Author: drichardson5 (Page 1 of 3)

Daniel Richardson
Professor Jesse Miller
ENG 110, H4
13 November 2017

“Planting a Naysayer in Your Text”, Gerald Graff and Kathy Birkenstein

Main Ideas:
Anticipate Objections
We can use criticisms of our work to our advantage. This “enhance[s] credibility, not undermine[s] it. Identifies problems before they happen, preemptively troubleshooting your paper. Also helps show respect for your reader as an individual thinker and prevents you from coming across as closed-minded.
Represent Objections Fairly
Writers bolster credibility when they do not quickly move past “naysayers. Presenting unbiased work is more factual. Most write with an “outsider’s eye”. Should dedicate several focused sentences or paragraphs to “naysayers”. If you mock a view that you oppose, you will alienate the readers who disagree with you.
Answer Objections:
To avoid having a reverse intended effect on readers, one must “make sure that the counterarguments you address are no more convincing than your own. Cannot merely dismiss counterarguments, do not be a “bully”. “Treating the counterview as an opportunity to revise and refine your position, serves to improve and refine your argument. Persuade the reader to support your claim in a respectful way.

Daniel Richardson

Professor Jesse Miller

ENG 110, H4

13 November 2017

            In his “Animals Like Us”, Hal Herzog presents a moral dilemma many people face: Should we eat animals, and if we do, how do we justify it?  Judith Black personally feels afflicted, as for years she classified herself as a vegetarian, yet would eat fish, as she did not believe them to have the same animalistic qualities of a cat, dog, or cow. But what divides the fish from other animals, or even humans? Humans and animals both have hearts, brains, and blood flowing through their bodies, they both have families, and both feel pain. It is but a word that separates them. In creating a separate nomenclature for similar groups, one inherently reclassifies the part of the population as primitive, in a direct or indirect means. To some, this separate classification facilitates the justification eating animals. Others, such as Black mediate these two groups, finding animals as humanistic and lovable. However, by convincing herself that, fish is not an animal, Black again reclassifies the population to fit her narrative, to justify her desires. To Black, realizing that fish are animals would probably be an unraveling experience. If animals are such as humans, and fish are classified as animals, where does it stop?  David Foster Wallace ponders this quandary in his “Consider the Lobster”, wondering “Why is a primitive, inarticulate form of suffering less urgent or uncomfortable for the person who’s helping inflict it by paying for the food it results in?” In other words, why is the suffering of animals less important than that of humans. It is true that Wallace is in fact referring to the processes relating to the deaths of these animals, while Black is most likely uncomfortable with the thought of eating animals. However, both thinkers in question, not always outright, examine suffering relating to “primitive” beings that we eat, both thinkers acknowledge directly or indirectly that people stand to gain from the death of animals. Be it nutrition or capitalistic gain. The dilemma in question, the unraveling chain is especially difficult to solve because, well you “eat or die”. In addition, rethinking eating habits would require the undermining of a whole separate industry.

Daniel Richardson

Professor Jesse Miller

ENG 110, H-4

8 November 2017

Reconsidering the Lobster

Things Clearer:

·         Industry influence is partially to blame for people celebrating lobster

·         Why did shift occur of Lobster being dreaded meal for prison inmates and poor à Delicacy enjoyed by the rich

o   Cultural?

o   Economical?

o   Regional Reliance

·         What is our impact on lobsters/ their ecosystem? How are we changing their “culture”?

·         Wallace’s comparison of humans, specifically tourists, to lobsters. “Economically significant but existentially loathsome”

Bigger Idea:

o   What happens when somebody starts to unravel a chain? Such as Wallace researching the lobster industry, and learning about the meat packing industry, which he says he knew nothing about before writing this article.

o   Why do we ignore suffering? “Why is a primitive, inarticulate form of suffering less urgent or uncomfortable for the person who’s helping inflict it by paying for the food it results in?

o   Do we try to rationalize suffering? Such as believing that puncturing a hole in the lobster’s head will prevent it from suffering? Or ignore it all together

o   Why do we industrialize death? Meatpacking companies, giant boiling lobster pots and festivals. Connection à Industrialized crematoriums and funeral service industry

o   Germany and France pretended that the Holocaust didn’t happen until 1980’s and 1990’s respectively. Yet there were reports coming out from Europe as early as 1942 and we possess plenty of photographs to prove that this abomination happened.