What techniques does Levin use to make his case more effective?
What do you think of the hypothetical scenarios he created?
Why does he bold face “Death” and “Idealism?”
What is the significance of the last two sentences?
In light of the current affairs, do you think the argument has more or less validity?
Check out these two sites if you have time and tell me what you think. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uses_of_torture_in_recent_times#United_States, http://www.cfr.org/publication/9209/#4
Now, what do you personally think? Should we use torture? Who would actually do the job?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
*Note for Mr. Nuthall and other bloggers....
ReplyDeleteMy blog has been emailed to Mr. Nuthall as of Sunday night. The blog would not accept my post because it apparently went over the character limit or something (surprise surprise I know). I can't wait to see what the rest of the class posts about this one...
Christyn
The author kind of puts the reader on the spotlight when he goes throught the essay. I noticed that he uses the word we a lot. We signifies not just him but everyone and it creates a sort of "bond" between reader and author, that they have something in common. This would tend to have the reader agree with the author because human beings want to be part of a group. Also, the author uses "you" multiple times, usually to ask a moral question. For example he directly asks whether or not "you" would torture a terrorist to save lives. This is really a loaded question where, although the person may not want to torture someone, they aren't going to say they will allow millions of people to die. I believe that the boldface death and idealism was to show the main significance of the paragraphs. Also because they are strong topics for people to think about. I think he did it so that the reader would have those words in the back of their mind while reading. To have death gnawing at back of your mind while reading how millions of lives are going to risked will affect someone more strongly than just reading. The last two sentences are really a warning that the terrorist threat is real and we are going to have to make some tough calls when it comes to dealing with them. I find it fairly ominous that this was written in 1982 and now in 2009 we are dealing with wars caused by terrorism, torture of terrorists have leaked out from the government, and the world trade center is no longer standing. There must have been some evidence of terrorist movemen 27 years ago and the government did nothing. I think that this essay has more than enought validity in these times. Some of the scenarios that the author had created were very much blown out of proportion but in times of fear such as now there is always that doubt that it could happen and we don't know what our government will do. I personally think that torture is an effective method for interrogations that need to be done quickly. I'm not saying that if some investigator wants to get home early that they can electrocute a prisoner. I'm saying that if lives are involved then we need to decide whether or not the life of one person are worth the lives of others. I basically agree with the author on this.
ReplyDeleteFYI all. I emailed you all Christyn's blog but in case you can't get it I will attempt to post it here.
ReplyDeleteCHRISTYN BLOG I
"The Case for Torture" by Michael Levin was relatively short yet profound for me. Perhaps it had more of an impact on me than other argument essays because 1) I am a "9/11 American" who has grown up with things like this on the brain and 2) Levin's style made his argument seem more personal. He used "you" a lot which I believe put the reader directly into the essay, like they were the ones to make the tough decisions his hypothetical situations called for. Not asking "you" to do something means someone else can dwell on it and find a solution; the author did not allow us to do that with this essay. Levin did not throw out numbers and accounts on torture that the reader could not identify with or would find easy to dismiss. Instead he took a different approach by creating situations that we couldn't just forget and basically forced us to deliberate them within our own minds.
Since I am on the subject of these hypothetical situations, I wanted to say that I found them brilliant. It was the perfect way to affect the reader and cause them to question their own beliefs. I have always been opposed to the torture of any living creature, yet how could I say that when torture would be a way to save millions more? They were so extreme and one-sided, making them nearly impossible to solve without resorting to torture as the author suggested. This was unfair to someone on the "opposite side of the fence" like me, but as I said it was a brilliant move, argumentative genius.
The author bolded the words "Death" and "Idealism" to frame his argument. He was showing the differences between the deaths of innocents and the comfort of a terrorist. Then he went on to discuss how he would ideally take care of the situation-use torture against those who threatened to take lives in the future, not against those who had already committed crimes in the past. He believed that path was pointless. I think these words were highlighted to also show the two sides of the terrorism argument...Do we prevent death by using torture or do we move beyond it toward an ideal world where torture does not need to be used to achieve justice? It seems like an impossible question to answer...
CHRISTYN BLOG II
ReplyDeleteParts of the essay were chilling to me since it was written pre-9/11, but nothing was as foretelling as the last two sentences. The author was warning readers not to ignore the issue at hand since it would inevitably arise in the future. It did in more ways than I think even he could have imagined. It was a brave move on his part to be so straightforward about an issue many people would rather just ignore.
