Agenda THU MAR 30

24 Responses to Agenda THU MAR 30

  1. chancetoremember says:

    -Communication is very complex. It is easy to get off track and not communicate the point that you are trying to make by using the wrong type of “language” while writing.
    -The “opposite” of your thesis does not necessarily mean it is the exact opposite of every word you wrote in your thesis. It means that the argument for the opposite of your thesis should refute what you said in your thesis.
    -You should have a detailed rebuttal for the opposite of your thesis.
    -Basically want to be able to completely contradict your own argument and be able to support it.
    -Works cited page is mandatory.

    -Ag-gag laws are legislations made up to make it a criminal offense for journalists who publicize animal abuse on commercial farms and slaughterhouses. The journalists must report the abuse within 24 to 48 hours after they witness or discover the abuse.
    -Undercover filming of animal abuse on commercial farms is illegal under these laws.
    -I sort of agree with the Ag-Gag laws on the topic of all animal abuse should be reported to the police as soon as it becomes known, but I don’t necessarily think that it should be illegal for journalists to not immediately alert the authorities. The whole point of journalism is to write about a topic that sparks people’s interests, and animal abuse in commercial farms definitely does. If journalists are required to alert the authorities, their article would be ruined and the public would probably not react so strongly to hearing about animal abuse because the authorities would have already done something about it.
    -Farms want to keep activists out of their property to keep animal privacy and consumer confidence in tact.

    Arguments from video:
    -undercover videos are harmful to the farm owners
    -the Ag-gag law is protecting farms
    -the farm videos hurt the people who own the farms and the entire farm industry
    -many videos have found no legitimate instance of abuse
    -videos are designed to shock and are propogandistic
    -Animal activists want to get rid of the entire animal agricultural alliance and the meat industry
    -Undercover investigations have quesioned where people get their meat and animal products from
    -Investigations led to the largest meat recall in history
    -called the animal agricultural alliance disingenuous for what they are accusing journalists and animal activists of
    -people have a right to know what they are buying
    -videos go directly to the media instead of the authorities

  2. nickalodeansallthat says:

    Started class out with a quick lesson on failing to communicate. Certain words or phrases can muddle up your writing and make it difficult to get your point across. The example of the “Mrs.Robinson note” was supposed to be a ransom note, but do to the way the first one was written, it was confusing in regards to the demands of those who sent the note. We then discussed Ag-gag laws, and how strange and confusing the mechanics of the laws work and how it relates to writing.

    • davidbdale says:

      I respect your intelligence, Nick, and I recognize a mechanical deterrent limits the thoroughness of your Notes, but these and most of your class notes to date are beautiful examples of “talks about” language, which is never a good thing. Search your essays for “how.” When it appears, you are about to “talk about” something. Here you “talk about” the strangeness of laws and its relation to writing without actually describing the relationship.
      1/3

  3. dunkindonuts10 says:

    Fails to communicate-communicates what we talk about but not what we said
    -say what is valuable
    Does the Ag-gag law do good or is it helpful
    -should it be allowed
    The Rebuttal Argument
    -due next week
    -opposite of thesis (why should animals continue to be used for medical research)
    Research position paper
    -due April 19
    Ag-gag laws
    -make sure there is a voice for consumer so they know where they come from.
    -videos contain no legitimate evidence but are manipulated, provocative so they can show a strong fight
    -farm videos harm farm owners, farm families, and the industry and exposing farms trying their hardest, but unknown if filmers on the farms or legally or not
    -purpose to end the meat industry-have to see if their is abuse
    -distrust or defaming?
    -videos lead to prosecution, legislation. and convictions
    -opponents are not radical anti-meat extremists
    -strong fight with evidence of brutality should be talked about by law enforcement rather than the media
    -abuse should be shown to the farm owners so they can fix the problem
    -holding evidence for self benefit
    -no laws against farm animal abuse
    -seeing animal abuse is uncomfortable but not illegal, no one is helping the animals
    -if workers see abuse, they are told to report it

    • davidbdale says:

      I’m awarding 3 for thoroughness, Donuts, but for me, these notes wouldn’t bring back the point of the exercise, to examine rebuttals for their relevance and effectiveness. They might remind me of the arguments for and against the Ag-Gag laws, though, and maybe that’s all you need them to do.
      3/3/

  4. chippy1313 says:

