jegaines060

Throughout the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, Shakespeare uses specific language during the character’s dialogue to persuade their opinions. These persuasions are known as logical fallacies, where the argument doesn’t follow the previous conversation logically. In this writing, I will be analyzing the logical fallacies used and explaining how their use affects the overall dialogue of the play. In Act 1 Scene 2 of The Tragedy of Julius Ceasar, Cassius uses emotional appeal during his and Brutus’s argument over Ceasar. In order to convince Brutus to agree with him, he uses logical fallacies. Prior to when the argument even beings, Cassius beings to twist Brutus’s statements using the Gaslighting Fallacy. He takes everything Brutus says against himself, asking why he would choose something “over your friend that loves you.” Cassius invalidates Brutus’s feelings and knowledge of his preferences to convince him he is in the wrong, so he will eventually agree with him. Also in his argument, he uses the Bandwagon Fallacy, saying how many highly regarded people in Rome have mentioned how Brutus needs to see how Ceasar truly is. By using “many” people, Cassius is using the bandwagon fallacy of how the majority share this opinion, therefore he should see it like that as well. By saying how these highly regarded people view Cassius, he is using Star Power fallacy, using their views in places of actual proof to show this opinion is more suitable than Brutus’s. Cassius also tells Brutus how he shouldn’t be more recognized than him, using the Two-Sides fallacy. Even though Brutus has worked and achieved more, Cassius tries to show a false balance between the two, when Brutus deserves more recognition. The Appeal to Tradition Fallacy is also used in this argument while talking about the new government. Cassius mentions how the government is wrong because it isn’t the traditional government, without giving actual evidence to show how it is wrong.

 

Throughout human history, humans have been afflicted and curious by their own mortality, because of this curiosity, humans have taken it upon themselves to prolong this affliction. In the past, the plan to alter the life expectancy of humans would sound too complex and far-fetched to be an attainable feature for this day and age. Anyone speaking of treatments to alter human lifespans were seen as berserk, but it may just be feasible. Technology is ever-evolving, giving us the opportunity to optimize many aspects of our lives. In the article “Can Human Mortality Be Hacked?”, the author gives questions, allowing the reader to form their ideas, along with giving subtle clues to their own unpropitious views.

With rapid advancements in bioengineering, Harvard Medical School researchers believe they’ve found the answers. Using a chemical to manipulate genes associated with blood vessel growth, they found a way to make old mice stronger. With this, biohackers are engrossed by nootropics and other supplements in an attempt to boost cognitive abilities and prevent brain aging. From supplements to changing the position of bone marrow, many techniques are being used in an attempt to find a longer life span. TheWeek.com writes how many feel “a widespread distrust that these enhancements would be used responsibly and safely.” Most of the public are either skeptical or firmly opposed, while many aging experts are not convinced. University of Michigan professor Richard Miller believes this life-span goal is “so far from plausible that it commands no respect at all within the informed scientific community.” With the oldest humans living to about 120 years old, experts believe “that’s pretty much the biological ceiling for human longevity.” Another concept to think about is the effects these treatments will have. They could have serious threats “not only because of the potentially disastrous consequences of botched treatments” but also the equally distressing means of success. Ethicist Blay Whitby warns “We need to think about the implications before it is too late.”

The idea of being able to hack the lifespan of humans is both complex and unnerving. With technological advances, this future is very possible, but at great costs. As TheWeek.com writes, these studies can help pre-existing medical conditions and monitor blood pressure, heart rate, and other vitals, but “you can’t upgrade a device without cutting out the old one.”

-;0

The Past Racial Injustices of Las Vegas

When people think of America, their opinions can be influenced by many factors. Many people’s first thoughts are what America prides itself on: its freedom. America is known for it’s supposed levels of freedom and respect for human rights, but it hasn’t always been like this. With a very problematic past, it’s no secret America has had racial inequality throughout its progression. The south is a major part of racial history, from the Confederate states and the civil war to the prejudice that continued to follow African Americans even after the abolishment of slavery: the south is a big focal point for America’s racial history. With this past, not much is heard about the Northern states, and negatives certainly are at a minimum. The North, and other places of the US, may have seemed like a secured, protective place for African Americans, but in reality, racial injustice is and has been all around us. It’s hard to believe a state known as “the city of lights”, with significant respect and admiration, can have such a troublesome history. Las Vegas, Nevada has seen its fair share of racial discrimination, from marks made by city council, to the torment of innocent citizens, to the segregated nightlife Las Vegas is known for, this place hasn’t always been known for it glamorous fate.

During the 1950s, Assemblyman George Rudiak,introduced a civil rights bill that would outlaw ordinances restricting the rights of blacks. After it’s fail in 1953, an article alleged that blacks in Las Vegas were treated as second class citizens. African Americans began referring to their city and state as the “Mississippi of the West,” as the felt their home was comparable to the racial conflicts going on in the Southern state at the time. Franklin Williams, an NAACP attorney, is quoted saying Las Vegas was “a non-southern city with the pattern of the deep south,” meaning that although they were seen as a better place for African Americans by other states, they actually were considered just as bad as the places that admired them.

