Steroids

1. I was very surprised to hear about how steroids reacted after a number of years. In the video they dicussed how there were no long term affects regarding serious health issues such as heart, liver, or brain damage. After hearing about how steroids are bad for people, this video opened my eyes up to realizing how steroids weren't bad, under the circumstances covered, and had me realize that I should research things instead of listening to the media and what 'doctors say.' This video changed my view of steroids, but it is still a bit shocking and hard to believe after hearing that it has always been bad. The video only focused specifically on healthy adult males. This shows that steroids shouldn't be used by young teenagers or young adults and women because they only proved that 'healthy adult males' didn't suffer from major problems. These men also used steroids responsibly and that also resulted in no long term health problems.

I think leaving out certain groups of people was a good thing and a bad thing in both ways. For one, leaving out teenagers and women makes the audience realize that those groups are still at risk, but if they disregard it, the audience would think that steroids are 'overall' good.

2. Steroid use is cheating. Steroids help athletes get bigger and stronger, but by drugs rather than putting the physical use and time into it. Although it doesn't affect healthy male athletes in regards to long term use, but this doesn't mean professional athletes should be allowed to use them. This boosts up their ability to be better than everyone else, but they are doing this by cheating everyone as well as themselves. Other athletes put in the work, so should the rest of them. I do think Hoberman is correct about how athletes should do their best instead of being the best. Of course, everyone wants to be the best, but to have pride in what one has accomplished has left most of the athletes today. It used to be about doing the best and working to be the best, but now it is the idea of being the best no matter what one does.

Reaction to Georgetown

I believe that Georgetown University shouldn't completely ban parties and drinking, but shouldn't allow them to run around as well. They need to find a peace in between the two extremes by setting down rules. The rules that they have are okay, and could possibly be more flexible because the article states that "neighbors are angry that parties are winding up in their backyards" (Kinzie B01). With this in mind, the force upon parties should be lighter. But the responsibility would be in the hands of the students and they should learn how to control themselves if they are given more flexibility and freedom. 2nd District Commander Solberg says "We would prefer that the college kids control their own actions . . . but if they can't or they won't, we'll lock them up," and this is explanatory to the situations these college folks are putting themselves into (quoted in Kinzie b01). Control is the biggest issue with college students and under the influence of alcohol and drugs, they lose their sense of control and raise uproar. The median between both sides is to have these rules and the students should agree and cooperate with them. This is only for the safety of the students.



Opposing side:

Georgetown should allow parties and shouldn't put so many limits on the amount of partying. First off, the students who are partying are paying for the school and for their academics. It is their way and choice of how to live it. Second of all, Georgetown is a well known school for their academics (Kinzie B01). The partying and drinking is a way to relieve their stress from school. Dan Castrigano says "Eighteen-, 19-, 20-year-olds are going to drink. You just have to be smart about it." and he is explaining that he just thinks that the students should learn how to control themselves and to allow the students to able to have alcohol (quoted in Kinzie B01). Students who are 21 should be allowed to have alcohol on campus because they are of age. Many students come from all over the country to attend this university and since they are paying for their on campus housing just as much as if they were living off campus, they should have a right to be in possession of alcohol. It isn't right that just because they live on campus they can't have alcohol. Perhaps some of these students couldn't get housing off campus? Or perhaps it is cheaper? Then why should they be restricted to such limits if they are of age, are paying to live there, and have the grades to attend the school in the first place? By bringing alcohol on campus, they have also taken the responsibility.

Paraphrase Practice

In James D. Lester’s argument, he states students take quotes directly from the research and overuses them in their research papers. He says to have 10% of the final should be in quotations.

Against Anorexia, but Supporting Websites

1.I don't support anorexia but I do support the websites, or at least some. I think everyone has a say in their opinion especially on an issue like this. After reading the assigned reading, it made me realize how pro-anas are just as troubled as depressed people who get all the attention they can get. People who are anorexic are troubled and need a place to express themselves. As Claire said, she didn't have anywhere else to go except for online. I'm sure most pro-anas are the same way because no one understands them. Some of the society looks down upon anorexics and only see their view of how bad it is. It is hard to understand not eating because to the people with a normal eating habit, food needs to be taken in for energy. Many doctors and scientists would agree that food is a source of energy and the only source of energy for people to function and to limit it would just decrease the activity.
Anorexia and belimia is a terrible disorder and can affect a person in ways not just by mind, but by health and the way that a person lives. It isn't good for anyone and should be focused on. This mental disorder also leads to depression as some of the girls stated in the reading. The only reason they haven't commited suicide is because of these online websites, blogs, and forums. These are the salvations for these people who are anorexic. It is also a sign that others can still help them.
It's very shocking reading some of the comments on the websites about how these people say. One girl stated how she was so mad that she ate over 500 calories, but runs almost 12 miles a day.

2.
I don't think the websites should exist because how influencial it is to these young readers who are mostly girls. For people who are already anorexic or thinking about being anorexic, reading these forums would just increase their chances of being completely pro-ana or pro-mia. The 'Ana Creed' and the 'Thin Commandments' also influence anorexia by stating to-dos and not-to-dos. Some people such as Chaos, Clairegirl, and Futurebird are focused so much around these websites that their whole lives are online and that is also how it is influencial. Other people on these websites encourage these pro-anas and pro-mias.


3. Finally, write a third position in which you try to find a middle ground between these two extremes.

The anorexia sites are both good and bad. It is a place to express oneself about their days or their specific case of anorexia because it is true how no one else understands them. If one were too get too caught up in the website, certain people or just posts would just influence these people to go on with their disorder. It would be better if we used these websites to help these people feel better.

