Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #4

Dress codes are very beneficial for high schools and they are needed, however, how far can school administration go before students reach their limit? Being in high school myself just over a year ago, I can say that I did hear plenty of complaints about dress codes. However, the high school I went to had the usual limits; no short-shorts, no tank tops, no stomach showing. This is just a normal dress code and it is something that students can usually handle and understand without feeling like their rights have been pushed. There were hardly any outbursts or protests from the students about dress codes that I attended school with. The same cannot be said about a high school in North Dakota. In an article I read titled, "Yoga Pants to Distracting for Boys? A N.D. School Cracks Down on Girls." I found this article browsing through The Christian Science Monitor webpage and it caught my attention. I was immediately interested to read about it because school dress codes have always been controversial, but I thought that banning yoga pants was pushing the limits of female students.

The principal of the high school held an after school assembly for all of the females in the school. During the assembly he played video clips from the movie Pretty Woman. Having seen this movie myself and knowing that it is rated R, I was immediately surprised that the principal was even allowed to play that movie in a school setting. The point he was trying to make through the use of the videos was that woman present themselves with how they dress and that yoga pants and tight pants need to be covered. Obviously, very few of the female students responded well to this. The female students protested and said that it was bias that school districts put limits on girls instead of teaching the boys that girls are not sexual objects.

I believe that the principals reasoning for the ban on yoga pants is fallacious. It was fallacious reasoning that the principal handled the female students in the manner that he did. The principals focus was on the males of the school. He didn't show any benefits for the females, or any sign that he was also going to talk to the male students about respect for females. Although yoga pants can be tight, they are still covering the body, and females should be able to wear them to school without worrying about how it is going to affect males test scores.

Opposition Constructive

Beauty Products

Every person in the world has used a beauty product at some point in their life. In fact, every person in the world who has any finances at all has used beauty products in the last month. Why? Because they are beneficial. The benefits of beauty products do not even begin to compare to the risks. When I say that most people even ask, are there risks? Hardly. The little amount of chemicals found in beauty products do pose a threat to skin and health. However, a huge part of that risk could be eliminated through women and men being well informed about their allergies.

Does it take time? Yes. Does it cost money? As do most things in life, yes. Are women less themselves due to beauty products? This is arguable. For example, when I had terrible acne in high-school, makeup was the sole thing I relied on to be able to act like myself without the embarrassment. But overall, does it cause health problems? This is a very broad question because there are so many different products and everyone reacts uniquely to different chemicals, but for the most part, no. Beauty products are not the sole blame for health problems.

First off, what are beauty products? Beauty products are, "Articles intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body...for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance." This includes makeup, lotions, nail polish, hair gels, hair spray, perfume, etc, basically most things that a large amount of women love. This should be appreciated by men because that is largely part of the reason they marry their wives, have relationships, or even flirt.

Beauty products have been around for millenniums, women would not continue to use these products if they were truly causing non-reversible health problems.The benefits of beauty products are endless. Beauty products help with good hygiene, confidence, sun protection (applied in most face makeups), dry skin, oily skin, etc. Every person has a different need and they find the cure through beauty products. Whether that be physically or emotionally. Physically being whether or not they need lotion to protect their cracking hands. Emotionally being covering up blemishes to feel comfortable and sociable in public without feeling ashamed of flaws.

How many news stories or reports are about beauty products causing health problems? Very little. That is because it happens very rarely, and when it does happen it is usually not because of the beauty product itself, but because of the persons body who is applying the product. Allergies are something that everyone has, and the beauty industry should not take responsibility in that if it is clearly labeled on their product. I believe that it is the buyers responsibility to be aware of what allergies they have to certain chemicals before they buy the product. Women need to be informed and cautious when buying beauty products, not because of the product, but because of their allergies. Women should be consulting with dermatologists as a source to learn more about their skin type and beneficial products.

Another issue at hand is how difficult it can be to determine if the cause of some health problems are actually beauty products. This is because there is such a small trace of chemicals in beauty products and women use such small amounts every day, that if they were to track it, it would take ten to twenty years (depending on the usage) to determine the cause. An additional thing to remember is that beauty products are rarely used solely, women often mix different brands. The chemicals put in one product are not tested to withstand the chemicals of another product. This skews the results of tests that are determining what chemicals cause problems, however, the environment also plays a large factor.

