Cogent and Fallacious #4-Some Mormons pushing church on gay marriage

I came across this article on thespectrum.com.  The article describes how many people of the Mormon faith have friends and family that are LGBT.  It states how it is hard to have loved ones that are gay or lesbian and to belong to a church that is not welcoming to these loved ones.  The article talks about a group that is pushing the church to be welcoming to the LGBT people and make them feel more comfortable in the congregation.  The group realizes they will most likely not change the established doctrine for the very conservative church, but they only hope that they will be more accepting.

I think the reasoning in cogent.  Most people, nowadays, do know someone that is either gay or lesbian.  It is hard to be part of a religion that is so discouraging against these people, but to only see loved ones get rejected.  The world's view is changing on gay marriage and they can only hope that the church will receive revelation to allow it into the religion much like the black's receiving the priesthood or getting rid of polygamy.  These are instances where the church has changed their doctrine/policies.

http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/local/2014/10/12/mormons-pushing-church-gay-marriage/17165871/

Cogent and Fallacious #3-Voice Activation Systems While Driving

As I searched the New York Times online for current news I came across Voice Activation Systems Distract Drivers, Study Says. This was a study conducted at the University of Utah.  It is proposed that the voice activated systems are just as bad as texting while driving.  Siri from the iPhone, turns out, is not a good alternative to texting and driving.  The systems can not understand the commands from the driver which makes it more frustrating.  An example given was when someone tried to change the radio and instead it changed the temperature in the car.

I believe this is cogent.  The tests and statements that were made seem to be accurate.  I could understand that if I wanted to change the radio station in the car and it changed the temperature instead, it would be more distracting than actually taking my hand off the wheel to turn the knob to change the station.  These systems will have to be very precise and accurate for them to be less distracting for the driver.

Cogent and Fallacious reasoning #2-Wal-Mart's benefits

As I was searching for current news topics, I came across on the main screen of MSN.com through the slide show, there is a story titled Wal-Mart to stop health benefits for some.  In the story it states that because of the Affordable Care Act all companies are faced with rising health care costs.  Because of these rising costs many companies have to make a change to their employee's wages and benefits.  Arguments could be made on both sides: It is because of Obamacare that these companies need to make cuts. Or, the company needs to make adjustments on their own expense to give to their employees. The cuts that are being made are to the part-time employees that work less than 30 hours a week.  They somewhat hint that it is the fault of Wal-Mart and not because of Obamacare.  I feel this is cogent. Wal-Mart needs to make a change to continue with the benefits of their employees.

Whether it is because of Obamacare or not I think the company needs to figure it out.  Stopping health benefits to part-time employees is not the solution to this.  Wal-Mart brings in so much money that they should be able to give more to their employees.  I think the executive board could cut their wages and trickle it down to everyone else that makes their company succeed.  If they ONLY make 1,000,000 dollars instead of 5,000,000 annually they could give more to their employees.  Yes, health care costs have increased, but I think the responsibility comes down to the company.

Opposition Constructive-Death of Terrestrial Radio

In the closing of Dian Robinson's constructive argument she states, "The terrestrial radio stations that have a future will continue to be innovative with delivery, content, and revenue streams."  This statement has a great deal of truth to it.  However, it also states the direction that terrestrial radio is headed, no future.  Without a great amount of directional change, terrestrial radio will no longer exist.  The points that were made were leaning towards the decline popularity of traditional radio, with the optimism of having a future with the right ideas and positive thinking.  However, other forms of listening to music are just a few steps ahead of terrestrial radio.  Other forms of listening have already created innovative delivery, content, and revenue streams.

Terrestrial radio's delivery is a step behind compared to the others.  I admit, I still listen to traditional radio; However, I often find myself changing through the stations trying to find a song that I want to listen to.  With other forms, such as YouTube and iTunes (iPods), I get the songs I want to hear delivered to me instantly without listening to other songs in between.  In addition, Pandora delivers the genre of music I want. Although, if a song comes on that I do not want to hear, I just give it a thumbs down which means it will never be played on my station again.  With terrestrial radio that option is not there which makes this a step behind on their delivery.  I would have to listen to someone else's "playlist" hoping that they will eventually play a song I like.  I would not consider terrestrial radio an instant delivery form of listening compared to the others.

The content of terrestrial radio is lacking compared to the others.  With YouTube you can subscribe to someone's channel and stream through their music which gives the exact content you want.  Also, with YouTube you have the freedom to choose any song you want when you want it.  With an iPod it is your personal music list with the freedom, much like YouTube, of choosing the exact song at the exact moment you want it.  Also, as mentioned before, I have complete control of Pandora as to whether I like a song or not, and future songs are played based on my thumbs up or thumbs down.  The content terrestrial radio gives might deliver the genre of music I like, but it will never give me the right content on demand like the others.

