In Chapter 4 of The Great Gatsby, Gatsby invited Nick out to lunch in the city, at one of his infamous parties often, hoping to attract Daisy to come to them. They both go out and decide to have lunch together, and Gatsby takes Nick in his expensive car. During the ride there, Gatsby brags about his life and accomplishments. He also has proof to back up his claims, as if he was prepared for people to question his story about his own life. Before this chapter, Gatsby was simply a character. No one knew anything about him, except for his name. Party-goers constantly came up with assumptions about who Gatsby was, but no one knew the real story. When Gatsby and Nick go out for lunch, Gatsby goes on and on about his accomplishments, claiming he "graduated at Oxford", and that he "collected jewels". Nick begins to become spectacle, but restrains himself from "judging" like he claims in Chapter One. Nick is also introduced to Meyer Wolfshiem, who claims he was responsible for fixing the 1919 World Series. Meyer also becomes suspicious about Gatsby's friends, and questions Gatsby's wealth and life in the chapter.
Nick is really excited because he got a personal invitation to one of Gatsby's famous parties. Nick finally meets Gatsby, without realizing it at first. As the chapter goes on, Jordan, a girl nick meets at Gatsby's party, and Nick start to build a relationship
Nick starts off first by describing the setting which comes off very sexual.Nick meets toms' mistress and then later the mistress'[ husband who Tom is very rude too. George, the husband of the mistress, myrtle is very ignorant to what his wife is doing which is kinda stupid because of the signals that Tom sends. Tom later buys her a puppy to show him not his love or care for her but his power over her. Everyone ends up getting drunk and Tom ends up breaking Myrtles nose.
In Stephan H. Webb, a theologian and philosopher of religion, wrote a jeremiad titled “How Soccer is ruining America”. Webb is a Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Wabash College, he is also an accredited author who wrote 14 books on religion and God. In his article he “bashes” soccer as a sport; claiming that it’s running the land of the free. Webb creates a conspicuous sarcastic tone to get his message across clearly that his objective is to NOT berate the sport of soccer. The use of Rhetorical questions and …… assist to make his argument stronger.
He is able to achieve his sarcastic point on soccer by constructing 4 unbelievably blatantly weak arguments. His first argument emphasizes on the use of the feet vs. the hand. He starts his argument with a clear and simple message: “Any sport that limits you to using your feet, with the occasional bang of the head, has something very wrong with it”. He goes on to ask rhetorical questions such as: “Have you ever seen a deaf person trying to talk with their feet?” he does this to solely produce an effect or to make an assertion. He also goes on to make an allusion to the bible stating “Did Jesus wash his disciples’ hands at the Last Supper? No, hands are divine (they are one of the body parts most frequently attributed to God), while feet are in need of redemption” but he also contradicts himself because in the bible it states “And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet and listened to his teaching” (Luke 10:39). In this verse it does not say that Mary sat by the Lord’s hand but by his feet, the feet are also a body part that is frequently attributed to. And if feet are in need of redemption then why is she sitting near the feet. His last argument is based on the battle of the sexes, he states that soccer is a game for girls; but he has a daughter, who plays soccer. This is not a credible argument because no father would ever say or do something to harm their child’s feelings or confidence in what they do. He says that: “Soccer penalizes shoving” and that he believes this basically mimics feminine experience instead of masculine business. But all sports have some sort of penalties and regulation such as football to keep them safe. In his conclusion he proclaims that: “The real tragedy is that soccer is a foreign invasion, but it is not a plot to overthrow America. For those inclined toward paranoia, it would be easy to blame soccer’s success on the political left, which, after all, worked for years to bring European decadence and despair to America.” But there are many sports that are foreign but he never mentions or: attacks” them; these sports include Golf which originated from Scotland. All his arguments are built on a bricks of weak statements and assertions. [Before we begin, for anyone who would like to lose 10 points of IQ due to an incompetent soccer fan, please be our guest and read this article (http://amymaestri.com/198/).]
Dear Amy Maestri, We read your attempt at a rebuttal today on a controversial essay “How Soccer is Ruining America”. We are not sure if you are just blinded by your own ignorance or you lack the ability to comprehend a sarcastic essay. Lets begin with you first argument. We can see where you are coming from but you can not make an authentic rebuttal against something that was meant as a joke. Webb clearly mocks the belief that men are defined by their hands: “When you are really angry and acting like an animal, you kick with your feet. Only fools punch a wall with their hands.” This is an example of his sarcasm because the majority of the population DO punch a wall with their hands when angry. The next counter argument that you construct makes suggest as though you did not read the entirety of the essay.You claim that Webb wrongfully analyzed the way things went down in younger sports. You obviously mistook his sarcasm once again.Webb clearly does not mean that kids should be “broken down in sports before being built back up” and this can be detected by his use of diction: “Our chanting was compensatory behavior, a way of making the time go by, which is surely why at soccer games today it is the parents who do all of the yelling." At the end of Webb’s essay, he states that he is a parent who reads on the sidelines at games; making it even more evident that he was being satirical. As you continue to construct your irrational arguments against Webb, we can not help but notice your unrealistic claim that his last argument was “quite possibly the dumbest”.As stated in the last paragraph, which is apparent that you did not read that far, he is a father to three girls, and has a wife: “Nonetheless, I must say that my kids and I come home from a soccer game a very happy family.” Why would he deem it necessary to insult women? Before refuting some elses’ work, one should do their background first. Stephen H. Webb is a professor of religion and philosophy as well as a soccer dad. He does have credibility and you should actually try to think beyond the sarcastic and silly comments that he makes. For example, Webb referred to penalty shootouts as “anticlimactic”. Anyone, with the exception of you, can acknowledge that penalty shootouts are the best part of the game and that his use of diction creates ambiguity. I hope that by reading this, your eyes have been opened to the fact that this essay was oozing with satire; and if you don't know what that means I provided you with a definition: “the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing,or deriding vice, folly, etc.” If you only take one thing from this, remember that not everything is how it seems and you should read the entirety of an essay before you refute a writer. Yours sincerely, Anonymous Given on June 16th 1858, 2 ½ years before the Civil War started, The house divided speech given in the Old State Capital in Springfield, Illinois. The house Divides speech was given while running for senate as a Republican from Illinois, opposing Democrat Stephan A. Douglas. This speech itself didn't try to end slavery immediately, but he felt that the end of slavery was inevitable. In the speech he addressed that he believed that this nation can’t stand if it is divided over this issue: “I believe this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free”, he believed that to end the bickering over slavery, all states should either legalize or ban slavery, the North opposed this on moral grounds while the South defended it, due to their dependability on slavery to keep the economy alive.
In the speech, the audience's attention was grabbed by one simple phrase "A house divided against itself cannot stand", this was alluded to the Bible in Matthew 12:25 " And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:" due to this statement being built upon the bible builds up its credibility also known as ethos. He believes that all states as a nation should be united in their decisions either for slavery or against it, whatever they are for they should do it as a united front. He has a strong belief placed in his idea that if we are divided as a nation, we WILL fall apart. He proceeds by saying "I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided It will become all one thing or all the other." He believes that that the states should stand united in what ever the outcome and decisions are, this can be assumed by the repetition of "we" "If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it." Morgann, liv |
Archives
May 2015
Categories |