Image #1: Key and Fork
Title: Bias Simplicity: What the Humane Society is Really Trying to Say
Where: Washington Post Editorial Section
Tone: satirical/ironic/attacking the fallacies of the ad
When you first open up the webpage for the Humane Society, there is a large picture of two dogs - a black labrador and a yellow labrador - romping around in a field of buttercups. The caption reads: "Celebrating animals, confronting cruelty."
Now, looking at the ad speaking out against global warming, I notice that the ad is endorsed by the Humane Society. Now, I can't help but wonder if the ad is really about global warming at all. In fact, according to Environmentaldefense.org, U.S. autos emit more than 333 million tons of carbon dioxide each year, more than one-fifth of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions." So if cars contribute more than one fifth of the nation's total carbon dioxide emissions, what contributes to the other four fifths? Well, the Mairan Koshland Science Museum of the National Academy of Sciences at koshland-science-museum.org says "industry, residential, commercial, and agriculture." However, with a closer look at the website, it ranks these causes of global warming in order from most imoact to least impact - I am not surprised that industry is listed first and agriculture, last. It is clear that the 'fork and key' ad is using global warming as a cover-up. The Humane Society is just trying to hook yet another audience. They've already got animal-lovers on their side, now they want the global warming activists.
Image #2: The Earth's Greenhouse Effect
Title: The Science Behind Global Warming
Where: Vanity Fair (front page, of course!)
Tone: scholarly/logo-driven/trying to prove a point/convince an audience
When you hear the words: global warming, I'm sure you think of just that: the earth becoming hotter. But how, exactly, does that happen? Well, there's a whole science behind the so-called theory of global warming, so I suggest you start believing.
The greenhouse effect. Yes, it sounds like a rather silly name for something that seems so complex. But that's just it, the concept of global warming is really not that complicated at all. Basically, before there were 6.6 billion people on this planet, before there could be any life on this planet, certain things were needed. And among oxygen, hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen was the right temperature. Venus and Mercury are too hot for life - similarly, Saturn or Neptune are too cold for life. But Earth, Earth was just right. The Earth had developed a natural process of warming. Carbon dioxide and other gases, like the ones I mentioned a moment ago, are always present in the atmosphere. These gases allowed for a warming effect that can be compared to that of a greenhouse. The sun brings heat into the atmosphere, most of which is absorbed by land or water. Some of the rest stays in the atmosphere and some goes back out into space.
What's happening now, with global warming, is more of an amplified greenhouse effect. Humans are increasing the amount of greenhouse gases (or gases that were always there naturally) in the atmosphere, so more heat than before is able to be trapped by these gases, remain within the atmosphere, and thus warming the Earth.
Image # 3: Shark Lunch
Title: Impact of Change and Sea Level Rise
Where: Time Magazine or pamphlets being passed out at an environmental event
Tone: scholarly/logos-driven/trying to convince an audience
This comic may have made you laugh, but let's face it, the effects of global warming are no laughing matter. Among the obvious rise in temperature, increase in tropical storms and pollution, global warming is also starting to amplify its effects in the oceans and underwater communities. Seven tenths of the Earth's surface is covered in water, so it makes sense that the oceans house the majority of animal life. Think about the coral reefs; those are places that have some of the highest biodiversity in the world. To scientists, these are like gold mines.
But, due to global warming, more and more marine species are becoming closer and closer and closer to extinction. Many fish and marine mammals require certain key environmental factors in order to live. Polar bears, for example, have thick fur to keep them warm, they thrive in the icy climates of the North and South Poles, and they feed on sea lions. With the oceans temperatures changing, sea lions are migrating and ice caps are melting. The polar bear poluation is at risk.
What's even worse, every species on this planet is tied together in an aintricate web of producers and consumers. The whole process of life will be disrupted if one species is removed. Think of it as a domino effect: if one falls, the rest will soon follow.
According to conservation.org, global warming is not the only impact humans are making on Earth's oceans: "The amount of marine life we extract to feed ourselves is astronomical, and some of our fishing methods – dynamite fishing, bottom trawling, cyanide fishing, and other techniques – cause great damage to current and future fish stocks and to the underwater world in which they thrive. Today, 90 percent of the oceans’ top predators are gone. Entire populations of fish, and the communities and economies they support, have collapsed. Seafloors look like war zones. Corals have been bleached white from chemical runoff. Dead zones – vast swaths of ocean that can no longer support life – are spreading throughout the marine realm."
We really can make a difference, as long as we understand what we are doing wrong and take the initiative to fix the problems we've caused.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Toyota Prius
1. Dear Mom and Dad,
As you both know, global warming is looming upon us and gas prices are rising. And that's not it; according to NPR, "gas prices climb as summer driving season nears" (2006). Mom, I know you listen to NPR a lot on your way to work. Summer is on its way, and everyone will be paying more for gas. Gas prices rise during the summer because more kids - teenagers like me - are out of school and joy-riding during all the free time they have, families are traveling thousands of miles in cars and airplanes to go on vacation, it's no wonder gas prices would be much higher than they are during the winter months.
