Humanities Homework Help

Topic 1: Inductive Generalizations

In chapter 5, we learn three commonly used forms of inductive reasoning, that of generalizing from controlled studies, expert testimony, and analogies. To complete the first topic discussion assignment, please do the following: 

a. Find a controversial issue you are interested in (for example, the pros and cons of gun control, defund the police, animal testing, death penalty etc.).
b. Find at least two sources of research on the pro-con issue. At least one should be pro, and at least one should be con. Provide the links of sources you find. The sources may be online articles; newspaper, journal, or magazine articles; books; transcripts of radio or television broadcasts in which experts testify.
c. Based on the sources you find, what are the reasons for supporting the pro side of the issue? What are the reasons for supporting the con side? (Provide at least 2 reasons for each side)
d. Finally, take a position on the issue. Explain why you take that side, or why you remain neutral.

Topic 2: Reasoning Errors
Please read chapter 6-Reasoning Errors for discussing the second topic here. You can choose either question A or Question B to answer. Only one will be graded.

Question A. You Decide: Responding to Terrorism
Rational Individuals can agree that terrorism, the killing of innocent people to achieve political and social ends, is unethical and unjustifiable. Disagreement and debates on this topic often involve the treatment of terrorists. Should terrorists be tried in criminal or military courts? Is “enhanced interrogation” justifiable? Should terrorist leaders be assassinated? When Osama Bin Laden was killed by American Navy SEALs in 2011, several controversies emerged, such as whether Bin Laden should have been given a religious funeral service, whether he should have been buried at sea, and whether photos of his body should have been released to the press. Then president Obama decided not to release the photos, and supporters of his decision agreed that the release could endanger American troops and allies in the war on terror by inciting violence. They also argued that “two wrongs don’t make a right” and that keeping the photos private was a form of “taking the higher moral ground” by not gloating over an enemy and by providing a regard for human life not shown by terrorist activity. Those in favor of releasing the photos argued that they would serve as necessary proof that Bin Laden had been killed and put a stop to hasty conclusions in the forms of conspiracy theories. They also argued that the photos would provide some reliable closure for the families of victims of the 9/11 attacks.

Some News agencies refuse to print the names or photos of terrorists, reasoning that they don’t want to give them fame for their barbarous actions.

Questions: What do ?two wrongs don’t make a right” and ?hasty conclusions” mean in the above debate between two sides (in other words, to the supporters of Obama’s decision, what are the “two wrongs”? What is “a right”? What are hasty conclusions according to the opponents of Obama’s decision )? How do you believe people should respond to terrorist activities?

Question B:
Write a critique of an editorial or essay from a blog, newspaper, or magazine. Point out the fallacies made by the writer of the editorial or essay. Also, discuss valid reasoning on the part of the writer.

NOTE:
1. Please make sure you answer BOTH topics in your initial posts.
2. Please respond to at least 2 other people. At least one reply to each different topic.

here is the first post to reply to..

1. Topic: Abortion
2. Pro-Choice: https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtml

Pro-Life: https://www.frc.org/brochure/the-best-pro-life-arguments-for-secular-audiences

1. For the sake of this discussion we will be considering the Pro-choice side of the argument as the Pro side, and we will consider the Pro-life argument the con side. On the pro side the article gave the points that there are extensive situations, such as rape or life threatening complications to the mother that would warrant abortion being legal. The pro side also points out how having access to abortion gives a woman a right to control her body and offers a way for women to have equal access to work opportunities and autonomy that men have. The con side argues that you are ending a life. They state that scientifically there is proof there is a heart beat in a fetus at 4-5 weeks old. They also talk about how in some cases it was not totally the woman’s decision to get an abortion but they were forced and coerced by boyfriends, husbands, and family.
2. On this topic I am firmly in the pro-choice camp. I do not see limiting a woman’s resources to control her own life as a positive thing. I also feel like all men should be pro-choice, the decision to have an abortion or not affects women 10 times more than it would ever affect a man. As a result I do not think that it is a mans place to tell a woman what she can and cannot do in regards to her body. If you are pro-choice it fully allows women that autonomy to decide what is best for them and their bodies.

Question A:

1. The two wrongs in the view of the supporters of Obama’s decision was first the attack on the world trade center and second the potential posting of the pictures of Osama Bin Laden. The right would be a movement from turmoil and war into peace and healing. The hasty conclusions would be people not believing the government and coming up with different conspiracy theories that claimed Bin Laden was still alive.
2. I think that a response to terrorist activities does require some kind of response. These responses can come in many different forms. However, I think that a controlled and appropriate response is necessary. A response cannot cause more damage than the initial attack or activity caused. I am of the opinion that two wrongs do not make a right so, in my mind I think causing as little damage to innocent bystanders and having much more control over how we react is essential to having a fair and just response to terrorist activities.

and the second one..

A.The 2nd amendment

B1.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/constitutional-case-gun-control/600694/

B2. https://www.dailywire.com/news/6-facts-show-gun-control-not-answer-amanda-prestigiacomo

C.

Pros

“Gun bans are ineffective — yes, even the much-touted “gun buyback” program in Australia.”

“Over 98% of mass shootings happen in gun-free zones.”

Cons

Most people will have access to guns (with exceptions)

The state will be tasked by its citizens with limiting access to deadly force.

D.

Gun control and the 2nd amendment is a problem that is facing us down as American citizens and has been for quite some time. From personal experience and based on the pros and cons of these two articles, I have come to the following conclusion of my own. I am firmly against government confiscation or limitation on personal firearms, along with limitations on a well-regulated militia. I take this stance for several reasons, while also including the pros and cons above. The first additional fact I would like to bring to our discussion is the violent crime and rape levels that are being seen in the UK. If you are not familiar with the UK or their gun policies then I will quickly fill you in. You are allowed to have a shotgun and rifle for sport, but handguns are strictly banned and have been since 1996. I do not believe that for example, a woman carrying a handgun in self-defense is a bad idea for anyone except the attacker. I would like to bring another unlikely, but real scenario on why firearms are so necessary for our society. A government going tyrannical is much easier with a population that does not own any guns. To follow up, no I do not believe that as a public you need equal military technology to defend yourself against the government. The Revolutionary War and Vietnam War were both won using gorilla warfare and significantly less modern technology than the losing side, one of those losers being the mighty American military.

Question A:

I want to start by answering what I think is meant by ?two wrongs don’t make a right” and ?hasty conclusions.” Two wrongs don’t make a right is directed at the fact that just because someone did something terrible does give you the right to do something terrible back. This does not mean we didn’t get even, which we did by taking his life but remember that he took over 3,000 innocent moms, dads, brothers, and sisters from us. The idea that we should keep getting the people who wronged us back is just not right. I believe that justice should be swift and harsh. Now to move on to the hasty conclusion portion, I think they were mainly talking about crazy theories not based on reality. I agree that hasty conclusions can turn nasty if not disproved and discredited, but also want to ask at what risk? If that risk is putting more Americans in harm’s way I would be very against that sort of activity. Lastly, I believe that people should respond very harshly and critically to any sort of terrorist activity. People who perform acts of terrorism are absolutely the scum of this earth and deserve all the justice and force people who are protecting the innocent can muster upon them.