In paragraph 4, Chavez describes a possible outcome of violent protests as a “total demoralization of the workers,” but in paragraph 12, he states that only the poor, the workers “get killed in the case of a violent revolution.” This shift in diction is able to convince his audience that violence has repercussion greater than they can fathom. Even though Chavez tries to sympathize with his audience that “we are not blind to feelings of frustration” he makes it clear that there must be a balance between peaceful and violent protests ,and that we also must have the strength to be patient in times of anguish. The line, “Those who espouse violence exploit people”(Paragraph 12), serves the intention of bashing
To begin with, Chavez uses juxtaposition to contrast the effects of violent and nonviolent resistance. In the speech Chavez says, “We are also convinced that nonviolence is more powerful than violence.” He then goes on to say that violence causes deaths and demoralizes the people, while nonviolence attracts people’s support and is morally just. The use of juxtaposition as a rhetorical device throughout the whole speech shows the pros of nonviolence and the cons of violence. This technique helps Chavez develop his argument because it creates a favorable bias
This type of abusive power that continues to happen in the world is unacceptable and should be addressed by not only the victims, or people of the society but by everyone. No life should be taken for granted or ignored when it cries for help. When it comes to the political incertitude of Venezuela a stronger power needs to come into place so they can levy the power correctly and Venezuela can return to a triumphant state. But not alone, clearly Maduro has no problem waging war against his own people. He has put his army out in the streets not not only control these protests but to try and suppress them.
Both King and Gandhi cautioned that violence breeds more violence, that nonviolent means must be enforced to successfully accomplish their goals. King illustrates this best when he said: “Never could I advocate nonviolence in this country and not advocate nonviolence for the whole world. That’s my philosophy, I don’t believe in the death and killing on either side, no matter who’s heading it up. Nonviolence is my stand and I’ll die for that stand.” (Nojeim 207). Still, Kent State students were successful in regards to being able to draw national media attention to their cause through their demonstrations.
Cesar Chavez influences poor labor workers that nonviolence is the best way to make a change. The rhetorical devices Chavez uses within the article catch the workers attention and helps make them feel as if they can make a change, and of all the devices, his militant diction influences the reader most. The sixth paragraph of his article uses military diction by stating, “But if we are committed to nonviolence only as a strategy or tactic, then if it fails our only alternative is to turn to violence.” This means that if they think of nonviolence as a type of strategy instead of making it a mindset then they will become violent. It helps the reader paint a picture in their head that they are an army and they have to be smart about how they “attack”.
The author creates an objective tone for the people who are interested in any law-and-order. Frank’s argument states that people have the wrong idea about a minor law and go against it, but they should act as if it is a violent or serious crime.
government must acknowledge the program’s mistakes and correct them to bring them in line with international law and a smarter strategy. Part of this is acknowledging the civilian deaths caused by strikes and apologizing to victims’ families. The U.S. has taken steps to reform the program, reportedly tightening the rules for targeting (along the lines of Boyle’s suggestion to only target High-Value enemies). But without transparency, there’s no way for the public to know what is actually happening and to evaluate the program’s success, except leaks. The war will continue in secret, any ineffectiveness hidden, except to the innocent
Herbert J. Storing, an Associate Professor of Political Science, in “The Case Against Civil Disobedience,” writes, “One of the practical consequences of this institution [civil disobedience] is to divert disobedience and even revolution into the channel of law” (97). What Storing is saying is that civil disobedience will encourage people to break the laws and they will hide under civil disobedience to avoid the law. Also, civil disobedience might split society by creating disagreements with the people, and it could create a political instability. However, Storing fails to see that those who break an unjust law, as discussed above, do not avoid the law, in fact they show respect to the law as they willingly accept the consequences. By accepting the consequences, they show that they are not acting for their own interests but for society’s.
When people discriminate against one another, it takes individuals with great courage to change the situation in a positive way. Change can be violent and nonviolent and it is up to the individual to decide what they are willing to do and how they do it, but in the end, it is always a change for the
The second amendment can potentially legally protect a criminal with claims of self defense (with an underlying intent to harm without any received threats) after their involvement in an act of a heinous gun-related crime. Principally, this tends to favor injustices in our society over the logical fallacies. Beyond a shadow of doubt, my personal disposition would lean more toward that of the rational route: to promulgate a revision to the laws and impose actively enforced control - thus banning the privilege of private ownership of automatic weapons in The United States forevermore, to bring justice to our many lost gun violence victims’