You bet this is good

Linton Weeks feels that the evolution of language has caused people to forget the polite phrases that used to be common in English. He believes that as children, people were taught to use polite words like “please,” “thank you,” and “you're welcome.” However, as time as passed, people here these words much less. By using several reports and surveys, and specific peoples' examples, Weeks shows the level of respect has deteriorated over time for many people.

Weeks starts with asking readers to listen to the conversations surrounding them. He points out that the most common polite words are missing from most conversations we hear nowadays; thank you and please. He brings up a woman who has noticed the decline of use of polite words and states that she blames it on the “casual.” She blames the casualness of society for the lack in use of polite words. She believes that through the casual traditions of society today, words that used to carry respect are now no longer being used because they seem too polite; people don't use them as much anymore. This person's example brings to the picture what Weeks stated in his thesis.

Weeks moves on to talk about the evolution of polite words. He gives the example of “you're welcome” turning into words like “you bet” and “enjoy.” He argues that the words now used to replace these words “do not carry the same sentiment” as the original word or phrase. This example of one changing word again proves his thesis. We can prove this for ourselves by comparing how many times we hear “you're welcome” to how many times we hear “you bet.”

Weeks brings in psychiatrist Gregory E. Smith and tells his opinion about changing ways. Smith brings in the aspect of behaviour as well as language. He claims that it is rare for people to make the eye contact that used to be so important and what parents used to pressure their children about. Research done by Rasmussen Reports showed that about 76 percent of people said “Americans are becoming more rude and less civil.” This report shows the majority of a place saying that people were becoming much less polite, which supports Weeks in his opinion of changing behaviours.

Through these strong opinions, examples, and researches, Weeks' thesis on politeness evolving to casual words is strongly supported. It is shown that people think language and behaviour has truly evolved into something that is taken too lightly, and that people should go back to teaching their children how to show manners and respect to the people around them through a simple thing as language.     

I can't see the taste!

Alva Noe has done her research and believes that the taste of something comes from the context it is in when consumed. She proves her thesis by scientific research, specific examples, and her personal experiences.

Noe starts with saying that the taste of different foods really depends on the context they are taken in, and proves it with scientific research that has been done. The results of the research reveal that “most people won't notice the difference between paté and dog food, so long as the latter is suitably presented with the right sort of garnish.” This scientifically proves her main point because most people will believe a scientific fact. She also states that the taste of soggy potato chips can be enjoyable if we hear the crunch that fresh chips make. This shows that the research done on people has shown that the context and what people hear are very important to how people taste things.

She moves on to talk about the specific examples that prove her thesis. She first talks about the differences of the blind tasting of red and white wine. She points out that it was proven that “experts” could confuse red and white wine if they were served at the same temperature. In the conclusion, Noe returns back to her example of the pate and dog food, and how it could be easily confused if we cannot see it. In this example the garnishing is what is important if it is served the same way. She then goes on to talk about love, and how that ties into the thought of “taste.” She says that if people are holding hands, they feel different if they are with someone they love then when they are just holding a random persons' hand.

Noe's last example is a personal anecdote. She talks about her father saying Chinese food tastes better with chopsticks. She points out that he was not saying that because he was smart, but because he enjoyed the food being authentically how it was supposed to be. This proves her point because she herself had experienced it after her father told her what he thought.

Through her examples and research, Noe shows that the taste of anything truly depends on the context it is in, and how it is handled. When eating food and we do not see it, it is easy to mistake it for something else; if we see the food we are eating we will have a taste in mind and it will taste how we think it will. 

I'm watching you...

Emrys Westacott believes that having surveillance does not make the morals of people any different. She believes that it will cause some people to do the right thing but not necessarily change what they think is right and wrong. I agree with this because her point of view is supported through her specific examples, her knowledgable tone and concession, and a solid historic example.

Westacott starts off her article with the example of Adam and God, from the book Genesis in the Bible. God specifically told Adam not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge but he was easily persuaded by Eve to eat the apple. Westacott suggests that if God had placed a surveillance camera directed on the tree, it would have led to “no sin, no Fall, no expulsion from paradise.” She thinks that if God had a camera directed at the tree and Eve noticed it, she would not have eaten from the tree. However, she points out that even though Eve probably wouldn't have eaten from the tree, it doesn't mean she did not want too. She probably still would have wanted to eat the apple, so it didn't make her any more morally right. This first example sets the idea for her whole article.

