Question 1:
My ex-fiance and I have definitely had our fair share of misunderstandings and disagreements. One issue that we have always disagreed about is money. Wes feels that it is okay to spend money wherever and whenever he wants to. I personally feel that saving money for something that you may need later on is more important than satisfying your wants and desires now. You never know when you’re going to need money for a financial emergency, and I love planning ahead for such occasions. Wes says that there’s no point in having money if you never indulge in something that you want. I think that our dispute lies in the fact that we have conflicting global values. This issue is a level 5 policy conflict. I believe that we have this disagreement because our upbringings are completely different. Wes’s parents love to spend their money as well. They are always looking for the newest and latest thing to buy. On the other hand, my parents are minimalists, and only spend their money on things they need. Unfortunately, Kaufer says that “Level five conflicts can’t be resolved directly…However, they can be resolved temporarily…” (Kaufer 59). So in order to resolve this issue, Wes and I must pick and choose our battles when it comes to shopping or saving money.
Question 2:
Mario Savio’s speech was given in hopes that the students at Berkeley would be given the chance to think freely and speak openly about topics that concern them. Savio made a point to say that those who do not stick up for their beliefs are “looking toward a very bleak existence afterward in a game in which all the rules have been made up” (par. 13) Savio thought that student rights were so important that he compared this issue at Sproul Hall to the civil rights issue in Mississippi. This analogy relates to the allusion that the university is “in the world, but not of the world,” (par. 11) because it allows us to realize that Sproul Hall is a place much like Mississippi, full of discrepancy; however, unlike the issue of civil rights in Mississippi, the issue of student rights at Sproul Hall is not being recognized. The students at Berkeley are not given the same rights that they normally would be given if they were “in the outside world.” Those who favored civil rights in Mississippi were allowed to stand up for what they believed in. They were allowed to make a difference, but the students are not. They are forced to follow these “made-up rules,” in which they do not agree. Why then are their ideas and concerns being pushed under the rug here at the university when it would not be so anywhere else? This use of the analogy and allusion work together to give the audience a clear example of what should be done in the case of student rights. If I were the University Administrator I would express to the students that I understand their concern; however, in rebuttal, I would tell them that there needs to be a clear line as to where the freedom of speech stops if it causes consequences. It must be decided who has more power, the faculty or the students, and when.
Question 3:
It is quite evident that Barack Obama used the stasis of cause in his address to the American public because it helps us to understand where he is coming from. If we understand where he is coming from, then we may better understand where he is going; or rather, where he will lead us if he becomes the next president. By using this particular stasis and by developing the ethos appeal Obama helps his audience relate to him. We are all different. We all come from different places, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we all share different values and beliefs for our country. I think that this is the point that Obama was trying to get across when he gave the American people a background of his life. America needs to be united if we want to make progress towards a better life for us and for our children. This sense of togetherness helps establish our confidence in Obama to lead our nation in the right direction. If he had argued on the stasis of fact, value, or policy, there may very well be a global conflict that would just not be resolved among the American people. You can’t really argue a fact, therefore, it would not be necessary to spend a great deal of time trying to persuade someone of the fact. You can’t really argue a value or a policy either because global conflicts will present a problem of resolving the issue. However, presenting a cause helps us to better understand why Obama supports the things that he does; and by knowing this, the issue may be resolved temporarily because we have reached this understanding of Obama as a man and as an American. We all have friends and loved ones that we may respect, but not necessarily agree with. This is the point that Obama was trying to make when he was trying to explain his character. If Wells-Barnett and Savio had used this same strategy, those that they were trying to persuade might have understood their argument better, and the argument itself may have been more effective. If you know why someone is arguing the way that they are, then the argument makes better sense.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
You seem to be very concise when it comes to organizing your argument, good job. However it really seems in your first argument that you have one way, he has another and the both of you just meet in the middle. While I do like to splurge my money quite often, I seriously need to stay out of the record stores, it just seems to me that you two do not want to try to understand each others position, you two pretty much just wanted to say, well that's just how things are. You are correct when you said this is a level 5 conflict because it dealt with parents and upbringing, that is something that you really cannot change and once the value is there, it is not easity altered, you can only satisfy partially until you feel as if there is a problem starting. Anyways money is a problem that affects so many people and tears so many people apart, another reason this is a Global Conflict.
Emily,
I agree with you when you say that your conflict level between you and your ex-finance is a 5. But could it possibly be a level four? Maybe not, but maybe one day he will have something happen to him and he will need a lot of money in a short amount of time, and guess what he will not have it. He will then think, "Damn, I should have listened to her". This may take time, but it will happen, and when it does it may take this argument down one level.
Tiffany,
I actually thought about the same thing when I was trying to decide what level of conflict policy it was. I went back and forth between level 4 and level 5. Ultimately, I ended up choosing level 5 because I firmly believe that the issue of money can not readily be resolved. And although I agree with Mitch that Wes and I tried our best to meet in the middle, I would always think deep down, "Why the heck do we need this again? Please remind me." To this day I have never understood why Wes buys the ridiculous things that he does, and I know that he will never understand why I try to save as much as I do. I think that there is a thin line between the level 4 conflict and the level 5 conflict; and on some occasions, I think that it may fall into the level 4 conflict, but ultimately, I think the argument relates more to the level 5 policy conflict. It's like the example that Kaufer gives when he says that a level 5 conflict may be that someone is more materialistic than someone else. I feel that Wes is more materialistic than I, therefore, I'm going to have to stick with my gut instinct about the level of conflict.
This is a comment to Question One:
I think that it's true that upbringing can be more than a local issue, but i don't think it's quite global- i think that if you were talking about a cultural norm, as opposed to a familial norm, the conflict might be considered more of a global one. But i do think this is somewhere a little above local only because it's not a individual value, it's the value of a family unit- i think this is interesting level of conflict. enjoyable post.
Post a Comment