Racial tension became a subject of analysis in the 1950s. Las Vegas: Playtown reported that “any Mississippi sharecropper bracing a Greasy Spoon for a meal can rest assured he will not be contaminated by the presence of Negroes… No motels, hotels, casinos or restaurants will serve the colored.” This was the first time the subject of race was discussed in literature relating to Las Vegas, and shows the segregation faced. By this time, Las Vegas was already a tourist attraction, and places there refused to serve African Americans, from their own prejudices or for the comfort of guest. African Americans were seen as second class and too paltry to attend the luxury lifestyles.

Las Vegas is currently known for its glamor, money, and nightery. It almost seems like all human desires are in reach in this city, but it hasn’t always had these alluring aspects. The nightlife of Las Vegas used to be filled with racial injustices. Harry Belafonte, an African American performer of early 1950, recalls being “told to leave by the back door and stay in a black motel room that smelt of dog urine”(baas.ac.uk) after performing at a casino-hotel. Film star and singer Lena Horne also fought these restrictions of African Americans and the places they performed at. At the Sands Hotel, she was not treated as a guest. She had to fight to use the pool, let her musicians stay at the hotel, and even had to be escorted by security just to walk through the hotel. She says she “seldom shunned a job because of racism” but “went in there and fought.” Although the nightlife has always been a part of Las Vegas, it’s racial injustices have followed it, and it’s performers like Belafonte and Horne that proved black entertainers didn’t have to tolerate segregation, and by setting a public example showed African Americans did not have to tolerate the injustice.   

America Is known for its freedom, despite the fact it’s no secret it hasn’t always been like this. America has had many injustices and questions towards human rights for everyone in it’s past. The South is often discussed when mentioning racial inequalities of America’s past as this is where most boycotting, riots, and civil war activists occured and stayed. The midwest, however, is an area of America where racial injustices aren’t often discussed. Because of this, the midwest was seen as a safer, more secure place for African Americans during the 50s and 60s, when racial injustices were at a high. In reality, these injustices followed African Americans everywhere, and even places like the beloved city, Las Vegas, has seen its share of discrimination. Although it is currently seen as captivating, flashy, and incredibly desirable, Las Vegas used to be known for its marks made by city council, the torment of innocent citizens, and the segregated nightlife Las Vegas is known for. Despite the great things said about this city today, it’s past is very troublesome and problematic, like many cities of America’s past.   

 

Sources:

Baldwin, Edward E. “PDF.” University of Nevada, Las Vegas. (https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4026&context=rtds)

 

“Fear and Motels in Las Vegas: Segregation and Celebrity on the Strip.” Baas, www.baas.ac.uk/usso/fear-and-motels-in-las-vegas-segregation-and-celebrity-on-the-strip/.

 

“Fighting Racism.” Las Vegas Sun, 25 Mar. 2005, lasvegassun.com/news/2005/mar/25/fighting-racism/.

From birth to the end of our lives, we are surrounded by people. They could be our parents, friends, acquaintances and even neighbors. Out of these people, there are the few we chose to be closest to. We often feel like we know everything about these people and could tell them anything. These people know you’re biggest secrets, innermost thoughts, and practically all there is to know about you, and you believe they feel the same towards you. The fact of the matter, however, is it is not always like this.

Almost every day in America there is a mass shooting. The murders in these situations have lives, just as you and I do. Most of which seemed normal before committing the vicious acts. Particular people lived lives consisting of friends, family, and living like ordinary people, never showing signs of the things they would later do. It seems with every report of a murder, they were just quiet, stayed to themselves and “showed few outward signs” of the chaos going on inside them. The same person who lives next door to you, waves and exchanges pleasantries every once and while, can be the same person who commits one of these acts. Even if these people seemed normal enough, that doesn’t change what they’ve done. So why is it that almost all sources say how a person was misunderstood? Is it meant to alter our perception of the people who’ve done these actions?

      We’re surrounded by people every day, but we never truly know them. This is a fact that has been proven by the mass of people who have appeared normal, mentally-stable people, who have had outbursts and killed. They are seen everywhere: headlines explaining how someone seemed normal, or was misunderstood, or had a rough childhood, almost shadowing the fact that they killed. The media always bends and twists the truth, whether in favor of the defendant or not. The Washington Post wrote an article about a white male who “just want(ed) to kill Jews”, and murdered 11 victims in a synagogue. He was described as a “loner” who was never thought to do such a thing, rather than what he was and is: a murderer. In my opinion, if he weren’t white, the headline would scream something completely different. It’s typically white people described as the “loner” type, who would never do such a thing, but with black people who have done the exact same crimes, they are just considered murders.

