Casual Rewrite- Beyonce1234

Professional Baseball Batters Vs. Professional Softball Pitcher

Should a professional painter be expected to complete a grand sculpture perfectly with out any mistakes? This painter only has painted  portraits, landscapes, and morals all their life. Doing something new for the first time is difficult in general. Just because this painter is an artist, people usually believe that artists are good at all kinds of art, but that is not always the case. Does this mean that completing art sculptures are harder to do than being a professional painter? Because a professional athlete is not good at another sport, does it make that sport a harder sport to play?

In the game of baseball and softball, pitchers dominate. The game is won on the act of who can make the other team’s hitters, hit less. Professional softball pitcher, Jennie Finch, is one who dominates every time she steps in the pitching circle. By nature, people love a good challenge, so professional baseball hitters like to face the all powerful and mighty, Ms. Finch. Professional hitter, Albert Pujols, accepted the challenge and stepped up to the plate. Due to Pujols not ever seeing a ball rise before, he couldn’t touch it. This got people thinking; if college players hit Finch before, then why can’t professional ball players touch her?

This doesn’t mean that the pros aren’t has good as they think they are because they truly are very good, but this just means they don’t practice hitting softball pitching as much as baseball pitching. This also could mean softball batters are pretty good in the fact that they can even touch this pitching. The movement of a softball pitch is completely different than a baseball pitch. The professional baseball hitters are not used to the angle. If they were, they would then be able to touch the ball more accurately. Due to the fact that it was Pujols first time ever to see this pitching, it was difficult for him. With more and more practice, there is a chance that he could perform better.

However, Finch is the best of the best, there is most likely a softball pitcher that Pujols can touch that is not Jennie. Another scenario was when Finch participated in the Pepsi All-Star Game in 2004; Finch faced more MLB hitters. “No sooner did Finch arrive at the mound then the defensive players behind her sat down.” Though their assumption is humorous, this states that Finch would go to strike out each MLB batter of the inning.

The batters reaction time to the ball has not been worked on to face a softball pitcher. Practicing this will allow better timing to the ball. When athletes practice timing, they are making sure they can execute skills “without thinking.” By practice how to come in contact with a rise ball, batters then will expect it at bat. Now that this a practiced, maybe even mastered, batters can then focus on if the ball will be inside or outside.

This can prove that MLB hitters can be expected to not hit Finch on a first try, but being the professional athlete they are, they can practice and hit her the second time. Most hitters don’t see a second at-bat with Finch because they never want to go through that humiliation ever again. Therefore, trying to prove that hitting a softball is harder to hit than a baseball is not reasonable. Studies can not be accurate because the only way to prove this to be so is if there were an athlete who practiced hitting both for an equal amount of time.

Works Citied

A Women’s Softball Pitcher vs. the Top Baseball Hitters…Who Wins? (n.d.). Retrieved November 06, 2016.

Tinley, S. (2014, July 24). Why MLB hitters can’t hit Jennie Finch and science behind reaction time. Retrieved November 06, 2016.

Rebuttal Rewrite- yankeeskid6

Races of different color aren’t protected by law enforcement but are targeted by them. Police using fire arms in a routine arrest has become more prevalent. It seems that instead of using their TAZE guns which according to Tim Dees an officer since 1979, “Few people can resist the stun of a TASER–I’d say far less than 1%.” Therefore, why do law enforcement officials use the deadliest technique more often than none? Reality is that many of these shootings actually turn out deadly for the non-officer which is most likely unarmed. Some crazy statistics show just how much cops abuse their privileges to hold a fire arm. It is said that officers killed nearly 102 unarmed African American civilians in 2015. That is nearly 2 each week. About 1 and 3 black people killed were identified later as unarmed. Out of all the unarmed people killed in 2015 37% were African American and that is despite the fact that African Americans only make up 13% of the entire population. Unarmed frican Americans were killed at a rate 5x faster than their white counter parts. With all the loss and carnage involved in these cases, rarely were officers arrested or charged of  crime. In fact only 10 of the 102 cases in 2015 resulted in an officer being charged. Only two of those 10 officers were convicted, and only one received jail time. The officer arrested cut a deal and got to serve his jail time for his full year sentence only on the weekends. We understand what justice is and this is not justice. The families of all those victims must now live without their son, daughter, father or mother. They have lost so much and the police have lost nothing. News reporting has opened our eyes to corruption and its our turn to act now. Protest groups such as “Black Lives Matters,” are so important to have to raise awareness. The corruption needs to stop, the evidence is there now it is up to us to convert change into society.

