Analysis of an argument against banning smoking in public

In his argument, Charlie Bradley gives 3 reasons why smoking should not be banned in public places. He does admit upfront that he is a smoker and that what he says may be biased. He makes some valid points why smoking should not need to be banned, but he also commits some logical fallacies in his argument. He says that the biggest complaint against smoking is the health risk from secondhand smoke and he tries to provide solutions for both sides of the issue. His first reason not to ban smoking in public is because of designated smoking areas. As long as these areas are separated enough from the buildings that they belong to then there will not be a risk of secondhand smoke or cigarette smell on non-smoker’s clothes. This reason seems valid because it addresses the main concern of the opposition to smoking in public. He implies that if designated smoking areas were located and used properly then there would not be a problem of secondhand smoke unless a non-smoker was in that designated area.

The fallacy in his argument arises with the second reason that he provides. He says that most employees that smoke do so because of stressful situations at work which cause them to need a cigarette to calm down. He continues by saying that a “no smoking” policy would lead to less productivity or employees sneaking off to go smoke. This argument begs the question: Is it true that most people who smoke do so because they are stressed out? and, If they are stressed out is it because of a work-related situation? There are some people that smoke simply out of habit and stress does not factor into it. There are some people that smoke for the enjoyment of the tobacco, just the same as a person who drinks coffee because they like the flavor. That is not to say that there are not smokers that smoke because it calms them down (or coffee drinkers that do so for the caffeine), but it is not safe to assume that most smokers fit into any one category. And using work related stress as a reason to be able to smoke does not seem to be effective. There are plenty of people that are stressed because of work that do not smoke nor have they had the need to smoke to calm down. And if stress in the workplace is that big of a problem then maybe the specific causes of that stress need to be addressed in order to prevent those types of situations. He then says that smoking does not display an unprofessional image, but it is the sneaking away to smoke that looks unprofessional. The problem here is that he provides no proof to his claim of what is and what is not a professional image. If he had the results of surveys that asked the whether or not smoking gave off an unprofessional image or something of that nature then he could make his claim, but he provides nothing of the sort.

His third reason that says that smokers have rights is valid. If they want to smoke then they should be able to smoke. He brings up the secondhand smoke rebuttal and goes on to say that secondhand smoke should not be a problem as long as proper procedures are being properly followed when it comes to designated smoking areas. This is a good argument because freedom is what this country is based on. As long as smokers are not harming others (something that should be prevented with the use of proper designated smoking areas) then they have the right to smoke.

Pathos of Logos

Colonization can be a wonderful broadening of boundaries, or it can be a crippling defeat of society. Both sides can make a factual and persuading argument, but it is up to the audience to decide who is morally and justly correct. With the constant presence of British rule in India, both sides were fighting for attention; the Indians for freedom and the British for the retention of their rule. Siding with the unfairly crippled, I am amazed at the patience, will power, and peacefulness of Mahatma Ghandi.
"We do not want to remain frogs in a well. We are aiming at world federation. It can only come through non-violence. Disarmament is possible only if you use the matchless weapon of non-violence." On August 7th, 1942, these words were heard in Bombay. Ears listened and hearts felt that freedom was finally attainable. But why not fight for it! No, Ghandi said, no. He had learned through studies of other revolutions that non-violence and civil disobedience was the best way to achieve and sustain sovereignty. Now, he just had to convince the people.
Since he knew British and Indian people would be hearing this speech, Ghandi chose words that would inspire some and not offend others. No one wants to be a frog stuck in a well (especially if there isn’t a princess around looking for a kiss). At the same time, though, he is telling the ruling British that physical harm will not occur to them. He is inspiring people into positive action while also telling those that are the ‘enemies’ that their rule is coming to an end in a peaceful way.
Also, his idea of a “world federation” is a major statement of his vision of the impact this individual revolt could have on the rest of the oppressed world. His choice of the word ‘disarmament’ is also very strong and exact. It is a use of logos but mostly pathos, since he knows the power of his influence. It also tells the Indians that they will carry no weapons, but most importantly it lets the British know two things: 1. The Indian people will not attack with arms but with logic and unionization, and, 2. The British themselves are going to be disarmed. Again, their reign will be through.
Ghandi completely believed in the truth that actions speak louder than words. Their ‘matchless weapons’ are, indeed, inferior to bullets, because with every bullet the British fire, the more their presence in India will be seen by the international world as not needed and, more so, morally unjust and inhumane. Change was needed. Change was happening. The frogs were about to spring free as the well fell away.
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/policy/1942/420807a.html

tall buildings shake.

