followmetofenway
New member
Hi! This is not an attempt to have someone do my homework for me. I'm a grown-up and I already handed in the paper that left me with this question. When my professor read my draft, she pointed this out to me, and I had to fix it. Since tonight was our last class, I will never see that paper again, and I won't be able to get her feedback. So, here I am! What do you think:
Context: My paper deals with a children's sex education book that has been one of the most frequently challenged books of the last 17 or so years. Most of the book's opponents criticize if for being "too graphic" or for "promoting homosexuality" or for "encouraging children to begin seeking sexual gratification," etc. Get the picture? My argument is that, for several reasons I won't go into here, this book is actually a great tool for parents to use when teaching their kids about sexuality. Research has shown that teaching kids about sex in the way this book does, tends to be a predictor of positive developmental outcomes.
My problem: At one point in the essay, I say "...it is reasonable to try to protect children from explicit or distorted sexual material on the internet, in films, and on television...[as opposed to trying to "shield" them from ANYTHING having to do with sex]" My professor called this "confused," I think, because when I say this, my opponent will say "But I believe that the book you're defending possesses the very traits you just told me you wanted to protect the kids from too! WE think that "your" book IS "explicit" and it IS "distorted." Does this kind of rhetorical response have a name? And what's the best move to make when it happens...besides not writing oneself into this position in the first place?!
Honestly, though, I don't know how I could have avoided it. I felt I had to show that, while I disagreed with the opponent's "protect them from everything! attitude, I am rational enough not to suggest that we don't have to worry at all about what kids see/hear/read.
My solution/My question: I chose to pause the dicussion, define the terms, then "claim" them, so to speak. That is, I say, basically, "when I use 'explicit' and 'distorted' here, I mean for them to convey the commonly accepted definitions" So, in the context of my argument: "distorted" might refer to "incest" but not to "gay", and "explicit" might mean "pornographic" and not "age-inappropriate," or whatever.
What are your thoughts? Can my perception that the meaning I want to assign to these terms is consistent with how reasonable folks use these words be considered somehow more objective than where my opponent is coming from?
Thanks!
Context: My paper deals with a children's sex education book that has been one of the most frequently challenged books of the last 17 or so years. Most of the book's opponents criticize if for being "too graphic" or for "promoting homosexuality" or for "encouraging children to begin seeking sexual gratification," etc. Get the picture? My argument is that, for several reasons I won't go into here, this book is actually a great tool for parents to use when teaching their kids about sexuality. Research has shown that teaching kids about sex in the way this book does, tends to be a predictor of positive developmental outcomes.
My problem: At one point in the essay, I say "...it is reasonable to try to protect children from explicit or distorted sexual material on the internet, in films, and on television...[as opposed to trying to "shield" them from ANYTHING having to do with sex]" My professor called this "confused," I think, because when I say this, my opponent will say "But I believe that the book you're defending possesses the very traits you just told me you wanted to protect the kids from too! WE think that "your" book IS "explicit" and it IS "distorted." Does this kind of rhetorical response have a name? And what's the best move to make when it happens...besides not writing oneself into this position in the first place?!
Honestly, though, I don't know how I could have avoided it. I felt I had to show that, while I disagreed with the opponent's "protect them from everything! attitude, I am rational enough not to suggest that we don't have to worry at all about what kids see/hear/read.My solution/My question: I chose to pause the dicussion, define the terms, then "claim" them, so to speak. That is, I say, basically, "when I use 'explicit' and 'distorted' here, I mean for them to convey the commonly accepted definitions" So, in the context of my argument: "distorted" might refer to "incest" but not to "gay", and "explicit" might mean "pornographic" and not "age-inappropriate," or whatever.
What are your thoughts? Can my perception that the meaning I want to assign to these terms is consistent with how reasonable folks use these words be considered somehow more objective than where my opponent is coming from?
Thanks!