Steroids

When I first read the title for this blog, I thought here we go again; another video about how steroids are bad and how they should be illegal. Then, once I started to watch the video, it was interesting to hear that there hasn’t been any evidence by all the drug and health companies that steroids were, actually bad in the long run. The fact that they talked to a doctor who had received all of his degrees from Ivy League colleges gave the story credibility. The one downfall to the video was that they didn’t really address the major impact steroids have on the athletic community. They did address the issue a little, but this video could make high school students think steroids are okay to use. However, this study was taken on healthy, adult males. If high school aged boys use steroids it could have a different effect because their bodies’ haven’t matured completely. Also, the video fails to mention the fact that steroids are a controlled substance in the United States. This means that people are allowed to have steroids in their possession, but they must have a prescription given by a doctor. With this fact, this kind of negates the issue of whether these steroids are good or bad because they’re illegal without a prescription. I don’t think steroids can be used responsibly because once these men start the steroids and see the results; it is more than likely that they will be able to stop easily.
Steroid use is becoming a bigger problem, or so it seems, in sports and in just real life than before. It is a real shame to think that people can’t hit over 700 home runs, without the use of steroids, anymore. What happened to exercising, lifting weights, eating properly, and getting enough sleep to help you recover? Why do people now feel like they need steroids to do all these things? We have become such an “I don’t want to do it myself” generation, that we can’t even depend on the basics to make us become top athletes: practicing everyday, eating healthily, lifting weights, and getting enough sleep to “recover” from workouts. Testing should definitely be regulated to keep sports clean because it seems that everyone is using steroids now. There shouldn’t be different standards for professional athletes vs. high school athletes because if you are using steroids, you are cheating in my eyes. Also, the same steroid testing should be regulated throughout different sports. I think the only exception to that statement is baseball and track & field should have more testing because it seems those two sports are the problematic ones.
As much stress as athletes are put under to be great at their sports, it shouldn’t be an excuse to use steroids. We look up to all the greats: Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron, Michael Jordan, Lou Gehrig, and Wilt Chamberlin. They were pressured to be the best at their sports as well, but they never used steroids, or at least were found guilty of it. However, this just proves that athletes can still be great at their sports and not feel pressured to use steroids. I think if people think we are forcing steroids into all sports, than that is just an excuse to let athletes use them. I, personally, hated to hear that Barry Bonds passed Hank Aarons’ record for most home runs because Barry Bonds cheated. I think most people were outraged as well. So, I don’t think people are being forced to use steroids because most people, I believe, prefer the hard-workers to the cheaters.

Georgetown Stance/Counterargument

Although the Washington D.C. officers are doing something good and safe for the community, they are completely taking away the freedom college students have to throw a party if they are of legal age. It is unfortunate that the college is located in a city and so space is limited. However, the rules they are enforcing go against the freedom these college students have a right to. They shouldn't be worrying about the amount of students at a party or how many kegs one party has (Kinzie). Rather, they should be worrying about patrolling the city and locking up bad people who actually commit legitamate crimes. Students are going to party; it's just a fact about college. Enforcing these rules could just turn students off to applying to Georgetown, which is a very far-fetched thought, but if the school is going to regulate something like how many people students are allowed to have at a party it isn't so absurd to think. Susan Kinzie eludes to this possibility stating, "many students say the changes...have pushed social life off campus." The law states that at 21 years of age, people are allowed to legally drink alcohol. If the parties these students are throwing aren't harmful to others around them, affecting the neighbors, and not dangerous then there is no reason the school should regulate these new rules.

