TOW #10 – “Helping Autonomous Vehicles And Humans Share The Road”

In our modern era of technological advancements and efficiencies, items such as the autonomous vehicle are being developed without a truly clear understanding of the implications of such an item. Jeffrey Peters, who is a Postdoctoral Fellow at Stanford University, raised an important question to this age of development in his editorial, “Helping Autonomous Vehicles And Humans Share The Road.” Through the use of hypophora and rhetorical questioning, as well as didacticism, Peters opens the conversation surrounding self-driving cars to determine a safe way to incorporate the technology into our modern society. In the introduction, Peters questions, “How should we program them to handle difficult situations?” (Peters) which remains a major theme throughout the editorial. This employment of hypophora opens discussion to the underlying subtopic, which surrounds the ethics of programming a vehicle to determine the ‘greatest good of society,’ as suggested from any utilitarianism’s perspective. Still, Peters continues from this starting point to suggest the “ambiguity” of decision making, allowing him to employ another device: didacticism. The moral dilemma suggested by this era of intelligent technology is the extent to which humans should transfer that ambiguous decision making process to technology. Relying on the psychology’s most recurrent motif, the “trolley problem,” Peters examines how many variables can impact a life or death decision. The problem originally weighs quantitative data to determine the ‘greatest good’ of the situation, but via a rhetorical question, Peters investigates, “Would you, for example, save five children and let a senior citizen die?” (Peters). Sequentially, in order to deliver his didactic reasoning, Peters later compares, “…would an autonomous car that noticed a child running in the middle of traffic decide to run over your grandmother on the sidewalk instead?” (Peters). While either question may have a seemingly ‘right’ answer, Peters suggests that establishing a trust relationship with technology could, in the short-term, bring greater harms than benefits. Supported with sound reasoning, delivered using hypophora and didacticism, Peters effectively upholds an argument that while there is a clear issue with relying upon autonomous vehicles, they could prove beneficial to efficiency, and ultimately, utility.

Works Cited

Peters, Jeffrey C. “Helping Autonomous Vehicles and Humans Share the Road.” The Conversation, 15 Nov. 2016, theconversation.com/helping-autonomous-vehicles-and-humans-share-the-road-68044.

IRB Intro Post #2

Throughout the second quarter of the school year, I will be reading Politics, written by Aristotle circa 330 BCE. Aristotle laid the foundation of many current political policies and concepts, and I have an interest in observing the development of these political ideas. Likewise, supporting my interest in psychology and human nature, much of Aristotle’s writing focuses on the effective organization of humans to then achieve an effective governing body. Aristotle, as defined on the back cover, sought to define the exact balance between branches of government, a concept that is currently being replicated in 21st century America. I hope to gain a greater understanding of human nature and organization in order to form my own principles, in turn allowing me to be involved as a politically informed citizen.

TOW #9 – “Just Ducky” from Tom and Jerry

The 77^th episode of Tom and Jerry, “Just Ducky,” was produced in 1953 by Fred Quimby and serves to entertain a younger audience and promote humanitarianism to that target demographic (“Tom and Jerry”). While the cat and mouse combo continually antagonize each other throughout the episode with astounding resilience, this particular episode shows the importance of companionship via the use personification of the animated characters, as well as humor. Throughout the episode, the cat Tom antagonizes the innocent mouse Jerry and duck Quacker. The animals, able to walk and on occasion even talk like humans, are easily relatable, especially to the young children who would ordinarily watch cartoons like this one. The animals express an understanding close to that of humans, capable of having more complex thoughts that are not expected from them. Following the light mischief between Tom and Jerry, Tom accidentally falls into a lake after chasing Quacker. Unable to swim, Tom splashes around until Quacker, also unable to swim, jumps in after him to help. This scene specifically demonstrates the importance of humanitarian assistance to a younger demographic under the cliché relationship between a cat and mouse. Likewise, the directors’ use of humor is very significant to entertaining the audience and establishing an occasion in the show. With most of their actions, the animals do not sustain lasting injuries. For example, Tom is shattered with a brick at 1:14 but is miraculously present at 1:21, which allows the writers to include the playful fighting without continuing a narrative, making impactful moments like Quacker saving Tom more significant. This humor plays a significant role in engaging the audience because as shown, most Tom and Jerry cartoons make a strong appeal to pathos, which is often more intuitive to younger children than ethos or logos. Via the use of personification and humor, Quimby teaches a fundamental lesson about companionship, showing that even polar opposites, like a large cat versus a small mouse and duck, can work towards a common good.

