Objections that the prosecution and/or defense should have been made. On page 1, line 22 the objection would be that under Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a). There can only be testimony as to a point of view or the character and not testimony in support of the point of view. Leading to the questioning of the witness to his point of view, of his reputation is the witness' statement of the point of view that is not permitted. On page 2, lines 12 and 13 with reference to the statement of the witness with respect to Mr. Michelson's “reputation is very good in the community...who will never start an argument and never hold a grudge against anyone”; Federal Rule of Evidence Rules 405(a) and 608(a).
The author’s interaction with Hargrove gave him more insight and understanding of the tricks and logical manipulation of human brain in believing what is not factual. This gives him a first-hand information and understanding of why the lottery is so popular and attractive. He draws an inference that lottery “is a game where reason and logic are rendered obsolete, and hope and dreams are on sale. And nobody knows how to sell hope and dreams better than Rebecca Paul Hargrove” (Piore
This is seen through her inability to display and consider opposing views, through her one-sided style and tone of writing, and through her incapability to present sound and uniform evidence throughout her essay. First, Garretson’s inability to consider opposing views, ultimately, affects the strength of her argument and lessens the credibility of the points she provides. Second, although Garretson’s writing may be effective and strong, the partial style and tone that she expresses seems to help reinforce a tactic that does not rely on facts, statistics and so forth, but rather, relies on emotional appeals to pity, fear, and trust, as a way to help sway the reader into trusting and believing her points on vegetarianism. Lastly, the evidence that Garretson supplies proves to not demonstrate soundness and uniformity. As a result, the claims that she makes cannot be considered seriously to demonstrate her points on vegetarianism effectively.
However, reputation remains unimportant. Reputation revolves around perceptions of one’s actions, the underlying motives remain unknown. Egotistical, spiteful people can negatively change the reputation of others without any basis. Reputation remains crucial to the Puritan people, many high school students, and others in society, but not to me. Reputation maintains importance in society, yet personally, reputation remains insignificant.
The only problem is, he appears to be quite a hypocrite and inconsistent when it comes to his own code. Either he does not understand the precepts of Individualism as Wilde does – “Individualism exercises no compulsion over man, … it knows that people are good when they are let alone” (Wilde, Soul 49); “the true personality of man will not be measured by material things” (Wilde, Soul 27); – or he does not Sabrina Tschanz 9 believe a word he says (Wilde, 11) as Hallward suggests, and therefore it remains a “cynical pose” (Wilde, 8) or a mere theory meant to be tested, preferably on someone innocent and impressible, like Dorian. His conception of good and bad is equally inconsistent: “To be good is to be in harmony with one’s self” (Wilde, 67), an open theory that gives credit to all sorts of behaviours as long as they coincide with one’s nature. However, being the one who initiates Dorian’s fall, Henry’s behaviour can only be regarded as utterly bad. His presence at Dorian’s side when he unconsciously sells his soul in a devil’s bargain with the picture (Wilde,
Fact of the matter is that there are no new objections, you have hear them all before Now how do you handle objections, what are the rules, are there any ? First things first, you never win an argument by proving him wrong, even if he is. Even if you are right about pointing about something he has stated, which may not be true or right, you need to do it politely & softly. You cannot hurt his ego, pride, status, knowledge level and win it. Any kind of argument should be a strict no no.
Seuss is one of the good writers that help show some of the many problems in the world. When this book was written at the time the cold war was going on and this book is the satire of what was going on. It shows how the cold war was fought by indirect contact. The book show how they did not actually use the weapons and they just tried to have better ones then the other side. His use of metaphors, parody, and exaggeration are great choices that clearly reveal this war was to see who was the
‘’Empiristic knowledge’’ is sooth only in measures of past experience, and there are no guarantees that future experience will not refute it. Any cognition, by Hume, can be just probabilistic but not reliable, and visibility of its objectivity and necessity is investigation of habit and faith in immutability of experience. “Must confess, -Hume wrote, -that nature holds us on respectful distance from our secrets and gives us just cognition of a couple of surface’s qualities of objects, hiding from us those forces and principles, from which actions of these objects entirely depend.’’ Hume is considered an empiricist because he thought that there is no link between cause and effect, except of causal. Causal link can be detected only in experience. Most important thing is experience.