Building revenue is what makes terrestrial radio a successful business.  Without revenue the business would be a flop.  However, the other types of music listening are gaining more revenue because they are nation, and also globally, wide. With iTunes you pay for only the music you want which is always under two dollars with unlimited times of listening to the song, no commercials involved. YouTube gains revenue by showing a three to five minute advertisement before the selected video, and often can be skipped after watching for ten seconds. Pandora is completely free to listen to, but they will have about a five minute advertisement about every seven songs.  In addition, Pandora also has the option of no advertisements if you pay a monthly fee.  Internet streaming has already been innovative with their revenue making iTunes, YouTube, and Pandora each multi-million dollar businesses. Terrestrial radio is nowhere near these dominating companies with the amount of revenue they bring in each year.

With the dominance of Internet streaming, terrestrial radio is suffocating.  Terrestrial radio will die because of these dominating companies.  As internet streaming gains popularity, the terrestrial radio is being ignored.  I can not vision a future for terrestrial radio because the other forms are being used each day.  With the help of smartphones, internet streaming is available everywhere giving us complete access to the right music, at the right time, with a minimal fee or fewer advertisements than terrestrial radio.  It is not delivering to the levels that internet streaming is, making them a "thing of the past".  If terrestrial radio does not have active listeners that aren't listening to the ads being played, then the businesses will not pay the radio station to play their ads if they are not being listened to.  Therefore, no revenue for the station which causes it to forfeit and go out of business which would be the death of terrestrial radio.

First constructive-Screen Time ruining society

As a young boy I was very active.  I loved riding bikes, jumping on the tramp, or just playing any sort of activity with other kids. I was continually in and out of the house creating games with any objects that might be beneficial.  Sometimes my creative games weren't always the best decisions I ever made; For example, playing apple baseball, with my cousin, in my grandpa's driveway which left hundreds of smashed apples covering the cement, might not have been the best decision.  Or even, having stick "boat races" in the small watering trenches of a garden: This was a harmless activity until my cousin and I realized that the dahlias were in our way, so we yanked the bulbs out for a clearer path for our boats.  The point is we were imaginative.  We created our own entertainment and only relied on our own ideas for self-fulfillment.  This self-entertainment is lacking in today's youth.  Now, the youth turn to screens for the fulfillment whether it is a phone, tablet, computer, or television.  Too much "screen" time is affecting our youth in a negative way by making them less sociable, becoming less physically active, and making our society more violent.

Because kids are continually using screens for entertainment they are losing their social skills.  A common scenario that I see is a room full of people and seeing young people playing games on a tablet or phone.  These kids are losing a great deal of knowledge and experience that they could be getting from other people.  As this scenario continues to happen their social skills diminish.  Which creates social awkwardness once they are approached.  Also, instead of being creative, as I was as a child, they rely on a video games for their entertainment.  It is not ideal for young people to be in a room by themselves glued to a screen rather than playing and socializing with friends and/or other neighborhood kids.  Doing this often leads to laziness in young people.

Another way that video games affect young people is they lose the ability to be physically active.  Just as I previously mentioned, if kids are choosing to sit in a lonely room playing video games, their physical abilities are getting ignored.  In fact, they are probably making it worse as they sit playing games as they eat something that might not be too healthy for them.  This lack of exercise is not healthy.  It is more important to go outside and socialize and play with friends.  Often as the young people sit by themselves and play these games they have a tendency to bottle up emotions, and they have no way of expressing them because they haven't learned how to socialize.

The content of these games are not always appropriate for the younger people.  Some games are very strategic with decisions the player has to make which often leads to a bloody, violent act.  This is not suitable for young children, yet alone adults.  As these inappropriate acts are being justified on a screen, it is often difficult to decipher between reality and fictional.  As those bottled up emotions, with no way of expressing them, overflow, a violent act could occur which puts the rest of society in danger.  I am not stating that the mass shootings are a result of video games, but I am mostly referring to the "gamers" as being disrespectful or snappy to peers and adults.  This is not healthy for society.  

It is bold to make these assumptions because even the "proof" that is provided is very subjective. Also, as a society, we have ourselves to blame for the screen time.  It is too convenient to put our children in front of a screen because they are not making messes, destroying the yard, or causing any trouble.  I just think back to my younger years and remember the fun times I had with friends and cousins.  Those memories aren't being made as kids are starring at a screen with nothing to gain or learn once the system is turned off.  As a society we should control the monitor time our kids, and ourselves, are using each day.  It is more important to socialize, be proactive, and learn to share and express our emotions to one another. 

Bike for Beards- Cogent and Fallacious #1

I found this article on ksl.com.  On September 26, 2014, "the beard revolution in Provo has begun."  Shane Pittson is the leader of the bike for beards organization that is petitioning the BYU dress code for allowing students to have beards. The dress code was made in the 1940s, and Pittson thinks it is outdated.  He had over 40 followers as they biked, rode scooters and skate boards, or roller bladed to the administration building cheering and playing loud music. Pittson approached the building's doors with the petition in hand only to find the doors were locked.  Pittson yelled, "We won't let this dream die!"

The opinions were that the dress code is outdated and should be reconsidered because many men have beards.  I believe this is cogent.  His opinions and reasoning made sense.  BYU students should be able to have beards if they want to.  They should not be sent home from the testing center if they have a little scruff on their faces; the article stated that Pittson's little brother was the one that got sent home.

As for now the dress code remains the same; Although, with this revolution happening, we may see a change.


Bike
for
Beards