    -make sure to write the important information the author says to communicate essentially
    -using too much words or phrases that are irrelevent will clog up writing and will make it harder to get your point across
    -Ag-Gag laws punish activists who endeavor to expose animal suffering and cruelty at factory farms
    -Rebuttal argument will identify the argument you feel is the strongest rebuttal to your own thesis.
    -offer a strong argument against your thesis to impress your readers and persuade them
    Ag-Gag laws video:
    Weak: farm videos harm farm owners, farm families, and the industry, exposing farms trying their hardest, but unknown if film makers are on the farms legally or not, farms are family owned, abuse allegations are not relevant to the farm

    Strong: protecting farms, no legit evidence, people want to end the industry, videos lead to legislation and convictions, opponents are anti-meat extremists, evidence of brutality should be turned in to law enforcement rather than the media, abuse should be shown to the farm owners so they can fix the problem, holding evidence for self benefit, animal activists are called abusers for trying to stop the true abusers, seeing animal abuse that is uncomfortable but not illegal, no laws against farm animal abuse, no one else is helping the animals, if workers see abuse they are told to report it to managers and even authorities

    -the videos being shown while the people were talking was distracting and made it harder to focus on what they were saying

    • davidbdale says:

      3 points in recognition of your excellent note-taking technique of collecting the strong and weak rebuttals into groups. More than any other technique, that will probably help you to distinguish in your memory what works from what doesn’t. Nice work, Chippy.
      3/3

  5. starbucks732 says:

    -watched a video that was about for or against laws that intend to make criminal
    -her argument is that the opposing people want to end the industry
    -is it a fair refutation to say we want to keep out people that want to end our industry
    -protecting farms
    -no legit evidence: manipulate, propaganda
    -farm videos harm farm owners, farm families, and the industry
    -videos lead to prosecution, legislation, convictions
    -opponents use non radical anti-meat extremists
    -evidence of brutality to animals should be talked about to law enforcement rather than the media
    -abuse should be show to farm owners so they can fix the problem
    -no laws against farm animal abuse
    -if workers see abuse they are to report it to managers and authorities
    -she makes the point that farms are family owned but this doesn’t make any difference

    • davidbdale says:

      Not bad, Starbucks, but copying the refutations from the board without context is not as useful as categorizing them would have been. Which were strong and which were weak? Which supported the Ag-Gag laws and which opposed it?
      2/3

  6. studentwriter1212 says:

    A good rebuttal argument has a good understanding of the opposite point of view

    Example:

    animal Agricultural laws
    strong
    Protecting Farms
    No legit evidence
    manipulate flase not propanga

    people want to end the industry

    Weak
    farm videos
    harm farm owners
    families and the industry

    Green is the new red

    strong
    videos lead to prosecution,legislation, convictions
    opponents
    use raidcal anti meat extremists
    no laws for animals for food

    weak

    • davidbdale says:

      If you returned to these notes within a few hours of class to edit them, expand them, and clarify their meaning, they’d probably be very useful. As they stand, they’ll only frustrate your memory.
      2/3

  7. kingoflizards says:

    -“This article talks about…” NO do not say this. I know that you want to say this but stop doing it. It is an easy way to start a summary, but it is a waste of words. It communicates nothing important.
    -Communication and writing should be clear and specific.
    -Ag gag laws make it illegal to film abuse and not report it. If you know of animal abuse, you MUST report it.
    -If you find abuse at a factory, you report it to the police. The police then show the owner of the factory, and then the owner “fixes” the problem. This keeps the abuse from going public. Personally I think that system is broken. I think that the information about animal abuse at well known companies should be PUBLIC knowledge.
    -Identifying strong and weak arguments can make writing easier. Finding the strong and weak points from both sides gives a clear image of the argument.

    • davidbdale says:

      That’s nice, King. You’ve combined the two lessons. Your notes identify the importance of the video refutation exercise without having to detail the blow-by-blow.
      3/3

  8. aeks123 says:

    Always describe what the author said with detail instead of vaguely writing about what they “talked about.”

    The ag gag laws make it an obligation that animal abuse on farms have to report it within 24-48 hours. It makes the factory farmers that factory farmers are in support of these laws because showing that the animal abuse only happened on one occasion is easier to defend rather than a long period of time.

    A rebuttal argument doesn’t necessarily have to be the opposite of the thesis. Anyway that an argument can be angled works as a rebuttal.