I propose a very simple solution to this: a Toyota Prius. If you visit the Toyota website, and check out all the Prius options, you'll find that it gets an average gas mileage of 46 miles per gallon! I think that's amazing. With my Nissan, right now, I get somewhere between 25 and 28 mpg - it costs me $30 to fill up my tank completely. But with a Prius, it would probably only cost me half of that! Let's put it into perspective:
With my Nissan, $30 per week on gas means $120 per month (assuming 4 weeks in a month) and $1,440 each year on just gas. Now, for a nineteen-year-old, that's a lot of money! However. with a Prius, sayit only costs me $15 per week, $60 per month, and ultimately $720 each year. That's a savings of over $700 - I'll save 50% on gas.
In my opinion, it's totally worth it.
II.
Dear Becky,
I'm sorry, but we are not going to get you a Toyota Prius. We understand that you are spending nearly $1,500 on gas every year. But your car only cost $3,000 when we bought it and it will surely last you another 5 years if you treat it well. During those 5 years, you will spend $7,500 on gas, roughly. We understand that it's a lot of money. But Hybrid cars are new vehicles. They are new technology. It is difficult to find one more than a few years old. That being said, a brand new Toyota Prius costs as much as $22,000 (www.toyota.com). It's really not worth it, in terms of money. You will graduate in 3 years, and if you decide you want to go out and spend twenty grand on a new Hybrid, you can do that. In the mean time, just stick to your Nissan.
III.
Mom and Dad,
I understand that you feel it is not worth it. But it really is! Yes, it's true that my Nissan - with 136, 000 miles on it - will probably only last another 5 years. But, if you buy the brand new Toyota Prius - with 0 miles on it - it will last for 15 or 20 years. If we bought a new Nissan for three grand every five years for the next fifteen years and spent $22,000 on gas during those 15 years, that's a total of $31,000 spend over the course of 15 years. I think it evens out.
If you agree to buy this Toyota Prius, I will save my money and agree to chip in $6,000 and you can pay the rest. How does that sound?
As you both know, global warming is looming upon us and gas prices are rising. And that's not it; according to NPR, "gas prices climb as summer driving season nears" (2006). Mom, I know you listen to NPR a lot on your way to work. Summer is on its way, and everyone will be paying more for gas. Gas prices rise during the summer because more kids - teenagers like me - are out of school and joy-riding during all the free time they have, families are traveling thousands of miles in cars and airplanes to go on vacation, it's no wonder gas prices would be much higher than they are during the winter months.
I propose a very simple solution to this: a Toyota Prius. If you visit the Toyota website, and check out all the Prius options, you'll find that it gets an average gas mileage of 46 miles per gallon! I think that's amazing. With my Nissan, right now, I get somewhere between 25 and 28 mpg - it costs me $30 to fill up my tank completely. But with a Prius, it would probably only cost me half of that! Let's put it into perspective:
With my Nissan, $30 per week on gas means $120 per month (assuming 4 weeks in a month) and $1,440 each year on just gas. Now, for a nineteen-year-old, that's a lot of money! However. with a Prius, sayit only costs me $15 per week, $60 per month, and ultimately $720 each year. That's a savings of over $700 - I'll save 50% on gas.
In my opinion, it's totally worth it.
II.
Dear Becky,
I'm sorry, but we are not going to get you a Toyota Prius. We understand that you are spending nearly $1,500 on gas every year. But your car only cost $3,000 when we bought it and it will surely last you another 5 years if you treat it well. During those 5 years, you will spend $7,500 on gas, roughly. We understand that it's a lot of money. But Hybrid cars are new vehicles. They are new technology. It is difficult to find one more than a few years old. That being said, a brand new Toyota Prius costs as much as $22,000 (www.toyota.com). It's really not worth it, in terms of money. You will graduate in 3 years, and if you decide you want to go out and spend twenty grand on a new Hybrid, you can do that. In the mean time, just stick to your Nissan.
III.
Mom and Dad,
I understand that you feel it is not worth it. But it really is! Yes, it's true that my Nissan - with 136, 000 miles on it - will probably only last another 5 years. But, if you buy the brand new Toyota Prius - with 0 miles on it - it will last for 15 or 20 years. If we bought a new Nissan for three grand every five years for the next fifteen years and spent $22,000 on gas during those 15 years, that's a total of $31,000 spend over the course of 15 years. I think it evens out.
