My name is Paul Elden. I'm a freshman majoring in biology (pre-med).

I used to row, swim, and play soccer in high school. I love new technology and science. I play the occasional video game and read the occasional book, mainly science fiction/fantasy. I'm a grammar nazi, I hate when ppl puttt thingz liek thi$!! It's annoying. So don't do it. I put things in bags for people at Kroger.

I enjoy music very much. Except rap and country. I'm a metalhead, though you wouldn't think so from the looks of me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDWEs2W15fU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX1egjG_3NE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4DtLGTVkvk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15mxiWAYSEw&ob=av2e

My bread and butter. I like most rock as well, I keep my radio tuned to 89X.

Also, hugs not drugs.

paulelden11@gmail.com

About the Author

Project One-

I'm doing the Sarah Mclachlan/ASPCA commercial! Get ready to weep!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iu_JqNdp2As

Everyone has had their day ruined. Not by bad traffic, getting food poisoning, or any number of unfortunate things. Their day has been ruined by the ASPCA and Sarah Mclachlan. Everyone has seen the commercial; Sarah talking and holding a dog in between video clips of often injured animals and texts stating things like, “Every day in America thousands of animals suffer from cruelty and neglect.” Meanwhile, Mclachlan’s song “Angel” plays in the background. This ad is quite possibly the saddest commercial I (and probably most others as well) have ever seen. I believe this is why it works. The ASPCA relies heavily on the pathos of animal abuse, with the help of Mclachlan’s ethos, and a light sprinkling of anthropomorphization, in an attempt to make the audience feel so bad that it must donate in order to help abused animals.

After watching the ad for even a short while, it is clear that the focus of its rhetorical strategy lies in the pathos of abused animals.  Roughly fifty percent of the video is footage of “cute” dogs and cats, usually shown in a hurt or sad-looking state; one cat is missing an eye, and many are in animal hospitals. The idea of animal abuse is horrifying to many, and showing the audience so many animals under the premise that they have been abused or neglected has a lasting and highly emotional effect on those watching. This is an excellent advertising strategy, however sad it is. Most girls cannot even look at a picture of a kitten or puppy without uttering an “awwww” or two. In addition, saddening texts are placed throughout the commercial. These texts give sparse information, such as, “Over 3000 animals were rescued last year.” However, the main point of these texts is to further draw out emotion in the audience. Sentences like, “For hundreds of others, help came too late” imply a huge amount of animal cruelty, often resulting in death. These thoughts can often be overwhelming to viewers, and, if they have still not managed to look away or change the channel, they will most likely feel the urge to call that number listed at the end of the ad and pay the sixty cents per day.  In the background of this advertisement “Angel” softly plays. The song, by Sarah Mclachlan, is sad in its own right, and when added to the commercial, has the potential to bring tears to viewers’ eyes. Sarah is the main spokesperson of the commercial, and when she is not talking, the audience has nothing to focus on auditorily but the song. This combination of sights and song creates a huge emotional force behind the pathos of animal cruelty. All in all, I feel their chosen pathos was executed very well, attacking the audience’s emotions thoroughly.

Anyone familiar with Sarah Mclachlan knows that she is very philanthropic. Besides being a Grammy-winning musician, she has donated to AIDS charities, created a musical outreach program for children, performed to raise money for tsunami victims, and taken part in many other charitable exploits over the course of her career. Obviously, she is a big supporter of the animal rights and ASPCA. Sarah’s ethos, being the generous and important person she is, is also an advantage to this commercial.  Many viewers that are fans of Mclachlan or that are merely inspired by her actions will think that if Sarah is advocating the ASPCA, it must be a good cause. They know her reputation and this is likely to draw a response. Many that would like to be similar to her might donate as well, just to feel a connection to her. The fact that she’s a celebrity has an effect on people as well. Often times people agree with or listen to those more famous, simply because they are famous. Their stature is a huge persuasion tool.

One other rhetorical tool used in the ad, while not as prominent, is anthropomorphism. After watching the commercial a few times, I realized that the animals were always portrayed as sad. The ability for animals to feel human-like emotion is unclear, but it makes no difference to the viewer. It has the same effect as if it was a friend or relative that was sad. Usually friends and family do everything they can to keep each other happy, and since people often view house pets as one or the other, it is the same. The audience would again feel the urge to help the “sad” creatures, in this case by making the donation. 

This is not the first time commercials like this have appeared. Many ads and videos similar to the ASPCA ad can easily be found on YouTube; activist groups have a much easier time advertising due to the growth of social media. Other websites like Facebook and Tumblr are also great ways to advertise and spread ideas. The animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) uses similar advertisement and rhetorical strategies to the ASPCA’s. PETA had an ad campaign that was targeted at Superbowl viewers. The pathos used in the ads were similar, they had celebrities’ endorsements, and gave anthropomorphism an even greater role than the ASPCA. Pedigree, the dog food brand, had an “Adopt a Dog” series of commercials. Again, similar pathos and anthropomorphism were used. These techniques play a large role in advertisements and commercials with goals that are alike because they have been shown to work.

