What is Kairos?

What is kairos? Reference.com defines kairos as an ancient Greek word meaning the right or opportune moment. To me it means being able to make your argument or proposal at the right time in the right place and to the right audience or group. It would not be favorable to propose the reduction of greenhouse gasses and carbon emissions to a town whose only source of income and employment is a steel mill (wrong audience). To make matters worse, present the same argument to the steel mill employees when they are in the midst of massive layoffs and severe unemployment (wrong time).

            Now that I have learned the meaning of Kairos, I realized that I have been utilizing it for many years without knowing it. When I was a detective, the majority of my time was spent conducting face to face interviews. These interviews were with victims of crime, witnesses and the suspects who had committed the crimes. During the interviews with the suspects, it was a cat and mouse game. I knew they committed the crime, but I needed the suspect to tell me in his own words that he did it. In walks kairos. You cannot just walk into an interview and ask the suspect “did you do it?” Timing is everything. You have to ask the right questions at the right time. You have to know when he is ready to talk. You also have to choose the right place to talk. It is not always best to talk to them at the police station. I have had many people confess to me in their own homes. To me this is kairos. The right place at the right time to the right people.

            Right now is the appropriate time for argument in support of our military personnel and special operations groups. With the elimination of Osama bin Laden by the U.S. Navy Seals kairos has never been better. The world is a safer place thanks to the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces. This is the right time to thank them and support them. I fell that this is the prime example of kairos. Those Seals were in the right place at the right time and definitely located the right audience.

Works Cited

“Kairos.” N.p. N.d. Web. May 9, 2011. http://www.reference.com/browse/Kairos?o=100084.

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8^th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.

Strategies for addressing opposing or alternate views

When dealing with opposing or alternate views, there are several paths you could take. You could omit the opposing view all together and act as if it does not exist. You could refute the opposing view by proving that it is false. You could concede to the opposing view by reluctantly admitting that the opposing view is at least partially correct. Or, you could incorporate the opposing view into your opinion.

            Arguments fall into one of three types. The types are the one-sided argument, the multisided argument and the dialogic argument. When writing an argument, one of the first things to consider is who is the intended audience and what is their point of view. Determining who you will be writing to will help you in deciding on which type of argument to utilize. The views of the audience will range from strongly supportive to strongly opposed and everywhere in-between. Attempting to gauge your audience’s position on the issue will also guide you in choosing the type of argument.

            The one-sided argument presents only your position on the issue without summarizing and responding to alternative viewpoints or opinions. It is direct and to the point. The one-sided argument is used when the target audience is strongly supportive of the issue and your intent is to put forth a new or different point of view.

            The multisided argument offers your position, but also summarizes and responds to potential objections and different points of view. This type of argument is practical when appealing to an audience that is neutral or undecided on the issue at hand. You would provide the opposing points of view, but then either disprove the opposition altogether or admit that the opposing view is only partially correct and restate your position on the issue.

            The final type of argument, the dialogic argument, is the utilized when appealing to a resistant audience. In this type of argument, you present yourself as uncertain or searching for an answer to the issue.  You are attempting to seek common ground or open lines of communication with the audience. You may never change the audiences mind on the issue; however you may reduce the resistance and persuade them to genuinely listen to another point of view. You might even begin to find solutions to mutual problems.

            When it comes to determining which type of argument to utilize, the single most important factor to consider is the audience. You must know your audience in order to succeed. If you do not know your audience, the argument is destined to fail and your ethos will be greatly damaged.

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8^th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.

Shark Slaughter

One of the more powerful proposal arguments that I have read recently is on the worldwide fishing practice of shark finning. The article was published on the web by Way Out West News, which covers environmental news from around the San Francisco Bay Area.

            The article affected me in several ways. I am an avid scuba diver and enjoy diving in the ocean. There is nothing more relaxing than being thirty feet below the waves, in crystal clear water, seeing every color of fish and coral that you could imagine. One of the ultimate goals of most divers is to see one of the big pelagic deep water predators. And, the prize sighting is a shark. I want to be able to go diving with the chance of seeing a shark. If the practice of finning is allowed to continue at the pace it is now, I may not be given that chance in the future.

