Analysis Of Dave's Argument

In the article ‘Calgary man shows medical record as proof of election night assault’, by Aaron Chatha, Chris Ball recounts his attack that occurred on November 8th 2016, and has now provided the public with medical records indicating the treatment he received as a result. Since Mr. Ball has come forward with the details of the attack, there has been public outcry in regards to the assailants justifying their actions as they attacked Mr. Ball. Following the attack, the Santa Monica Police Department issued a statement. Within the statement police allude that Chris Ball was drinking at a bar where everyone was watching the election. As the polls began to come in people started shouting homophobic slurs, where Mr. Ball got into it with his attackers.

The three main arguments that Crito said to convince Socrates to escape jail are Socrates’ responsible for his sons, the situation where his friends will help him escape, and the just and unjust. Crito argued that if Socrates’ decides to die, he’s just going to betray his sons. If Socrates’ won’t escape the jail, he will hurt Crito’s reputation.(Crito, 47c)

I’m pretty sure Craig Spencer felt the exact same way when he ate at a public restaurant, rode the subway, and went bowling in Brooklyn and look where that has gotten him. Troops who are returning from West Africa are being quarantined just like the astronauts of Apollo 11 were quarantined and no one thinks or thought any less of them for doing so. I believe that it is more heroic of them to have taken the necessary precautions to protect even more people than they already have rather than to just puff out their chests and say they’re invincible. In an article called “Ebola-Quarantine Objections are Frivolous,” Law Professor Eugene Kontorovich elaborated on the fact that courts have continuously advocated for quarantines for infectious diseases like tuberculosis and smallpox.

An argument is deductively valid if and only if its premises are true and always lead to a true conclusion. (Dolson, HO #3, p.1) Premise A, “If Abraham Lincoln was a friend of John Wilkes Booth, then John Wilkes Booth would not kill Abraham Lincoln.” is true. Premise B, “Abraham Lincoln was not friends with John Wilkes booth.” is also true. But, the conclusion supposes that because John Wilkes Booth and Lincoln were not friends, Booth would kill Abraham Lincoln. There are multiple ways to show an argument is invalid. One test is Dan Dolson's Test for Validity (D.D.T.V.). To use D.D.T.V. we must pretend the premises are true and find a way in which the conclusion can be false (Dolson, #3, p.1). We have already stated the premises are true so there is no need to pretend, but the test still works. We can easily imagine a situation in which Booth and Lincoln are not friends where Booth does not kill Lincoln. Therefore, using the D.D.T.V. we can conclude that the argument is invalid.

Dave also thrives on embodying the “underdog identity”. Being a twentysomething year old, one is still searching to discover who they are and what their identity is. Dave has had several identities pushed onto him because of his situation such as Toph’s parent, an orphan, and a steady provider all while still maintaining his role as an older brother, but one of the biggest identities is the underdog, the victim rising from the ashes. During his inner dialogue, Dave says: “you like that stance, that underdog stance, because it increases your leverage with other people” (Eggers 119). Him saying this directly acknowledges the fact that he is using his situation to gain moral authority over others, an authority which he believes he is entitled to because of his situation. Dave, no matter where he goes or what he does in life, will always be the victim of a sad event, his parent’s deaths will always be a part of him and his story, but he is using it to define his

Since the dawn of mankind, clusters of innovations throughout history have allowed for societal progression at an explosive rate. While primarily fostering a centrifugal system of advancements; humans’ interests in expansion is spiraling out of control. Throughout history elements of collapse can be traced through civilizations and natural resources. Wright’s argument posits humans have hyperextended their utilization of resources at a rate that cannot be replenished, therein by setting up the world for the largest ecological collapse in history (Wright, 2004, pg. 130-131). Due to the cyclical process of past collapse and reformation humans have an advantage to rectify our current consumption rates ultimately avoiding a fate similar to past societies (Wright, 2004, pg. 131). As such Wright’s argument should frame larger discussions of responsible citizenship.