If you agree to buy this Toyota Prius, I will save my money and agree to chip in $6,000 and you can pay the rest. How does that sound?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Some Photo's Do Lie
1. Adams said that photographs lie; they are only "half-truths". Adam reminds his audience that "what the photograph didn't say was, 'What would you do if you were the general at that time and place on that hot day, and you caught the so-called bad guy after he blew away one, two or three American people?'"
The photograph shamed the General, and Adams felt guilty for taking a simple picture that caused irrepairable damage to General Loan's honor and reputation.
2.
Protestors of the Vietnam war: I think protestors would want the photograph published because it seems to intensify the horrors of war - the harsh realities of war. Perhaps, if more people at home saw gruesomely raw photos like this one, they would realize that war is not the answer because it truly is the most voilent thing in the world, and begin to protest the war.
The US Gov't in support of the Vietnam War: I think they would not have this photo published because it would raise so much controversy and cause so many people to take the photo for what it is: a seemingly 'innocent' man being murdered, and start to protest the war. Even though the man being shot is not innocent, just looking at the photo without knowing any background information, no one would even think twice, "Oh, maybe the man being shot deserves it."
Eddie Adams in 1969: Adams, I'm sure, was indifferent to whether or not the photo was published. He took hundreds of photos of the Vietnam war, and when he sees something that would make a good picture, he snaps a shot and doesn't think twice about it. He felt bad after the photo was published, because it gave Loan a bad reputation, but before Adams knew anyone in the photo ona personal level, it was simply that: just a photograph.
General Loan: I don't think Loan would have had the photo published - if he had any control over the situation. Loan was a beloved hero in Vietnam. He was supported immensely by his people and soldiers. The Vietcong had apparently attacked on a peaceful holiday that was supposed to be a time of truce. The Vietcong had gunned down several of Loan's men moments before this misleading picture was taken. The photo makes Loan look bad, especially because you cannot see his face in the picture, you cannot see whether or not he holds remorse in his eyes. You can, however, see the Vietcong prisoner's face, and he looks absolutely terrified. You almost feel his pain - you feel bad for him, like you would tap Loan on the shoulder and say, "C'mon, man, don't do it," if you could.
Van Lam's Widow: perhaps she doesn't want the photo published because it is unbearable for her to look at, and if it were publishes, she would see it everywhere: books, newspapers, magazines. I know that if I were in her position, I would not want to see a picture of my husband moments before his death with so much indescribable fear in his eyes. On the other hand, perhaps she did want it published so the Vietcong would have just as much hate for General Loan and his men as she did.
Publisher of 5th Grade Text Book: If I were the publisher, I would not put such a gruesome picture in any book designed for 5th graders - maybe I would put it in an 8th grader's book - but definitely not a 5th grader's. I don't think eleven-year-olds are mature enough to understand the photo and its controversies and fallacies. Wait until they're a little older.
The photograph shamed the General, and Adams felt guilty for taking a simple picture that caused irrepairable damage to General Loan's honor and reputation.
2.
Protestors of the Vietnam war: I think protestors would want the photograph published because it seems to intensify the horrors of war - the harsh realities of war. Perhaps, if more people at home saw gruesomely raw photos like this one, they would realize that war is not the answer because it truly is the most voilent thing in the world, and begin to protest the war.
The US Gov't in support of the Vietnam War: I think they would not have this photo published because it would raise so much controversy and cause so many people to take the photo for what it is: a seemingly 'innocent' man being murdered, and start to protest the war. Even though the man being shot is not innocent, just looking at the photo without knowing any background information, no one would even think twice, "Oh, maybe the man being shot deserves it."
Eddie Adams in 1969: Adams, I'm sure, was indifferent to whether or not the photo was published. He took hundreds of photos of the Vietnam war, and when he sees something that would make a good picture, he snaps a shot and doesn't think twice about it. He felt bad after the photo was published, because it gave Loan a bad reputation, but before Adams knew anyone in the photo ona personal level, it was simply that: just a photograph.
General Loan: I don't think Loan would have had the photo published - if he had any control over the situation. Loan was a beloved hero in Vietnam. He was supported immensely by his people and soldiers. The Vietcong had apparently attacked on a peaceful holiday that was supposed to be a time of truce. The Vietcong had gunned down several of Loan's men moments before this misleading picture was taken. The photo makes Loan look bad, especially because you cannot see his face in the picture, you cannot see whether or not he holds remorse in his eyes. You can, however, see the Vietcong prisoner's face, and he looks absolutely terrified. You almost feel his pain - you feel bad for him, like you would tap Loan on the shoulder and say, "C'mon, man, don't do it," if you could.
Van Lam's Widow: perhaps she doesn't want the photo published because it is unbearable for her to look at, and if it were publishes, she would see it everywhere: books, newspapers, magazines. I know that if I were in her position, I would not want to see a picture of my husband moments before his death with so much indescribable fear in his eyes. On the other hand, perhaps she did want it published so the Vietcong would have just as much hate for General Loan and his men as she did.
