Doug Pavlowsky
English 101, Section 056
October 22, 2007
Short Writing Assignment #12
Essentials of Argument pp 85-86 1-5
1. My current writing process involves finding out what I have to say as I write my first draft. After I have all of my ideas down I will often move paragraphs around, and tailor them to fit where they best belong, as well as tweaking the content of the paper.
2. An outline will organize your ideas, eliminate writer’s block, and tell you what to write about next.
3. One strategy is to look at your draft as a whole. This way you are reading it in a different format than when you wrote it originally. This will allow you to look more deeply into transitions and the clarity of your ideas. Another strategy is asking yourself revision questions. This will help to collect your thoughts and revise with a purpose rather than just reading over it and saying it looks good. The last strategy is check for final errors add the title, etcetera. This is just a final touch up on fine details of your paper to make sure everything is perfect before handing it in.
4. The exploratory paper defines all the possible viewpoints and selects one. From that you can further develop your chosen viewpoint and decide what needs to be done.
5. Possible peer review strategies include going through a checklist of sorts and looking at parts of the paper or just looking at the paper as a whole and talking about it. A peer review is good because someone on the same intellectual level as you is looking at the paper, but is still an outsider without the same preconceived notions as you.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Page 260 Question 4
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that in past centuries when people hunted, gathered, or even cooked their own food (rather than having the line chef at McD's do it for them) it was considered a symbol of status to be not just hefty, but even fat. Looking into the past when "eating like a king" was a literal expression, because if you were a king, you could afford to eat big meals, and for the most part, no one else could afford it. The king was fat, everyone else was skinny. Only the rich could afford to be fat. In other words, fat was hard, skinny was easy. Nowadays its basically a 180. Fat is easy, skinny is hard. So in the past everyone wanted to be fat, now everyone wants to be skinny.
As stated in "Eat This Now!" there is enough food produced daily for every American to consume 3,900 calories every day. 3,900. Ok. Now go look at the "nutrition facts" on the back of any food you can find. If you'll notice it all says "based on a 2,000 calorie a day diet" to maintain a healthy weight, 2,000 calories a day is ideal. 3,900 is not. Now clearly not all people consume their entire 3,900 calories, but as Ms. Brink and Ms. Querna stated, if the food didn't get consumed we wouldn't be producing that much. So basically, if one day I don't step up to the 3,900 calorie plate (plate both literally and figuratively), and only eat 3,500, that means that on average, someone else is going above and beyond the call of duty and eat 4,300 calories. What a ridiculous thought.
In the olden days of fat kings and skinny peasants, three meals a day was a farfetched dream. Nearly unnatainable for 99% of the population. Average Americans today eat five. The culture has changed. People want to be skinny, they really do. Unfortunately most of america (about 2/3s according to Mr. Rosenwald) has decided that instant gratification and comfort are more appealing than their desire to be skinny.
I'm going to close this in a semi-rant, directed at everyone who says the marketing geniuses in the world make it an unfair uphill battle, and that once you are fat it is simply not possible, because "I just get so hungry." I'm calling you out right now. You see that perfectly placed candy bar at the grocery store? So do I. Do you think that us skinny people don't like candy? I know I do. But I don't buy it. I get hungry, that's a function of life. Everyone gets hungry. Deal with it. In the end if you're overweight, thats fine with me, just don't complain about how you're trying to lose weight but you just can't do it because there's too much money going into advertising food. It's a cop out. Take control of your life. If that was a fair argument you could say "But officer, there's so much money going into advertising alcohol, it's not my fault that I'm hammered, send Annheiser Busch that DUI ticket, it's their fault. I just get so thirsty"
As stated in "Eat This Now!" there is enough food produced daily for every American to consume 3,900 calories every day. 3,900. Ok. Now go look at the "nutrition facts" on the back of any food you can find. If you'll notice it all says "based on a 2,000 calorie a day diet" to maintain a healthy weight, 2,000 calories a day is ideal. 3,900 is not. Now clearly not all people consume their entire 3,900 calories, but as Ms. Brink and Ms. Querna stated, if the food didn't get consumed we wouldn't be producing that much. So basically, if one day I don't step up to the 3,900 calorie plate (plate both literally and figuratively), and only eat 3,500, that means that on average, someone else is going above and beyond the call of duty and eat 4,300 calories. What a ridiculous thought.