 

“Police Killed More than 100 Unarmed Black People in 2015.” Mapping Police Violence. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

https://www.quora.com/Why-dont-police-use-stun-guns-first-lethal-force-second-when-dealing-with-criminals-Why-dont-the-police-use-stun-guns-for-just-about-everything

 

 

Rebuttal Rewrite A13-Phillyfan321

 

My Thesis is that the NJ Sales Tax is not regressive because it does tax luxury or non-essential items and essential items are exempt.

So while the NJ sales tax does not tax groceries, clothing, and prescription medication, it does tax many items that people buy almost everyday that are not essential but people buy anyway. An example of this would be a daily trip to a convenience store for a cup of coffee. This cup of coffee is considered a non-essential item,so it is taxed. According to the NJ Sales Tax Guide, a cup of coffee bought ready to drink is taxable. Let’s say that cup of coffee costs $1, the current 7% tax adds the cost to $1.07. So after buying a cup of coffee every day the amount of tax one pays can add up over time, after 15 days the tax adds up to over $1. For someone who works two low wage jobs, that cup of coffee can prevent them from falling asleep on the job, so in a way the NJ sales tax does tax an essential item for people. Though they can avoid paying the sales tax if they buy coffee beans and brew their own coffee. So if someone brews their own coffee at home, they are avoiding the sales tax.

Another example of the sales tax taxing something that can be essential is labor. The State of New Jersey generally writes memos that makes it easy for consumers and people who own a business to know what is taxable and not taxable. In one memo, the State Division of Taxation says that labor like maintenance or landscaping are subject to the sales tax. So if a family is in desperate need of a new floor or had damage done due to a natural disaster, then they are paying a tax. But insurance premiums are not taxed, so the family can buy home insurance to avoid paying the sales tax. Paying for insurance in general is better than having to pay the costs completely out of pocket. The insurance company will pay for the labor and materials.

While this may not be an issue now as much as it may have been twenty or thirty years ago, but the sales tax does tax tobacco products, which many people still use today. Some people struggling with nicotine addiction may say that cigarettes are essential for them. While the State of New Jersey not only makes tobacco subject to the sales tax, the State sets minimum prices on a pack of twenty cigarettes. According the an article from the State Division of Taxation there is a minimum price that a retailer can sell a pack of cigarettes for. It is an obvious fact that one does not need cigarettes to survive. So the sales tax should be applied to tobacco, but nicotine gum is exempt. A person who is trying to quit smoking can buy nicotine gum, which is tax free.

Works Cited

“NJ Sales Tax Guide.” (n.d.): n. pag. 2006.

NJ Division of Taxation – S & U Tax: Home Improvements.” NJ Division of Taxation – S & U Tax: Home Improvements. N.p., 20 Oct. 2014. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. b. 13 Nov. 2016.

NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION MINIMUM LEGAL PRICES ON CIGARETTES AS OF AUGUST 2, 2016 (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Causal Rewrite- belladonna98

The Neglect of College Students’ Emotional Well Being

At college, new students experience immense change. According to Brian Harke of the Huffington post, students come to college “overly optimistic and confident in their ability to manage the challenges they will encounter at college.” They struggle to manage new, unprecedented stress. Students who attempt to cope by delving into extreme parties or unhealthy relationships radically dysregulate.

Of course, there is the academic side of college, the main cause of stress. Students think that they can handle college academics, and often get a reality check in the form of a failed test or paper. College academics can get so stressful that experts write entire books on how to deal with said stress, such as “College Success” created by the Extended Learning Institute and Lumens Learning. But stress is not limited only to academics in college.