Publisher of 5th Grade Text Book: If I were the publisher, I would not put such a gruesome picture in any book designed for 5th graders - maybe I would put it in an 8th grader's book - but definitely not a 5th grader's. I don't think eleven-year-olds are mature enough to understand the photo and its controversies and fallacies. Wait until they're a little older.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Inventing An Argument
1. The photos are trying to convey the message that the war is sad. I'll admit, the camera angle, position, lighting, etc can all influence the photo in many ways. The angle of the camer can focus the viewers attention on a certain subject or certain person, like it does in the photos in the textbook and on the website. The viewer's attention is on the casket, or the crying widow, or the solemn soldier, etc. However, no matter what the focus is set on, the mood of a photo depicting any aspect of war is always going to be depressing, in my opinion.
2.
-The Iraq war is depressing
- The Iraq war is impacting everyone, even those who are not soldiers or directly participating in the war
3.
((I chose the photo of the woman, the weeping widow, who is pregnant and standing over her husband's casket))
"A pregnant widow grieves at the shocking and depressing reality in front of her."
I tried to make this a caption that would elicit emotion, because you want a caption to emphasize what the photo is conveying, what the subjects in the photo are feeling at that exact moment in time, that exact moment in their lives. In this particular case, it is the emotions of denial, shock, and, especially, grief.
2.
-The Iraq war is depressing
- The Iraq war is impacting everyone, even those who are not soldiers or directly participating in the war
3.
((I chose the photo of the woman, the weeping widow, who is pregnant and standing over her husband's casket))
"A pregnant widow grieves at the shocking and depressing reality in front of her."
I tried to make this a caption that would elicit emotion, because you want a caption to emphasize what the photo is conveying, what the subjects in the photo are feeling at that exact moment in time, that exact moment in their lives. In this particular case, it is the emotions of denial, shock, and, especially, grief.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Steroids
1. The video faisl to address the side effects of using steroids. Sure, they may not kill you, but they make you moody, aggressive, irritable, and cause acne, among other things. I once watched a show on MTV called 'TrueLife: I Use Steroids' and they interviewed the wife of a professional boxer (who was using steroids so he could box better) and she was greatly impacted by his steroid use. She said that he was so difficult to get along with when he was using the steroids because he was always so irritable and aggressive, always picking fights and being impossible to get along with.
I do not think steroids can be used responsibly. They are a , and although there are no studies proving they cause , they do have side effects (every has side effects). An athlete's or bodybuilder's use of steroids will impact everyone around them - friends, wifes, and families - and probably in more negative ways than positive. I don't see the point in using steroids because you ultimately lose more than you gain.
2. I don't think there's any difference between high school athlete taking steroids and proffessional athletes taking steroids. ZSteroids are steroids and they are all used in sports for the same reason: because they can make you faster, stronger, and better than your competetor; and, yes, I do consider that cheating. Steroids are considered by the FDA, so why should they be allowed, especially if they give one athlete an unfair advantage over another.
For some reason, this also reminded me of my SAT experience. I had heard from a bunch of my friends that they were going to take certain ADD or ADHD medications before they took the SAT to help they concentrate better - even though they didn't have ADD or ADHD. I also consider this cheating. I know for a fact that it was very difficult for me to concentrate for so long - three and a half hours, almost. I had to force myself to keep working, out of maturity. But others, who simply took some Ritalin,had a much easier time, and - for all I know - achieved much better results.
It all goes back to the idea of cheating. Doing something that gives you an unfair advantage over others - no matter what that 'someting' may be - is wrong.
I do not think steroids can be used responsibly. They are a , and although there are no studies proving they cause , they do have side effects (every has side effects). An athlete's or bodybuilder's use of steroids will impact everyone around them - friends, wifes, and families - and probably in more negative ways than positive. I don't see the point in using steroids because you ultimately lose more than you gain.
2. I don't think there's any difference between high school athlete taking steroids and proffessional athletes taking steroids. ZSteroids are steroids and they are all used in sports for the same reason: because they can make you faster, stronger, and better than your competetor; and, yes, I do consider that cheating. Steroids are considered by the FDA, so why should they be allowed, especially if they give one athlete an unfair advantage over another.
For some reason, this also reminded me of my SAT experience. I had heard from a bunch of my friends that they were going to take certain ADD or ADHD medications before they took the SAT to help they concentrate better - even though they didn't have ADD or ADHD. I also consider this cheating. I know for a fact that it was very difficult for me to concentrate for so long - three and a half hours, almost. I had to force myself to keep working, out of maturity. But others, who simply took some Ritalin,had a much easier time, and - for all I know - achieved much better results.
It all goes back to the idea of cheating. Doing something that gives you an unfair advantage over others - no matter what that 'someting' may be - is wrong.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Are You Toying With Me?
