- Buy clothes from only expensive, name brand stores that everyone wants to shop at.
- Always have something to do on the weekends, especially at places where a lot of people will see you.
- Manage to get relatively good grades, but don't make it look like you study too hard.
- Play a sport, and be the best at it.
- Make sure you and your friends are always the center of attention, and you are the center of their attention.
- Never be seen without your friends, who of course, share the same social status as you.
- Be outgoing, loud, funny, and seem nice. Make people think that's who you really are all the time.
- If every one's doing something, you've done it too, twice. Even if you have no idea what they're talking about.
- Appear at school functions and events, usually bored, and always have somewhere to go afterward.
- When complimented, be courteous, thankful, and return a compliment. Then proceed to turn around and tell your friends how ugly the skirt you just complimented is.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
10 Steps to Being Popular
10 Steps to Being Popular
Sunday, October 5, 2008
For Gay Marriage
For Gay Marriage
There comes a time to take a stand on major issues that are going on in the world around us. Right now, I am asking you to consider your position on gay marriage. Homosexuals should have the equal right of marriage. It is certainly time for the Church to review why certain traditions are kept, especially in the evolving world today. According to the Church, one of the main reasons homosexuals are not allowed to be married, is because of foundation of what marriage primarily is, would not be fulfilled in such a relationship. However, these "requirements" can be fulfilled in the situation of gay marriage. They would just simply be completed in a different way. The blessing and experience of marriage should be an opportunity that is available to everyone.
It is true that in the Church, marriage is described as the union between a man and a woman. Is the love shared between a couple defined by whether they are a man and a woman, two men, or two women? Furthermore, who is the Church to judge that love? It should be up the couple to decide whether or not they are ready for marriage. Couples counseling and advice from the Church should certainly be accepted to ensure that the couple is compatible and committed. However, if the couple demonstrates they are ready for marriage, and that they are willing to work and be committed to each other, their gender should not matter, if their love is pure.
In addition to the issue of marriage being between a man and a woman, the Church, in its establishment and up until more recent years, did not really have to deal with the issue of homosexuality. In comparison to the Church’s history, homosexuality was not as widespread, common, or accepted as it is now. It was never really an issue until brought up recently. The Church needs to review how the world is constantly changing, and adjust to the needs of people today. It is not necessary for anyone that marriage be reserved for a man and a woman. In this case, the need of change is greater than that of tradition.
Another tradition of marriage is to procreate. Same sex marriages do not allow for procreation, but they do still allow families to be built. Not being able to procreate in a same sex marriage can be compensated for through adoption. While the couple may not be physically related to the children, they can still offer a family and a loving environment, just as well as a heterosexual couple. While procreation may not be lived up to in traditional Church standards, it is more the idea behind it that is being fulfilled. Also, while one of the intentions of marriage is for procreation, many heterosexual couples do not have children. It is not a requirement of marriage to procreate. However, if children are wanted in the family, it is a goal that can be reached in a same sex marriage. This step of creation, which in this case is creating a family, can be accomplished, just in a different way. The Church should be open to these new ideas of solution.
While the Church needs to be open to more ideas, it is true that the Church is open to everyone, including homosexuals. While the Church shows tolerance and acceptance, by not offering same sex marriage, it is not offering equal opportunity to all of God’s people. A homosexual marriage is still a loving union and bond between a couple that can unify two people and bring them closer together. Many homosexuals are members of the Church and want their faith to be incorporated into their marriage. Opening up the gift of marriage to same sex couples would allow what marriage really means to be experienced by a wider range of people. Sacraments are meant to be celebrated, and the more people who are given the opportunity to fully understand their meaning, the better.
At the moment, the Church does not support gay marriage. Marriage and the love and happiness of a couple should not be restricted by the couple’s genders. The responsibilities of a marriage can be practiced by a homosexual couple. It is time for the Church to recognize the changes going on in the world and adjusts to the needs of its members. Homosexuals should have the equal right of marriage in the Church. All people should have the opportunity to experience the unifying bond of marriage.
