"Ten Reasons You Should Consider Deleting Your Facebook" by Annie Skinner
Snark Factor
Facebook and social media encourage the Snark Factor: Wanting attention, people want to be snarky, rude, condescending, hypocritical, in order to gain attention for themselves.
Snark Culture grows on us and becomes the new normal.
In Snark Culture, we continue to push the envelope, finding ways to make our comments more and more outrageous and extreme.
In Snark Culture, attention rules, not morality, not consideration for others, not respect for others. Snark Culture is about gaining attention for oneself by finding ways to create the Wow Factor.
By obsessing over the Wow Factor, a lot of people begin to violate boundaries of decency without even knowing it.
Sugary Sentimentality and Excessive "Take Cares"
If not veering into the extreme of the Snark Factor, some are drawn to Facebook to comment on "cute things," to enter the sugary realm of sentimentality. Everything is "cute" and "nice." Or people are fishing for sympathy by posting photos of themselves and their family having operations for broken collar bones in which hundreds of people post "wishing you the best."
Or you post a photo of your spouse and write some encomium (lavish, sanctimonious praise) beginning with "Eleven years ago I met So and So and my life, once a train wreck from hell, transformed into a long, warm bath of bubbles, giggles, and laughs. Thanks, So and So, for being the Light of My Life. I just wanted to give you a shout-out for the Facebook community."
Relying on Facebook for Constant Validation
"After four years of college and two years of grad school, I've finally achieved my dream and have been promoted to regional manager at PetCo. I just wanted to thank everyone for supporting me on my journey."
Social Justice Warriors and Do-Gooder Trolls Become Your Joy Killers
I was having fun the other day on Facebook and enjoyed lots of like and comments addressing the following post:
"Eating in Manhattan Beach, I saw a throng of homeless men with stylish black capes, meticulously manicured goatees, perfectly chiseled cheekbones, and bejeweled scepters strutting grandly along the street like powerful Old Testament prophets from central casting."
One SJW wrote, "That's so insensitive. Give those people a break."
I'm not allowed to joke on Facebook with self-righteous trolls breathing down my neck.
Sample Thesis Statements
Delete
Even a mindful person should delete her Facebook account in order to avoid FOMO, trolls, the inevitable "time suck," and the inevitable popularity dramas that infest this ubiquitous social media brand.
Don't Delete
In spite of the obvious pitfalls, Facebook remains a viable albeit limited social media center for conveniently sharing family photographs, making easy contacts, and staying in touch with people I'm too lazy to contact otherwise.
Essay #4 Options from Contemporary & Classic Arguments in which you will use the Toulmin Argument
Option One. In the context of the essays in Chapter 5, support, refute, or complicate the argument that the death penalty is a moral abomination that must be abolished.
Option Two. In the context of the essays in Chapter 6, support, refute, or complicate the argument that the best approach to the drug crisis in America is to legalize drugs.
Option Three. In the context of the essays in Chapter 7, support, refute, or complicate the argument that the psychological problems that ensue from Facebook use are so virulent that one should be persuaded to delete his or her Facebook account.
Option Four. In the context of the essays in Chapter 8, support, refute, or complicate the argument that we lack the adequate moral adaptation to accommodate the crises born from rapid bio-technological advances.
Option Five. In the context of the essays in Chapter 9, develop an argumentative thesis for a safe, moral, and just immigration policy.
Option Six. In the context of the essays in Chapter 11, develop an argumentative thesis for or against a policy that would forgive student loans.
More pros and cons from Business Insider
"Building Baby from the Genes Up"
One. What will happen to unconditional love when we have expectations of a Super Baby?
Two. Will we be individuals or the products of our parents' catalog wish-list?
Three. Will economic and social divisions widen between Haves (can afford to be super) and Have-Nots (can't afford to be so super, just bargain babies)?
Four. Have we committed the sin of pride by playing God?
But Babies by Design Are Our Inevitable Future
One. We don't want to deny our babies advantages if they're affordable.
Two. We don't want our children to be outcasts.
Three. We don't want our children to be sick or have dyslexia or some other affliction if we can help it.
Four. We may be denied insurance of various kinds if we don't upgrade our baby.
"Genetically Modified Humans? No Thanks"
Richard Hayes points out the dilemma of genetically modified humans: On one hand, they will have superior health; on the other hand, a free market of super babies will "undermine the foundations of civil and human rights." There will be a small group of rich Desirables who can afford genetic enhancement and large group of serfs serving at the whims of these Desirables.
Hayes points out the slippery slope: Once we improve one aspect of the human body, where do we stop? A child is no longer a child but a consumer product, an "artifact," a toy.
Hayes observes in the future there could be a "high-tech eugenics arms race" with countries amassing armies of super fighters.
Writing a Refutation of Anti-Immigration Sentiment
Refute immigration myths as presented in David Cole's "Five Myths About Immigration."
One. "Jobs are stolen from US workers."
Two. "Immigration is a drain on US resources."
Three. "Immigrants refuse to assimilate."
Four. "Noncitizen immigrants are not entitled to Constitutional rights."
Five. "America is being overrun by immigrants."
Opposing View
In liberal online magazine Politico, we have George Borjas' essay "Yes, Immigration Hurts Americans."
Can Americans Do Same Work as Immigrants?
How does the following video both support and refute open immigration?
Recognizing Logical Fallacies
Begging the Question
Begging the question assumes that a statement is self-evident when it actually requires proof.
Major Premise: Fulfilling all my major desires is the only way I can be happy.
Minor Premise: I can’t afford when of my greatest desires in life, a Lexus GS350.