1. "Evolving Ideals of Male Body Image as Seen Through Action Toys"
Harrison G. Pope, Jr., Robert Olivardia, Amanda Gruber, and John Borowieki
This first article analyzes the possible effects of producing immensely-muscular-looking action figures on the male self-image. The article goes into depth about how common eating disorders are - not only in females, but in males, as well. It is usually the women who get media coverage or big hype over their body image issues because magazines - with super-skinny, absolutely gorgeous models grazing the pages and covers - are everywhere. But men have body image struggles just like women do. This article suggests a possible cause is action figures. Over time, action figures, such as G.I. Joe and comic book action figures, have been sporting bigger and bigger muscles: giant biceps and twelve-pack abs, to name a few.
Men that are constantly scrutinizing their bodies have something called body dysmorphic disorder. However, within that sect are men who constantly scrutinize certain aspects of their bodies, specifically their muscles, and they have something called muscle dysmorphia. Sufferers of muscle dysmorphia are obsessed with their muscles. They may spend hours every day at the gym, remain on strict protein-only diets for unhealthily long periods of time, and even take steroids to get a body with the 'perfect' amount of muscle mass.
This article suggests that a possible cause for this is the fact that action figures are made to look too muscular - so muscular that it is not humanly possible for any man to ever look like the 2008 G.I. Joe figurine. As young boys are growing up and playing with these action figures, they somehow come into the mindset that they are supposed to grow up and look just like that. That, of course, is a false "cultural message" (Male Body Image, par. 19) that American toy companies need to stop projecting to the youth.
G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal
Kim Franke-Folstad
This article rebukes the allocation that big-muscled toys are encouraging boys to bulk up. A toy is a toy and they are not meant to be taken literally. The whole point of having a toy is to enable a child to use his or her imagination. If a child can use their imagination when playing with the toys, then toy-makers should have the right to use their imaginations when making the toys.
2. The first article's tone was informative. It was more of a Logos appeal. A perfect example would be the huge list of references. This shows the reader that the authors obviously know what they are talking about and they have reputable sources and concrete examples to back up their information.
The second article is mostly opinion; the article is written in the first person. With phrases like, "So what?" and "Will this foolishness never stop?" the reader senses a defensive tone from the author, who is simply trying to get her opinion across.
3. My reaction is somewhat indifferent. Yes, of course I played with Barbie dolls, I had tons of them. She was my favorite because she was so pretty. I don't have a perfect body and I would love to look like Barbie...but I don't, and I've come to accept the fact that I never will. I can understand how a toy might influence a child's view of something, whether that be how babies are made (I use to have a toy stork and always thought babies were brought by the stork) or how they are supposed to look like. But those who grew up and developed serious confidence issues or body-image obsessions are probably suffering from something more, caused by something deeper.
Harrison G. Pope, Jr., Robert Olivardia, Amanda Gruber, and John Borowieki
This first article analyzes the possible effects of producing immensely-muscular-looking action figures on the male self-image. The article goes into depth about how common eating disorders are - not only in females, but in males, as well. It is usually the women who get media coverage or big hype over their body image issues because magazines - with super-skinny, absolutely gorgeous models grazing the pages and covers - are everywhere. But men have body image struggles just like women do. This article suggests a possible cause is action figures. Over time, action figures, such as G.I. Joe and comic book action figures, have been sporting bigger and bigger muscles: giant biceps and twelve-pack abs, to name a few.
Men that are constantly scrutinizing their bodies have something called body dysmorphic disorder. However, within that sect are men who constantly scrutinize certain aspects of their bodies, specifically their muscles, and they have something called muscle dysmorphia. Sufferers of muscle dysmorphia are obsessed with their muscles. They may spend hours every day at the gym, remain on strict protein-only diets for unhealthily long periods of time, and even take steroids to get a body with the 'perfect' amount of muscle mass.
This article suggests that a possible cause for this is the fact that action figures are made to look too muscular - so muscular that it is not humanly possible for any man to ever look like the 2008 G.I. Joe figurine. As young boys are growing up and playing with these action figures, they somehow come into the mindset that they are supposed to grow up and look just like that. That, of course, is a false "cultural message" (Male Body Image, par. 19) that American toy companies need to stop projecting to the youth.
G.I. Joe's Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal
Kim Franke-Folstad
This article rebukes the allocation that big-muscled toys are encouraging boys to bulk up. A toy is a toy and they are not meant to be taken literally. The whole point of having a toy is to enable a child to use his or her imagination. If a child can use their imagination when playing with the toys, then toy-makers should have the right to use their imaginations when making the toys.
2. The first article's tone was informative. It was more of a Logos appeal. A perfect example would be the huge list of references. This shows the reader that the authors obviously know what they are talking about and they have reputable sources and concrete examples to back up their information.