Although students should have the freedom to have a party when they of legal age, what are the chances that everyone at the party is actually legal. Many parties are hosted by students of legal age, but are attended by students who are not allowed to drink legally yet. So, even if the students try and say that they will only allow people who are legal to drink, that isn't a definite because underage students always can get in under the radar. Also, by limiting students to only one keg parties, the police could possibly be saving many students from alcohol poisoning and trips to the hospital from drinking way too much. In response to 2nd District Cmdr. Andy Solberg's statement about he'd prefer to protect the entire community, Kinzie states, "rather than hauling students in for public drinking or public urination." Students may say they can control themselves, but everyone knows that when a bunch of friends get together, things can get out of control. If these students are drinking excessive amounts how are they going to be able to control themselves or even the other guests at their party. Because the school is in a city, there is limited space between neighbors. If a family lived next door to a group of college students, obviously the time the family goes to sleep compared to the college students is completely different. Friday, saturday, and sunday aren't the only days students have parties. Many college students have parties in the middle of the week. If a family was trying to sleep because they have to wake up early for school and work the next morning, it would be difficult if the college students were having a party because they would be loud. As much as students try to keep the noise to a minimum for parties, it is inevitable that the noise level will rise to the point where neighbors can hear it. For the protection of the college students themselves and others around them, the police should enforce a more strict policy on college students' parties.

"Paraphrasing Practice"

When students are taking notes on a topic, they tend to copy the notes word for word. This is a bad habit because students then end up plagarising or using a lot of quotes throughout their research paper. According to Dr. James Lester, the final draft of your research paper should only contain about 10% worth of quotes.

"GI Joe and Male Bodies"

Both articles oppose each other’s ideas about the impact of male figurines on the image of men’s bodies. Harrison G. Pope and some of his colleagues created an experiment to prove that male figurines have changed immensely over the years, and they reflect the idea mean have about how their bodies should be. His experiment consisted of comparing GI Joe and Star War’s figurines from different decades to prove that the ideal image of male bodies change throughout the time periods. Through the different male figurines, Pope concluded that the male body type changed throughout the different decades dramatically because as they got “older” they became more buff and more like body builders. Kim Franke-Folstad went in the compete opposite direction and argued the idea Pope came up with, saying there is no way the figurines could have an impact on the image of male bodies. She stated that boys just played with the figurines. She believes that boys don’t play the figurines and then think “oh, I want to look big and buff like GI Joe.” She doesn’t believe there is any truth to Pope’s theory even though he had an experiment to prove it.
Pope and Franke-Folstad’s articles were completely different, even in the way they brought about their arguments. Pope thought up and experiment and tried to prove his hypothesis through the purchasing of the different male figurines. He tried to use a persuasive tone to get the audience to side with his theory. However, he said at the end of his article “These finding, however, must be interpreted cautiously…” This statement to me sounds like he isn’t a hundred percent sure whether his findings are arguable in situations. Because he was only able to find two types of figurines, that doesn’t show that his proven facts answer his hypothesis because that isn’t that compelling of evidence. Franke-Folstad uses a tone of sarcasm and argumentative. The way she writes makes her article sound sarcastic because she just can’t fathom the fact that someone would make this type of an argument. She says, “They are toys. We all know that. That’s why we stop playing with them before we get out of grade school.” She can’t believe Hope would associate these male figurines with the idea of male bodies. Her argument completely goes against Hope’s argument about the figurines impacting real male bodies. Hope’s audience is more geared towards parents, and it sounds like he is trying to persuade parents to watch out for impact the GI Joe figurine has on their sons’ images. Franke-Folstad’s audience sounds more like the random, everyday person who is reading the newspaper. She sounds like she is just trying to write an article about arguing Hope’s point of view.
I think the argument Hope gives is kind of ridiculous, so I guess I would have to say I side more with Franke-Folstad’s opinion. There is no way he has enough evidence to prove his point, and it is also something that just sounds ridiculous. He may be right in the fact that the figurines have become more buff. However, I don’t think they are influencing the opinions of men and boys. I know that I never thought I wanted to have my Barbie’s body. The dolls were strictly used to play with and that’s what boys do with their GI Joe dolls. They aren’t thinking about the way their bodies are, but rather how they can take down the enemy. My parents never told me I couldn’t get a Barbie doll because she was too skinny. I don’t think they ever thought I was planning on making my body similar to Barbie’s body. That’s why I think Hope’s argument is ridiculous because boys don’t look at GI Joe’s for their idea of a body image.

