Writing to Inform, Convince, and Persuade: Rhetoric 1101 Section 7

i just read an article, "spinach back in some stores on east coast" in the new york times today. i didn't know why they stopped selling it in the first place, until i found out that some spinach were contaminated with e. coli bacteria. it's a scary; thought, how it got there in the first place. i guess, all the more reason for those kids out there who dislike veggies to stop eating spinach, huh? hehe..but just yesterday, they started restocking some grocery stores with fresh spinach. i think that 's a good thing, however i was never really a big spinach fan. i'm more of a bok choy person. hehe

Posted by Xong Lor at 08:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In "why Walmart is good", i guess one should give Steve Maich kudos for writing such a good persuasion, but I found plenty of gaps in his argument. The opening picture is a long abandoned cleveland steelyard, where he obviously implies that something has to be done to fix the eyesore. But it is far more common for wal-mart to come into a small town and dangle a huge carrot in front of the nose of an ailing farmer, who can't pass up the money and then sells his land for the development. Maich goes on to talk about a Canada town an hour and a half away from school supplies who begged walmart to come to their town. This is not representative of most towns where walmart pops up, most of which have plenty of resources in town or nearby. I laughed hardest perhaps when he defended wal-mart's environmental record, when he spoke of an extremely progressive wal-mart on Vancouver island that had several safetyguards built into it's construction. This is again a horrible misrepresentation of the company, who plants 25 run of the mill polluting stores for every "green" one. As he went into the rationale for for low wages and fewer benefits, things just got sketchier and sketchier. just a couple things to think about as you read it.

Posted by Robert Belden at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

i also read, the article, "Down and Out in Discount America", which i found very interesting. i never knew or even thought about what the workers go through, while working there. it makes me think twice, before i go shop there again. however, in this kind of situation it's complicated to fight against wal-mart; because wal-mart not only provides discounted prices for the consumers, but they also offer jobs to those who are willing to take it in the first place. i just don't like the fact that wal-mart is taking advantage of those women workers/consumers.

Posted by Xong Lor at 09:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For those of you who have read this article or who might be interested:
I was very intrigued by the vicious cycle between paying the employees below a living wage, forcing them to rely on government aid just to survive, and therefore only being able to buy products at WAL-MART because of being paid so little. Also, one of the reasons prices are so cheap at Wal-Mart is because the employees aren't being paid enough. Hmmm... Lastly, the article mentioned how Wal-Mart typically supports the right-wing politicians, and it is the Republicans who want to do away with welfare--- which, by the way, is what Wal-Mart depends on in order to help support their employees.
Liz

Posted by Elizabeth Lund at 09:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (374) | TrackBacks (1)

Ok,
So in class on Thurs. we learned about how some big name companies are making news stories that are then sent to braodcast stations. I don't know how to feel about this. These big time companies filming news clips for say the 5:00 news? And knowing that some of these people are just acting kind of makes me think how can we believe these people? To me, when these things are put on the news it seams like just another comercial for that company. We assume that everything on the news is true...not just another way for companies to get their names out there. Now I'm not saying that what these people are telling us isn't true, but if there behing hired to say this stuff, how can we as TV viewers believe them? But i don't know...this is just what I took away from the discussion on Thurs.

Posted by Megan Korts at 09:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Ok, so I know that we are supposed to post a blog like once a week or something but I've been unsure about what to write... I was hoping that someone would write one before me and I could go off of what they said but I was unlucky... So, I'm going to just ponder something that was discussed in class and was discussed in our "Writing Arguments" book. We all wrote a blog on truth but I want to know what everyone thinks about integrety in our writing? Do you believe it is important for a writer's work to explain the whole truth in their argument, even if the truth doesn't always fully support the argument or claim the writer is making?? Basically is it more important to inform the reader of the truth or more important to convince them that your point of view/solution is best??

Posted by Brenda Blackhawk at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've added to and changed the website, which means the address has changed.

http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hende246/007/home007.html

Posted by Marnie Henderson at 09:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We may use this website in class today. I am posting it here for easy access.

http://dianahacker.com/writersref/flash/rs_menu.asp

Posted by Marnie Henderson at 08:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A law passed by Congress is said to be the truth in the United States because the decisions made by Congress are supposed to be supported by the people. For disagreeing with a law and breaking it, you ought to be punished. However, the general opinions of people might be diferent in countries across the world. In Europe, for example, death penalty is not supported by the people, whereas in the United States it is. The point is that truth varies from society to society. Factors such as education, religion, background, race, sex, and many more effect the way we look at truth.