The ASPCA uses simple advertisement in a very effective way. The pathos of animal cruelty, Sarah Mclachlan, and anthropomorphism, when used in combination, make a very strong case against animal abuse. The emotional effect this combo contains is immense, and many groups and companies such as the ASPCA and PETA use these techniques due to this reason. With the ASPCA’s ad raising over thirty million dollars since its debut in 2006, who could doubt that? With the increase in social media usage, commercials like these are becoming much easier to produce and spread, and their effectiveness ensures that advertising like this will continue to be around for a very long time.

(This is a very rough 3 pages)

1. Is there a clear argument/thesis to the paper? Identify the thesis directly in the text or paraphrase it in your own words. Yes there is a clear thesis, and the body paragraphs closesly follow this thesis. The ASPCA relies heavily on the pathos of animal abuse, with the help of Mclachlan’s ethos, and a light sprinkling of anthropomorphization, in an attempt to make the audience feel so bad that it must donate in order to help abused animals

2. Does the paper have a clear exigence and purpose? Do you have a solid idea of why this argument is an important one and/or why it is or should be interesting to an audience made up of people such as yourself? What is the exigence?  Yes for the most part it does, it states that these ads are very depressing and effect your emotions hugely. You also state that it works, but you could expand a little more on how you feel about the ad.

3. Does the paper follow a clear structure or does it read more like a disconnected series of observations? I.e., do the different paragraphs or sections of the piece seem to follow from one another? Are there appropriate transitions between different sections and ideas? Is there any part of the paper that seems unnecessary - "beside the point" or unrelated to the overall argument of the project as a whole? Yes, this paper is very well structured, and flows well throughout.

4. Did any argument or analysis in this paper seem unwarranted or exaggerated (in other words, did you think the writer was "jumping to conclusions" at times or being unfairly judgmental or dismissive)? I wouldn’t say so, I as a reader could agree and relate to the conclusions drawn.

5. What, in your opinion, is the strongest part of this paper?

I would say the strongest part of the paper was the first body paragraph talking about pathos. The argument was clearly presented and the proper conclusions were drawn. Well done.

6. What, in your opinion, is the weakest part of this paper? I wouldn’t say that this is a huge weakness, but in your second body paragraph when you are talking about Sarah McGlaughlin if you could establish that this technique used is ethos as you do in the thesis it would clear things up for the reader a bit more from a rhetorical standpoint.

7. If you were presenting a counter-argument to the paper (i.e., an attempt to argue against the thesis or central argument of the paper), what would it be? E.g., if you were asked to provide a counter-argument to the example paper we read on "Advergaming," you might argue that advertising in gaming is either not as widespread or not as problematic as the authors suggests (and provided reasons). I see no counter argument to present, although one more thing to add would be to go into more depth on the other ads presented in the final body paragraph, especially the superbowl one because this would interest a lot of people.

8. On the sentence-level, did you find the paper to be well written? Does it contain poor grammmar or sentence-fragments? Is it unnecessarily wordy at times? I found maybe one or two grammatical errors, but for the most part the paper had great flow, and excellent use of vocabulary.

9. Finally, what grade would you give this paper if you were evaluating it as it is now?

I would give the paper an A- because I really couldn’t find many problems with the paper (and no one gets an A) besides maybe just clearing a few things up and expanding more on some subjects, which you will do anyways. Well done.

Project Two Rough Draft

Citizen Cyborg

Imagine a world in which all people are hyper intelligent. Everyone is incredibly fit and healthy all the time. Humans can live hundreds of years, and possibly forever. Disease has been eliminated; death by cancer and AIDS is now impossible. This is medical ethicist James Hughes’ vision for our future. In Citizen Cyborg, Hughes argues that genetic and technological implements to humans are going to be a large part of our future, and they are necessary in order to better ourselves and survive. He argues this through logos centered on many scientific studies by geneticists and biomechanical engineers, the pathos of freedom to control our own bodies and minds, and an ethos found in his own personal experience with “mind control medicine.”

Like all scientific fields, health is ever-changing. Every day, advancements are being made to combat various forms of disease, illness, and accidents. And yet, modern medicine is by no means perfect. People die every day due to uncured ailments, and new sickness springs up more often than people realize. In order to prevent these sicknesses from reaching and destroying people, Hughes believes we must not only combat the disease, but improve our defenses as well. He completely agrees with things like gene therapy, stem cell research, and cybernetics, because he believes that in the long run technologies such as these will have a profound impact on our lives, and help us in ways we cannot yet imagine. His ultimate vision would be for humans to improve ourselves so much that we become more than human; immune to all disease, the chance to live multiple lifetimes, and various other effects that would make us “transhuman.”

