Blog 7- The Profound Emptiness of 'Resilience'

In her article, Parul Sehgal writes about the resilience and how the word’s meaning has been changing in accordance with events taking place in colleges and schools. She begins with a mere description of what resilience has been taken to mean in the past by the media, various organizations, and parents. For instance, Sehgal explains how parents believe their children need to be “resilient” and learn how to push past difficulties they encounter. She especially emphasizes people’s reactions to college students and how they deal with sensitive subjects on campus. Sehgal brings in both sides- one displaying contempt for students’ sensitivity, claiming they need to be more resilient and “tough,” and the other displaying an understanding for the students’ sensitivity, validating their hurt feelings and their attempts to speak out against injustice. In describing both opinions, Sehgal makes it difficult for the reader to understand her opinion, but at the very end of the article, Sehgal subtly agrees with the people who validate students’ pain, explaining that their sensitivity is actually changing what resilience means.

Personally, I agree with Sehgal's opinion, and I think the way she brought it up was genius. Instead of making a hotheaded argument that clearly blasts any counterarguments, Sehgal writes a clever piece that seems to be merely factual, stating both sides of the story. However, she slips in her opinion at the last minute, subtly agreeing with one side. By doing this, she had opened up her article to all readers. Those who would have disagreed with her don’t even realize her opinion until the end, and those would agree with her find surprising pleasure in finding her opinion at the very end. In my opinion, this is the best way to write an article.

In regards to her actual message, I think Sehgal happens to be correct. People talk about resilience as if it means silence. To them, being resilient means not voicing your fears or concerns, not being “too sensitive.” I happen to think there is nothing wrong with being sensitive. Being resilient means you should be able to stand up for what you believe in and voice all the concerns you want without fear of being pushed down or ignored. You should be able to be sensitive about subjects like racial prejudice without having people call you out for it. I think that is the message Sehgal is trying to get across in her article, and I wholeheartedly agree with it.

Sehgal, Parul. “The Profound Emptiness of ‘Resilience’.” The New York Times Magazine. N.p., 1

Dec. 2015. Web. 6 Dec. 2015.

The Last Lincoln

President Abraham Lincoln, in his “Second Inaugural Address” (1865), declares the Civil War to be at the fault of the South, and that as such, they can no longer do anything to stop it. Lincoln makes this declaration by subtly indicating that the Southern states willed the war as a result of their desire to destroy the Union, by stating outright that the cause of the war lay in the issues of slavery in the South, and finally, by stating that if the war is G-d’s will, they can do nothing but fight for what they believe in. Lincoln’s purpose is to make his people aware of the fact that the South is to blame for the war and to indicate to them that it is their duty to finish the war in order to be able to rebuild the country. His tone is calm, yet also almost regretful, as if he wishes they didn't have to fight anymore.

I think Lincoln’s Address is kind of funny, in a very morose sort of way. Lincoln is sick and tired of the South yelling and fighting with him all the time, so he just accepts the war as a fact and then piles all of the blame onto them. I don’t know if I necessarily agree with this, but I think what he said was appropriate for the occasion. The people didn’t want to hear anything more about friendly ties and country roots, they wanted to fight for their beliefs. Lincoln is basically sitting back and saying “Have at it, I’m done with this.” Accepting the war was the first step to finishing it. In regards to the actual meaning behind his words, I don’t think all of the blame should have been put on the South. Sure, they were acting like a rebellious teenager (“I don’t want to follow your dumb laws! I can do anything I want! So there!), but the North also had a part in starting the war. When the country was just beginning in the late 1700s, the North was the center of the country. It was where all government decisions were made. The South felt left out right from the beginning, which led to tensions that eventually turned into the Civil War. So, in my opinion, the blame should be split, maybe not equally, but split, between the North and the South.

"How to Live a Lie" is a Lie!

William Irwin, in his New York Times article “How to Live a Lie” (2015), asserts that our beliefs in G-d, objective morality, and free will are based on a philosophy called fictionalism. Irwin supports this assertion by using ideas from famous philosophers and specific examples to explain how we accept morality, G-d, and free will as being true, even though we inherently believe them to be untrue. Irwin intends to convince his readers that their beliefs are based on a system of accepting what they believe to be untrue, and thus teach them to believe that their faith in G-d, morality, and free will is ill-founded, though understandable, and should be challenged. The tone of the article is formal and educational, as well as a little pompous and forceful, as though Irwin expects his ideas to be accepted by everyone.  