Freewrite #1

What really makes me angry is that people around campus don't follow the "Stand 25 ft. from the building to smoke" and George Mason doesn't enforce it either. Smoking is absolutely disgusting to those who don't smoke, especially me, so I just want to be able to walk into the JC or the building where my classroom is without getting smoke blown in my face. It makes me get a headache if I am around it too much and it makes people smell bad. Why people decide to smoke is beyond my capacity to fathom it but I don't think I should suffer from inhaling smoke when I have made a decision not to smoke. Cancer is something that people try and avoid at all costs because it is such a tramatic experience, but people who are smoking are willingly taking the chance at getting cancer. However, research has shown that people who don't smoke are getting cancer at alarming rates because they may live with someone that smokes and enhales smoke just as frequently. So, with secondhand smoke being a huge issue to causing lung cancer, I don't want to have to hold my breath just to avoid getting secondhand smoke. It is inconvient to me. I mean I don't they would appreciate me if I did something they didn't like right in there face all the time. People would start to get angry and probably say something. I, on the other hand, have not said anything to anyone. But I don't want to stay quiet anymore because it isn't just affecting the environment with pollution of those rotten cancer sticks, but also affecting my life. I don't want to, in 20 years, find out I have lung cancer because I don't smoke and I try to avoid it at all costs. Why doesn't the campus make designated smoking areas, enforce the 25 ft. away from the building, or even make this a smoke free campus! Some other colleges have made their campus smoke free, and they are still up and running. Hey, maybe GMU could cause a wide-spread epidemic of making campuses smoke free. Then, we could help those that do smoke and maybe make them quit! It is just such a nasty habit that should be eliminated from the world, but since the world is such a big place, maybe we could just start here at GMU.

"A Secret Society of the Starving"

At first glance, the picture of the girl on the blog made me sick to my stomach. No way should anyone that skinny still be able to breath. Then, after reading the text “A Secret Society of the Starving” it made realize that the idea of bulimia and anorexia went further then just throwing up after eating and not eating at all. These girls are completely obsessed with the idea of being thin and are willing to make their lives difficult, and even death an option, in order for that to happen. Although Clairegirl and Futurebird say the websites are a way for them to discuss everything that is happening inside of them, they should be shut down. The websites are kind of like forming a cult for girls and women who have eating disorders. For example, Claire says that she goes on after a long day at school because “I don’t have to worry about them judging me for how I feel”. I think it is great they feel they can have that type of support, but these girls and women are sick. They need to get support from the people that love them and that can get them help. They don’t need to get support from other people that are sick because they are just feeding them the same bull crap they think and that isn’t the slightest bit healthy. The two girls say they can’t rely on their friends and family because they will just look at them like they are sick and not understand them. However, it is the truth; they are sick! They need all the help they can receive and by relying on these websites, it is feeding into their sickness.
The kind of stress these girls are putting on their bodies, it is surprising they haven’t lost a lot of friends through this website and even their own lives. That is one of the strengths of this websites and it is what makes this not completely downright wrong. All these girls are going through something that most people can’t even fathom about. The type of support they receive from this website is like non-other. They are all going through the same struggles in life, so why wouldn’t it make sense to talk to people who have the same problems. Futurebird says that she feels like she can’t go to anyone because they won’t understand her problems. She doesn’t want other girls who are younger than her to have those same problems, so she writes about the website “…what I hope they find is people who share their experience and that they’re able to just simply talk.” For her, she doesn’t want girls to go through the experiences she has alone. So, the website does have its benefits because it could prevent girls, who are already depressed and low, from committing suicide or hurting themselves further.
Anorexia and bulimia are two extremely dangerous eating disorders that affect girls and women in many different ways. Some take it to the extremes and some just do it to “fit into a bathing suit”. The websites aren’t the best form of a support group because the girls on the website feel like it is the only place for hope. However, they need to know that their family and friends are people they can turn to as well. The website doesn’t help in that aspect because they all have fears of revealing their problems to loved ones. The website shouldn’t just be between girls who have problems. They should allow people who are trained professionals to help them through the website. Otherwise, the website is a very extreme form of a support group. These young girls and women need help from professionals, not other people are just as sick.