This argument is every bit as valid today as it was in its prime. As Americans we hear about terrorism nearly every day along with multiple theories of how it should be stopped. After checking out the two web sites, my limited knowledge on torture was confirmed while I also learned about a lot more. These websites were useful since they were virtually unbiased and "aired the dirty laundry" of the United States. They didn't just paint a rosy picture for us. I found the Council on Foreign Relations extremely informative and I will definitely use it as a reference in the future...
Even though I have faith in my country, I know the US is not blameless when it comes to torture. Our leaders undoubtedly used it when they found the virtues of democracy paling in comparison to efficiency on the fronts of war and intelligence. Do I blame them? After seeing those planes crash into the buildings, the crying wives and children, and the dead being buried I can't say I do. But where does the torture end and justice for all begin? How do we torture yet stand true to what we have preached since the day we became a country, a beacon of hope to millions? Unfortunately for America we have a difficult time resorting to torture because of how we have set ourselves up to be viewed by the world. I don't see how we can gain back respect and support by resorting to the lesser of two evils...but for now I will have to live with and accept the truth of torture by my fellow Americans. Who should do the job? I don’t know, but I could probably find plenty of people who would because of the pain terrorists have caused them. Torture as a US policy will disappear only when the wounds from events like 9/11 are healed...not within my lifetime unfortunately
Think back to English 10…if you had to debate him, how would you do it? BTW nice job Josh and Christyn
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion what Levin does to make his writing so much more effective was that he used specific situations for each "concept" that really brought larger ideas down to the reader's level. These were what made the writing so effective, they grew in the reader and almost forced them to agree with Levin. The reason death and idealism were bold faced was because they were the overall one word descriptions and convey-al of that section. The significance of the last two sentences is that it forces the reader to show some serious concern for the controversy and that it is simply more than a controversy. I think the argument has more validity because it is very serious. The idea of torture is indifferent to me, look at it this way: terrorists are terrorists, they want us all dead, they hate our guts, do what need be to get what information we need from them in order to save innocent lives, the terrorists are animals, scum of the earth who don't deserve the rights of a human.
ReplyDeleteThe techniques that Levin uses in this essay is that views both sides of the situation at hand. He also uses a lot of question marks and questions in his essay. I really liked the situations that he created they were very real and could happen in this world and most likely already had in some part of the united states. I think that he bolded "death" and "idealism" because he centers his essay on these two things. These two issues are very important to him in this essay, that is why it is bolded. I support torture if the situation could kill people. Make the bad guy tell you the needed information then if it is necessary kill the bad person . I put it this way one person is tortured and tons of people are saved. The one situation Levin mentioned really had an impact on me. This was the situation where the womans kid was kidnapped and I know if I was in this situation I would be the one inflicting the pain on the kidnapper and I would make him feel the pain that I would feel if my kid was kidnapped. The last two sentences of this essay were very important because these were two sentences that cannot really be answered they have possible answers but no truly right or correct answer . I really liked this essay. I have my opinion on this issue and I am sticking to it. Christyn you wrote way too much no way did I have time to read it all lol. Can't wait to discuss this in class .
ReplyDeleteHeads up to all you guys...you are carrying the ball in class tomorrow. I am taking a step back and letting you all process this...btw don't forget to address the question: if you had to debate this guy in English 10, how would you come at him?
ReplyDeleteThis was one of my favorite essays so far because I feel very strongly about this topic. I agreed with everything that Levin was saying and he delivered his ideas in a very powerful manner. I think that a very important thing that he did was use circumstances where the reader would have no choice but to agree with him, otherwise they would appear to be a terrible person.
ReplyDeleteLevin makes his case more effective by drawing the reader into his essay, as if it is a personal dialogue. By doing this, it makes you pay closer attention to what he is saying and it's hard to disagree with someone who is talking to you in such a kind manner, Usually when someone is trying to persuade others they become argumentative and hostile.
I would have to say that the hypothetical situations that Levin created were the aspect that really "made" the essay. I found them to be somewhat humorous because the way he described the situations, you would have to be a selfish moron to say that you wouldn't use torture. My favorite situation was the one where a terrorist group kidnapped a newborn baby from the hospital and he asked the mothers if they would approve of torturing the kidnappers to get their babies back. If any of them said no, they would immediately be labeled as "bad mothers". Even though this situation was a bit extreme, the moral standpoint would be just as legitimate if applied to other circumstances.
Levin places the words "Death" and "Idealism" in bold print because they are the two main points that he builds his argument on. When talking about death, he is basically asking the reader a question over and over again. Who should die, the terrorists victims, or the terrorists themselves? It is hard to believe, but some people actually believe that terrorists are entitled to rights and should be treated humanely. What a joke. In the section labeled Idealism, Levin gives a few reasons for why people are against the use of torture and attempts to counter a lot of their reasoning for these thoughts. It shines a light on the other view of the issue and then shows you why that view is wrong.