She leads into talking about different ideas that different philosophers would agree with and uses them to move into proving her point. “Kantian ethics. On this view, increased surveillance may carry certain utilitarian benefits, but the price we pay is a diminution of our moral character.” Westacott uses this to counter with the “stages” she previously wrote about. The tone she used while explaining the stages was sincere and knowledgable, showing she knew what she was talking about and had done her research on it. Instead of changing her tone to accusative and condescending, she continues with the same tone to illustrate how the stages were wrong, and that the Kantian ethics were more realistic. This helps her to connect with the readers by using concession. She recognizes the “opponents” view but then uses her's more strongly but in the same manner.

Finally, Westacott uses specific examples that are easy to relate to. She uses the example of cheating; if someone knows they are being watched, they will be more likely not to complete the action, but that does not mean they do not want too. This directly connects with her first example of Adam and Eve. The fact that people are being watched does not make them better people on the whole. She also states that people are going to perform actions that are considered morally wrong far less when they know they are being watched, for the sole reason of not wanting to get caught or taking the blame; not because they don't want too. Through the examples that the readers can relate through or think about, Westacott is making a connection with them, making her point of view on the subject more easy for the audience to understand. 

Seriously, you're not that cool

Thorsten Botz-Bornstein believes that being cool is not very cool “The cool person lives in a constant state of alienation,” he says, making his point loud and clear. Through historic examples of how the transition from the real meaning of cool to the “common” meaning today and his ideas on what it really means, Botz-Bornstein shows us that being cool has lost the reality of the word and has transformed into more of a “culture” then a single word with meaning. His ideas on what cool is and is not, are very true; which is seen in ever day life, especially in schools.

Botz-Bornstein belives that the emergence of cool as a new culture, originated from the African-American “men at the time of slavery.” He establishes that the reason for this was that their “cool attitude” saved them from the hardships of being slaves. From this, Botz-Bornstein deduced that cool meant “represents a paradoxical fusion of submission and subversion.” From the use of explaining how the beginning of the cool attitude developed, he establishes his opinion very strongly, supporting his reasoning with historic evidence.

He then goes on to explain that the term “cool” has taken a different turn, and become a full culture of how to act. He claims the modern cool is based on the African-American senses of style and attitude. Botz-Bornstein belives that being cool now is more of what people see instead of what the original word meant. He explains that being a winner is cool, but that when someone who wants to do anything to win is not cool. The explanation for the attitude of being cool is described as being able to distinguish the difference between over doing cool and really being cool.

Botz-Bornstein also believes that the people who are just acting cool have an advantage to actually being cool. He uses the word “subversion” which is described as “undermining power and authority” (Dictionary). This means that cool people, in his opinion, are the ones who balance being cool and being reasonable. This shows, through his balance of opinion, as there is to every circumstance, that there is a balance and that to be one, you have to be the other. 

We are the future! (Of Youth and Age)

Young men are the ones who move the world forward, for good or for bad, according to Sir Francis Bacon. His essay Of Youth and Age is about the differences of contributions between older and younger people. Through his tone and his examples, plus the insertion of a flaw of his main subject, Bacon shows how the young men are the contributors to the positive effects in society.

Bacon has a very admiring and positive tone when speaking of the young men and the reasons they can contribute to society. He states they have the fresh and imaginative minds that will lead changes forward. He also says they are “fitter to invent” and “fitter for new projects.” He believes that the younger men, mostly, are the ones who are uninfluenced by problems and situations that would make them very wary of their situations. The admiring tone he uses leads the readers to believe he has done his research and learned very much about the differences he has seen between the works of older people and the younger.

He goes on to speak about leaders in history who had done great things and given great contributions to society. Augustus Caesar spread out the Roman Empire at an early age, and have Rome it's many artistic advances that are still seen today. The fact that Bacon brings in historic figures that made an impact that is still seen in life today makes his point about young men being the leaders of the future far more believable.

Bacon points out a flaw with young men, but counters that with the flaws of old men, which make the younger look the leaders in situations. He states that the “errors of young men, are the ruin of business; but the errors of aged men, amount but to this” supporting the above point. He believes that the older men often wait to make a change while young men are more interested in making a change right away. He states that the reason for this is that younger men do not particularly think about the outcomes of making the changes, which time has shown the elders to be careful with what they do, which leads to nothing being done at all. The bring up of a flaw with both sides serves to heighten the opinions of the younger men because the readers believe that the younger are the ones who were more successful even though they may have made mistakes but not thinking things all the way through.

By bringing up historical figures, using his tone, and using flaws of the main subject of his argument, Bacon makes it clear that the young men are the ones who will and have led society farther in its success. The audience finds it easy to listen and believe him because he gives examples of figures who have changed history, he sounds as if he has done his research completely, and he points out a flaw that is replaced and heightened by the flaws of the older men.