In the olden days of fat kings and skinny peasants, three meals a day was a farfetched dream. Nearly unnatainable for 99% of the population. Average Americans today eat five. The culture has changed. People want to be skinny, they really do. Unfortunately most of america (about 2/3s according to Mr. Rosenwald) has decided that instant gratification and comfort are more appealing than their desire to be skinny.
I'm going to close this in a semi-rant, directed at everyone who says the marketing geniuses in the world make it an unfair uphill battle, and that once you are fat it is simply not possible, because "I just get so hungry." I'm calling you out right now. You see that perfectly placed candy bar at the grocery store? So do I. Do you think that us skinny people don't like candy? I know I do. But I don't buy it. I get hungry, that's a function of life. Everyone gets hungry. Deal with it. In the end if you're overweight, thats fine with me, just don't complain about how you're trying to lose weight but you just can't do it because there's too much money going into advertising food. It's a cop out. Take control of your life. If that was a fair argument you could say "But officer, there's so much money going into advertising alcohol, it's not my fault that I'm hammered, send Annheiser Busch that DUI ticket, it's their fault. I just get so thirsty"
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
annotative bibliography... not formated correctly... thanks blogger
Hausknecht, Murray. "Gay Marriage: the Third Option." Dissent 52 (2007): 9-10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This article talks about New Jersey’s ruling on civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage. This states that homosexual couples should be treated like married couples in all ways. They can adopt children, get tax breaks, get workmen’s compensation, they can even change their name without a petition. I will use this as an example that I think the rest of the country should follow. That way it protects the “sacred institution of marriage” and still gives homosexuals equal rights and protection.
"Massachusetts May Vote on Gay Marriage in 2008." Contemporary Sexuality Mar. 2007: 16. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This short article talks about the possible vote on gay marriage in Massachusetts. It says that polls show that 62% of Massachusetts’ voters are against an anti-gay marriage amendment. If that’s the case, then all of the already married same-sex couples from Massachusetts will stay married. I will use this to show that there is a substantial amount of support for gay marriage, but I will make sure to be wary of the fact that it may just be people’s unwillingness to change, and not their belief that gay marriage is right.
Penn, Denise. "Judge Dissolves Civil Union & Awards Visitation to Lesbian." Lesbian News Jul. 2007: 11. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This article looks at a case where same sex marriage ended badly. It wasn’t a marriage, but rather a civil union, broken up after a year. Three years later custody was still up in the air, and the civil union was not officially dissolved. I will use this source to show that it will take much more thought and effort until our society is ready to legalize same sex marriage.
Philips, Matthew. "Anglican Angst." Newsweek 150 (2007): 12. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This Newsweek article looks at a recent meeting of the heads of the Episcopal Church. The meeting was to determine an official stance on gay marriage. The result of the meeting was not much. According to the author, there were moves made to “exercise constraint” when consecrating homosexual bishops, and the Church decided not to bless homosexual marriage. They did, however, leave a fair amount of discretion to the individual priest as to whether or not they would bless the union. This source will be used to show that the once strong religious stronghold against gay marriage might just be deterioration. This shows the weakness in the point of view of the “Religious Right” and helps to strengthen the point of view against gay marriage, but for civil unions
Scott, Cameron. "The Gay Marriage Stimulus Package." Mother Jones Mar.-Apr. 2007. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This piece gives statistics as to what we would stand to gain as a country economically by legalizing gay marriage. It shows how much more money the federal government would be bringing in annually via taxes, cuts in Medicaid, insurance savings, and even the effects on the wedding industry. I will use this source to show what good can come of legalizing same sex marriage, and how much it can increase our economy.