The last two sentences are probably the most powerful sentences in the entire piece. Up until this point, many people may have dismissed what Levin was saying since he was only giving hypothetical situations. However, when he related the issue to the reader (some day soon..) it suddenly makes this issue seem evermore important.
In regard to current affairs, I think that this essay has even more validity today since the fear of terrorists is at a heightened level since this essay was written in 1982. Needless to say, Levin was right about terrorists threatening many American lives in the future as we remember the attack on the WTC.
After visiting the websites I found out a little bit more about the use of torture by the United States, which I found to be quite surprising even though I was aware that we have been guilty of using torture methods in the past.
I think that torture should be used and it should be carried out by professional interrogations officers. It bothers me when people start talking about terrorist's rights and other garbage like that because as far as I'm concerned they're not even human. I am on Levin's side in this case and if I were to debate this topic in 10th grade I would restate Levin's argument points in his essay, because he does a good job covering all of the issues.
The author definately did his job in that everyone here agrees that terrorists should be tortured even though Christyn is against torture in general. Travis and Colin definately believe that they should be tortured in that they are "scum of the earth" and "terrorist treated humanely. What a joke." Travis pointed out that the scenarios are so one-sided that one would have to be a bad person to not advocate the use of torture. If I had to debate him, I would have to point out that torture has been used on people such as in Chicago in the 1970s and 80s when I highly doubt that the detained prisoners had any plans to kill people. One must also note that advocating the use of torture would put sadists into high ranking positions which I don't believe would turn out well. In the end its a controversial topic and as long as there are those who are fanatics who want to kill many innocents there must be a fanatic way to stop it. You can put out a fire with an explosion but that doesn't mean anything will be left.
ReplyDeleteHis writing was very effective and the way he talked about things the reader was put right on his side and you couldnt really disagree with him. I believe he has death and idealism bolded because those are two of the major points he revolves around in his essay. His last two sentences do not come out and tell you what they mean and people could take them different ways. I think that torture should be used when necessary. If dealing with terrorists they might as well torture them before they end up doing something that is going to badly effect other people. So when dealing with terrorists and we need information might as well torture them before they go around blowing themselves or others up.
ReplyDeleteChristyn said that this essay had "argumentative genius", which i totally agree with. As she said, anyone on the other side of the argument really has no chance to form an actual rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteI think that josh did a good job of explaining the other side of the argument if he were to debate the issue, and I like his last statement about the fire and the explosion.
I liked this essay and thought that Levin did a good job at delivering his point and the way he feels on the topic. He must be a good debater because he can bring his point very well. He backs it up with facts too. Levin asked questions, and answers to them, and used facts and his opinions in this essay and it made it very effective. I thought that the hypothetical situations really made this a great essay. They are situations that could actually happen and I would have to say in all of them torture would be the right thing to do. The lives of many innocent people should be valued above the life of a terrorist. I believe that levin bold faced death and idealism because these are the points that he builds his case around, and are sort of the one word way to sum them up. The significance of the last two sentences is that he is trying to tell his audience that we really should start conisidering torture because there is going to be situations when it is necessary to save innocent lives, and there really wont be another way around it saave these people.I would say it has more validity because of what happened with the world trade centers, and all of the terrorist attacks that are going on around the world today. i think that torture should be used, but only in very extreme conditions.
ReplyDeleteThe technique the author uses in this piece is setting up scenarios, in the way that the reader is pushed toward his point of view because of the way he sets them up.
ReplyDeleteThe hypothetical scenarios he created helped his case a lot. Most people are going to want to save many innocent people than one terrorist. His scenarios make the reader put themselves or someone they know in the position of the victim...and of course nobody is going to wish death upon themselves or people they are close to. By creating these scenarios, people begin to agree with his standpoint.
Death and idealism are bold because these are the two main issues within this essay.
Death...the death of innocent people when needed torture is not inflicted.
Idealism...exactly what it means- what should happen- what is ideal. In this case, the author believes torture (when needed is ideal.) He doesn't believe in torture for getting confessions out of people or anything...but only when it can save the lives of innocent people.
The author says we have to figure this out. He must think these situations are inavoidable and that we must have a plan of action.
I think that if somebody tries to kill/terrorize others, they should be tortured. In my opinion they deserve it. While this may be unconstitutional, as the author points out, it is the best option. People who take away a person's safety and security deserve to have theirs taken away.