There comes a time to take a stand on major issues that are going on in the world around us. Right now, I am asking you to consider your position on gay marriage. Homosexuals should have the equal right of marriage. It is certainly time for the Church to review why certain traditions are kept, especially in the evolving world today. According to the Church, one of the main reasons homosexuals are not allowed to be married, is because of foundation of what marriage primarily is, would not be fulfilled in such a relationship. However, these "requirements" can be fulfilled in the situation of gay marriage. They would just simply be completed in a different way. The blessing and experience of marriage should be an opportunity that is available to everyone.
It is true that in the Church, marriage is described as the union between a man and a woman. Is the love shared between a couple defined by whether they are a man and a woman, two men, or two women? Furthermore, who is the Church to judge that love? It should be up the couple to decide whether or not they are ready for marriage. Couples counseling and advice from the Church should certainly be accepted to ensure that the couple is compatible and committed. However, if the couple demonstrates they are ready for marriage, and that they are willing to work and be committed to each other, their gender should not matter, if their love is pure.
In addition to the issue of marriage being between a man and a woman, the Church, in its establishment and up until more recent years, did not really have to deal with the issue of homosexuality. In comparison to the Church’s history, homosexuality was not as widespread, common, or accepted as it is now. It was never really an issue until brought up recently. The Church needs to review how the world is constantly changing, and adjust to the needs of people today. It is not necessary for anyone that marriage be reserved for a man and a woman. In this case, the need of change is greater than that of tradition.
Another tradition of marriage is to procreate. Same sex marriages do not allow for procreation, but they do still allow families to be built. Not being able to procreate in a same sex marriage can be compensated for through adoption. While the couple may not be physically related to the children, they can still offer a family and a loving environment, just as well as a heterosexual couple. While procreation may not be lived up to in traditional Church standards, it is more the idea behind it that is being fulfilled. Also, while one of the intentions of marriage is for procreation, many heterosexual couples do not have children. It is not a requirement of marriage to procreate. However, if children are wanted in the family, it is a goal that can be reached in a same sex marriage. This step of creation, which in this case is creating a family, can be accomplished, just in a different way. The Church should be open to these new ideas of solution.
While the Church needs to be open to more ideas, it is true that the Church is open to everyone, including homosexuals. While the Church shows tolerance and acceptance, by not offering same sex marriage, it is not offering equal opportunity to all of God’s people. A homosexual marriage is still a loving union and bond between a couple that can unify two people and bring them closer together. Many homosexuals are members of the Church and want their faith to be incorporated into their marriage. Opening up the gift of marriage to same sex couples would allow what marriage really means to be experienced by a wider range of people. Sacraments are meant to be celebrated, and the more people who are given the opportunity to fully understand their meaning, the better.
At the moment, the Church does not support gay marriage. Marriage and the love and happiness of a couple should not be restricted by the couple’s genders. The responsibilities of a marriage can be practiced by a homosexual couple. It is time for the Church to recognize the changes going on in the world and adjusts to the needs of its members. Homosexuals should have the equal right of marriage in the Church. All people should have the opportunity to experience the unifying bond of marriage.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Self-Esteem
Lauren Slater brings about the point of how damaging self-esteem can be in the reading, “The Trouble With Self-Esteem.” Slater’s main ideas in this reading are that low self-esteem is not harmful, but high self-esteem is, and that a way needs to be found to control high self-esteems. However, in reality a good amount of self-esteem is needed to be successful in life, and should be brought out to its fullest in life, not held back.
Slater’s first main point is that having high self-esteem is harmful. This is not true. Having a high self-esteem means being confident in one’s actions and abilities. It seems that Slater is getting high self-esteem confused with arrogance. Arrogance can bring others down and be destructive to ourselves and those around us. However, high self-esteem is being able to be confident and do things well to the best of our abilities. This is a good quality found in people that if practiced, brings out the same good quality in those around us, as well.
