I had the great opportunity to go to a session of General Conference this weekend, so I figured I would write about that for my free write this week. I have gotten tickets for at least one session of General Conference every semester I've been at BYU and it has been such a great blessing. Obviously you can listen to the messages wherever you may be, but there's something about being in the presence of the prophet and the apostles and all of our other great leaders that changes it. Being in the room with them as they tell me to strive to do better makes me feel an even greater resolve to do better, because seeing them in person makes them seem more real. Watching them talk to each other before the session begins and seeing them meet their wives afterward and hold their hand and walk away brings these great men down to earth. Yes, they are men of God, but they are also just like us. I also just love going to the conference center, because it is so beautiful and such a remarkable tribute to President Hinckley.
It's very strange to hear the word prophet associated with anyone besides Gordon B. Hinckley. He's been the prophet for as long as I can remember. I vaguely recall President Howard W. Hunter, and even more vaguely remember Ezra Taft Benson. President Hinckley is basically all I've ever known. Thus, having a new prophet just felt odd at first. I have always loved President Monson, but I had a hard time thinking of him as the prophet before this weekend. I believed that he was, but a little part of me still expected President Hinckley to walk out, waving his cane in the air. But it was completely clear to me as I was listening to President Monson speak this weekend that he truly is called of God. He had a different spirit about him that let me know that he does have new keys and he is the head of this church. This weekend is something I'll never forget.
Monday, April 7, 2008
Thursday, April 3, 2008
T.A.
I thought I'd analyze an interesting source I found that talks about video games causing seizures in children. I've been thinking about writing about this for my paper.
1. The argument is that children may experience seizures as a result of playing video games.
2. It seems that the target audience would be parents of kids who play video games.
3. The argument relies heavily on logos: lots of statistics about this issue are used. Photosensitive epilepsy is described in detail, and they talk about the fact that it is much more common in children than in adults. Other statistics are given about the amounts of people who have experienced these seizures. 618 children in Japan experienced this problem from a single TV show one year. Their argument makes perfect sense in that regard. Pathos is inevitable since the argument is about children and is directed toward parents. No one wants their child to suffer from anything, including epilepsy. Ethos is effective as well, because the research was done by a department that specifcially studies seizures. They obviously know what they are talking about. I think their argument is mostly sufficient, but probably a few quotes from pediatricians would have been effective. The more offical sources you can have the better. It was a very typical argument, in the fact that all of their methods were perfectly predictable. They didn't try to shock their readers too much; they simply told everything how it was. All of their information was accurate, which is good. And everything mentioned completely relevant. The article was very concise, which is perfect for their audience. Short and sweet and to the point.
4. I thought this argument was extremely effective, which was the scary part. The numbers of people who suffer from this are shocking. I never thought about the idea that video games could cause medical problems.
1. The argument is that children may experience seizures as a result of playing video games.
2. It seems that the target audience would be parents of kids who play video games.
3. The argument relies heavily on logos: lots of statistics about this issue are used. Photosensitive epilepsy is described in detail, and they talk about the fact that it is much more common in children than in adults. Other statistics are given about the amounts of people who have experienced these seizures. 618 children in Japan experienced this problem from a single TV show one year. Their argument makes perfect sense in that regard. Pathos is inevitable since the argument is about children and is directed toward parents. No one wants their child to suffer from anything, including epilepsy. Ethos is effective as well, because the research was done by a department that specifcially studies seizures. They obviously know what they are talking about. I think their argument is mostly sufficient, but probably a few quotes from pediatricians would have been effective. The more offical sources you can have the better. It was a very typical argument, in the fact that all of their methods were perfectly predictable. They didn't try to shock their readers too much; they simply told everything how it was. All of their information was accurate, which is good. And everything mentioned completely relevant. The article was very concise, which is perfect for their audience. Short and sweet and to the point.
4. I thought this argument was extremely effective, which was the scary part. The numbers of people who suffer from this are shocking. I never thought about the idea that video games could cause medical problems.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
R.A.
I've been thinking about a few options, but I can't decide which one. First of all there's not really any overwhelming evidence for any of them, just because these things are relatively new topics. So I'm just wondering how hard it's going to be to find 2000 words worth of information.
1. The effects of us idolizing celebrities as much as we do. So much attention is giving to knowing every detail of their lives. How is that affecting us as a society? Or maybe more specifically, how is it affecting kids as they grow up? Are they living their lives in an accordance with how they think they should according to their celebrity idols? People devote their lives to celebrities, from knowing everything about them to getting plastic surgery just like them. News stations report just as much celeb gossip as they do actual news these days. But the problem is that I don't really know what to argue exactly. Plus, is there are even a way to change this trend?
2. What are the consequences of young kids having cell phones? Is it necessary for safety purposes or is that concern just paranoia? Does a kid having a cell phone change the rate at which they grow up? Does it lead to younger ages for everything? I.e. drugs, sex, etc. At what age do we deem it a necessary thing then? I got my first cell phone when I was 16 and I could drive, just in case something happened. Should that be our cut-off? Or is that not practical and we should cut it at 14 or 15?
I think either one of these would be really interesting, I guess I just need to do a lot more research so I can see which one I'll actually be able to expand on. Right now I'm leaning towards the cell phone thing, but should I also expand that to include kids having ipods, tvs, etc?
1. The effects of us idolizing celebrities as much as we do. So much attention is giving to knowing every detail of their lives. How is that affecting us as a society? Or maybe more specifically, how is it affecting kids as they grow up? Are they living their lives in an accordance with how they think they should according to their celebrity idols? People devote their lives to celebrities, from knowing everything about them to getting plastic surgery just like them. News stations report just as much celeb gossip as they do actual news these days. But the problem is that I don't really know what to argue exactly. Plus, is there are even a way to change this trend?
2. What are the consequences of young kids having cell phones? Is it necessary for safety purposes or is that concern just paranoia? Does a kid having a cell phone change the rate at which they grow up? Does it lead to younger ages for everything? I.e. drugs, sex, etc. At what age do we deem it a necessary thing then? I got my first cell phone when I was 16 and I could drive, just in case something happened. Should that be our cut-off? Or is that not practical and we should cut it at 14 or 15?
I think either one of these would be really interesting, I guess I just need to do a lot more research so I can see which one I'll actually be able to expand on. Right now I'm leaning towards the cell phone thing, but should I also expand that to include kids having ipods, tvs, etc?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)