Works Cited

Quimby, Fred, director. “Just Ducky.” Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1953, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIeHdbLca7o.

“Tom and Jerry Theatrical Cartoon Series.” The Big Cartoon Database, www.bcdb.com/bcdb/cartoon.cgi?film=3100.

TOW #8 – "Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever"

Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard details the events leading up to and directly following President Lincoln’s assassination. O’Reilly and Dugard focus on the influences Lincoln had on the nation, which gives a particular context to the devastating impacts John Wilkes Booth’s attack on Lincoln had on America. The host of a FOX news show, O’Reilly is famous as a historian (Editors), and as is Dugard for writing historical texts (Dugard). Most relevant to the intention of explaining the impact of the assassination, the authors manipulate syntax by concluding chapters with small sentences to leave a lasting message for the audience. For example, after explaining John Wilkes Booth’s convoluted plotting, the coauthors simply conclude, “John Wilkes Booth is expecting them” (O’Reilly and Dugard 176). Following pages of very detailed information, O’Reilly and Dugard effectively use these short statements to summarize most generally what was happening, as well as to generate an appeal to pathos. This short, albeit complete sentence contributes largely to the authors’ purpose of explaining how large an event Lincoln’s death truly was. Furthermore, following the attack on Lincoln, the coauthors employ anaphora to emphasize the immense impacts Lincoln’s brain (in itself an example of synecdoche) had on the nation: “It struggled with war… It imagined stirring speeches that knit the country together… It guided [the signing of] the Emancipation Proclamation, giving four million slaves their freedom” (O’Reilly and Dugard 229). Including this background information argues the validity of the title, that Lincoln’s death truly did change America. The parallel structure achieved using anaphora contributes to building an extensive list of Lincoln’s impacts, further showing the audience the context of Lincoln’s death. All of the items in the list serve to explain Lincoln’s positive contributions to the American government, helping the authors explain fully why Booth's attack on Lincoln negatively impacted America. Via the multiple devices employed, including the syntax of small sentences and anaphora, the coauthors successfully achieved their purpose of explaining the large, devastating impact that Booth's assassination of Lincoln had on America.

Works Cited

Dugard, Martin. “About.” Martin Dugard, http://www.martindugard.com/about/.

Editors, Biography.com. “Bill O'Reilly Biography.” The Biography.com Website, A&E Networks Television, 2015, http://www.biography.com/people/bill-oreilly-9542547#personal-life.

O'Reilly, Bill, and Martin Dugard. Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination That Changed America Forever. 1st ed., New York, Henry Holt and Co., 2011.

TOW #7 – “No. 10: The Same Subject Continued” from The Federalist Papers

James Madison, also known as the “Father of the Constitution,” made significant contributions to The Federalist Papers, valuable documents that served to defend the United States Constitution shortly after it was created (“James Madison”). Along with Alexander Hamilton and James Jay, Madison sought to defend the newly-created Constitution, which encompassed ideas of republicanism, as well as democracy. Arguably one of the most influential essays in The Federalist Papers was Madison’s “No. 10: The Same Subject Continued.” In this text, Madison used two prominent rhetorical devices, metaphors and hypophora, to defend the arguments made by the Constitution. While explaining the relationship between liberty and disunity, Madison stated, “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires” (Hamilton 73). Madison, comparing faction to fire, claimed that while taking away liberty would destroy any chance for disunity, liberties must be protected and factions supported in a republic. By comparing this removal of rights to extinguishing a fire, Madison appeals to pathos in his audience, encouraging them to keep the noble flame of revolution alive. Furthermore, Madison employs hypophora in his essay to answer critical questions that would have been asked in the historical context in which The Federalist Papers was written. Madison asks, “Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority,” to which he responds, “Here again the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage” (Hamilton 78-79). Madison is essentially claiming that the republic established by the Constitution will support all persons beyond the majority of the population, which was a large motivating factor for the Revolution to occur in the first place. By defending this principle, Madison shows that the Constitution is representative of what the people wanted from a new government following British rule. Because Madison used logical reasoning to support his claims, and with the incorporation of rhetorical devices like metaphors and hypophora, Madison effectively argued in favor of the Constitution, assisting in the adoption and acceptance of the document as a governing entity.

Works Cited

Hamilton, Alexander et al. “No. 10: The Same Subject Continued.” The Federalist Papers, Edited by Clinton Rossiter, Signet Classics, United States, NY, 2003, pp. 71–79.

“James Madison's Contribution to the Constitution.” America's Library, Library of Congress, www.americaslibrary.gov/aa/madison/aa_madison_father_2.html.