The second article is mostly opinion; the article is written in the first person. With phrases like, "So what?" and "Will this foolishness never stop?" the reader senses a defensive tone from the author, who is simply trying to get her opinion across.
3. My reaction is somewhat indifferent. Yes, of course I played with Barbie dolls, I had tons of them. She was my favorite because she was so pretty. I don't have a perfect body and I would love to look like Barbie...but I don't, and I've come to accept the fact that I never will. I can understand how a toy might influence a child's view of something, whether that be how babies are made (I use to have a toy stork and always thought babies were brought by the stork) or how they are supposed to look like. But those who grew up and developed serious confidence issues or body-image obsessions are probably suffering from something more, caused by something deeper.
Friday, February 8, 2008
Writing Down to The Bones
1. Pro-ana websites show pictures of young girls who are nothing but skin and bone. They host a number of forums where people who suffer from anorexia and bulemia can congregate and talk about a common issue: their eating disorder. But what does pro-ana mean? An 'ana' is someone who has anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder (and mental disorder) where, in your mind, you look at yourself and think you are too fat. But not only that; many people look into the mirror and decide they don't like what they see. Ana's take it a step further. They may see themselves as too fat, so they will go on crash diets - days without eating anything. They literally starve themselves. So, a 'pro-ana', then, is someone who supports anorexia, and possibly other eating disorders.
According to the National Eating Disorders Association (nationaleatingdisorders.org), "Anorexia Nervosa [or anorexia] is a serious, potentially life-threatening eating disorder characterized by self-starvation and excessive weight loss."
No one should be in support of a life-threatening disease, because that's what an eating disorder is: a disease, just like cancer or diabetes.
These websites must be banned because they are giving sufferers of eating disorders the wrong idea. They are doing nothing but endagering themselves and their health, and encouraging that by publishing pro-ana websites is not helping ana's (or sufferers of anorexia nervosa) turn their lives around, get help, and become healthier individuals.
2. Pro-ana websites show pictures of young girls who are nothing but skin and bone. They host a number of forums where people who suffer from anorexia and bulemia can congregate and talk about a common issue: their eating disorder. But what does pro-ana mean? An 'ana' is someone who has anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder (and mental disorder) where, in your mind, you look at yourself and think you are too fat. But not only that; many people look into the mirror and decide they don't like what they see. Ana's take it a step further. They may see themselves as too fat, so they will go on crash diets - days without eating anything. They literally starve themselves. So, a 'pro-ana', then, is someone who supports anorexia, and possibly other eating disorders.
One may think these websites are a bad idea, because, after all, they are in support of eating disorders. But, sometimes, those of us with problems need someone to talk to, someone who knows where we're coming from or where we've been. These pro-ana websites are nothing more than chat rooms where sufferers can commiserate.
You are much more likely to listen to someone who you can relate to. An 'ana' may not listen to a doctor or their 'crazed mother', but what about a friend? What about a friend who suffers from the same problems and deals with the same everyday struggle?
A sufferer is more likely to have an epiphany and get help when they have a companion who is right byt their side the entire time.
3. Pro-ana websites show pictures of young girls who are nothing but skin and bone. They host a number of forums where people who suffer from anorexia and bulemia can congregate and talk about a common issue: their eating disorder. But what does pro-ana mean? An 'ana' is someone who has anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder (and mental disorder) where, in your mind, you look at yourself and think you are too fat. But not only that; many people look into the mirror and decide they don't like what they see. Ana's take it a step further. They may see themselves as too fat, so they will go on crash diets - days without eating anything. They literally starve themselves. So, a 'pro-ana', then, is someone who supports anorexia, and possibly other eating disorders.
Some may be sternly against these websites because, according to the National Eating Disorders Association (nationaleatingdisorders.org), "Anorexia Nervosa [or anorexia] is a serious, potentially life-threatening eating disorder characterized by self-starvation and excessive weight loss." Therefore, no one should be in support of these life-threatening diseases.
Parents or loved ones of ana's believe these websites should be banned because they are giving sufferers of eating disorders the wrong idea. They are doing nothing but endagering themselves and their health, and encouraging that by publishing pro-ana websites is not helping ana's (or sufferers of anorexia nervosa) turn their lives around, get help, and become healthier individuals.
On the other hand, though, the pro-ana's, themselves, have their opinions. Sometimes, those of us with problems need someone to talk to, someone who knows where we're coming from or where we've been. These pro-ana websites are nothing more than chat rooms where sufferers can commiserate.
A pro-ana is much more likely to listen to someone who they can relate to. An 'ana' may not listen to a doctor or their 'crazed mother', but what about a friend? What about a friend who suffers from the same problems and deals with the same everyday struggle?