While I certainly respect the work and research that was put into this article, I find that I wholeheartedly disagree with much of what Irwin says. His first suggestion, that morality is based on “moral fictionalism,” seems utterly ridiculous to me. He wants us to believe that though we accept statements like “stealing is wrong” to be true, we actually don’t believe it to be true at all. He claims that if we were pushed to give a theoretical answer to whether stealing is wrong, we would say no. But who on earth would say no?!?!? Of course we all believe inherently that stealing is wrong! Stealing is wrong! We are taught from a young age that taking something from someone else is not the right thing to do. Why? There are oodles of answers! It would make them upset, it isn’t polite, the list goes on and on. Is Irwin suggesting that people inherently don’t care about others’ feelings? How else could he say that we don’t actually think stealing is wrong???

Another major issue I have with his philosophy is his idea of free will. He seems to feel that no one feels that free will is actually possible. We only accept it as a possibility because it makes the world an easier place to live in. He gives the classic example that many use to prove free will doesn’t exist- “If God foresaw that I would order pasta, then was I really free to do otherwise, to order steak?” This question has irked me for SO LONG. The two have absolutely nothing to do with each other! Just because G-d knows something is going to happen, that doesn’t mean that we didn’t make it happen. It’s like saying I went to the grocery store and bought some eggs, and my mom knew that I would buy eggs, and therefore, because she knew I would buy eggs, I didn’t have free will. What kind of crazy argument is that?? It has nothing to do with anything! Once I saw that argument, I couldn’t accept any more of what Irwin was saying, because it all seemed absurd to me. Aside from these two major flaws in his argument, I do agree with him about belief in G-d because I think many people accept the reality of G-d without actually believing in Him. But, for the rest of the article, I have to respectfully disagree with his claims.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/how-to-live-a-lie/?ref=opinion

Lincoln Blog

Abraham Lincoln, in his speech to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield in 1838, proclaimed that good men will resort to drastic measures if they don’t comply with government decisions. He gave specific examples of men who see “their property destroyed; their families insulted, and their lives endangered; their persons injured; and...nothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better,” which causes them to “become tired of, and disgusted with, a Government that offers them no protection.” Lincoln concludes that this will ultimately lead them to “not [be] much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothing to lose.” In short, Lincoln is suggesting that men will consider stepping outside the law when frustrated by the government. He was, of course, relating his ideas to the great political debates of his time, like slavery, but could perhaps his ideas be related to the political debates of our day as well?

It’s been made apparent by the media that recently, various social and political issues have become huge debates that could potentially lead to a government shutdown. A few of these include the Planned Parenthood scandal, the Iran deal, and problems with the export-import bank. Most citizens and politicians are divided on these issues; for instance, most Republicans want to stop funding Planned Parenthood while Democrats want to keep funding for the organization part of the national budget. Both sides are outspoken and active about their ideas while denouncing the other side. Such rivalry has led to national frustration and a huge rift between political parties and citizens. Arguments over matters such as this have quickly become heated, and some are worried that it could eventually lead to a government shutdown. The various negative consequences of such an event have already been showcased during the last government shutdown, which resulted in near disaster for the country.

Lincoln’s words especially resonate during times like these as people wonder how far extremists will go to have their ideas fulfilled. Will those who feel disappointed by government action start to step outside the boundaries of law? As Lincoln said, even good men can turn to crime during times of urgency...Hopefully, someday soon we will be able to resolve our country’s problems without the solution in Lincoln’s day, which was war. Someone will have to step up and push to make our country better in order to appease those who are outraged and to protect the future of our society. I don’t know what will happen in the future; all I and anyone else can hope for is friendly compromise before it’s too late.

"They're Syrian Refugees, Not Migrants" Rhetorical Precis

Ellen Ratner, in her article “They’re Syrian Refugees, Not Migrants” (2015), argues that the United States has not done its part in allowing refugees fleeing Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to enter its borders and that it’s time for us as Americans to take responsibility. Ratner makes her argument by first bringing in a quote from an esteemed member of the United Nations that asserts that the refugees are not migrants and need to be taken care of and treated with respect, then describing other occasions in which refugees have been turned away by the US and left to die, and finally, stating clearly that the United States has obligation to support refugees, as stated in the U.N. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Ratner’s purpose is to make the American people aware of the costs of turning refugees away in order to convince people to stand up for the refugees. She uses quotations and historical facts to create a logical argument that appeals to an educated audience.