Posted by Tobias Grosskopf at 09:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I feel that truth is what you personally believe. Like if someone tells you the world was created by god but you believe in the big bang theory then that will be the truth to you so pretty much its what you accept in your mind/heart. Society decides what truth is we agree that something is most reasonable or likely so that must be what actually happened we dont want to believe it if it doesnt sound justifiable. Well what the the book says on arguments i am undecided on but the truth theory I agree. We all have our different feelings and beliefs and therefore different truths.

Posted by Amber Washington at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

In my opinion the thruth is whatever your mind wants it to be. The truth has to do with what you believe in. For example, a group people might not believe in gravity even though most people do. It is that groups beleif. Most people who do believe in gravity will think that the group is nuts, but that doesn't matter. The truth has nothing to do with whether other people beleive in the same thing as you. The truth is simply whatever the person wants it to be.

Posted by Nicholas Joelson at 09:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Truth to me is a rarely attained unshakeable answer to a question. It has something which has maybe been found by math and science in the cases of chemistry or the laws of planetary motion etc. It is perhaps impossible to prove indefinitely what is the truth, because that notion may well be turned on end in future years. I like the textbook's idea of truth, because they present it as a product of educated argument, which I think is the only feasible means by which anyone could arrive at "truth".

Posted by Robert Belden at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I think that truth is an honest answer, that is backed up from facts. It is something that cannot be proven wrong, because of the facts that support it. However, it is unknown or ambiguous, until someone steps up and claims or accepts what truth can be.

Posted by Xong Lor at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Truth is the acceptance of enough evidence to reach a general consensus on a certain topic. Throughout history truth has changed which shows its fluidity. Truth is only a creation of mankind to provide a sense of security and advancement for outselves.

Posted by Elizabeth Peterson at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

To me, truth is an individual experience that usually comes from people's personal beliefs. For examlpe, a South American Indian who grew up in the jungle, raised in the traditional views of his people, would believe differently than a scientist about how a certain healing plant works. However, each one believes that they know the TRUTH. I beleive that 'truth' cannot have a solid definition because the truth varies from person to person.

Posted by Brenda Blackhawk at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

What is truth? I think truth is something that people find to be the answer for somehting else. They can use it to prove something. Truth can be something that is believed by a large group of people and is thought to be correct because it hasn't been proven wrong. I think truth can be proven wrong, but then people will look for a new truth. It can be an explanation, somehting for people to fall back on and think is right.

Who says what truth is? I think that when a majority or a large group of people all agree on somehting, they look at it as true. So what's a majority? I loom at it as a percentage of 51-100% of the people. Not just one person can say something it true and have it be true. Many people have to believe it.

Do I agree with the book? I agree with the book when it says that truth is looking for the best solution. It's somehting that people would agree with or want. They could be the majoruty who could say what truth is.

Posted by Megan Korts at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Truth is a very relative term. There is no strict definition about what true actually is. Different cultures, time periods, and religion all affect what people accept as the truth. New discoveries and new technology can cause people to change their viewpoint about what is "true." It is something that cannot be proven, it can only be disproven, and people will accept somethng as true until it is disproven.
No specific person says what is and what is not the truth. Truth is just something that is accepted by society as a whole because no one has any other explanation for something.
I don't necessarily agree with what the book says about truth. The book says that truth is finding the best possible solution for something. But what is the best possible solution? This solution could be different for everyone. Even if you go with what is the best solution for the majority of society, there are still many people that will have a different opinion.

Posted by Joe Campbell at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I once thought that truth could be proven by evidence, that it was fact, concrete; after discussion i realized truth cannot be proven. The definition of truth that was presented to us was "means argument cannot be proven- you can only make a reasonable claim." This was somthing to think about, and the more I thought about it the more i thought it to be true...well...correct. As for who says what truth is, i believe everyone is equally responsible. Everyone creates their own truth, it's a matter of convincing others of that "truth" that makes the difference.

Posted by Myah Walker at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Truth is a universally accepted claim that has been proven over and over again to provide the same desired outcome. For example, mathematics (most of) is a collection of accepted claims that continue to provide predictable solutions. Truth is an ideal concept... no one is able to prove what is and is not true. Personally, I have not thought too much about "truth," but the book makes sense-- there really is no truth-- only a widely accepted claim. I find this very thought provoking and almost unsettling. I think that the concept of truth is used to provide a sense of comfort. Hmm...