Many students know only the positive stories they’ve heard from their parents about “The College Experience” of decades ago. Talking about the “College Experience” as if there is a standard for activities in college does not help students in the least. Instead, pressure is put on them to achieve not only academically but also socially. The wild and sometimes-exaggerated stories set even more expectations for students to fulfill, so forced relationships and parties with unfamiliar and possibly unhealthy people occur. Non-organic interactions can cause dysregulation, as they did not happen naturally, they are forced, and they are unhealthy. Obviously, not all relationships and parties are inherently unhealthy or cause dysregulation, but it is important to consider the related statistics.

82% of college students have admitted to using verbal violence against a romantic partner, often brought on by the use of drugs or alcohol. In that vein, 44% of college students have been classified as binge drinkers. In those relationships and parties seen as part of the college experience, a good amount of dysregulation exists.

The immense change that college students are undergoing, and the pressure felt by many of them causes the dysregulation described by the earlier statistics. Not only academic pressure, but that to somehow “succeed” socially, if that is even possible. A student under almost constant stress who is not recieving help is bound to suffer from dysregulation. This brings me to my original point; college students need DBT. Once we stop looking at dysregulation as a part of being at college and see it as a real problem that has a clear solution, we are on the path to fixing it.

Works Cited

Ed.D., Brian Harke. “High School to College Transition, Part 1: The Freshman Myth.” The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 22 June 2010. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Shook, Nancy J., Debora A. Gerrity, Joan Jurich, and Allen E. Segrist. “Courtship Violence Among College Students: A Comparison of Verbally and Physically Abusive Couples.” SpringerLink. N.p., Mar. 2000. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Wechsler, Henry, George W. Dowdall, Andrea Davenport, and Sonia Castillo. “Correlates of College Student Binge Drinking.” American Journal of Public Health, n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

ELI (Extended Learning Institute at NOVA), Lumen Learning. “College Success.” Candela Learning. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

Rebuttal Rewrite- belladonna98

DBT Doesn’t Fail- Therapists Do

 

Therapists whose patients don’t improve with DBT complain that it doesn’t work in extreme cases of BPD and emotional dysregulation. In one case, Shireen L. Rizvi had a patient named Barbara whose condition was not improved, and whose disorder may have been worsened, by the improper application of DBT. Barbara had BPD, social anxiety, severe depression, PTSD, and was an abuse survivor. Rizvi’s treatment was incompetent.

Over the course of six months, Rizvi struggled to treat Barbara, later blaming her failure on the “therapy-interfering behaviors” of her patient such as asking her therapist very personal questions, calling her in crisis daily, and not making eye contact. Rizvi’s response to these behaviors is what makes her argument that DBT didn’t work here completely invalid. Rizvi admitted to outright ignoring some of Barbara’s behaviors in many ways. She failed to indulge in and therefore validate the behaviors. The very basics of DBT state that a patient must feel validated in order to receive treatment. Maybe partially answering a question or asking her why she didn’t make eye contact would have been an improvement. Rizvi instead let them agitate her and obstruct her own practice.

While Barbara did overstep the patient-therapist line (she had had a romantic affair with a previous therapist, so she didn’t understand it in the first place) Rizvi’s response should have been one of understanding and willingness to help, not one of agitation and rejection. Rizvi admitted to being a “novice therapist”, but as someone who is not even a therapist yet, I can see that that is no excuse. She looked at Barbara and saw not a person but a set of symptoms: mistrust of authority, boundary blindness, disassociation, crippling anxiety. Well-administered DBT could have helped Barbara; her therapist did not.

Therapists need to take into account the state of their patients and how to best treat them. They cannot look at every patient as the same textbook set of symptoms, they have to see the patient as a whole person. Barbara may fit the criteria for rigorous DBT, but would not be able to handle it. She most likely would have done better under a less structured form of DBT, as one who has had little structure in her life to begin with. She is not familiar with such intense dedication to one thing, a thing which she is not even convinced is worthwhile yet. So, giving her small tidbits of DBT in her therapy sessions would not only have given the therapy more meaning to her, but made her more receptive to it.

