abortion to save their life, or their child had a chance of being severely disabled; therefore, they chose to abort and were thankful for that option), they may feel strongly for pro-choice. However, if the person they know had a negative experience with an abortion (e.g. regret and guilt), then the person might feel strongly about pro-life.
I am pro-choice because I believe a woman should not be told what she can and can not do to her body. Having an abortion is a personal choice and the reasons vary greatly from person to person. I would never have an abortion; I would also never tell a woman that she can't have one. I would try to persuade my audience to feel the same by using the following pathetic proofs:
Enargeia: I would describe a situation in which a woman needed an abortion such as being a rape victim and becoming pregnant or having a pregnancy that was life threatening to herself. I would play up the dilemma of having an abortion or not as best I could to allow the audience to become interested and invested in the scenario.
Honorific language: I would use honorific language when discussing the ways in which being pro-choice can benefit women. I would talk about the values of freedom that Americans cherish so much with honorific language because being pro-choice is a matter of the freedom of the woman to choose abortion.
Sympathy: I would call on their sympathy to understand how this decision is too big to let the government make it for the woman. I would use the scenario from the enargeia to get the woman to care about the woman's right to choose.
Dear Sammie
What up Sammizle! What it do? So yesterday, I heard this thing about Tiger Woods on the radio. I think they said that there is an application created off of his scandizzles. I am not a hundred percent sure, but I'm almost certain that that's who the app is made after. Anywho, this app will delete your texts after a certain time. According to the radio dj guy, the text not only gets deleted from your phone, but the text also gets deleted from the person you send it to and the server. Well I'm pretty sure that that's what they said. I'm sure you could google it. Then again sammizle, if you are sending inappropriate texts it serves you right to get caught, hooker! I'd laugh so hard at you if you downloaded this app and all your texts were uploaded onto your facebook or some shit. Oh man would that be hilarious! Just think bout it, you send this text that you don't want nobody to see, and you use this app thinking it will cover your tracks. But guess what...IT DOESN'T! Instead, it posts it on your wall. Oh man! I would die laughin. Anywayz chick, I gotta go. Class is bout to be over and I gotta bounce.
Peace out homeslice!
As if my inappropriate language were not enough to deminish any good character that I might have hoped of establishing, my lack of securing goodwill and lack of doing my homework make this letter especially horrible for establishing ethos.
Peace out homeslice!
As if my inappropriate language were not enough to deminish any good character that I might have hoped of establishing, my lack of securing goodwill and lack of doing my homework make this letter especially horrible for establishing ethos.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