Does makeup cause acne? For some people, yes. It's as simple as that. But that is why there are also beauty products known as cleansers. Washing your face morning and night can reduce acne caused by makeup that clogs your pores. However, acne can be much more severe than makeup-deep. From a personal experience of trying makeup after makeup, using different brands and checking ingredients, the problem came down to me. No matter what makeup I used or how many times I washed my face, the acne continued. This is where a dermatologist was extremely helpful! The only answer for my acne was a prescription, not a change in makeup because the makeup wasn't the cause. The makeup turned out to be my base of protection.

Overall, as a healthy woman, I can say I am so grateful for beauty products! I know that my makeup brings out the best in me. I feel less social and less confident when I am not wearing it. Yes, there are health risks to beauty products if women are not properly informed about their bodies and makeup chemicals. However, the risks do not begin to out-weigh the benefits of feeling wonderful through beauty products.

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #3

Anyone who has a facebook, which is the majority of the population, has seen a post or two that may have seemed skeptical. But how far is too far and at what lengths does freedom of speech apply? In my opinion, people are protected by freedom of speech until it threatens the lives of other people. When the constitution was being made and the first amendment was set in place to protect peoples basic freedoms, things such as facebook posts were not taken into consideration. Is a facebook post protected by freedom of speech? In an article I read, titled "Free Speech and Facebook", it questions the first amendment and challenges the Supreme Court to present a clear boundary on freedom of speech or the lack thereof.

The article I read was a story of a man using his facebook to vent in a threatening way. Him and his ex-wife had some quarrels and he wrote multiple posts about harming her, but he did it through rap lyrics. He even went as far as to post about performing a heinous school shooting he just didn't know which elementary school to pick since there were so many in his ten mile radius. When FBI officials caught attention of his postings, an agent showed up at his house and the man said, "the next time you knock, [I'll] touch the detonator in my pocket and we're all going boom.". After that bold move, the man was charged for violating a federal threat statute and sentenced to three years and eight months in prison. Currently, he is having his lawyers fight the case because the prosecutors did not have enough grounds at his trial to overcome freedom of speech. The government rejected the counter argument because they amount of fear the man caused to other people was enough.

Overall, I believe that the governments reasoning was cogent and the other mans reasoning had some fallacious factors.The governments reasoning was cogent because if everyone was allowed to post threatening things on facebook, no one would know if the person posting was planning on acting on their thoughts. However, I agree with the man that there does need to be more clarity on the subject of freedom of speech in the modern day. The mans reasoning was fallacious because he assumed he could post threatening things on facebook and threaten a federal agent and be protected by freedom of speech.

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #2

I read an article titled, "California Enacts Bill to Protect Female Farm Workers from Sex Abuse". I found this article on the PBS Frontline website and was immediately interested because I haven't heard about it in the news before. The article is about a law that has just been passed in California to protect female farm workers from sexual abuse. There are over a half of a million undocumented females working in fields all over America, many of which have been forced into sexual relationships by their supervisors. This has not been brought up before because the undocumented women who were being sexually abused lived in fear of being deported. These women had only one option and that was to give into the required sexual pressure put on them by their superiors. The issue was brought to attention by a documentary titled, "Rape in the Fields". This documentary brings to life the seriousness of the cruelty that is happening to many women who work in the fields.

Overall, I found the reasoning for this new law in California very cogent. The new law requires the middlemen, who provide the workers, to take more responsibility on stopping rape and sexual harassment. Whether or not the middlemen were aware of the situation before, they are now and it requires them to care more about the situations of the workers they are hiring. Another cogent requirement of the new law is sexual harassment training for labor contractors, supervisors, and all farm employees. Furthermore, the state of California can now revoke licenses from contractors who have participated in sexual harassment.

These are the women who pick and process food for America, and documented or not, they should still have their basic right of being able to say no to sexual assaults. The only question I have is, why haven't other states passed this law yet?

First Constructive

Stem Cells: The New Medicine?