Hughes’ utopian lifestyle sounds grand when put in the way that he envisions it. However, there are those that would disagree with his insight. In Citizen Cyborg, he has dubbed this group the “bioLuddites.” The bioLuddites argue that it is wrong to change our genes, to mesh life with technology, and alter ourselves in ways that biology alone cannot. These groups often provide good arguments to transhuman views. One technology they dispute is the developing process of anti-aging. Quite quickly in his book, Hughes presents one of their arguments. “…Francis Fukuyama, writes in his book Our Posthuman Future that life extension will lead to rigid, risk-averse societies, ruled by slowly decaying seniors ogling the shrinking number of young bodies. Other critics warn that life extension will exacerbate overpopulation and the growing dependence of the retired on the shrinking working-age population.” (Hughes, 31). Hughes quickly attacks this argument by saying that already this process has begun, with the twentieth century seeing the birth of Social Security and Medicare, and the fact that we have not yet denied medicine to the older people that need it, or developing countries that are already overpopulated. Another often-brought-up argument bioLuddites make is that with advancements in medicine and cybernetics, the division between rich and poor would increase drastically. The rich are improving themselves and their lives even more, while the poor are left behind in the transhuman movement. Hughes again counters this by saying that with improvements in technology come improvements in democracy. He frequently references the Industrial Revolution of the seventeen and eighteen hundreds as a prime example.

Yet another argument against transhumanism extrapolates on safety risks. In this counterargument, Hughes develops a logos. Hughes quotes a study at the University of Pennsylvania where a man that underwent gene therapy died because his immune system rejected it and failed (15). He goes on in Citizen Cyborg to explore many other medical research experiments that have proved successful. This gives the reader a sense that only a small portion of research is failing; he does not talk much about failed attempts. However, I tend to believe this, as I’m sure many others do, because of intense regulation by the FDA and other government agencies. In fact, on the very next page Hughes mentions several new laws and regulations that were developed due to the failure of the gene therapy experiment. As well, there can never be advancements in medicine without some sort of failure. It is the way of science. Hughes also cites technologies like cochlear implants and computer assisted vision as incredible technology that assists those with disabilities (17). He views some sacrifice as necessary in order to make the world a better place. All these examples he has provided form a well-thought out logos, telling the reader that, “This research is okay, because it is and will be helpful.”

Quite possibly Hughes’ main argument is created in his choice of pathos. He appeals to people's pathos of free will and the pursuit of happiness, and also the pathos of self improvement, quite frequently. He states that people should have the basic choice to do what they want with their bodies when they want, as long as they don’t affect others in adverse ways. A valid point, for sure, but this is never the case. On this point, Hughes fails to realize the reality of his argument. There will always be someone who decides to drink and drive, or that hunter that mistakes someone for an animal. Citizen Cyborg fails to discuss this counterargument, or even explore how total body free will could function in modern society. Another shortcoming of Hughes' pathos is the lack of arguments about dependent enhancement . While providing a slight consideration for people that are reliant on others in the example using his son, he paints enhancement on a dependent in a good way, as the outcome of his personal experience was a success. Never does he mention an example or theoretical situation in which someone abuses their children through biotechnology. This is almost a certainty, because parents often try to live vicariously through their offspring, attempting to force their kids to be better so the parents themselves can look and feel better.

Hughes ties in ethos, through personal experience, while further developing the pathos for his argument when he uses himself and his son as examples early in Citizen Cyborg. In chapter four, he discusses how his son suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder. When Hughes’ son entered kindergarten, he was psychologically evaluated and diagnosed with ADD. His son was then prescribed Concerta. After starting the drug regimen, his son’s fights stopped, he no longer argued with his teachers, and now he is focused, and an excellent student. As well, he describes his own childhood in a similar fashion, saying that “it took a combination of Ritalin and special education for me to learn to read in the third grade.” (16, 17). After this personal insight, he presents the reader with the question “If this worked for me and my son, why shouldn’t all people be allowed to take it?” Obviously he wants the reader to know that drugs like Ritalin and Concerta are safe and effective. He would know, since he has used these drugs in his personal life (this is where his ethos comes in).  Even if someone doesn’t have ADD or a similar learning disability, Hughes believes that it would have a similar effect and that everyone should have the freedom to take it to become more focused and learn better (enter pathos). He also talks about other “mind-control” drugs such as anxiety or depression drugs. Hughes wants everyone to have access to medicine such as these in order to be a happier, calmer, more intelligent society.

Citizen Cyborg provides a decent argument. After all, who in their right mind wouldn’t want to be healthy all the time, or live an extra fifty years? Why shouldn’t we be happier and more focused? While these are great ideas in theory, Hughes does not quite make a perfect case for biotechnology, and the arguments of the bioLuddites still linger in my head. Keeping things like safety issues and technology abuse in mind makes it hard to form a good argument for biotechnology. In addition, the technologies Citizen Cyborg discusses have not yet been invented or perfected, and have yet to provide results like those that Hughes has foreseen. So, I am going to wait to form an opinion, and see how and where the future takes us.

Project 2 peer review: Samey