            Shark finning is the practice of catching sharks, removing only the fins, and then throwing the shark back into the ocean to die. The fishermen catch the sharks anyway they can, in nets or on longlines, or just on handlines. Once they get the shark on the boat, they just cut off the fins and toss the shark’s body back. The shark cannot swim and will either bleed to death or drown, which sometimes may take days for the shark to die.

            The main reason for shark finning is a status symbol dish popular with Asian cultures: shark fin soup. Shark fin soup is usually served at special occasions such as weddings and banquets, or as luxury items in Chinese culture. As economies have boomed, the demand for shark fin soup has exploded. For this reason many countries have banned shark finning and require fishermen to bring in the entire shark. This policy is meant to slow the slaughter by limiting the number of sharks that can be taken at one time. The enforcement of these policies is near impossible. The new proposal is to ban the possession and sale of shark fins altogether.  Hawaii has already made it illegal to possess or sell shark fins and California has proposed such laws in legislature. China; however, remains the biggest market.

            I feel that the argument convinced me that we should all do something about the practice of shark finning. Just imagining the sheer number of sharks that are killed daily just for their fins is mind-blowing. The article also printed a picture of a man sitting in a warehouse surrounded by hundreds and hundreds of shark fins. It made me want to act right now.

            The author of this article pointed out all of the negative aspects of shark finning without undue criticism to any nationality or culture. The majority of radical conservationists would have insulted and offended people who are neutral or have a different point of view. I feel that the author gained the respect of the common reader by keeping to the facts and painting a picture of the plight of shark finning.

Works Cited

Gies, Erica. “San Fanciscans work to reduce shark slaughter.” Way Out News. February 16, 2011. Web. April 28, 2011. http://www.wayoutnews.com/2011/02/16/1867/.

Proposal Argument

This week’s reading assignment centered on the proposal argument. I will have to agree with the book in that this type of argument is the most common. Even in my profession, Law Enforcement, the proposal argument seems to be the most prevalent. As the operations supervisor, I am responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Police Department. One of those functions is to answer citizen complaints that are received by the City Manager, Mayor and City Council. The responses to these complaints are normally written in the form of a letter. Contained in the letter are an overview of the complaint or problem, possible solutions to the complaint or problem, and whether or not the solutions are feasible. This seems to fall right in line with the structure of the proposal argument.

The proposal argument generally contains three parts. The first part is a description of the problem. For me this usually comes from a citizen or Council Member complaint. An example would be that a citizen made the complaint that a certain intersection in the city seems to have a lot of pedestrians hit by vehicles when crossing the street. This appears to be a valid concern. I would then analyze all traffic accident reports at that intersection and determine if there are an unusual number of pedestrians being hit by vehicles. If the results indicate that there are a disproportionate number of accidents involving pedestrians at that intersection then I would go on to step two.

Step two is to examine a number of possible solutions to the problem. The solutions need to be realistic and attainable. Using the example above, possible solutions for the problem intersection could be better marked crosswalks, crosswalk signals, or reducing the speed limit near the intersection. You could even go as far as an elevated cross walk or tunnel under the street.

The final step is to justify the solution. One part of justifying the solution is to try and foresee opposition to the proposals. If I can anticipate the resistance and counter their opposition with solid facts and knowledge then the argument and proposals should succeed.  For me the justification comes from whether or not the city can afford to pay for the proposed solutions. Marking the crosswalk better, crosswalk signals and reducing the speed limit are relatively inexpensive fixes that would possibly correct the problem. If they do not work, then the more expensive elevated crosswalk or tunnel may need to be constructed.

            I would then conclude the argument by summarizing and restating the main issue or problem. In my example the main issue is pedestrian safety. By acting now and correcting the problem, the life saved may be yours.

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8^th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.

Rhetorical Triangle

One of the ways that effective writers use to successfully persuade their intended audience in an argumentative writing is through the use of the rhetorical triangle. Each point on the triangle represents one of the persuasive appeals. The persuasive appeals are the Logos, the Ethos, and the Pathos. Lagos is Greek for “word” and applies to the quality of the message. Ethos is Greek for “character” or the credibility of the writer. Pathos is Greek for “suffering” or “experience” and centers on the values or beliefs of the audience.