For the past decade the United States government has been struggling with a very controversial question. Should embryonic stem cells be allowed to be harvested for scientific research? Although I think that the question that is really causing so much devise is; Do humans have the right to destroy potential life in order to further our ability to help others live healthier, more satisfying lives? These questions revolve around whether or not the government and the people of our country should take part in stem cell research. This topic normally produces either strong positive or negative opinions. Is there a solution to satisfy both the moral and educational constraint we are facing? There is too much to be gained from this research to waste time in the decision making stage of the process. While other areas of the world are making huge advances in their science and medical fields, the U.S. is slowing its own progress with our indecisiveness. There are many new and wonderful technologies to be discovered through study of stem cells and their inherent qualities. To consider the prospects of stem cells it is important to examine and explore what they are, why its field is so contentious, and what the benefits would be for the United States encouraging and funding stem cell research.

 
The definition of stem cells is, “cells with the ability to divide for indefinite periods in culture and to give rise to specialized cells ”. What this means is that stem cells have the capability to form into many different kinds of cells that perform very specific functions. For example, a single stem cell has the potential to turn into a red blood cell, a liver cell, a skin cell or most any other type of cell that performs a specific function. Once a stem cell has adapted to fulfill the roles of a specific cell type it then performs as that cell for the remainder of its life. They are called stem cells because, like the stem of a tree, they can branch off into many separate branches of cell utility. 

     
 It was obvious to scientists that these stem cells offered major possible benefits to humans if they could control what types of cells they transform into. Because stem cells have the potential to replace cells in the human body scientists hoped that they could use them to replace or heal many separate organs in humans. Children born with deficient lungs could have them improved to regular function by the use of stem cells. Veterans who lose limbs in war could have them restored. We are finding more and more that stem cells really are able to reach their desired potential in helping heal and improve people’s lives.

   
 Discoveries like this give us further insight into the immense positive impact that studying stem cells can have on our ability to study and treat medical illnesses. It is clear that we need to further our understanding of stem cells by expanding the research that is being done on these remarkable life forms. Some areas of stem cell research are ethically debatable, but the areas that show the most potential for benefiting human lives stay safely inside the boundaries of right and wrong. 

     
 Everyone knows at least one person with a disability. What if this disability could be healed through the use of stem cells? The two barriers standing in the way of this are money and moral issues, although I personally believe that these are not true issues. The solution to the financial issue is simple. If there are 319 million people in america and everyone paid only fifty-cents (one time) it would more than double the budget for stem cell research. In the year 2013 the embryonic stem cell budget was 146 million for that year. In comparison to the war in Iraq, the budget that year was 800 million. We are sending troops out to war and bringing them back with no way of replacing their lost limbs. Fifty-cents is less than a candy bar, it is well worth it for the overall cause. The second issue at hand is the morality debate. This too can be resolved if people understood that only fetuses that have died of natural causes are being used for embryonic stem cells. It does not relate to abortions because no form of life is being taken to continue the research. 

     
The opportunity of human regeneration would seem to rank in one of the most noble causes of human endeavor.  It can offer people a chance to heal and renew body parts that have been inflicted either from natural causes or a service to ones country. 

Cogent and Fallacious Reasoning #1

I read a news story titled "You Won't Believe Why a Neighbor Called the Police on this Parent". I found this story through a link that was posted on facebook. I found it intriguing because the title already sounded like it could have fallacious reasonings within the story. The story is about a mom who was watching her kids play outside, and apparently so was the neighbor. The daughter and son were out playing with the dog 150 feet away and when the daughter brought the dog inside the boy stayed outside alone. The neighbor took it on as their responsibility to take the boy into their house where there was adult supervision. The neighbor then called the police and child protective services. I would say that the neighbor had fallacious reasoning thinking that it was okay to bring the child into their home and that it was bad that the boy was playing outside when they didn't check to see if he was being supervised.

There is so much fear in people now days about playing outside that it has stopped kids from getting the physical exercise they need. Many parents would rather have their kids sitting down playing, occasionally violent, video games than having the risk of them being outside. As obesity continues to become a large problem in our society, young kids are being stopped from playing outside by nosey neighbors. Other than the problem of obesity, I found it very problemsome that the neighbor brought someone elses child into their home with no permission. The parent of the children was furious that their privacy was taken from them and that they had to be interviewed by child protected services for simply letting her kids play outside.