Another example of DBT failure is one I found on a forum for people with BPD. This time, we see the patient perspective on the issue. A user we’ll call Cabdriver gave a list of explanations on why DBT wasn’t working for him and how it was flawed. The list consisted of a combination of him not practicing his skills and his therapist punishing him for it. He found the skills boring and unhelpful, and would lie to avoid punishment and say that he did them when he hadn’t.

Therein lies the problem: a therapist should never punish a patient. Apparently, Cabdriver’s therapist would become irreverent or even take breaks from therapy when Cabdriver didn’t practice his skills regularly. This is probably an extreme case, but it is troubling. Again, I reference that one of the key principles of DBT is validation, and a patient cannot possibly feel validated if he is constantly fearing punishment. A person can’t fear his therapist; therapy is supposed to be a safe space where someone can admit to anything without judgement. He may be held accountable for his actions, but he shouldn’t have to fear a slap on the wrist. Patients are adults; treat them as such.

The solution here lies in both the patient and the therapist trying a bit harder. The therapist needs to try to convince Cabdriver that the skills are worthwhile, as the punishment approach is ineffective and downright patronizing. Maybe Cabdriver needs a new therapist altogether. But he also must realize that the skills are there to help him, and they aren’t as black-and-white as they seem. Cabdriver often said things along the lines of “Have a problem? Practice your skills!” However, “practice your skills” can simply mean applying a new approach to a situation or changing thinking. It doesn’t always mean “sit and be mindful and all the world’s problems will disappear.” In the end, everyone involved with DBT just has to be open minded and accepting, and go from there.

Obviously not all college students are Barbara or Cabdriver and not all therapists are Rizvi. However, they may still have therapy interfering behaviors and not be the most eager to start DBT. That is why a very relaxed form of it is best. Reluctant patients shouldn’t be completely immersed in the therapy, or shut out like failures. Introducing DBT slowly in small pieces makes much more sense. The therapist doesn’t even have to officially declare “We’re going to do DBT now.” She can simply give skills that pull from DBT and mention the name, intriguing the patient. Patients who recognize the value of DBT are receptive patients.

Patients have to believe that the skills will help them, and that they can implement them successfully. Emotional validation, as Robins and Rosenthal say, is one of four core principles of successful DBT. The safer and more empowered a patient feels, the more likely they are to use therapy skills outside of the office, as I stated when giving cabdriver a solution. But of course, the person has to practice the skills in order for them to help. If someone completely ignores their skills and makes no progress, then what?  Successful therapists guide their patients through that process, from belief, to validation, to empowerment, to practice. The unsuccessful, who treat their patients like children throwing fits, drive patients away.

The bottom line is, it all comes down to the proficiency of the therapist. If they look at patients as textbook sets of symptoms who all need the same thing, no progress is going to be made. However, if they change their style to meet each patient’s needs, looking at them as a human being, it makes all the difference. This kind of care could benefit everyone, from the most resistant BPD patient to the scared college student. Therapists just have to be willing to try.

Works Cited

Rizvi, Shireen L. “Treatment Failure in Dialectical Behavior Therapy.” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 18.3 (2011): 403-12. Science Direct. 2011. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Robbins, Clive J., and Zachary Rosenthal. “Dialectical Behavior Therapy.” Acceptance and Mindfulness in Cognitive Behavior Therapy. John Wiley & Sons, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

User Cabdriver. “DBT: How Is It Working for You?” RSS. N.p., 19 Sept. 2010. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

Rebuttal Rewrite-theshocker69

The most widely-used argument for gun control holds that disarming our citizens, and taking away their right to a firearm will, in turn, end gun violence. The theory seems harmless- if the government incorporates and enforces gun laws in an attempt to end the sale and manufacturing of firearms, while also removing them from houses of American families will eliminate all guns from our society; preventing gun crime. However, this theory neglects many variables that play into the situation such as geographic location and culture. Although the idea is appealing upon hasty deliberation, the causal chain can take many darker paths.