Posted by Elizabeth Lund at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think the truth is completely subjective, if someone believes something is the absolute truth, then to them it is. Not everyone has to believe the same things are true, but I think that if someone has a strong understanding of what is true, then it can be to them.

I think the widely accepted truths are created by those in powerful positions; scientists, the pope, world leaders, ect.

I understand what the book is saying and it makes a lot of sense, but a world with nothing definite is too complicated for me!

good times.

Posted by Rebecca Hammer at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I believe that truth can be whatever you believe it to be. If you do or don't believe something, that is totally up to you. Some people need scientific explanations, others just need a gut feeling. However, many people will sometimes believe in what the majority of society thinks is the truth. Truth is whatever you want it to be. I'm cool with that. I also believe that we have to draw the line somewhere, to what the truth can be. I wouldn't like everything in the world to be uncertain. It is nice to have some sort of stability that I can depend on.

Posted by Lianne Endo at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Truth as we call it is only a claim with reasoned justifications. In this case it cannot be proven as fact but as reasonably true. This "reasonably true" is something that a group of people can all agree meets culturally acceptable checks. For example most everyone accepts that serial murder is not okay, however this may not be true in the mind of a particular person. Truth can only be determined on one's own level of conciousness, what you believe and see to be true in your own mind is true, but only for you. Everyone else in the world has their own thoughts and opinions on what is truth, this doesn't make your thoughts any more true, or theirs any less. It is an internal conflict that only you can make a decision on. The book makes a good point when it says to read as a believer and to read as a doubter. There are always two sides of an issue and it is important to try and understand where all the information is coming from. Deciphering bias in an article is vastly important.

Posted by Stephen Maturen at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

What is truth? Who says what truth is? What do you think about what the book said?

I think that the truth is a widely accepted idea. The vast majority must agree on an idea or topic. The real question is what majority is- is it 51 percent of the people or 99 percent? I feel that the answer is closer to 99 percent. For example, some people might think that Geroge Bush is an excellent president, while others might think that he is horrible. No truth is established because the majority does not agree on one idea.

Anyone can say what the truth is. It all depends on the number of people that accept their definition of truth. For example, if scientists said trhat the earth would collapse ina year, it would not be a valid truth until they had facts to make other people believe their idea and accept.

Posted by Michelle Murphy at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I think that truth is what we believe to be right. There are also people that try to prove things by doing experiments and find out if they are wrong or right and if they are right then that is the new truth. IT is what people tell us is true since the way we were born. I think that society is the one who says what truth is. There is not one single person but people as a whole. Truth is kind of just accepted, i dont question everything that is taught to me. Some of the things i do but most the time the give the person who is telling me the benefit of the doubt that they are telling me something that is real or true.

Posted by Duy Hoang at 08:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Truth is relative. Each and everyone of us have our own views of what the truth is. Most of the time if someone is set in their ways and "know" the truth as one thing, it takes a lot of time and effort for someone else to change their way of thinking.

Posted by Jordan Duncanson at 08:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I suppose that anyone should be entitled to believe whatever they want about any concept or idea.

After long sessions of contemplation, I reached the conclusion that the notion of truth is way beyond relative to all the definitions that the word “truth” has in common language.
However, in our modern society I agree with the definition that truth represents a claim accepted by all the parts involved in an arguement. This agreement has to be based on a relatively accepted reality.

Posted by Vlad Gruin at 08:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Hey, I just wanted to try this out so I'm not stuck in the future. Hopefully it works!

Posted by Elizabeth Peterson at 09:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Welcome to Rhetoric 1101!

This is our class weblog.

In order to post an entry, click on the _LOGIN HERE_ link on the right side of the blog. Use your x500 and your password to login.

After you log in, you are sent to the main page of the publishing platform Movable Type. In order to make an entry to the blog, click the blue box that says: “create a new entry on this weblog.” This box is next to the blog title. (Don’t click “create a new weblog” to make an entry.)

If you want to comment on someone’s entry, you can do this right from the blog homepage; you don’t have to login. To comment, click the "comment" link at the bottom of a particular entry.

Also, assume that what you write is public. If you’d like, use an alias.

Welcome to class!
Marnie

Posted by Marnie Henderson at 10:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)