"Fallacies"

HASTY GENERALIZATION:
"I can't believe that Mexican woman came in to the ER and received so much treatment, yet she doesn't even have health insurance. No Mexican immigrants ever have health insurance."
AD HOMINEM:
"She's sixteen years old and pregnant. What would she know about being a good mother?"

"Jogging vs. Running"

Seeing the running shoes made me want to read the advertisement right away because I’m a runner, myself, so I those types of ads always intrigue me. When I first read the ad, it took me a minute to actually decide whether I liked the way they put everything. However, after thinking about Law & Order: SVU, which they always use the plot of a runner finding a dead body, I thought the ad was very smart. The elements that first stood out were the shoes on the dirt/ground and the lettering/color of the heading. The shoes clearly stood out the most because they are the biggest figure in the ad, but for some reason the font stood out to me too. Whether it was the white on black or the chalkiness, the font made me want to read on as well. As I mentioned before, I am a runner so the ad had more of an affect on me. I ran cross-country throughout high school and developed a love for it, even though I don’t run competitively anymore. I definitely think the fact that I run had an impact to the way I viewed the ad. I think it appealed to me more and made me understand everything they were talking about.
After reading the Pearl Izumi’s campaign for “We are not Joggers” it made me laugh but also definitely had good persuasion techniques during all the ads. If I wasn’t a runner I would be embarrassed to say I was a jogger. The ad definitely persuades to everyone that they should become, or at least try to become, a runner. For example, the ad points out the people who listen to music as they “run”, actually “jog”. I know when I’m running that I see a lot of people listening to music because they say they can’t just run. Also, the ad says that runners can jog, but it is really them just running slower. Joggers on the other hand, find it painful and difficult to go any faster than their normal pace and actually run. The reference to TV is definitely a persuasion technique because it alludes to the fact that runners like to find different paths to run on, while joggers take the usual and safe trail to run on. All of these techniques make you feel sort of like a failure if you’re a jogger and not a runner.
The ad states that our ancestors used running as a type of survival. It says that in order for our ancestors to get the meat they needed, they had to run to get it because if they were to jog it would never have been caught. The other species were too fast, so running was a necessity. Pearl Izumi definitely alienates the “jogging” population. Throughout the entire campaign he makes joggers seem like they are worthless and they might as well not even try it because they aren’t even doing anything. I don’t know how there would be any advantage to dividing them because the joggers would be turned away and pissed off at this guy and his ads. I wouldn’t be surprised if he got hate mail, and lots of it, from people all around the world who were offended by his allegations. The logos were very strong, with lines that said survival depended on running back with our ancestors. However, the pathos was much stronger because this whole campaign was based around what runners thought. Izumi made statements that said they have tried to determine the speed people would be classified as a runner and as a jogger, but they haven’t ever been able to. Some people physically can’t run faster than they are when, as Izumi would say, they are jogging. Also, he says that the shoes he designed weren’t meant for joggers to use on treadmills. However, treadmills can go to a speed that would be classified as a run. There aren’t really any facts in this campaign. Rather, Izumi is just writing his opinion and other avid runner’s opinion throughout the campaign. The Reebok ad definitely appealed to me more because it wasn’t as “rude”. The Reebok ad was actually kind of badass. As a runner, I know it is considered great if you puke because it means that you have tried as hard as you can, which is a huge accomplishment. I know it sounds kind of morbid, but anytime anyone puked on our team after a workout or race, they would receive a round of applause or props because they would probably continue the workout or race. However, the Pearl Izumi ad was degrading to people who weren’t avid runners. So, if you weren’t that runner, then why would the ad be appealing? Running is such a hard sport and so to be told that you aren’t actually running if you listen to music or run on the usual trails, that is a put down. It makes you feel unaccomplished and like a failure.