First of all, I've never read it, so I need to perform a background check and really understand the tone, style, and language, etc.
There is no author in the editorial that I'm rebutting, so what does that do with ethos?
I'm going to have to use a lot of counterargument by bringing up new ways of looking at arguments and disproving claims from the editorial.
Huck fin is an advanced college level text (who's reading it? what level of students?)
We shouldn't be changing text b/c its part of history, its a diff social world w/ diff social norms, diff situation all together.
Maybe just postpone reading to older age (no middle schoolers should be reading it anyway/based on research of who's reading it now). Based on the fact that students are too immature. But on the other hand, if your teacher/parent lets you watch a movie that's above your legal rating (ex PG-13 for 6th graders; R for 9th), your maturity increases, as does your respect for that teacher/parent.
If the immature student reads the book and uses the word in question incorrectly in public, then that student wasn't mature enough to read it in the first place, and obviously didn't understand the meaning of the book.
the DVD argument is a little shaky, cant wait to rip that apart.
I do agree with the last paragraph, the bible reference, really only b/c i cant refute it.
basically i have to say that censorship is not the answer to fix this problem, its the education system and stuff like that.
editorial didn't really have pathos, so that leaves logos
obviously, this is a very sensitive topic, so i have to be careful not to piss people off, maybe start w/ ack of bible paragraph and then refute or use counterargument to kill the rest of the argument.
1000 words (3-4 pages) due weds 3/2, 2 days before my birthday
No comments:
Post a Comment