In his Netflix original standup special, Jim Jefferies stated, “In Australia, we had guns. Right up until 1996. In 1996, Australia had the biggest massacre on Earth. It still hasn’t been beaten. Now, after that, they banned the guns. Now, in the 10 years before Port Arthur, there were 10 massacres. Since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn’t been a single massacre since… In Australia, we had the biggest massacre on Earth, and the Australian government went, ‘That’s it! No more guns!’ And we all went, ‘Yeah, all right, then. That seems fair enough, really.’Now, in America, you had the Sandy Hook massacre where little, tiny children died, and your government went, “Maybe… we’ll get rid of the big guns?’” Although this argument seems sound, Jefferies utilizes fallacious logic by comparing Australian citizens to American citizens.  Australia and America are two different countries (continents as well) that possess many cultures with varying beliefs, contrastive geological settings, and disparate political beliefs. Aside from the beliefs and feelings of individuals, Australia lacks the inflow of unregistered, illegally transported firearms as a result of an adjacent country. If the government took firearms away from American families, they would take away the citizen’s right to protect not only themselves, but their families from the criminals who purchase these illegally transported guns. Further, a fact check on Jefferies and his statement, “since the gun ban in 1996, there hasn’t been a single massacre:” at least twelve shootings that fit into the dictionary definition of massacre have occurred since the ban with countless other shootings, not to mention the increase in home invasions.

In 1971, the war on drugs began, a policy from the Nixon administration of which we are still feeling the negative results from. The main goal of the war on drugs was to drastically drop addiction and crime rates, spread the disastrous message of what drugs do to an individual, and most of all, eradicate addiction in America. However, the results were quite the opposite. Addiction rates skyrocketed, crime rates rose dramatically, and drug use is at an all time high not only for adults, but adolescents as well. Although drugs are illegal and punished so severely, people still choose to do them. It is only logical to believe that people will still buy guns even though it is illegal; through the black market. If guns were illegal to be owned, police would be the only ones fit to defend against a criminal. For that reason, if a criminal breaks into a family’s house, that family will be unable to defend themselves. Unfortunately, the family may wait up to an average of seven minutes before police arrive. The consequences of which could be fatal.

There are over 300 million guns in the US, compared to 324,118,787 American citizens. In what way could law enforcement, consisting of 1.1 million officers, remove so many guns, from so many families, in so many different locations?  In the case this somehow happened effectively, millions of families would be left without a chance to defend themselves, while a small demographic of our population owns a weapon; a threat to the rest of society.

By nature, no human needs a constitution granting them the right to defend themselves or their loved ones; a natural right. Second, the nullification of our second amendment cannot be warranted if there are actual uses for a firearm in a civil society.

Most of the citizens in Alaska own guns and utilize them for two things; food and defense. There is not much society within Alaska. There are very small amounts of roads, small amounts of people, and stores. Therefore, the people of Alaska must fend for themselves. Typically, the father of the house hunts to feed the family. Without their guns, the family cannot eat. To take away their right to a gun, because the rest of the country has the privilege to shop for food is inhumane. Also, even if our government were to include a clause that allowed the sale, use, and transfer of firearms in Alaska, that will be the new place where criminals can buy their guns and spread them across the country.

As one can see, the creation of the firearm began a catch-22 within the American culture. However, no matter your opinion of guns in our society, it must be admitted that guns do serve a function within our civil society. Yes, there is evil in this world, and the longer life goes on, the more apparent it is and there is nothing we may ever do to stop it, but American citizens must have the option to defend themselves. No matter your stance on the argument, a gun is protection, and no American needs a piece of paper to tell them they have the right to protect their life, liberty, happiness, and family.

Works Cited

“Jim Jefferies Has Got Gun Control All Wrong. • /r/progun.” Reddit. Therevenantrising, 20 June 2015. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. 

“List of Massacres in Australia.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

“Locke ‘N Load: John Locke and YOUR Second Amendment Rights.” Intro to Political Theory Blog. Sabalaba, 24 Nov. 2009. Web. 13 Nov. 2016.

Ghost Guns. Perf. Anonymous Performers. Underworld Inc. National Geographic Network, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2016. 