Walker, Jesse. "Disney Legalizes Same Sex Unions." Reason June 2007: 61-67. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This article was particularly interesting to me. It states that Disney Land, Disney World, and even Disney Cruises are now giving same sex couples the same fairy tale weddings they always offered to heterosexual couples. This shows that the country is really coming into a new era of feelings toward gay marriage. When such a big corporation takes it upon themselves to do what they believe is right is really a huge step. Disney surpassed the state and decided that they would do it themselves. I will use this source to emphasize the rising tolerance for gay marriage.
Walters, Suzanna Danuta. "Threat Level Lavender: the Truthiness of Gay Marriage." Chronicle of Higher Education 19 Jan. 2007: b12-b14. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This piece shows rising support for gay marriage throughout our country, as well as the world as a whole. It states that Massachusetts and New Jersey both have some form of legal union, as well as stating South Africa, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada. The author states the conflict very well, as being between “the brave warriors of the Christian Right” and our brand new “Hero of civil rights.” The author also clearly states that as a civil rights issue, gay marriage is not an issue. To deny the union of two people based on sexual orientation is ridiculous. I will use this source to reinforce several of my own ideas, such as the one mentioned in the previous two sentences.
Wockner, Rex. "Republican San Diego Mayor Announces His Daughter is a Lesbian, Embraces Same-Sex Marriage." Lesbian News Oct. 2007: 10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This article from the “Lesbian News” will tells the story of the Mayor of San Diego, whose daughter came out, and he immediately embraced gay marriage for the first time. This is interesting because it shows that emotion has much to do with this decision, rather than personal beliefs of the policy maker himself. Sure he embraces the idea of gay marriage now, but only because of a strong personal tie, not because he feels that it is right in itself. What the mayor is doing here is simply trying to justify his daughter’s actions, not necessarily make a decision for the good of the people.
This article talks about New Jersey’s ruling on civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage. This states that homosexual couples should be treated like married couples in all ways. They can adopt children, get tax breaks, get workmen’s compensation, they can even change their name without a petition. I will use this as an example that I think the rest of the country should follow. That way it protects the “sacred institution of marriage” and still gives homosexuals equal rights and protection.
"Massachusetts May Vote on Gay Marriage in 2008." Contemporary Sexuality Mar. 2007: 16. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This short article talks about the possible vote on gay marriage in Massachusetts. It says that polls show that 62% of Massachusetts’ voters are against an anti-gay marriage amendment. If that’s the case, then all of the already married same-sex couples from Massachusetts will stay married. I will use this to show that there is a substantial amount of support for gay marriage, but I will make sure to be wary of the fact that it may just be people’s unwillingness to change, and not their belief that gay marriage is right.
Penn, Denise. "Judge Dissolves Civil Union & Awards Visitation to Lesbian." Lesbian News Jul. 2007: 11. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This article looks at a case where same sex marriage ended badly. It wasn’t a marriage, but rather a civil union, broken up after a year. Three years later custody was still up in the air, and the civil union was not officially dissolved. I will use this source to show that it will take much more thought and effort until our society is ready to legalize same sex marriage.
Philips, Matthew. "Anglican Angst." Newsweek 150 (2007): 12. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This Newsweek article looks at a recent meeting of the heads of the Episcopal Church. The meeting was to determine an official stance on gay marriage. The result of the meeting was not much. According to the author, there were moves made to “exercise constraint” when consecrating homosexual bishops, and the Church decided not to bless homosexual marriage. They did, however, leave a fair amount of discretion to the individual priest as to whether or not they would bless the union. This source will be used to show that the once strong religious stronghold against gay marriage might just be deterioration. This shows the weakness in the point of view of the “Religious Right” and helps to strengthen the point of view against gay marriage, but for civil unions
Scott, Cameron. "The Gay Marriage Stimulus Package." Mother Jones Mar.-Apr. 2007. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This piece gives statistics as to what we would stand to gain as a country economically by legalizing gay marriage. It shows how much more money the federal government would be bringing in annually via taxes, cuts in Medicaid, insurance savings, and even the effects on the wedding industry. I will use this source to show what good can come of legalizing same sex marriage, and how much it can increase our economy.