Married or Single?

Sir Francis Bacon believes that marriage and being single weigh each other out in a person's life with both their values and virtues, and the outcomes are mostly dependent on the individual person. In this essay he discusses the behaviours of people who are married and those who are single towards society, as well as towards other individuals. It is true that the married and single values weigh each other out. It is clearly seen by his switching between positive and negative remarks to both sides.

He begins by talking about the contributions that married and single people give to society. He states that the “best works” have been given by “unmarried or childless men.” His reasoning for this is that children and wives make a man more conscious about his actions and thoughts. They make him too cautious about his dealings. He then immediately brings up his counterpoint that supports the idea of married people being important because the care they inherit when they get married or have children is transferred to the thoughts and ideas about the future.

He then commences to speak about how the single can be too selfish to lend a hand to society. He believes some peoples' “thoughts do end with themselves” instead of going on for the general good. These points show that the ideas of the contributions to society are weighed out because someone will provide to do good for society whether they are single or married. The contribution depends on the individual with their marital status as a background.

The discussion about charitable habits arises in the middle of the passage. Bacon points out that the ones who are single are more likely to be the ones to give than the ones who are married. The people who are married will think about their families and be more cautions with money and belongings. The single individuals will not need to share and be exceedingly wary of the costs because they will not have to support others. He also points out that some individuals will end up keeping their money and not giving charitably because they are plain selfish and would rather keep their wealth for their own needs. This again is a choice of the individual with the marital status in the background, not dictating what choices are to be made.

Bacon starts discussing the relationships and attitudes between the married and unmarried people. “... men are best friends, best masters, best servants,” he says about single men, but they are also far less reliable then those who are married. Those unmarried do not have the restraint to be free that married men have. Opposite that, married people are more reliable;. they have more discipline because of their responsibilities at home. Single women have stronger bonds because they rely on the “merit of their chastity.” This shows the relationships of married and unmarried people depend on their ideas and individual selves. The people who are single are more likely to be the ones who are carefree and spontaneous while the married are the ones who will be more likely to look at logical explanations and consider the repercussions or outcomes of a certain choice.

Sir Francis Bacon believes that people can go for the “good” or “evil” ways with some dictation from marital statues, however they do not completely and wholly dictate the choices, behaviour, or relationships because the individual conscience will weigh in.

A Woman's Right

Abortion has become a widespread issue throughout the world. Abortions most often take place when the woman has not been protected and does not want to have a child. However, in this article the use of abortion is dubbed as something that could be a real life saver. The author of this article, Emily Rapp, has a son who is diagnosed with Tay-Sachs, a disease that causes blindness and paralysis. This disease is acquired from the result of both the parents having the Tay-Sachs gene. The author's son is two years old, and most likely only has until he is four or five to live. She is going against Rick Santorum in saying that abortion should be allowed in some cases.

Tay-Sachs is a semi-rare disease, mostly found in the “Ashkenazi Jewish population.” The disease can only be contracted if both parents carry the mutated gene. If one parent carries it, the child will not have the disease. Only about 25% of children, even with their parents having this gene, will get the disease. The author of this article wants the right for parents like herself to be able to have an abortion. She believes that if it could save a child from being miserable, it would be a lifesaver. She argues that if women are not allowed, by law, to have abortions, the rate of diseases will increase causing the child and the parents to be completely miserable throughout their lives.

Rick Santorum believes that abortion should be completely banned in the USA, no matter what the situation is. Obama hopes to decrease the number of abortions by making it only lawful under some circumstances. Ms. Rapp feels the importance of having a say in whether abortions should be legalized or not, is very important. She suggests granting women the rights to abortion.

She is not saying, that abortion is right; she is saying that it can be a good thing. She strongly affirms that she loves her son more than anything, and that she would not trade anything she has done. However, she also says that if she had known that both she and her husband had the deformed gene, she would have been very wary of the consequences and would have thoroughly done her research on the topic.

Abortion is not a light issue. In fact, it is probably one of the most disputed topics today. People do not know what to call the action, and what reasons should be present to perform the operation. People call it murder, some call it mercy. In fact, it should be completely up to the child-bearer to make her decision, but it should be done so in moderation. If a mother is in her 20's and is married but does not want to take care of the child, adoption is always a greater choice than abortion. In all ages, if it is possible, abortions should not be performed. If situations like Ms. Emily Rapp's appear, then an abortion can be considered, but not without proper research and thoughtfulness. A woman's right should be a woman's right within reason.