Conclusion: Therefore, I can never be happy.
Circular Reasoning
Circular reasoning occurs when we support a statement by restating it in different terms.
Stealing is wrong because it is illegal.
Admitting women into the men’s club is wrong because it’s an invalid policy.
Your essay is woeful because of its egregious construction.
Your boyfriend is hideous because of his heinous characteristics.
I have to sell my car because I’m ready to sell it.
I can’t spend time with my kids because it’s too time-consuming.
I need to spend more money on my presents than my family’s presents because I need bigger and better presents.
I’m a great father because I’m the best father my children have ever had.
Weak Analogy or Faulty Comparison
Analogies are never perfect but they can be powerful. The question is do they have a degree of validity to make them worth the effort.
A toxic relationship is like cancer that gets worse and worse (fine).
Sugar is high-octane fuel to use before your workout (weak because there is nothing high-octane about a substance that causes you to crash and converts into fat and creates other problems)
Free education is a great flame and the masses are moths flying into the flames of destruction. (horribly false analogy)
Ad Hominem Fallacy (Personal Attack)
“Who are you to be a marriage counselor? You’ve been divorced six times?”
A lot of people give great advice and present sound arguments even if they don’t apply their principles to their lives, so we should focus on the argument, not a personal attack.
“So you believe in universal health care, do you? I suppose you’re a communist and you hate America as well.”
Making someone you disagree with an American-hating communist is invalid and doesn’t address the actual argument.
“What do you mean you don’t believe in marriage? What are you, a crazed nihilist, an unrepentant anarchist, an immoral misanthrope, a craven miscreant?”
Straw Man Fallacy
You twist and misconstrue your opponent’s argument to make it look weaker than it is when you refute it. Instead of attacking the real issue, you aim for a weaker issue based on your deliberate misinterpretation of your opponent’s argument.
“Those who are against universal health care are heartless. They obviously don’t care if innocent children die.”
Hasty Generalization (Jumping to a Conclusion)
“I’ve had three English instructors who are middle-aged bald men. Therefore, all English instructors are middle-aged bald men.”
“I’ve met three Americans with false British accents and they were all annoying. Therefore, all Americans, such as Madonna, who contrive British accents are annoying.” Perhaps some Americans do so ironically and as a result are more funny than annoying.
Either/Or Fallacy
There are only two choices to an issue is an over simplification and an either/or fallacy.
“Either you be my girlfriend or you don’t like real men.”
“Either you be my boyfriend or you’re not a real American.”
“Either you play football for me or you’re not a real man.”
“Either you’re for us or against us.” (The enemy of our enemy is our friend is everyday foreign policy.)
“Either you agree with me about increasing the minimum wage, or you’re okay with letting children starve to death.”
“Either you get a 4.0 and get admitted into USC, or you’re only half a man.”
Equivocation
Equivocation occurs when you deliberately twist the meaning of something in order to justify your position.
“You told me the used car you just sold me was in ‘good working condition.’”
“I said ‘good,’ not perfect.”
The seller is equivocating.
“I told you to be in bed by ten.”
“I thought you meant to be home by ten.”
“You told me you were going to pay me the money you owe me on Friday.”
“I didn’t know you meant the whole sum.”
“You told me you were going to take me out on my birthday.”
“Technically speaking, the picnic I made for us in the backyard was a form of ‘going out.’”
Red Herring Fallacy
This fallacy is to throw a distraction in your opponent’s face because you know a distraction may help you win the argument.
“Barack Obama wants us to support him but his father was a Muslim. How can we trust the President on the war against terrorism when he has terrorist ties?”
“You said you were going to pay me my thousand dollars today. Where is it?”
“Dear friend, I’ve been diagnosed with a very serious medical condition. Can we talk about our money issue some other time?”
Slippery Slope Fallacy
We go down a rabbit hole of exaggerated consequences to make our point sound convincing.
“If we allow gay marriage, we’ll have to allow people to marry gorillas.”
“If we allow gay marriage, my marriage to my wife will be disrespected and dishonored.”
Appeal to Authority
Using a celebrity to promote an energy drink doesn’t make this drink effective in increasing performance.
Listening to an actor play a doctor on TV doesn’t make the pharmaceutical he’s promoting safe or effective.
Tradition Fallacy
“We’ve never allowed women into our country club. Why should we start now?”
“Women have always served men. That’s the way it’s been and that’s the way it always should be.”
Misuse of Statistics
Using stats to show causality when it’s a condition of correlation or omitting other facts.
“Ninety-nine percent of people who take this remedy see their cold go away in ten days.” (Colds go away on their own).
“Violent crime from home intruders goes down twenty percent in a home equipped with guns.” (more people in those homes die of accidental shootings or suicides)
Post Hoc, Confusing Causality with Correlation
Taking cold medicine makes your cold go away. Really?
The rooster crows and makes the sun go up. Really?
You drink on a Thursday night and on Friday morning you get an A on your calculus exam. Really?
You stop drinking milk and you feel stronger. Really? (or is it a placebo effect?)
Non Sequitur (It Does Not Follow)
The conclusion in an argument is not relevant to the premises.
Megan drives a BMW, so she must be rich.
McMahon understands the difference between a phrase and a dependent clause; therefore, he must be a genius.
Whenever I eat chocolate cake, I feel good. Therefore, chocolate cake must be good for me.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Because everyone believes something, it must be right.
“You can steal a little at work. Everyone else does.”
“In Paris, ninety-nine percent of all husbands have a secret mistress. Therefore adultery is not immoral.”
Comments