Walker, Jesse. "Disney Legalizes Same Sex Unions." Reason June 2007: 61-67. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This article was particularly interesting to me. It states that Disney Land, Disney World, and even Disney Cruises are now giving same sex couples the same fairy tale weddings they always offered to heterosexual couples. This shows that the country is really coming into a new era of feelings toward gay marriage. When such a big corporation takes it upon themselves to do what they believe is right is really a huge step. Disney surpassed the state and decided that they would do it themselves. I will use this source to emphasize the rising tolerance for gay marriage.
Walters, Suzanna Danuta. "Threat Level Lavender: the Truthiness of Gay Marriage." Chronicle of Higher Education 19 Jan. 2007: b12-b14. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This piece shows rising support for gay marriage throughout our country, as well as the world as a whole. It states that Massachusetts and New Jersey both have some form of legal union, as well as stating South Africa, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, and Canada. The author states the conflict very well, as being between “the brave warriors of the Christian Right” and our brand new “Hero of civil rights.” The author also clearly states that as a civil rights issue, gay marriage is not an issue. To deny the union of two people based on sexual orientation is ridiculous. I will use this source to reinforce several of my own ideas, such as the one mentioned in the previous two sentences.
Wockner, Rex. "Republican San Diego Mayor Announces His Daughter is a Lesbian, Embraces Same-Sex Marriage." Lesbian News Oct. 2007: 10. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 23 Oct. 2007.
This article from the “Lesbian News” will tells the story of the Mayor of San Diego, whose daughter came out, and he immediately embraced gay marriage for the first time. This is interesting because it shows that emotion has much to do with this decision, rather than personal beliefs of the policy maker himself. Sure he embraces the idea of gay marriage now, but only because of a strong personal tie, not because he feels that it is right in itself. What the mayor is doing here is simply trying to justify his daughter’s actions, not necessarily make a decision for the good of the people.
Monday, October 22, 2007
SWA11
Carolina Reader Chapter 2, Question 5
The first essay, “Matters of Faith Find a New Prominence on Campus,” made the claim that religion is growing on campus. The first cause stated was that the religious right is growing, and therefore making religion a more acceptable place to go for students. Another cause mention was that baby boomers have decided not to press religion on their kids like their parents did them. This in turn makes kids more receptive to trying to discover it for themselves come college.
The second essay, “Schools of Thought: The Liberal-Conservative Divide on College Campuses,” claimed that conservative beliefs are rising in college campuses. Liberalism is still stronger, but the divide is shrinking. This is because conservatives have several strong organizations that feed young republicans into good organizations after college. Another causal statement was that liberal groups are often very radical, which can scare people away, as well as very narrow and specific. This causes a split in the liberals as a whole, hurting their strength, while conservatives are more, well, conservative with their demands.
“The College Dropout Boom” claimed that college dropout rates are increasingly high among lower income families. This is because many colleges have limited resources allocated toward need based scholarships. Another cause of this is what is known as the “factory work ethic” where it is looked down upon to “waste your time” in college. It is instead thought of as better in some low income industrial towns to get right to work after high school, or even sooner. A final cause is that once you drop out, or even just “take a break,” it’s not easy to go back.
The first essay, “Matters of Faith Find a New Prominence on Campus,” made the claim that religion is growing on campus. The first cause stated was that the religious right is growing, and therefore making religion a more acceptable place to go for students. Another cause mention was that baby boomers have decided not to press religion on their kids like their parents did them. This in turn makes kids more receptive to trying to discover it for themselves come college.
The second essay, “Schools of Thought: The Liberal-Conservative Divide on College Campuses,” claimed that conservative beliefs are rising in college campuses. Liberalism is still stronger, but the divide is shrinking. This is because conservatives have several strong organizations that feed young republicans into good organizations after college. Another causal statement was that liberal groups are often very radical, which can scare people away, as well as very narrow and specific. This causes a split in the liberals as a whole, hurting their strength, while conservatives are more, well, conservative with their demands.