Twelfth Night’s intricate text shows an underlying theme, the fact that you should use your mind, instead of your heart, to work through hard times. According to Daniel Kahneman, Nobel Prize-winning economist, there are two different paths your mind can take, fast thinking and slow thinking. “Your fast thinking is more affected by your emotional state,” he then goes on to say “Listening to your hear is something that will more likely hurt you than not, especially if you’re under any kind of time pressure.”(www.psychologytoday.com) Shakespeare perfectly designs his plays to show this message, but underneath all the lovey-dovey “bullshit”, excuse my language lol, he sends a real message. Shakespeare goes over the top to prove that following your heart isn’t always the best way to go about things. Shakespeare takes it to a point where the Duke threatens to kill Cesario, aka Viola, for “betraying” him to become Olivia’s lover.
The first part of the book outlines the general concepts and basic principles of rhetorics (Aristotle and Roberts, 1984). Aristotle distinguishes three ways of evidence in the rhetoric: an example (rhetorical guidance), enthymeme (rhetorical syllogism) and apparent enthymeme (apparent syllogism), giving them definition in order to return to a detailed interpretation of the second book. Proof by way of example (induction), according to Aristotle, suggests that on the basis of many similar cases we can conclude that there is any fact or event; proof using enthymeme (deduction) suggests that the existence of any fact concludes that always or often it is the cause of another fact or phenomenon (Aristotle and Roberts,
He believes that internet makes us less deep thinker because of its easiness. He uses ethos by showing several researches and essays as a source to make his essay powerful and to make a connection of his point and character with the audience. He also uses a pathos to appeal to the audiences’ imagination to pull them in to show what he experienced by comparing his past and present ability of reading. To convince an audience by use of logic or reason, Carr uses logos by citing several credited authors their ideas about the impact of the internet in our way of reading, thinking and way of living. In terms of the impact of internet on how we read, Carr believes that people do not read the entire article and it is seen that they bounce from page to page, losing focus quickly with reading on the web.
In short, many people tend to think that because a digitized thesis is easily copied in part or in whole, it can be easily plagiarized. Consequently -so goes the reasoning - it is better to keep theses offline. The argument is largely false and can be refuted fairly easily. To begin with, it is easy to recall that the invention of the Philosophical Transactions (1665) by Henry Oldenburg, the Secretary to the Royal Society in London, was motivated by the issue of intellectual property. Oldenburg reasoned that if the research results of Scientist X. were printed in a journal (after being certified as being of good quality and original) and that journal was made widely available through the multiplication of copies, then Scientist.
The internet along with many other technological advances has brought humanity a long way. Like with all change, there are positive outcomes as well as negative outcomes, and while having information at our fingerprints and obtainable within seconds might be a positive thing, there are still going to be some negative results. Nicholas Carr’s 2008 article published in The Atlantic, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” explains what Carr believes to be some of the negative effects that the usage of the Internet has brought upon us. Carr believes that the Internet is shaping the way that we think and that humans are losing the ability to read long pieces of writing. The purpose of his ironically long article is to convince his readers that the Internet is actually changing the way that we think and interact and to shed light upon something that many people experience, but they might have not realized it yet.
Professor and philosopher, Jason Zinser, in “The Good, the Bad and The Daily Show” addresses the topic of “fake” news, and tries to decide if shows such as The Daily Show are good resources for people to use. Are these shows a suitable replacement for "real" news? In the article he states that “fake” news shows have their “virtues and vices”. At the end of the article, Zinser believes that as a whole the shows helps the viewers learn about current events. Zinser uses ethical appeal, logical appeal, and emotional appeal to help get his point across to the readers.
. . . if you think that things naturally enslaved are free or that things not your own are your own, you will be thwarted, miserable, and upset, and will blame both gods and men. But if you think that only what is your is yours, and that what is not your own is, just as it is, not your own, then no one will ever coerce you, no one will hinder you, you will blame no one, you will not accuse anyone, you will not do a single thin unwillingly, you will have no enemies, and no one will harm you, because you will not be harmed at all.” (Epictetus: The Handbook, pg.