The other part of Slater’s point is that lacking self-esteem is actually a good thing. This is unrealistic. Not having any confidence or self-esteem may cause less violence and equal intelligence levels, however, this does not mean a person is better. Not having any self-esteem usually results in shyness and incontinence in one’s actions. This is not a healthy way to live. People want to be comfortable with themselves and their decisions.
Since Slater has such a problem with having self-esteem, she feels the need to find a way to control it. At least she acknowledges that it is almost impossible to find ways to bring people down lower. This idea is not healthy. Telling people they are not good enough, and putting them down, does not result in better people. People need to have confidence and respect themselves to be able to better themselves and the world around them. If no one was confident with themselves, nothing would ever be accomplished. People who have high self-esteem do not want to do well to put others down, they want to do well to bring out the best in others, and because they know they are capable of achieving their full potential.
The idea that having self-esteem is negative, is the wrong way to look at this situation. High self-esteem does not bring down others. It brings out the best in ourselves and others, as well. It is not something that needs to be controlled or restrained, it is something that needs to be practiced by all people.
Slater’s first main point is that having high self-esteem is harmful. This is not true. Having a high self-esteem means being confident in one’s actions and abilities. It seems that Slater is getting high self-esteem confused with arrogance. Arrogance can bring others down and be destructive to ourselves and those around us. However, high self-esteem is being able to be confident and do things well to the best of our abilities. This is a good quality found in people that if practiced, brings out the same good quality in those around us, as well.
The other part of Slater’s point is that lacking self-esteem is actually a good thing. This is unrealistic. Not having any confidence or self-esteem may cause less violence and equal intelligence levels, however, this does not mean a person is better. Not having any self-esteem usually results in shyness and incontinence in one’s actions. This is not a healthy way to live. People want to be comfortable with themselves and their decisions.
Since Slater has such a problem with having self-esteem, she feels the need to find a way to control it. At least she acknowledges that it is almost impossible to find ways to bring people down lower. This idea is not healthy. Telling people they are not good enough, and putting them down, does not result in better people. People need to have confidence and respect themselves to be able to better themselves and the world around them. If no one was confident with themselves, nothing would ever be accomplished. People who have high self-esteem do not want to do well to put others down, they want to do well to bring out the best in others, and because they know they are capable of achieving their full potential.
The idea that having self-esteem is negative, is the wrong way to look at this situation. High self-esteem does not bring down others. It brings out the best in ourselves and others, as well. It is not something that needs to be controlled or restrained, it is something that needs to be practiced by all people.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
It is safe to say that Laura Kipnis stands by the title of her essay, “Against Love”. All of her points in this writing adamantly put down what being in love is all about. “Against Love” generalizes and stereotypes what all relationships seem to be today. Laura Kipnis expressed that what modern love really means now is controlling others and the control they have over us. It is acknowledged that love is a part of our lives and we all search for it and need it, but it is also claimed in this article that what it means to be in love, and in a relationship today is simply about “maximizing submission and minimizing freedom”, and how well partners cater to and obey each other. The view of love here is not really love, it is mainly an arrangement of what two people do for each other.
The article claims that love takes work especially when passion runs out. This seems like a logical statement considering that relationships can be hard and need effort from both partners. However, this article also implies that mostly what happens in this day in age is that when that passion runs out, a desire to work at the relationship also runs out, resulting in its end. The article supports its claims from historical standpoints explaining that , “Passion meant suffering: the happy ending didn’t yet exist in the cultural imagination” (Kipnis 757). While every relationship reaches challenging places, it is hardly fair to say that most of them end badly, especially due to a lack of passion. If the love in a relationship is truly there, it many not be a pretty process of growth to view, but working at the relationship can eventually pay off. Many couples are willing to put in this work instead of taking the easy way out to end the relationship.