    Strong refutations for ag gag laws:
    -they protect farms
    -no legit evidence in videos
    -people want to end the farm industry
    -evidence of abuse should go to authorities, not straight to the media
    -abuse should be reported to the farm owner to solve the problem

    Weak refutations for ag gag laws:
    -farm videos harm farm owners, farm families, and the industry as a whole
    -loyalty oath from farmers to report abuse
    -farms are family owned

    Strong arguments against ag gag laws:
    -videos lead to prosecution, legislation, and convictions
    -opponents are not radical anti-meat activists
    -animal activists are called abusers for trying to stop abusers
    -no laws that protect farm animals

  9. greeneggsandham234 says:

    -Always state what the author said, and not what he talked about
    -it is important to communicate exactly what the author says
    -it can mean the difference between communicating well and having no idea what the claim is

    Ag-Gag Laws: A resource
    -it is illegal of reporters to report of animal abuse on a farm
    -so essentially it illegal to report illegal activity(barring how bad the abuse is)
    -the laws have already been passed already by multiple states
    -the defense is they are protecting famers and the videos show no legit evidence
    -according to the defense they are designed to destroy the industry
    -the other sided defend that the videos lead to prosecutions and convictions
    -he also started out by rebutalling with saying what he agrees with it
    -he also say they are not radical animal rights activists, simply saying they want to inform the consumers what they are eating
    -they are basing animals but they are common industry practices
    -then she claims there are laws in place that if one sees abuse, they must report it
    -also those videos playing while she talked went really against her
    -in a rebuttal argument, it is vital to have actual defense, not just throwing noise out there

    Rebuttal Argument
    -due next Wednesday
    -the rebuttal argument will identify and demolish the strongest brutal to your thesis
    -it is important to note the attack on the position, and demolish those claims
    -for example, is one was arguing car seats aren’t as safe as they claim to be
    -The opposition would be large, so the challenge is to rebuttal with their arguments
    -rebuttal is to detail all the qualifications met to make a car seat safe, taken directly form the opens arguments

    • davidbdale says:

      Very thorough, Green Eggs. You covered it all with enough detail, organization, and analysis to make your notes effective in reminding you just what occurred.
      3/3

  10. therealjohnsanchez says:

    “Talks about” is vague and wastes words. Just say what they are saying.
    Something unique or not unique. I don’t think this is true. While something is either unique or not, there can be varying levels of unique. Something that is very different is more unique than something that only slightly different.
    Ag gag laws prevent people from showing systemic abuse at factory farms. They also raise an ethical concern. Is is fair to punish a person for not reporting a crime? Good Samaritan laws?
    Rebuttal is not for the opposite argument. It is for any other argument.
    poor rebuttals fall apart when examined.

    • davidbdale says:

      Your claim that unique is a term of degree would be completely true about unusual but not about unique because unusual means unlikely and could apply to millions of minority events whereas unique literally means “the only one of its kind.” The unique situation can’t be more or less “the only one of its kind.” A poet might disagree by claiming that, for example, poet Billy Collins was “more or less an only child” if he meant that Billy’s siblings were absent or died in infancy, but only with a wink to indicate a knowing disregard for precision.
      3/3
      Thanks for the argument. Want to respond? 🙂

  11. thecommonblackhawk says:

    Watch out for “talks about”
    knowing what the author talked about without knowing what was said is useless.

    If you have 15 weeks of steady documentations, you can make someone look bad through editing.
    Rebuttal argument is due Wed Apr 5 at midnight.

    Final position paper is due Wed Apr 19th
    _______________________________________________________________________________

    Refute by agreeing? Interesting way to make an argument.
    Undercover surveillance led to conviction
    Followed by direct refutation
    Points out who wants reform who are also not crazy animal activists
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    refutation: they go straight to the media instead of turning it in to someone who could do something about it.
    _______________________________________________________________________________
    Interesting point:
    How the same video being played during both arguments severely amplifies one and severely damages another.

    Lesson Learned: Use the term disingenuous in my argument.

  12. nobinaryneeded says:

    Ag-Gag laws obligate a person who gains knowledge of abuse at a farm to report that knowledge to report that to the law within 24-48 hours, but cannot “out” the factory farmers. It’s counterintuitive because it’s illegal to not report animal abuse, but is also illegal to discover it and report it.
    Rebuttal Argument – Argument against thesis. Adopt the very unpopular point of view and argue your own thesis. Take the opportunity to detail the rebuttal.
    Strong refutations don’t equal reality but are still good arguments
    If you lie on the application, you’re prosecuted

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s