Sunday, September 9, 2007
A Case for Torture
Even though I agree with Michael Levin, I don't believe that the way he came about his argument was particularly agreeable. His argument is very eplicit and leaves the reader any room to explore a different view point in a positive way. Levin doesn't want the reader to accept a view other than his own, so he makes sarcastic remarks about the anti-torture terrorist view point. in a way, Leavin also makes anyone who opposes his argument, feel unamerican and have the least interest in keeping fellow citizens safe. This argument is poo because Michael Levin isn't even trying to come to a consensus agreement and attempt to understand why someone believes in anti-terrorist torture, but is too blinded by his beliefs that he cant take the time to reconsider other possiblities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This is a really interesting point that you made Brittney. I would not have thought about it this way, but after reading what you wrote I agree. I also agree with the author, but I don't like the way that he is getting his point across. I disagree with one thing that you said. I think the author does make a good argument, after reading the piece for the first time, he had me all fired up about the case for torture. After reading what you wrote, I think the argument is still strong, but I definitely understand what you are saying. I think he deliberately leaves the other side of the argument out because he only wants people to see his side. He doesn't want people to see the other side, he wants more people to agree with him.
Brittany,
I definately agree with you one hundred percent. You have pointed out some very interesting facts about this piece that I like and accept. First of all you explained how he uses a very agressive and close-minded way of writing this piece which you and I both think is very awkward and rude. Secondly you recognized that he makes you think you are un-american if you dont agree with his point of view on torture. I dont agree with this because every american is different and every different american has different views, so he should at least accept that people do have other views, this way he wouldn't offend so many people.
Good post B-Will,
Derek
I agree with you view of how he went about making his point, but I do think he made some interesting points. He did not use a friendly approach to persuade people and didn't have any real evidence besides his poll of 4 people, which really isn't evidence. Although he often uses guilt or puts you in a situation in a sarcastic or negative way, he made some thought provoking points that causes one to think.
After reading your side of the writing it makes me think more deeply into Levin's "A Case of Torture". You make a good point about when how he argues his side very agressively by using information that he believes is true. He doesn't really view torture from the other side of the plate, let alone even mention anything about how an opponent would view the idea of torture. You also mentioned how he may think that just because we don't agree with him, we are un-american. I totally disagree with him. Although there is the fact that most Americans think this way or that way, there is also the part which not all of them think the specific way. However, one decision or belief can not make you an American, everyone has their own opinions.
Overall, nice job Brittney. Your writing made me think even harder !
Post a Comment