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.