“The College Dropout Boom” claimed that college dropout rates are increasingly high among lower income families. This is because many colleges have limited resources allocated toward need based scholarships. Another cause of this is what is known as the “factory work ethic” where it is looked down upon to “waste your time” in college. It is instead thought of as better in some low income industrial towns to get right to work after high school, or even sooner. A final cause is that once you drop out, or even just “take a break,” it’s not easy to go back.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Sources for Gay Marriage
ok... none of these links work anymore... i guess i shouldnt be surprised... but it looks like ill be finding entirely new sources.
1. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1187/url=http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701
2. http://wf2dnvr4.webfeat.org/RXZhI1565/url=http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141528
3. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1349/url=http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=120&sid=eccfd20e-8b9b-427f-997a-36726b1b60a0%40sessionmgr109
4. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1364/url=http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf19_22/pdf/2007/NCR/23Mar07/24593152.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=24593152&EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESep7M4zdnyOLCmrk%2beqLBSrqm4SbWWxWXSAAAA&ContentCustomer=&S=R&D=aph
5. http://wf2dnvr3.webfeat.org/
1. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1187/url=http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701
2. http://wf2dnvr4.webfeat.org/RXZhI1565/url=http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141528
3. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1349/url=http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=120&sid=eccfd20e-8b9b-427f-997a-36726b1b60a0%40sessionmgr109
4. http://wf2dnvr5.webfeat.org/pdahI1364/url=http://content.ebscohost.com/pdf19_22/pdf/2007/NCR/23Mar07/24593152.pdf?T=P&P=AN&K=24593152&EbscoContent=dGJyMMvl7ESep7M4zdnyOLCmrk%2beqLBSrqm4SbWWxWXSAAAA&ContentCustomer=&S=R&D=aph
5. http://wf2dnvr3.webfeat.org/
Topic proposal: Gay marriage
Marriage is defined by Dictionary.com as “the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, and etcetera.” This definition excludes the possibility of two men or two women becoming “married.” The real question is whether or not this is right. Of course, everyone’s viewpoint and reasoning on this topic is a little bit different.
One common viewpoint is that everyone has the right to marry whomever they please. The main points behind this argument are as follows. Why should a man marrying a man be any different from a man marrying a woman? There is a common argument posing the question “why worry about it if it isn’t even going to affect you?” Another argument for this side is that it is unfair for gay couples, because they cannot get the same financial benefits of marriage that straight couples can get. This argument is centered on equal rights to all people and allowing people to express their love for each other however they please.
Both of the other two mainstream arguments are against gay marriage. The more moderate of the two is against gay “marriage” because marriage is commonly thought of as a religious bond, and every mainstream religion is staunchly against homosexuality. This view does, however, entertain the idea of homosexual “civil unions.” In this scenario the couple would not be officially “married” but instead they would be granted the financial and civil rights of a married couple, including tax breaks and other perks.
The final view is much more extreme and comes from mostly a “far right,” oftentimes religious standpoint. It says that homosexuality is wrong, and that that gays should not be allowed to be married or granted civil unions, simply because it is wrong. This idea also argues that if gay couples are allowed to adopt children, or have children through any type of artificial insemination, the children’s development will be severely affected by this, and it will be detrimental to their mental health and maturation process.
One common viewpoint is that everyone has the right to marry whomever they please. The main points behind this argument are as follows. Why should a man marrying a man be any different from a man marrying a woman? There is a common argument posing the question “why worry about it if it isn’t even going to affect you?” Another argument for this side is that it is unfair for gay couples, because they cannot get the same financial benefits of marriage that straight couples can get. This argument is centered on equal rights to all people and allowing people to express their love for each other however they please.
Both of the other two mainstream arguments are against gay marriage. The more moderate of the two is against gay “marriage” because marriage is commonly thought of as a religious bond, and every mainstream religion is staunchly against homosexuality. This view does, however, entertain the idea of homosexual “civil unions.” In this scenario the couple would not be officially “married” but instead they would be granted the financial and civil rights of a married couple, including tax breaks and other perks.
The final view is much more extreme and comes from mostly a “far right,” oftentimes religious standpoint. It says that homosexuality is wrong, and that that gays should not be allowed to be married or granted civil unions, simply because it is wrong. This idea also argues that if gay couples are allowed to adopt children, or have children through any type of artificial insemination, the children’s development will be severely affected by this, and it will be detrimental to their mental health and maturation process.