Misery loves company, and anas have fallen into traps of self-destruction. But sometimes good things can come from seemingly-destructive things, such as the pro-ana websites.
A sufferer is more likely to have an epiphany and get help when they have a companion who is right byt their side the entire time. Perhaps, in time, these pro-ana websites will prove to be a new door opened for the anas.
According to the National Eating Disorders Association (nationaleatingdisorders.org), "Anorexia Nervosa [or anorexia] is a serious, potentially life-threatening eating disorder characterized by self-starvation and excessive weight loss."
No one should be in support of a life-threatening disease, because that's what an eating disorder is: a disease, just like cancer or diabetes.
These websites must be banned because they are giving sufferers of eating disorders the wrong idea. They are doing nothing but endagering themselves and their health, and encouraging that by publishing pro-ana websites is not helping ana's (or sufferers of anorexia nervosa) turn their lives around, get help, and become healthier individuals.
2. Pro-ana websites show pictures of young girls who are nothing but skin and bone. They host a number of forums where people who suffer from anorexia and bulemia can congregate and talk about a common issue: their eating disorder. But what does pro-ana mean? An 'ana' is someone who has anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder (and mental disorder) where, in your mind, you look at yourself and think you are too fat. But not only that; many people look into the mirror and decide they don't like what they see. Ana's take it a step further. They may see themselves as too fat, so they will go on crash diets - days without eating anything. They literally starve themselves. So, a 'pro-ana', then, is someone who supports anorexia, and possibly other eating disorders.
One may think these websites are a bad idea, because, after all, they are in support of eating disorders. But, sometimes, those of us with problems need someone to talk to, someone who knows where we're coming from or where we've been. These pro-ana websites are nothing more than chat rooms where sufferers can commiserate.
You are much more likely to listen to someone who you can relate to. An 'ana' may not listen to a doctor or their 'crazed mother', but what about a friend? What about a friend who suffers from the same problems and deals with the same everyday struggle?
A sufferer is more likely to have an epiphany and get help when they have a companion who is right byt their side the entire time.
3. Pro-ana websites show pictures of young girls who are nothing but skin and bone. They host a number of forums where people who suffer from anorexia and bulemia can congregate and talk about a common issue: their eating disorder. But what does pro-ana mean? An 'ana' is someone who has anorexia nervosa, an eating disorder (and mental disorder) where, in your mind, you look at yourself and think you are too fat. But not only that; many people look into the mirror and decide they don't like what they see. Ana's take it a step further. They may see themselves as too fat, so they will go on crash diets - days without eating anything. They literally starve themselves. So, a 'pro-ana', then, is someone who supports anorexia, and possibly other eating disorders.
Some may be sternly against these websites because, according to the National Eating Disorders Association (nationaleatingdisorders.org), "Anorexia Nervosa [or anorexia] is a serious, potentially life-threatening eating disorder characterized by self-starvation and excessive weight loss." Therefore, no one should be in support of these life-threatening diseases.
Parents or loved ones of ana's believe these websites should be banned because they are giving sufferers of eating disorders the wrong idea. They are doing nothing but endagering themselves and their health, and encouraging that by publishing pro-ana websites is not helping ana's (or sufferers of anorexia nervosa) turn their lives around, get help, and become healthier individuals.
On the other hand, though, the pro-ana's, themselves, have their opinions. Sometimes, those of us with problems need someone to talk to, someone who knows where we're coming from or where we've been. These pro-ana websites are nothing more than chat rooms where sufferers can commiserate.
A pro-ana is much more likely to listen to someone who they can relate to. An 'ana' may not listen to a doctor or their 'crazed mother', but what about a friend? What about a friend who suffers from the same problems and deals with the same everyday struggle?
Misery loves company, and anas have fallen into traps of self-destruction. But sometimes good things can come from seemingly-destructive things, such as the pro-ana websites.
A sufferer is more likely to have an epiphany and get help when they have a companion who is right byt their side the entire time. Perhaps, in time, these pro-ana websites will prove to be a new door opened for the anas.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
1. I thought the ad was a little extreme, considering it was trying to get readers to believe that if they don't run (which really means if they don't buy the shoes) then crimes will go unsolved. Not true.
2. I, personally, am not a runner - not even a jogger. I think that particular sport is boring and presents no challenge (such as, get the soccer ball into the goal, etc). However, whether or not I run or jog or don't do either doesn't affect my reactions to the ad.
3. The ad seems to have a really rugged feel to it; from the slate-grey colors of the pages to the style of text they used, the whole thing feels very primal and barbaric - which, I think, was the whole point.
4. Jogging is discouraged and running is promoted.
5. I think the ad targets joggers, runners, and even couch potatoes. From a marketing standpoint, I can see excellent advantages in segregating the 'runners' from the 'joggers'. The ad makes the 'runners' feel entitled to the shoes, as if they've earned them, almost. The 'runners' seem worthy of wearing the shoes. On the other hand, it makes 'joggers' want to strive to become as good as the 'runners' - which, obviously, buying the shoes would help them achieve.
