I don’t think the Rogerian method stands a chance in our culture, and we have our politicians and the certain mainstream media to thank for that. When it comes to the issues, the name of the game has pretty much become arrogantly asserting your position as the obvious truth and labeling the other side as either dumb or having selfish intentions; just watch Sean Hannity, or Bill Maher, or listen to Rush Limbaugh. One can’t even openly have a humble position on a topic without being labeled and categorized. If you believe in environmental causes, then to Hannity you’re a hippie tree-hugging liberal that doesn’t care about other people’s livelihoods or the economy. If you believe marijuana should be legalized, then to Limbaugh you’re either some latte-sipping yuppie college student who’s still too young and inexperienced to know how the world works or a pot-head that doesn’t appreciate the value of hard work. If you are pro-life, then to Maher you’re a right-winger who doesn’t respect women’s rights and who believes in a bunch of ridiculous superstitions. These people are paid to be loud and obnoxious.
Even if you try to be as objective as possible and your relaying of facts and reasoning is making one side sound not so good, then they will label you as biased. Therefore, the idea of unbiased is starting to mutate into this idea that both sides have to be addressed in just as flattering terms. The problem though is that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and it’s becoming easier and easier to deny and find facts or lines of reasoning that suit your own principles, instead of reconsidering them in light of new found truths.
People also need to realize that EVERYBODY is an idealist. You might think that you’re not an idealist, but I can tell you that you are. If you’re against gay marriage, then you’re an idealist; if you’re against government regulating this or that or telling you to do this or that because you don’t like being told what to do, then you’re also an idealist. Idealism isn’t necessarily a bad thing though, not always. Supporting laws against animal cruelty is idealist, but that’s certainly a good thing. Sometimes idealism is on both sides, like for example whether or not government should ban junk food companies from advertising on children’s tv shows.
I think a big step in the right direction would be for everybody to realize that we’re ALL idealists, and that the ideal picture in our head of how the world ought to be is never going to come to full fruition. We need to start thinking about everybody’s needs and not just what we want, and then maybe, just maybe we can find a common goal.
The nations energy demand has cause mass pollution and cost over billions of dollars every year. The hot topic has always been how much nonrenewable reasources we are relying on. In the year 2000 ,the United States energy demand was a 92% to 8% or a ratio of 1/10 in comparrison to renewable reasources. To add to the uneffeciency electrical spendings have cost the nation over 5 billion dollars. Using more natural resources hat can be reusable can help solve this problem and has begun to take effect in the past years. When power becomes scarce then the cost is higer. Now that most americans are realizing and accepting the fact that fossi fuels are detrimental and extremely harmful, we can begin to discover new ways on how to cause less or even no damadge. Water, wind, and solar energy have become more popular in the past decade and continue to climb in energy reliability. Nature is a combination of perfect balance and time which all aspects come in to play. If either of the two are ebused then the life of perfect blance will excel and not last the correct period of time. That is why more naturally approaches must be taken in order insure this balance be kept.
Human innovation is on pace to reach its own destruction. However steps are beining made to fight this struggle. Wind energy and solar pannels are two effecient ways in creating more energy. Niether of these sources are harmful to the enviornment and both represent reusable energy. The surrounings and details must always come in to considration, if it is overlooked then reversing the damadge done is almost impossible. The O-zone is just about the only thing protecing us from certain death and it is being damadged. This problem needs to be addressedas soon as possible and not be taken lightly. Only then can balance be restored and in the end it will help both the economical and natural outlooks.
When I was a child I could play on any sports team that I chose as long as I met the gender/age criteria. Rarely were there tryouts, and if there were, they existed only to determine the position played within the team, not to exclude participation. Fast forward to the past fifteen years, and every sports team, with exception to city leagues, hold multiple tryouts to determine participation first, then every position from quarterback to water boy. We have become obsessed with being top notch teams and with “supernatural” athletes. If a child is not an excellent, or above average athlete, chances of making a school sponsored sports team of any kind is nonexistent.
A friend of mine once mentioned to a children’s soccer coach that he was trying to decide if he wanted his six-year-old son to play soccer, or pee wee football. He was met with the comment, “at this age he should already be decided and dedicated to one sport.” I wish this were isolated to this one occurrence, but sadly this is the expectation of many coaches, and organizations. Another friend was told that his son needed to attend summer baseball camp at the cost of $6,000 to even be considered for the local high school baseball team, but this was no guarantee.
So many questions come to mind when I think about these scenarios and the situation as a whole. What happens to the children that want to play sports for their school, but fail to play at the exemplary level? What message does this send to our children and society? What is the true cost for perfection in sports? How are enormous salaries in professional sports justifiable?