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Smoking Bans
What are the affects of the bans on smoking?
Restaraunt revenues
Do humans have the right to decide if they smoke or not?
Is second hand smoke as detrimental to human health as first hand smoking?
Cloud of smoke outside of bars/restaraunts
Are cigarette companies being cheated?
Where did the ban originate?
Where is smoking allowed?
What is the main impetus for banning smoking?
What are some key arguments for allowing smoking?
What are some key arguments for stricter smoking bans?
Restaraunt revenues
Do humans have the right to decide if they smoke or not?
Is second hand smoke as detrimental to human health as first hand smoking?
Cloud of smoke outside of bars/restaraunts
Are cigarette companies being cheated?
Where did the ban originate?
Where is smoking allowed?
What is the main impetus for banning smoking?
What are some key arguments for allowing smoking?
What are some key arguments for stricter smoking bans?
Monday, October 8, 2007
SWA9
Post Secret
I created a post secret card about the “Take Your Professor to Lunch” program that we have here at USC. My University 101 class requires me to take a professor to lunch through this program, but if it did not, I certainly would not have done it on my own. My message was explicitly stated, and that is that “I don’t care about my professor,” and that “I have to do this for U101.” The background of my card was the information sheet for the take your professor to lunch program. I used this because it shows that I am going to participate in this program, even though I don’t care to. The people in my group seemed to catch my message, which was expected since there wasn’t a whole lot to read in to. No one seemed to look beyond what I was trying to say, everyone seemed to understand my card in full.
I created a post secret card about the “Take Your Professor to Lunch” program that we have here at USC. My University 101 class requires me to take a professor to lunch through this program, but if it did not, I certainly would not have done it on my own. My message was explicitly stated, and that is that “I don’t care about my professor,” and that “I have to do this for U101.” The background of my card was the information sheet for the take your professor to lunch program. I used this because it shows that I am going to participate in this program, even though I don’t care to. The people in my group seemed to catch my message, which was expected since there wasn’t a whole lot to read in to. No one seemed to look beyond what I was trying to say, everyone seemed to understand my card in full.
Monday, October 1, 2007
SWA8
Post Secret
The Post Secret Card I chose to analyze is the one that reads “I am a well respected spiritual medium. I have never seen or spoken to a ghost in my life. Neither have the other ‘mediums’ I’ve met. We’re all liars!” This one intrigued me the most because it was something that not only told a secret about the author, but also people in the same profession as the author. The text is obviously the message in the card. The explicit claim is that all mediums are liars. The implicit claim is possibly that Ouija boards are also scams, as that is the picture in the background of this Post Secret Card. The author is a medium, which is explicitly stated. This lends credibility to the statement, because a medium is the only one that can truly tell you whether or not a medium is a liar. The audience for this card is the same as the audience for anyone on this site, and that is anyone that visits this site. This is apparent based simply on the purpose of the site, which is to vent. The visual component of this card just displays an Ouija board, which I suppose is a method that mediums use when speaking with ghosts. This is just one example of how mediums are liars.
The Post Secret Card I chose to analyze is the one that reads “I am a well respected spiritual medium. I have never seen or spoken to a ghost in my life. Neither have the other ‘mediums’ I’ve met. We’re all liars!” This one intrigued me the most because it was something that not only told a secret about the author, but also people in the same profession as the author. The text is obviously the message in the card. The explicit claim is that all mediums are liars. The implicit claim is possibly that Ouija boards are also scams, as that is the picture in the background of this Post Secret Card. The author is a medium, which is explicitly stated. This lends credibility to the statement, because a medium is the only one that can truly tell you whether or not a medium is a liar. The audience for this card is the same as the audience for anyone on this site, and that is anyone that visits this site. This is apparent based simply on the purpose of the site, which is to vent. The visual component of this card just displays an Ouija board, which I suppose is a method that mediums use when speaking with ghosts. This is just one example of how mediums are liars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)