Just as you never know true people in real life, the same applies online. The same article that explains how normal the synagogue massacre murder, Robert Bowers, was, dressing casually and working as a truck driver, also explains how he compared Jews to Satan online and believed Jews “infest” America. This article also exposes his racism towards African Americans and mixed couples. The same “loner” type that would say hello and commerce with his neighbors, went on hate-filled rants online explaining his racist views, further showing the point you never know the people around you.

Some may argue it is a gun issue, saying armed guards would fix the problem as if guns weren’t what brought the problem: “but it wasn’t the guns fault because guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Yes, you are correct opposing opinion, but what did the people who killed have? Guns. So even if it isn’t the gun’s fault, the gun was still the weapon used. No matter what the argument is, a knife, box cutter, or even machete couldn’t do the damage a gun can do in the same amount of time. Guns shouldn’t be banned, they are useful to protect yourself and others, but it’s worrying when guns seem to be used for more harm than good.

From the moment you wake up to the moment you go the sleep, there are people around you. Whether it is the nice checkout lady at the supermarket that kindly said “Have a good day”, or the old buddy you saw and caught up with while in line, people are everywhere. No matter how long you’ve known someone or what you know about them, there is no way to know their true intentions. The same person who told you their biggest secrets can be the next mass murderer in a matter of minutes, and you won’t know until it happens. To you, they were a sweet, quiet person who could never do wrong, but to someone else, they were the person that ruined their life or even took it. No matter how the media portrays the situation, either making about awareness or guns, the truth is everyone around you isn’t always who they say they are.

Depending on who is questioned, race can mean a plethora of things. To most it may be a competition, to others it may just be skin color, but for some people there’s no question about it: it’s a division of humankind. Something as simple as ethnic background can bring major variations in viewpoints, conditions, and life experiences. Different ethnicities bring diversity, which in turn bring us new talents, cultures, and beliefs to everyone who accepts it. Diversity is such a crucial part of life, it’s hard to believe discrimination is still a problem in today’s society. Racial injustice has been a problem all over the world, and America falls under the category of countries with a promise of equality. There’s been a very bold vision for America including freedom and equality for all its citizens, thanks to the Declaration of Independence. More than 200 years later, however, it had yet to be achieved.  From racial injustice to bigotry, not everyone is so accepting of new ideas and people can be very blunt when it comes to their opinions. A big problem with these misconducts is it’s not only people rejecting the new customs.

Businesses have been known to discriminate based on race, gender, religion, national origin, physical or mental disability, age, sexual orientation, and gender identity. The criminal justice system targets and incarcerates people of color over whites and criminalizes poverty. Discrimination happens all around us: even in our schools.

Over 60 years have passed since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, but educational inequity continues toward students of color in under-resourced and overpoliced schools nationwide, and public schools aren’t the only ones affected.

On March 6, 1961, a law was signed that required all government employers not discriminate against any employee or applicant because of prior discrimination and to prevent it in the future. Despite this law, there are still arguments about whether government agencies and schools are diverse, and if racial balancing is taking place. A big topic of this argument is one of the most selective institutions in the world: Harvard.

 

Arguments about whether this university and other institutions, use racial balancing have been around for quite a while. All minorities are supposedly protected under Affirmative Action, but if this is so, why do so many minorities feel unequal? One minority, Asian-Americans, have been heavily investigated since these arguments have arisen, with some feeling as if their being used in an attempt to abolish affirmative action. The case is simple: Harvard is accused of setting a quota for Asian-American acceptances and hold them to a higher standard than white applicants. It’s not clear what exactly will become of this case, but it has the potential of creating a new law where race isn’t considered in applications. This could benefit because race would no longer be in the argument. The con, however, is that racial balancing would no longer be in place and more minority groups will be created.

Harvard says they don’t discriminate, but rather consider each student individually to build the most diverse class, full of different talents, ideas, and backgrounds. If this is the case, what does Harvard actually look for? Should high school students define themselves in the most unique way possible to get the upper hand? Also, currently Harvard holds a constant proportion in all their classes, but in order to do so wouldn’t some sort of discrimination occur? To keep every race constant, surely there’d be some sort of quota or rejection based on the races already admitted.

On top of all the questioning, it’s hard to tell what’s even allowed in terms of legality. The Supreme Court is vague about what’s allowed and the education department decided not to investigate, so what should really be thought of? Students for Fair Admissions, an activist group against affirmative action, have the same goal of changing the way Harvard has interpreted laws and change the regime, but how can you stop discriminating when it’s everywhere in applications. In one case, a white woman said she was denied admission because of her race, so how can we stop with it if it affects everyone in particular? As the argument continues, Harvard’s president Lawrence Bacow, says he’s confident the university will prevail, but how is this possible?