6. This ad definitely appeals to Pathos because it is bringing in certian emotional elements. On one page the ad reads, "Precious few are lucky enough to feel what it means to run." This makes the viewer want to become a runner, makes them develop an intense yearning to 'feel what it means to run'. I would even go further and say the ad touches on instinctive elements, as well. It pushes us to believe that a 'runner' is naturally inside all of us...buying the shoes will help bring out the 'runner' within.
7. Although I - and other practical human beings - would probably buy the Reeboks simply because they are cheaper, I am still going to say that Pearl Izumi's ad is more effective in marketing its product. Nonetheless, when it comes to a magazine, I would rather see a Reebok ad reassuring me that 'I am who I am' and not a Pearl Izumi ad screaming, "If you're not sure whether you're running or jogging, go faster!" That would make me a little uneasy...
2. I, personally, am not a runner - not even a jogger. I think that particular sport is boring and presents no challenge (such as, get the soccer ball into the goal, etc). However, whether or not I run or jog or don't do either doesn't affect my reactions to the ad.
3. The ad seems to have a really rugged feel to it; from the slate-grey colors of the pages to the style of text they used, the whole thing feels very primal and barbaric - which, I think, was the whole point.
4. Jogging is discouraged and running is promoted.
5. I think the ad targets joggers, runners, and even couch potatoes. From a marketing standpoint, I can see excellent advantages in segregating the 'runners' from the 'joggers'. The ad makes the 'runners' feel entitled to the shoes, as if they've earned them, almost. The 'runners' seem worthy of wearing the shoes. On the other hand, it makes 'joggers' want to strive to become as good as the 'runners' - which, obviously, buying the shoes would help them achieve.
6. This ad definitely appeals to Pathos because it is bringing in certian emotional elements. On one page the ad reads, "Precious few are lucky enough to feel what it means to run." This makes the viewer want to become a runner, makes them develop an intense yearning to 'feel what it means to run'. I would even go further and say the ad touches on instinctive elements, as well. It pushes us to believe that a 'runner' is naturally inside all of us...buying the shoes will help bring out the 'runner' within.
7. Although I - and other practical human beings - would probably buy the Reeboks simply because they are cheaper, I am still going to say that Pearl Izumi's ad is more effective in marketing its product. Nonetheless, when it comes to a magazine, I would rather see a Reebok ad reassuring me that 'I am who I am' and not a Pearl Izumi ad screaming, "If you're not sure whether you're running or jogging, go faster!" That would make me a little uneasy...
America's Army Response
1. Right in the very middle, it says "...REAL HERO" in all caps, conveying the message that if you join the army, you will become a real hero, opposed to being a 'fake hero' if you were to join some other organization - like the Peace Corps., which is completely rediculous!They also list the 'seven core army values' which implies the army stands for respect, duty, etc. So it makes me think if you join the army, you'll become a better person.
The content seems to be targeting young men, who probably have the vision of becoming 'heroes' and 'stronger' beings, etc.
2. I'm going to have to say that I disagree and I do not think a videogame or website could ever teach you about war or acurately depict war. To say that because someone likes playing war games (Splinter Cell, etc), they'd like to be a soldier is stupid. I think fighting in a war is probably incomparable to any other experience one might go through and you definitely cannot compare it to a videogame.
3. I don't think the website or videogame necessarily promote violence. They do convey violence, but I don't think the violent videogames are made for the sole purpose of trying to make kids more violent. Videogames and TV shows and movies have only gotten worse since I was a kid. They are really violent - some videogames I've seen are pretty rediculous. For example, there's a game for PS3 game, Assassin's Creed, where you are an assassin and the object of the game is to go around and murder people. Boys love playing it and the videogame producers want money, so violent games are probably going to be around for a while.
The content seems to be targeting young men, who probably have the vision of becoming 'heroes' and 'stronger' beings, etc.
2. I'm going to have to say that I disagree and I do not think a videogame or website could ever teach you about war or acurately depict war. To say that because someone likes playing war games (Splinter Cell, etc), they'd like to be a soldier is stupid. I think fighting in a war is probably incomparable to any other experience one might go through and you definitely cannot compare it to a videogame.
3. I don't think the website or videogame necessarily promote violence. They do convey violence, but I don't think the violent videogames are made for the sole purpose of trying to make kids more violent. Videogames and TV shows and movies have only gotten worse since I was a kid. They are really violent - some videogames I've seen are pretty rediculous. For example, there's a game for PS3 game, Assassin's Creed, where you are an assassin and the object of the game is to go around and murder people. Boys love playing it and the videogame producers want money, so violent games are probably going to be around for a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)