Life is one hell of a thing to look after and read more upon it. I am just amazed that our planet Earth consists of living organisms and life in general terms. Nature is the beauty of our planet and for mankind to look at and try to grasp every bit of it. I concur that we all came from somewhere else possibly, maybe from the grounds of living little organize living cells or we are maybe some type of other earthly beings from another system. But, god only knows if thats true or not, but anything is possible. For looking up into the heavens is a real,intriguing, fascinating, curiously, and a vast amount of informative things to look out for. We all on this planet think that we are the only ones in this universe, but I truly believe that their are other life forms out their somewhere and that we just have not contacted them yet. Because all of us are still finding other ways of finding and creating other technologies in order to communicate with other beings that could be like us roaming around and enjoying their own lifestyles. So, like I said, life is too short and to precious and I suggest that we all enjoy what we do and create more ideas and having our own thoughts on things that come to hand. Live life to the fullest that you can and gain at least some knowledge and certainty of what our world has to offer to mankind.
– Angelo Zaccanelli
Marriage is not easy in America because there is an amount of people in it that do not understand what it means to be married or to love someone. Marriage should not be like some cake that taste good and then after you finish the whole cake you decide you want a better one. Sometimes I get this feeling in America that there are people that all about themselves and are always thinking “ME ME ME!!!” Marriage is not like that. Its about the couple as a whole. Once you are married to that person, you are making a commitment. It’s like a contract. Now ask yourself this. If you believe you found the right person for marriage are you ready to stick to your word when you say “I love you” or “I do”. Even if you are married and you can’t say yes to that question you should still try to make it that way. Marriage is a sacred thing to commit to. I believe that if you are going to have a divorce then it should only be if there is someone doing something illegal or a situation that is equivalent to that. I believe that if you get divorced because you decide that you don’t like that person anymore and can’t get along with them, then that is just the same as wanting to get “another cake”. It may seem like there is a better cake, but in reality there isn’t because you are desiring something you already have in which you decided you are not in the mood for. I guaratee that if you go after another spouse you will just end up wanting more “cake”. There is an amount of people in America that should not get married and they still do because they believe that they can make one moment last forever. Marriage should be about finding someone to have through “thick and thin” moments in life. Whether it is easy or tough a married couples should always stick together like gorilla glue. If it is a in the moment state of love then don’t get married yet. Marriage is and always will be a sacred gift. If you think it is just some excuse to live together and have sex then you are mistaken and you should not get married over something like that.
The Rogerian argument seems to me to be very practical. As the text states, the purpose of academic arguments is to “…approach an issue as an opportunity to solve a mutual problem”. However, this rarely occurs. What this means is that arguments, rather than being used toward the purpose of enhancing and deepening each party’s understanding of a subject, tend to instead reinforce and strengthen each respective party’s more narrow and less refined view of a topic. Thus, no true growth happens. In fact, I would be willing to argue that degradation of the subject occurs, since rather than learning more about a specific topic, the participants of the argument leave with an even more steadfast belief in the “rightness” of their own limited view on a matter.
What the Rogerian argument offers is a template from which to break us out of our more rigid habits; indeed, I will argue that the fact that we tend to argue to be right, rather than to learn, stems from habit. It is a learned behavior, conditioned, and as such can be reconditioned to a more constructive form of communication. The basis of the Rogerian argument lies in “…promotion of emphatic listening and consensus-building dialogue”. Therefore, rather than posing a specific viewpoint and attempting to recognize other viewpoints simply for the purpose of undermining them, a more balanced approach is taken. Each viewpoint has its positives and negatives analyzed. Following analysis, the best parts of each viewpoint are extracted, refined, and formulated into a new viewpoint, one that results from open consensus rather than manipulative rhetoric. I am a huge fan of this method, as I think it has the most potential for the benefit of individuals at any level, be it in individual relationships or in high-level politics.
Some of us may not see the need for a ban of wild animal imports but it really does effect our daily lives. In this article Wild Captives: The Exotic Animal Trade Josh Griep said “wild animals are called wild for a reason; they should be allowed to live freely in their native habitats.” When most people think of bringing wild animals out of their natural habitat they think of a tiger or a lion. However there are many other animals, big and small, that are extracted from their native habitat. Bringing wild animals out of their natural habitat is not only inhumane but can also be detrimental to our society. For example, the releasing of the cane toad into Queensland, Australia in the 1930’s. This little animal has caused Australia a great deal of trouble. The cane toad originates in the southern United States, Central America, and tropical South America and is easily manageable in its natural habitat. With little predators in Australia the cane toad population is out of control. The National Geographic reports “their effects on Australia’s ecology include the depletion of native species that die eating cane toads; the poisoning of pets and humans.” This is just one example of what can happen when you take an animal from its natural habitat. We do not completely understand yet how the earth works. We know a lot and we are learning knew things every day. Until we have a complete knowledge of the ramifications of our actions, we should allow that wild things of this world to stay where they are naturally placed to keep the balance of the earth.
“Cane Toad.” National Geographic. N.p., n.d. Web. 25 Oct. 2012.