“…tall buildings shake/voices escape singing sad, sad songs…”

When Jeff Tweedy wrote Wilco’s powerful song “Jesus, Etc.” in early 2001 for his band’s album Yankee Hotel Foxtrot (ironically scheduled for release on September 11, 2001) the lyrics were nothing more than poetic. By the time the album was actually released on April 23, 2002, the meaning of Tweedy’s lyrics had drastically changed.

“skyscrapers are scraping together…”

Seven years ago, this image was poetic. Today, it is the haunting reality of the tragedy of 9/11. I remember the first time I listened to the song, being shocked by Tweedy’s blatant reference, especially so soon after the event and not knowing that it was in fact not a reference but a coincidence.

The tragedy of 9/11 has shaped our culture drastically over the past seven years. It has changed our idea of patriotism—if you’re not with us, you’re against us. It has changed our ideas on Arab nations and unfortunately for many, Muslims as a whole. It has changed our perception of war, that maybe we are not safe here on American soil. It has changed our sense of security—which is now based on bringing nothing larger than a three ounce bottle onto an airplane. It has changed our vocabulary. It has changed our politics. It has changed our freedoms. The list goes on, but ultimately, it has changed our lives.

9/11 has united us as a country but divided us at the same time. The idea of “America” is much stronger and we are all, in turn, much more patriotic but our ideas, our politics, our dreams have been separated.
So when it comes down to it, the message of Tweedy’s lyrics, in which he unknowingly foreshadowed a horrific tragedy, is that we all need to come together whether it be in the face of tragedy or in the face of freedom.

“don’t cry/ you can rely on me honey…our love is all we have…”

911 9/11 911

911. This sequence of numbers could be for 9 1 1 the police, 9 1 1 the hospital, or 9 1 1 the fire station. But just put a single slash, a little diagonal line in the sequence and our minds are jolted with imagery and memories of all the possible 911s combined. 9/11. One day, four planes, and hundreds of deaths are all part of that number. 9/11.
Even speaking or writing the date is questionable in some situations. Personally, I do not know anyone who did not get to say goodbye to someone that day, but I am from a farming community in Central Wisconsin. Here at UW it is far more likely to be with people who have personal stories that include eye-witness accounts. So, if in conversation the topic is brought up, will someone’s eyes fill with tears as the sky filled with ash that day?
Entertainment, as raunchy as it tends to be, has not crossed that line of indecency. For instance, an episode of The Simpsons, in which the setting was the World Trade Center, is no longer aired out of respect and also awareness that audiences do not want to see those two towers in a comical situation. The movie industry waited several years to make a documentary on the events and I didn’t even watch a film that mentioned the incident until the 2007 production of Reign on Me. Earlier, Fahrenheit 911 had been released in 2004, but that was politically motivated to time with the presidential election that year, whereas Reign on Me was for entertainment purposes.
Our language has also been changed as a result of 9/11. “Terrorism” was not a common word in 2000, as least not for us Westerners. In my part of the Midwest the word didn’t really bear much meaning. It was just an adjective to describe something that didn’t happen ‘around here’. But now we all understand this word of hate. We were a united nation of anger and sadness. That unity of anger, though, is declining I must say. It has been used to pursue other interests, used as a veil. Now, I am not belittling the acts of terrorism, I am just saying that we as citizens have been led into war based on the acts of that tragic day and the feelings it created. But how far can these feelings take us?
Media has changed, language has changed, and the feeling of nationalism has changed, among many other things. As U.S. citizens we are far more conscience of the use of certain words like bomb, terrorist, and domestic attack. This unexpected tragedy happened and it changed all of us, not just those under the Stars and Stripes, but the entire developed world. And that change is going to continue until we have a reason to stop it. But that will never happen, for there will always be a new catastrophe, another dictator on the rise, a new crisis. We need to remember that day of sorrow and death and let it change us for the better.