            Examining the terms more closely, Logos to me is the main body of the paper or speech. It is the topic of the argument and the additional information used to support the topic.  The reasons used to support the claim have to be reasonable and convincing. For instance, if I were writing a paper on preventing shark attacks in the Caribbean, one of the supporting claims could be reducing or eliminating shark feeding excursion near populated swimming areas. I think that this is a reasonable claim and is one of several that could be made to support the main topic.

            Ethos is the credibility of the writer and can be established before the article is written, during the actual article, or after the article has been written. This is how believable or trustworthy the author is or is not. My city recently hired a new City Manager. During the first few weeks of his new job, he was caught telling several lies during meetings with city employees. His credibility has been damaged beyond repair. He cannot be trusted now and I don’t believe he can ever be trusted. This can happen to a writer also. If during any writing he is uncovered as being untruthful, none of his argumentative papers will be believable. On the other hand, an author who has a reputation of being fair and impartial would be believable, even if some of his information might be questionable.

            The values and beliefs of the audience are called Pathos. When writing an argumentative paper, it is wise to know you audience. When writing the paper, ask yourself how can I get the audience to feel how I feel about the topic? Using the example above on shark attacks, I would take a different approach when writing to the dive operators whose livelihood depends on shark feeding excursions than if I were writing to the managers and staff of the vacation resorts. It all comes down to, who am I writing to and where do I feel their beliefs lie.

            So when writing an argumentative paper, the rhetorical triangle is an approach that should always be in the back of your mind. Use information that is logical and reasonable when supporting the topic, know your audience and their values, and always strive to acquire and maintain a high level of credibility.

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8^th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.

The Toulmin System

The Toulmin system is an argumentative style of writing using an audience based courtroom model. In the 1950’s, philosopher Stephen Toulmin developed his system to change the existing models based on formal logic. Toulmin’s system is based on the theory that assumptions and assertions are contestable by opposing council and the verdict about the persuasiveness of the argument will be rendered by a neutral third party, the judge and jury.

            This system made a lot of sense to me right from the beginning. I am a former detective with over 10 years of experience in criminal investigations and courtroom testimony. When referencing the courtroom or investigations, I could relate. When investigating a crime, I would gather all the evidence of the crime and then put myself in the shoes of the defense attorney. I would try to anticipate what questions the attorney would possibly ask and then answer them during the investigation and prior to entering the courtroom. This seems to be the same as the Toulmin system, present and support the claim, anticipate and counter any rebuttal, then qualify the claim.

            The Enthymeme is an argument in which the conclusion is not given. The Enthymeme combines a claim with a reason expressed as a because clause. The audience must then supply the missing assumption. This is similar to the opening argument of a trial. The defendant killed his wife because she was cheating on him. The audience must assume that the killing of the wife was illegal.

            Grounds are supporting evidence that cause the audience to believe the reason. These are the facts of the case. The who, what, when, where, how, and why that would lead you to believe the husband killed his wife because she was cheating.

            Warrant is the value, belief or principal that the audience has to hold if the reliability of the argument is to be assured. This would be that that the husband did kill his wife and that killing her was intentional and illegal.

            Backing is the argument that supports the warrant. In this case, the evidence that shows the husband intentionally killed his wife and the killing was illegal is the backing.

            Rebuttal is areas where a skeptic can attack the arguments given by the writer. These are areas where the writer did not convincingly argue his points or provide sufficient information for an audience to believe him. This is the defense attorney’s job during a trial. The defense attorney will try and raise doubt about the arguments the prosecuting attorney made. If all the information about the case is either not gathered or not presented during the trial, the defense attorney will raise doubt whether the husband did kill his wife.

            Finally the qualifier is used to indicate the degree of probable truth of the claim. During a trial, the closing argument is the qualifier. The prosecuting attorney will summarize the entire case and inform the jury that if prosecutor’s argument was believable, the jury should find the husband guilty of killing his wife. 

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., Bean, John C., and Johnson, June. Writing Arguments, A Rhetoric with Readings. 8^th Ed. New York, NY. 2010. Print.

Blog 2

Immigration Reform Dilemma

            In the nation today, not a day goes by that you do not hear something about immigration. People on one side of the issue believes that we should close off our border with Mexico, and not allow any illegal aliens into the United States. The other side believes that illegal immigrants from Mexico are sorely needed in order for the country’s economy to remain stable. The remaining people are either undecided or uncaring based on the fact that the dilemma does not affect their daily life, so they think.