Another major theme in this article is about being open. This is true, the lines of communication must be there in a mature way and one of the main points of a relationship is being able to share your true self with another. However, the article also claims that part of being open is to be able to state your needs from your partner, and expect them to be met, while the other member of the relationship does the same. Relationships mean wanting to please the other member of the relationship, and it is great to have someone who cares enough about you to do the same. Although, this article makes a relationship out to be more of a business arrangement about giving a little to get what we want from someone else on a constant basis. A relationship is give and take. Giving yourself to someone else, and getting their love and care in return. When a person in a relationship does something for someone else, it is not for personal benefit, or to appease the other person. An act of kindness is done out of love for the other person, and loving them does not mean doing something to get what you want, it is done because it makes the other person happy. People who truly love each other do not commit to each other for money or what they get out of the relationship. It is true that love should be gained from the relationship, but a real relationship is not based off of what one person wants out of it. It is based off caring about someone else and how they make you feel and better you as a person.
The article “Against Love” by Laura Kipnis strips down love to a business arrangement of give and take that ends when times get hard. What is failed to be recognized in this article is that love can always be worked at, improved upon, and made better, and there are many strong couples that are proof of this. What also is not mentioned in the article that while part of a relationship is giving and taking, that is not the most important part. The most important part is bringing yourself to care about someone that you want to give them your best before they even ask for it, and that all you really want in return is to see them happy.
The article claims that love takes work especially when passion runs out. This seems like a logical statement considering that relationships can be hard and need effort from both partners. However, this article also implies that mostly what happens in this day in age is that when that passion runs out, a desire to work at the relationship also runs out, resulting in its end. The article supports its claims from historical standpoints explaining that , “Passion meant suffering: the happy ending didn’t yet exist in the cultural imagination” (Kipnis 757). While every relationship reaches challenging places, it is hardly fair to say that most of them end badly, especially due to a lack of passion. If the love in a relationship is truly there, it many not be a pretty process of growth to view, but working at the relationship can eventually pay off. Many couples are willing to put in this work instead of taking the easy way out to end the relationship.
Another major theme in this article is about being open. This is true, the lines of communication must be there in a mature way and one of the main points of a relationship is being able to share your true self with another. However, the article also claims that part of being open is to be able to state your needs from your partner, and expect them to be met, while the other member of the relationship does the same. Relationships mean wanting to please the other member of the relationship, and it is great to have someone who cares enough about you to do the same. Although, this article makes a relationship out to be more of a business arrangement about giving a little to get what we want from someone else on a constant basis. A relationship is give and take. Giving yourself to someone else, and getting their love and care in return. When a person in a relationship does something for someone else, it is not for personal benefit, or to appease the other person. An act of kindness is done out of love for the other person, and loving them does not mean doing something to get what you want, it is done because it makes the other person happy. People who truly love each other do not commit to each other for money or what they get out of the relationship. It is true that love should be gained from the relationship, but a real relationship is not based off of what one person wants out of it. It is based off caring about someone else and how they make you feel and better you as a person.
The article “Against Love” by Laura Kipnis strips down love to a business arrangement of give and take that ends when times get hard. What is failed to be recognized in this article is that love can always be worked at, improved upon, and made better, and there are many strong couples that are proof of this. What also is not mentioned in the article that while part of a relationship is giving and taking, that is not the most important part. The most important part is bringing yourself to care about someone that you want to give them your best before they even ask for it, and that all you really want in return is to see them happy.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
- One's traditional ethos may not fit the situation, and an alternate persona or character may have to be taken on the get one's point across.
- Arrangement can be used as a form of rhetoric to persuade the audience.
- introduction-drawing the reader in (ethos)
- narration- providing background on the subject (logos)
- confirmation- proof of argument (logos)
- refutation- addressing counterarguement (logos)
- conclusion- brings entire argument together (pathos)
- Purpose is another form of organization or arrangement
- Narration: crafting a story that supports your thesis and draws readers in
- Description: painting a picture so the readers can experience the same emotions with you
- Process Analysis: how something works, or how it is done- logos
- Exemplification: clarifies argument and solidifies idea by illustrating a point through examples and facts.