I agree completely with Ellen Ratner in regards to her views on this issue. Taking in refugees, though perhaps a complicated process, is the moral and ethical thing to do, and politics should not matter. Taking in refugees saves people’s lives. Turning them away essentially means that you don’t care whether they live or die. Clearly I feel strongly about this issue, but I think that my ideas are influenced by how the Jews were treated during the Holocaust. Most countries, especially the United States, turned away the Jewish refugees fleeing Europe, and that makes me feel as though those countries now have the responsibility to make up for it. Ratner emphasizes that the US is getting around helping the Syrian refugees by referring to them as migrants, not refugees, which I think is disgusting. Why should the US want to get out of helping people? To me, it seems as though the US is being arrogant. If, for instance, the US was taken over and we all became refugees, you can be sure that all the people who are uncertain about helping the Syrian refugees would change their minds. I hope that someday soon the American policy regarding refugees will change for the better.

http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/theyre-syrian-refugees-not-migrants/

Mac vs. PC Commercial Analysis

Apple Inc., in their commercial, “Out of the Box” (2006), claims that a Mac can be used right out of the box while a PC takes an excessive amount of time to set up. The commercial does this by using people to humorously represent a Mac and a PC; the Mac first lists everything he can do immediately after being purchased, then the PC serves as a contrast by describing all the steps he has to take to be ready for use, and finally the Mac jumps out of the box, telling the PC, “let me know when you’re ready!” The ad’s purpose is to show that a Mac, as opposed to a PC, doesn’t require a lengthy set up, in order to convince buyers to purchase a Mac over a PC. The commercial uses pathos, specifically humor and wit, to reel in prospective buyers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PwiljBN5-8

The Virginia Shooting- Rhetorical Precis and Personal Reponse

          Nicholas Kristof, in his article "Lessons From the Virginia Shooting" (2015), argues that gun control in America is abysmal and needs to be addressed. He propels his argument first giving several statistics that show the massive amounts of gun homicides, then arguing against gun advocates, and finally, clearly describing steps that should be taken to fix the problem. Kristof’s purpose is to assert that guns are dangerous and should be regulated just as cars, ladders, and pools are in order to convince the general public and the government that gun control is something that needs to be taken more seriously. He uses logic and factual statements to appeal to a more educated audience that could perhaps have the power to make the changes he suggests.

Before reading this article I wasn’t really sure how I felt about gun control, but now I feel more compelled to agree with Kristof. His data and statistics are a little hard to ignore, especially when they seem realistic. When comparing guns to cars, his argument was especially effective. I’ve often thought about how cars are used to argue against people who wish to regulate gun control, and his response satisfied me. Cars were made safer, so guns should be made safer too! It’s so simple! He’s not on the side that wants to get rid of guns absolutely, he’s simply saying that they need to be regulated more carefully. Another thing that I liked about his argument was that he also gave specific steps that should be taken to fix the problem, and they all seem relatively easy. He’s not just saying we need to fix the problem, he’s giving actual instructions that could potentially be followed. All in all, I liked his argument, and I think his suggestions would certainly help lower gun homicide rates and benefit everyone. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/27/opinion/lessons-from-the-murders-of-tv-journalists-in-the-virginia-shooting.html

Cecil the Lion

While I was reading this article, the entire time all I could think was "How could anyone think that this is okay?" Personally, I am completely against what Dr. Walter Palmer did, though I don't think I would go so far as to dress up my child in a lion suit and protest in front of his office. I just don't understand how Palmer thought that luring a lion out of a reserve in Zimbabwe and killing it was a completely normal thing to do. He claims that he didn't know that the lion he "took was a known, local favorite, was collared and part of study until the end of the hunt." Apparently, he relied on local professionals to ensure that the hunt was legal. But how could he not notice that he was hunting right near a reserve? Cecil lived in the Hwange National Park in Zimbabwe, the largest reserve in Zimbabwe. That sort of place, with cottages, camping sites, picnic sites, etc. doesn’t exactly blend in. I think that Dr. Palmer knew exactly what he was doing and that he didn’t care.

The main problem that I have with this whole situation is that hunting animals like Cecil is a sport to some people. Some protesters started a Facebook page called “Shame Lion Killer Dr Walter Palmer and River Bluff Dental,” where the cover photo displays Dr. Palmer with a dead lion, a dead rhinoceros, and a dead cheetah. This, to me, was appalling.Lions, rhinoceri, and cheetahs are not eaten by humans, which means that Dr. Palmer simply hunted them down and murdered them for fun, which is NOT okay. He also hunts with a crossbow, as indicated by the article, which caused Cecil to suffer for 40 hours before he finally died. That sort of killing is just cruel.

The main point I want to get across is that animal hunting for sport should be banned. I understand why some people hunt deer and geese, because they actually put the meat to use. But hunting and killing wild animals like lions and rhinoceri simply should not be allowed! The only reason why people hunt those animals is for fun or to sell their furs, which is not something that is necessary or moral, in my opinion. Further precautions need to be taken in order to stop illegal hunting in places like the Hwange National Park. It shouldn’t have been so easy for Dr. Palmer and his associates to lure Cecil out of the park. Hopefully, after this story dies down, the government in our country and in other countries will buckle down on illegal hunting and poaching.

RIP Cecil!

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/us/walter-palmer-whereabouts/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1040002419352406/