            The segment of U.S. Citizens who wish for the border with Mexico to be closed call for this for many reasons; however one of the main reasons is that Americans are losing jobs to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are “doing work that Americans won’t” and for wages that are far less than Americans are willing to work for (Wagner). Another reason is that illegal alien street gangs and criminals come across the border to set up shop in the United States. These criminals commit violent, heinous crimes, and when caught are only deported back to their home country.

            The opposition to closing the border and deporting all illegal immigrants are citizens that believe the illegal immigrants are needed to keep the country’s economy stable. The belief is that if there were no illegal immigrants to work in the fields, farms and factories, the cost for food and most everything else purchased would go through the roof. According to Chris Isidore in a CNN article in 2006, "Without the immigrants, we would have a decline in labor force of 3 to 4 percent," he said. "We couldn't have grown nearly as much as we did in the '90s if we didn't have immigrants.”

            I can only comment from a law enforcement view. People ask “why don’t the police just round up all the illegal immigrants and deport them back to their own country?” The answer is that unless the person has committed a crime, City, County and State law enforcement officers cannot even ask the person if they are illegal aliens or have a green card. The immigration laws are federal laws and only federal law enforcement officers can enforce them. Local law enforcement has no power to investigate or enforce any of the immigration laws. When referring the violent crimes committed by street gangs and violent criminals, again law enforcement’s hands are sometimes tied. If an illegal immigrant is accused of a violent crime, a large number of times the individual is deported, or flees back to his home country prior to any court proceedings. Law enforcement is just as frustrated as everyone else on the issue of violence committed by illegal immigrants. The legislature needs make up its mind and take a stand one way or another. The majority of illegal immigrants are decent, hard working people who just want to make a living. If we look back just one generation or two, we would more than likely see immigrants in our own family tree. I know there are in mine.

Works Cited

Isidore, Chris. “Illegal Workers: Good for the US Economy.” N.p. May 1, 2006. Web. March 27,      2011. http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/01/news/economy/immigration-economy/index.htm.

Wagner, P. “The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration.” N.p. N.d. Web. March 27, 2011. http://www.us.illegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_jobs.html.

Blog 1

Writing Is Like ________

Writing is like going to the pistol range and having to qualify. As a police officer I am required to certify with all the firearms that I may need to use in the fulfillment of my duties. This is required so that all police officers are proficient and familiar with firearms that we depend on to protect the community and ourselves. To me, writing is the same.

When you receive the writing assignment it is the same as when you find out you are required to go to the range. There is a little excitement and bit of nervousness. Will I have a very good day and qualify well, or will I succumb to the stresses of the day or week and totally mess it up? This is the same as with writing the paper or assignment. Will I have a killer paper with no mistakes, or will I choke and forget to cite my references, check spelling, or just sit and stare at a blank screen and have no idea where to start? This is where I usually have problems with an assignment, the starting point. I sit and ponder how to start. Many ideas float around in my head but I can’t seem to get them onto the paper. The content of the paper is all jumbled up, and in no order. Once I get going, however, I usually have few problems. As I stated in the beginning, writing to me is like going to the qualification range. Sometimes I don’t hit the target, but sometimes it goes off with a “BANG”.
            The majority of my writing is in the form or directives and instructions. I am the operations commander for the police department. I am responsible for the day to day management of the majority of police officers and civilian employees. My writing consists of informing people of what to do, when and where to do it, and sometimes how to do it. Most of these directives are in the form of e-mails and are usually short and to the point that does not usually require proper composition skills. I am also more of a talker. I would rather speak with someone face to face then to correspond in writing.

I am a nontraditional student that has just returned to college. The last time I was formally enrolled in a brick and mortar University was in 1985. I have received numerous hours of college credits, but the majority of those were law enforcement related training courses. Since returning to “college life” and attempting to obtain my degree, I have found that it is requiring more writing than I anticipated. I do not feel that this is a bad thing because just over the last few months my writing skills have improved. One stumbling block was the use of APA and MLA formatting. My first exposure to these formatting styles was just this last year in the FBI National Academy. All papers were required to be in the MLA style format, and I had never used either method. I learned quickly with the help of my 22 year old son, who is a senior at WVU. I am excited to complete more assignments so that I can better myself in the area of proper communication in writing.