Causal Rewrite-Phillyfan321

A Sales Tax is Not Always a Regressive Tax on Lower Income Americans

 

The current sales tax rate in the States of New Jersey is 7%. This tax does not apply to groceries, clothing, and prescription medication. So people with lower incomes do not have to pay a tax when they purchase items that they need to survive. While New Jersey does not tax these items, some States do.

One example is the State of Kansas, as stated in an article published on the “TaxJar Sales Tax Blog.” According to the article “2016 State Sales Tax Rates,” Kansas overall has a lower sales tax than NJ. In Kansas the 6.5% sales tax rate applies to groceries. Let’s say a person in Kansas purchases a can of soup for $1, the total will be $1.07; while in New Jersey if that same can of soup costs $1, the total will be $1 because it is not taxed in New Jersey. While seven cents may not seem like a lot, for someone with a low income it can add up over time.

Now let’s say a person in Kansas buys $100 worth of groceries, like vegetables, packaged meat, and canned items. That person will pay $6.50 more in Kansas because there is a tax on food. That $6.50 could have been used to buy a bus ticket, pay for a bill, or put in a saving account. People who earn less income pay a higher of their percentage of their income on a sales tax when groceries, clothing, and prescription medication is taxed.

People with lower incomes in New Jersey do not have to pay extra for essential necessities.  If someone makes $600 a month, but they have to budget that money then they will count every penny . The article, “Regressive Tax” discusses how a tax is regressive if a tax disproportionately takes up more of one person’s income than another. An example would be a tax on groceries takes up more or a poor peons’s income than a rich person’s income. Let’s say $300 goes to housing, $100 goes to insurance, $100 to clothing and medication, and $100 goes to groceries. That person may not have any money left to pay a tax. Someone making $600 a week would have no problem paying that extra $6.50 tax on their groceries.

So to conclude, a sales tax itself may not be regressive. If it has certain exemptions, then it is not regressive because it does not place an extra tax burden on people with low incomes. If it does not exempt essential items, then it is regressive because it is a tax that everyone has to pay and people with lower incomes will pay a higher percentage of their income than those with higher incomes. While everyone pays the same tax rate on items, those making less money pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes, making it unfair for the lower income Americans.

 

 

Works Cited

“2016 State Sales Tax Rates.” 2016 State Sales Tax Rates. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016. <
 

“Sales Tax By State: Are Grocery Items Taxable?” TaxJar Sales Tax Blog. N.p., 30 Aug. 2016. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

“Regressive Tax.” Investopedia. N.p., 15 May 2015. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

Causal Rewrite- thesilentbutdeadlycineman

The Preachers’ Attack on Rock ‘n’ Roll

People view Rock ‘n’ Roll as a type of music that highlights the worst qualities in human beings. When they think of it, these people picture scenes involving blood, darkness, satanic rituals, and vulgar movements. These beliefs are the effects of preachers’ efforts to denounce Rock ‘n’ Roll.  Why these religious individuals are acting against the popular form of music, and influencing people’s view of it, unsurprisingly involves more than one overlapping cause.

 

The most immediate cause of this attack on Rock ‘n’ roll is, of course, that the music genre highlights themes that are greatly looked down upon in religious groups. As two devoutly religious men by the names of Alan Yusko and Ed Prior have said, “The term ‘rock and roll’ means fornication. It is a street name for sexual immorality. It has wrecked the lives of many teenagers through suicide, drug abuse, immorality, perversion, satanism, etc.” These actions conflict entirely with the morals commonly taught in churches- including love, purity, morality, and respectfulness to the Lord. So, in the eyes of preachers, it would seem only logical to denounce the source of all this blasphemy.

 

Contributing to this cause is the way the media supports this portrayal Rock ‘n’ roll. It is no secret that the media will twist the truth and choose sides to produce eye catching news. Rem Rieder of USA Today once said, “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain. They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys, heroes, and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers to relate to.” Therefore, in this matter, it makes sense that God’s most devout followers are portrayed as the heroes. And it also makes sense that Rock ‘n’ Roll is portrayed as the villain, since it invokes dark forces and the Devil, as countless preachers have claim. The more interesting news story is not that Rock ‘n’ Roll has the power to make people’s lives better, but that it is a way for people to let their malevolent natures free. And through computers, TVs, tablets, and cell phones, the media is now always present in people’s lives. Our society is brainwashed into believing everything that appears news worthy, and rarely takes the time to search for the truth.

