1) In my ethic class at Ivy Tech Community College, We were assigned groups to choose any ethical topic and make a 40 minute presentation. My group ended up deciding Abortion. All the other group members were males and I was the only female. Many times during the preparation of the presentation, I had disagreements on many things and also we had misunderstanding on what to put in the presentation. My group members were very strong in their local values which were to be pro-choice instead of pro-life. I used to forget the fact that they were born and raised in America, in liberty. I was prolife since I practice non-violence and being religious, I also think it is a sin. Level 4 conflict is somewhat relevant in this situation since whenever my group would say that most young females would support pro-choice in America, I would understand through emotional part of the situation and say females think differently than males. Also we had problem misunderstanding the global values since most studies say the abortion has many negative outcomes and my group members thought only from a American perspective such as being free to make own decisions.
2) In locating competing analogies, one must look for positive or negative feature in the proposed judgment of analogy. Mario Savio’s overall claim is to question the status quo and ask for change in American universities. Since, Savio cannot persuade much through asking for change in free speech policies, he persuades by questioning the status quo. I think he’s facing Level 2 conflict because he’s might not be able to persuade the respective audience by one way so he chooses the other way. This is just a suggestion how the university and its faculty are there to protect the student’s rights to expression and freedom of speech but the policy makers are not ensuring whether students really have the free speech rights or whether they should make some changes in the policy. The Bureaucrats are just there to rule over people but they are not aware of these legal rights and they just want to hold on to their local values which are a conflict (4) in misunderstanding the current situation. To point out this misunderstanding conflict, Mario Savio says “in the world but not of the world.”
4) For sure, Robert Bullard has used the similar strategy compared to Wells-Barnett and by Mario Savio. Stasis of Cause comes after the stasis of fact. By Telling the fact that Red Cross and the government isn’t treating the poor and black community the same as it does to white people in natural disasters. The whole point of giving examples of historical moments, Robert Bullard can persuade and convince the audience that this situation has really existed. By using the stasis of cause, he’s trying to make point that how discrimination and racism has affected the people of color, emotionally, and also he’s trying to say that the consequences are that mistreating victims in poor communities can lead to negative outcomes such as impact on political strength and political power (voting). The same strategy helps Wells-Barnett and Savio to tell their respective audience to ask for change and to question the status quo. Also the same strategy can be used to tell the readers how maintaining the status quo affects the government power, as T.S. Eliot says, “The general ethos of the people they have to govern determines the behavior of politicians”. The strategy of using stasis of cause in historical language, they all have established the ethos in the beginning of their text. I think it helps the audience to believe in them.
