Recently my roommate and I were discussing who the best basketball player currently in the NBA was. The disagreement arose when I stated that Kobe Bryant was the best and he said that Lebron James was. We argued over stats for the majority of the disagreement, but as the disagreement was nearing a stand still I now look back and realize that we had a level 2 conflict.
Kaufer states that a level three disagreement arises when the opposing sides give a different frame of reference to the basis of the argument.
As i mentioned, when the argument came to a stand still my roomate said," He (Lebron) is by far the most athletic player in the game, when he wants to score you can't stop him." This is when i realized that we were in stage 2, my roommate was holding physical ability and scoring as a higher evidence than leadership and reliability. Where as i agreed that Lebron was the more physically athletic of the two, I believed that the leadership factor outweighed this.
Once I explained that I was also factoring in leadership, we both agreed that the other was right in their respective frame, and that overall the two players were about equal as the factors can cancel out. As Kaufer explains, once we clarify our intended frames of reference the conflict is resolved.
2.) Savio Allusion
Savio describes the problem of free speech on the Berkely campus as akin to that of racial equality in Mississippi. What Savio means by this is that free speech on campus is suppressed much like minorities in are in Mississippi. There is this preconceived notion in society that things are fine the way the are, that being static is being right. Savio alludes to this thought process in his closing paragraph in which he says," This chrome-plated consumers paradise would have us grow up to be well-behaved children." This helps allude to Savio's overall aim that there needs to be change in American society and that we must move away from the current (at the time of publishing) static state.
Savio's argument seems to be a conflict level of 4 (i.e. values). Savio lays out that there are people that accept the current American society and values, but there is also a suppressed group that would value change (outspoken students on campus, minorities in Mississippi). The conflict arises due to the university and those in power (generally whites at the time) are able to suppress the opposing side, and this is why Savio is writing for an understanding and possibly call to arms.
4.) Bullard and stasis of cause
Bullard, in his talk, cleverly uses historical references to past natural disasters (hurricanes) to provide ethos to his argument. By referencing the similarities of the past post-natural disaster housing and clean-up efforts to those after Katrina, Bullard gives a somewhat undeniable basis to argue from. His references portray the mistreatment of the minorities due to the clean-up efforts of the federal government and other organizations. This ethos contruction helps Bullard appeal to his audience as they cant really counter the argument, and in theory should assume responsibility to take action.
Constructing this type of ethos can help Wells-Barnett and Savio appeal to their audience the same way it helps Bullard. By arguing in the stasis of cause one shows past references or doings that brought about the argument be subjected. This obtains credibility of the authors claims and implies a thought that something should be done.
While reading about your disagreement with your friend over who the best basketball player in the NBA is, I was confused whether you were classifying it as a level three or level 2 disagreement. You state that "we had a level 2 conflict," but the disagreement you describe is most definitely a level 3 conflict. A level three conflict deals with with two opposing sides giving decisive weight to different evidence, not misunderstanding eachothers frame of reference.
ReplyDeleteYou each gave different evidentiary evidence as to what makes the best player in the NBA. You gave decisive weight to leadership, whereas your friend gave more decisive weight to athleticism.
Your answer to question four is written very succinctly. I agree the examples that these authors have included makes more of an impact on the reader. I feel that Savio does argue in the stasis of cause--at least to an extent, but I feel that there may be more to his argument. could you find another stasis level that Savio argues in?
ReplyDeleteKreigh,
ReplyDeleteI agree that Bullard constructs an excellent ethos persuasion regarding the issue of aid after disasters. His inclusion of past experiences and use of historical events builds reliability between the audience and Bullard. You pointed out that Bullard uses ethos to construct and build upon his claims, would you agree/disagree that he explores with pathos or logos? What stasis level do you think Bullard argues his claims with?