 

The most remote cause for preachers to denounce Rock ‘n’ Roll is the diminishing number of people attending church. According to Dr. Richard J. Krejcir of churchleadership.org, “Most of the statistics tell us that nearly 50% of Americans have no church home. In the 1980s, membership in the church had dropped almost 10%; then, in the 1990s, it worsened by another 12% drop-some denominations reporting a 40% drop in their membership. And now, over half way through the first decade of the 21st century, we are seeing the figures drop even more!” Each subsequent generation slowly drifted away from church. Many preachers, witnessing this loss of followers, decided to lay the blame on Rock ‘n’ Roll, using it as a scapegoat. They claimed that the music was connected to the blasphemous values of sex, drugs, and irresponsibility, which in turn would attract young people who were not educated enough to make the right decision. Their denouncement of Rock ‘n’ Roll would be publicized in the media, which would influence society’s view of the music, and which in turn they hoped would bring people back to church as protection.

 

There is a precipitating cause included, however. When Rock ‘n’ Roll truly hit the music scene and took the world by storm, it actually seduced the preachers. They had grown up in conservative lifestyles with very “tame” music, and with the emergence of Rock, they experienced types of sounds unlike any they had ever heard before. Eventually, the preachers realized that they had become attracted to something other than God, which they considered to be a great sin. They had fallen into temptation and did not want the public to find out. So, like their ancestral religious brothers did when confronted by the emergence of the scientifically-proven theories of evolution and the heliocentric system, they denounced it as the work of the Devil. And since new preachers were taught by those that came before, this thought process was passed down through the generations.

 

As shown, there are multiple causes related to preachers’ denouncement of Rock ‘n’ roll, and the influence it has on society. Although all these causes can be analyzed separately, the fact of the matter is that they are all connected through the effect that they had on society’s belief concerning Rock ‘n’ Roll.

 

Works Cited

 

Rieder, Rem. “Media Got Zimmerman Story Wrong from Start.” USA Today. Gannett, 14 July 2013. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

 

Krejcir, Richard J., Ph.D. “Statistics and Reasons for Church Decline.” Churchleadership.org. N.p., 2007. Web. 06 Nov. 2016.

 

Yusco, Alan, and Ed Prior. “RELIGIOUS ROCK… The Music of Devils in the CHURCH.” RELIGIOUS ROCK… The Music of Devils in the CHURCH. N.p., n.d. Web. 06 Nov. 2016

Rebuttal-edwardnihlman

Do Violent Video Games Translate to Violent Behavior?

The biggest argument against video games being a scapegoat is that they actually do lead to violent behavior. Violent video games causing violent behavior in gamers seems like a reasonable thing to conclude. The evidence for such a conclusion is also seemingly sound. Such evidence includes studies showing that aggression does increase when playing violent video games, and testimonies from culprits. However, I have found that the evidence supporting violent video games as a catalyst for criminal activity is taken for granted and interpreted incorrectly to favor that stance.

First off, the American Psychological Association’s research on video games finds that there is a correlation between playing violent video games and increases in aggression. This would seem conclusive at face value if it were not for the fact that there are various forms of aggression. Aggressive behavior takes the form of anything from lying and throwing tantrums to fighting and hurting people. It can be verbal or physical, subtle or noticeable. The studies done by the Association are not conclusive in pointing out a link between violent video games and criminal activity, but rather violent video games and a broad spectrum of aggressive actions. It may be possible that there is a connection, but according to data collected by the Entertainment Software Association, as general video game sales increase, the total number of violent offences has been decreasing over time. This shows that despite more people having played violent video games, there have been less violent crimes.