“The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses. “Malcom X

Most of the story is about the coming of age of Dave. Dave wants to show the people who he works with that he is mature. “Dave wants dearly to gain the respect and power so closely associated with manhood” (website no names). Dave wants to show the guys that he is a man and that he is not a kid anymore. He wants to be seen as a man so he goes and buys a gun. Richard Wright, Author of The Man Who Was Almost a Man states “One day of these days he was going to get a gun and practice shooting, then they couldn’t talk to him as though he were a little boy” (Wright 2246). Dave believes that by buying a gun he can show the men that he is not a little boy anymore.

Dave in the story tries to present himself as this kid who is now a man, he wants to showcase to others that he is no longer some little kid that can be made fun of. Even though his actions don’t resemble those of a man, but instead of a kid who is trying to act like one, his thinking that a gun is what makes a man and certain actions that take place is what makes him a consistent character. From beginning to end his mindset of what makes a man doesn’t change, but instead is reinforced after he is humiliated. “Something hot seemed to turn over inside him each time he remembered how they had laughed” (Wright 188).

After a hard day at work, seventeen year old Dave heads across the fields for home, still thinking about some of the problems he had been facing with some other field help that day. He wants to prove to the others that he is not a child, anymore. “Mebbe Ma will lemme buy one when she gits mah pay from ol man Hawkins. Ahma beg her t gimme some money. Ahm ol ernough to hava gun. Ahm seventeen. Almost a man” (par. 1). Dave heads to the store to shop for a gun. He manages to talk Joe (storekeeper) to let him borrow the catalog for the night. Joe is surprised that

Besides BonJour's argument of illustrative examples, moderate rationalism is defended by two intimately related dialectical arguments. The argument is that the denial of a priori justification will lead to a severe skepticism, in which only the most direct experience could be justified. Stemming from this severe skepticism, comes the stronger argument that argumentation itself becomes impossible. This essay will describe the distinct segments of the argument and will demonstrate the relationship between the two arguments.

Dave is depersonalized by his mother and treated as less than human. She would refuse to call him by his name but refers to him only as “The Boy.” It is this that enables her to ill-treat him and not be troubled by her conscience. She then goes even further when she uses the impersonal pronoun that give the book its title: “You are a nobody! An It! You are nonexistent! You are a bastard child! I hate you and I wish you were dead!” With this attempt to delegitimize Dave’s entire existence, she is through her eyes denying him the right to live. This is how Dave’s mother found it easy to inflict inhuman punishment on

I accept Town’s argument that “the bible relates how God intercepted the lives of people to save them from disaster and to show them a better way to live” (Core Christianity). In the bible God clearly reveals his commandments, and what could be one’s punishment for committing sin. On the other hand, God tells His children how he will bless them, and their families, if they obey God’s commandments and live accordingly to His laws. In a sense, God tells His children how wonderful their lives can be if they praise Him, and do the things they need to do to strengthen their relationship with Him. Also, God explains how individuals can repent for their sins, by being sincere in their heart when praying for forgiveness. He also states that when

Both letter to the editor and editorial staff offer position that are supported by both facts and opinions. The letter explores to urges the new reusable bag ordinance while the editorial staff argues that they are serious about making Proposition 328 mandatory in every store. While both side make an acceptable case, it is clear that the letter provides a better argument.

The most obvious symbol mentioned in this story is the gun. Throughout the story, the gun is constantly shown as a symbol for power, as well as masculinity and independence. Several times throughout the course of the story the narrator states, “If anybody could shoot a gun, he could” (Wright 222). In the fields, Dave is treated as a child, and he believes that he is an adult and should be treated as once, which includes owning a gun. Dave is disillusioned by the gun, and believes that it will solve all of his problems and strengthen his weaknesses, including granting him independence. Dave fails to realize that not being able to properly operate a gun only relinquishes freedom. This can be further evidenced when Dave accidentally shoots Jenny, the mule. This situation should have put an end to Dave’s obsession with power and guns, but instead he was still fascinated, demonstrating his lack of maturity and development. Overall, the gun demonstrates the maturity, independence, and developmental level that Dave wishes to achieve, but severely lacks.