- Comparison and Contrast: reveals greater insight to information being analyzed by juxtaposing two things to highlight their similarities and differences
- Classification and Division: sort material and ideas to form categories
- Definition: establishes common ground before the argument is made
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Examples in Darcy's speech
Ethos:
"I have no wish of denying that I did everything in my power to separate my friend from your sister, or that I rejoice in my success. Towards him I have been Kinder than towards myself" (170).
Here, Darcy's quote is showing ethos. He is trying to make Lizzy feel that he is a more credible source by explaining his reasons for hurting her sister, and he is trying to gain her trust so she will be more likely to believe the rest of what he has to say.
Logos:
"I have every reason in the world to think ill of you. No motive can excuse the unjust and ungenerous part you acted there. You dare not, you cannot deny that you have been the principal, if not the only means of dividing them from each other, of exposing one to the censure of the world for caprice and instability, the other to its derision for disappointed hopes, and involving them both in misery of the acutest kind" (170).
This quote from Lizzy showed logos. She broke down her thinking and explained to Mr. Darcy the reasons she disliked him. She stated her stance and supported it with facts.
Pathos:
"Who that knows what his misfortunes have been can help feeling an iterest in him?" "His misfortunes!" repeated Darcy contemptuously; "yes, his misfortunes have been great indeed" (171).
This quote from Mr. Darcy shows pathos. Mr. Darcy is trying to convince Lizzy of why she should not be mad at him for breaking up her sister and fiance. Mr. Darcy is explaining how badly her sister's fiance would have ended up and that he felt bad for him. He was trying to make Lizzy feel bad about it too, so she would see his argument from his point of view.
"I have no wish of denying that I did everything in my power to separate my friend from your sister, or that I rejoice in my success. Towards him I have been Kinder than towards myself" (170).
Here, Darcy's quote is showing ethos. He is trying to make Lizzy feel that he is a more credible source by explaining his reasons for hurting her sister, and he is trying to gain her trust so she will be more likely to believe the rest of what he has to say.
Logos:
"I have every reason in the world to think ill of you. No motive can excuse the unjust and ungenerous part you acted there. You dare not, you cannot deny that you have been the principal, if not the only means of dividing them from each other, of exposing one to the censure of the world for caprice and instability, the other to its derision for disappointed hopes, and involving them both in misery of the acutest kind" (170).
This quote from Lizzy showed logos. She broke down her thinking and explained to Mr. Darcy the reasons she disliked him. She stated her stance and supported it with facts.
Pathos:
"Who that knows what his misfortunes have been can help feeling an iterest in him?" "His misfortunes!" repeated Darcy contemptuously; "yes, his misfortunes have been great indeed" (171).
This quote from Mr. Darcy shows pathos. Mr. Darcy is trying to convince Lizzy of why she should not be mad at him for breaking up her sister and fiance. Mr. Darcy is explaining how badly her sister's fiance would have ended up and that he felt bad for him. He was trying to make Lizzy feel bad about it too, so she would see his argument from his point of view.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Ethos, Logos, and Pathos Examples
Ethos: A basketball coach with years of experience playing the sport would show ethos while speaking to their team about a new drill.
Logos: The novel, Fast Food Nation shows logos because while explaining how the fast food industry came about, it presents ideas supported by facts that exposes the many flaws in the industry.
Pathos: Back to school supplies commercials can make people feel depressed and sad about going back to school in the summertime, appealing to pathos.
Logos: The novel, Fast Food Nation shows logos because while explaining how the fast food industry came about, it presents ideas supported by facts that exposes the many flaws in the industry.
Pathos: Back to school supplies commercials can make people feel depressed and sad about going back to school in the summertime, appealing to pathos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