Influence of Action Figures

1. In the first article, the authors are trying to show how action figures are influencing males to get into these unrealistic shapes of the toys. They say that action figures have as much influence on guys as much as barbies have influence upon girls. Most guys want to be as buff as an action figure, but they explain that it is nearly impossible and people have gone so far as to take steroids.

In the second article, the author is opposing the fact that action figures appeal to most guys or young boys because they 'get rid of them when they grow up.' She is trying to explain that a toy is a toy and should and probably would be forgotten by children. Like many things in life, we forget things as years go on and loose interest in it such as these action figures. She also compares cartoons to action figures and how these comical violent shows don't affect people as they get older and it is the same with action figures.


2.

The first article has a formal tone because it has lots of ethos while it refers to several studies and even has pictures of figurines. It has ethos such as explaining 'how the Miss America pageant contestants have gotten skinnier over the years' (Gaern, Garfinkel, Schwartz, and Thompason, 1980) which is compared to how the action figures influence males in the same way. The figurines have also developed over the years into a more buff figure with more defined features which helps influence a male by showing how 'realisitic' it can look. It is a very professional paper as if the audience were much older and was studying this subject.

The second article has a casual tone. The author does use ethos in the paper but opposes it such as 'according to Pope's research... bulked-up toys or bulked-up boys.' It is shorter, but is straight to the point and is directly talking to the audience using 'So what?' She also refers herself by using 'us.' She is directing this to a very general audience that see toys as an influence. She wants to show them that it isn't a big influence.


3.
I think the assertions to the second article by Franke-Folstad was more of a better article to me because I could relate to it and the assertions were more related to my situation than the other. I am not a guy for one, but referring to Barbie's didn't really influence me either. I agree with Franke-Folstad and how these toys are not much of an influence because I had Barbies, but they were nothing more than toys. I never wanted to really look or have a body like Barbie. It never crossed my mind to begin with. I did want the clothes, but so much the body. My parents were never against action figures (for my brother) or Barbies (for me) because I think they take the side I am on and agree that these toys don't really influence children to have a body like this. This opinion could also just be that I am a girl and I don't worry about my muscles as much as a guy.

If I could change one thing in this world...

If I could change one thing in this world...


I would change the way people look at life. Some people cherish life, while others take the lives of others. If these people who took these lives looked at life as something valuable and important to everyone, there wouldn't be murder. It would be more peaceful and there would be more respect for other human beings.

Fallacy

She is a violinist who composes and plays in the symphony orchestra, how can she know anything about math.

Ad Hominum

Extreme Running

1. This was a very interesting ad for a shoe company who cares so much about running. I think the people who made this ad went a little bit out of their way for a pair of sneakers or even running in general. They make up a lot of bs just to say 'running is better than jogging, so buy our shoes to help you run'. The one ad with the story of finding bodies is honestly a little creepy and doesn't appeal to me. It is suppose to encourage someone to run for their 'civic duty' but for me it's a little too creepy to even think of running in that sense. The entire ad on the website is a little extreme. They take logos to a whole new level. The running 'facts' were supposed to be a logos step, but they added too much stuffing, making completely overexaggerated. The wording of the whole ad was all just fluff.

2. I am a jogger (to them isn't a real runner) but I do run occasionally. I don't agree with the ad at all. It is so extreme and it brings running into an extreme level that they are telling 'history' about it. Although it does make some sense, somewhat, I still think the ad is too extreme.

3. The ad on the blog is all black and white except the shoes that pop out of the page. The advertisers obviously wanted the shoes to be highlighted but also brought out the words "Ever notice how it's always runners who find dead bodies?" These words aren't in any particular color or special font, but the words are bolded and bigger than the rest of the words. The question itself draws attention to a reader to continue reading the ad. Surprisingly the ad is true with the logos it does list, but it triggers the pathos element as well because it grabs the attention of the reader and either creeps him/her or just makes him/her think. The shoes are worn, very much and show that a runner is very serious.
On the website, it has similar elements such as the bolded questions/statements. The bolded words are a summary or a question of the page next to it to make the reader think. There are also small photos on the left side of the 'book' with the questions on it.

4. Jogging is discouraged, although it isn't directly said. The ad says to go ahead and jog because 'it's a free country'. They discourage and put jogging down compared to running. The ad says that running is not just a sport but a way of humans and if a human wasn't running, he/she wasn't living up to his/her full potential. The advertisers also try to promote 'the endagerment or running' and 'joggers are domesticated' and they are ultimately saying that running is the best thing a person should be doing. They also promote 'ethics' by doing one's civic duty.

5. This ad is intended for serious runners or at least those who think they are serious. It is for the professionals who run for nationals and the country itself. Izumi does alienate jogging all thoughout the ad. The advertisers completely divide the running population from the jogging population and make the running population completely inferior to the joggers. Izumi does this listing several facts about how joggers are 'domesticated' and 'joggers can't be runners.'


6. The single ad is appealing mostly to pathos because it scares me to even consider running again. I wouldn't want to find a dead body while I'm running and I don't see it as doing a 'civic duty'. The ad itself has a dark and dim feeling to it. The words are all capitalized and easily got my attention. Because the words were capitalized, it helped me pay more attention to what the ad was trying to say.

7. Although I don't like either ad, I would choose the Reebok ad because the Izumi ad would frighten more readers rather than have them run. The Reebok ad is disgusting to see, but I'd much rather have someone puking than a creepy story that will divert people away from running. The Reebok ad has a little more appeal to it because the saying 'I am what I am' brings a sense of independency to the reader while he/she reads the ad.