On another note, another critical point is that some criminals admit to video games playing a part in their crime. ABC News reported in 2003 that William and Joshua Buckner shot at passing cars on the Tennessee highway, killing a man and injuring a woman. After being apprehended, they claimed that they were inspired to do the crime after playing Grand Theft Auto. The problem with this is that it is very obvious scapegoating. James Fleck, in his essay Why We Blame Others, explains that people will blame another person or source for an action out of habit. When someone is under heat for their actions, it is a natural reaction to attempt to bring attention off of one’s self and onto another source. This instance is no different. Whether or not they are trying to lessen their sentence or some other underlying goal, criminals will typically bring other people into their crime so they do not get the full wrath of their apprehension.

In conclusion, the evidence that founds the argument of violent video games causing violent behavior is misinterpreted. Just because games can cause aggression, does not mean it cause criminal activity, especially when violent crimes are decreasing as video games are becoming more and more popular. Even testimonies from criminals cannot be taken at face value since a criminal will say anything to lessen the consequences of their actions. In reality, them blaming video games only adds to the idea that violent video games are used as a scapegoat.

Works Cited

American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.

Entertainment Software Association, “Essential Facts About Games and Violence,” http://www.theesa.com, 2008

News, ABC. “Did Video Game Drive Teens to Shootings?” ABC News. ABC News Network, 06 Sept. 2003. Web. 23 Nov. 2016.

Fleck, J. R. (2011). Why we blame others: An examination of scapegoating (Order No. 1492807). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (862344967). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.rowan.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/862344967?accountid=13605

Definition Rewrite-yeezygod21

 

Smartphones have been a great advancement in technology and in society. Like any other tool they help us with our daily tasks such as keeping us close to public safety officials, allowing us the ability to transfer money that helps us manage our lifestyles, and being able to check the safety of our families with a push of a button. Having the ability to talk to someone miles away has made life convenient and full of contentment for modern day people. It is safe to say that the phone is one of the most important tools ever made along with electricity, the telescope, and the wheel. The practice of sending information has been a valuable assist to forming society since the renaissance. To be able to inform people can be the difference between life and death in a state of war. The phone is another staple to humanity such as U.S presidents are to the development of America.

However, not all presidents are helpful -to the well-being of the country as such not all uses of phones are beneficial to our daily lives. Recently phones have been the bane of our daily progression as we constantly check our phones as we work. Our phones have been given as much responsibility to their owners as their owners’ function in society. Moreover phones help us get things done. Now think for a moment about how someone could use that tool that helps you with getting things done with different intentions for its uses than to its owner’s purpose.

There you have an issue; the privacy of one’s belongings is one of the most sought-after luxuries humanity has set for itself. The foundation of America was fought for the individual privacy to practice any religion. Forward two hundred and forty years into the future and we find us with a similar conflict with individual ownership boundaries.

Most recently this conflict has been brought to light with news of terrorism in America. In 2015, a terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, California. The terrorist attack was a mass shooting carried out by a Pakistani couple that aimed their sights at a San Bernardino county department of public health Christmas party, where 16 people were killed and 24 people suffered non-fatal injuries. After being pursued the couples were killed in a shootout with police. In all, a total of 40 people were harmed with the intent of causing terror in America. While investigating the remains of the couple, the FBI found an Apple IPhone that is understood to hold information on the couples’ activities.

The modern day conflict with privacy was that the FBI wanted Apple to open the IPhone encrypted system to investigate the information that it holds. How does one feel when their government pursues access to one of the most powerful tools in the current age? Giving the FBI that kind of power is a serious bridge of trust. The FBI has made a case with the Department of Justice that would put Apple in the position to hold responsibility of the phones property having been the manufacturer. Apple being the entity that it is was adamant to allow the case to follow through without debate first. The company stands against the FBI when considering how much power they could give the government with just one case to decrypt a single iPhone.

Beyond this instance the government can use this knowledge to perform whatever surveillance deemed useful, which is a lot of power. The debate over whether Apple can be held accountable for its products second party uses after developing an issue with a third party can show the conflict of interest between the American people and the consumers of technology.

 

Yaozong Ma. “Apple’s Conundrum: The Immutability of Liberty vs. Security.” International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Review | IJHSSR. 8 Oct 2016. Web. 8 Nov 2016. <http://www.ijhssrnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2.pdf >