Cookie Boycott – Bill Brooks

Posted on February 3, 2012 by billbrooks175

This particular Girl Scout does not make a very compelling argument.  Several times she contradicts herself or stumbles over her own words.  This being said there are portions of her claim that bring up cause for concern in the Girl Scout’s policies as an organization.

Early on she quotes the release that was made by the Girl Scouts of Colorado stating ”if a child identifies as a girl and the child’s family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout,”.  However later on she cites a statistic which shows that most girls feel they would better benefit from being in an all girl group.  When we look at these statements side by side we can tell that they do not support her argument.  If a person identifies as female and her parents identify her as such then most likely she will be viewed as one of the girls in a group of her peers.  She also claims that the environment will not be nurturing or sensitive to girls’ needs if the Girl Scouts continue to accept transgender persons who identify as females.  Again this all goes back to the fact that they are identifying themselves as girls, and would therefore doing all the things that most girls would do.

She claims that it would even be unsafe if they were to continue with this policy.  But since these individuals identify themselves as females there would not be any infringement of the other girls’ safety.  The basis of her claim is trying to define what exactly a girl is.  Meaning does a “girl” need to simply feel like a girl and identify herself as a female or does it come down to having female anatomy.  Furthermore what exactly is she suggesting the policy on gender become?  The thought that little girls would need to provide visual proof of their gender is utterly sickening.  But her poorly thought out arguments seem to suggest something similar to this.  Even just how she refers to these individuals as “transgender boys” shows her ignorance on the subject.

She brings up asking where these Girl Scouts would sleep.  They would sleep where all the other girls sleep because they are in fact girls.  Obviously there would be problems with letting boys sleep in the same room as girls but because these transgender individuals identify themselves as girls there would be no moral dilemma or safety issue.  All in all her arguments are ineffective, mainly due to the contradictory evidence that she uses as support.  As stated before her flawed characterization of transgender people and logic that stumbles on itself lead the listener to believe (correctly) that she knows nothing about the topic which she is discussing.  Based on how persuasive her argument is juxtaposed to how delicious Girl Scout cookies are I predict her call to action will remain wholly unanswered.

Posted in Cookie Boycott | 3 Comments

Why We Still Have Polio – Joe Mleczko

Posted on February 2, 2012 by joeymleczko

In order to find more out about the eradication of polio, I googled the CDC (Center for Disease Control). Upon arriving at the site, I typed polio in the search bar and clicked on a link leading to the world wide eradication of the disease which lead me to this site. The information that stands out to me is the data table at the bottom of the page. Even though there are 26 countries with reported cases of polio in the last few years, the total number of infected individuals is relatively low. In 2010 only 1352 cases were reported globally. Being that the world population is roughly 6,840,507,000 people, finding that only 1352 cases of polio exist should provide enough evidence that we have polio on the ropes. We require just a final “push” to eradicate it entirely. This is a proposal claim in favor of the eradication of polio. If the number of infected people can be 0, it should be.

Posted in White Paper Polio | 1 Comment

Polio – Ally Hodgson

Posted on February 2, 2012 by allyhodgson93

The Nagging Autism Case

  • I went to AutismSpeaks.org and searched in the search bar.
  • “It remains possible that, in rare cases, immunization might trigger the onset of autism symptoms in a child with an underlying medical or genetic condition.”
  • This material supports the theory that vaccines may cause Autism, though it’s quite doubtful that was the intention. The information is complete and especially reliable, since it is coming from a source trying to convince you the opposite.
Posted in White Paper Polio | 2 Comments

White Paper Polio — Jon Gonzoph

Posted on February 2, 2012 by Blueitem (Jon G.)

“In about 1 case per 3 million, the vaccine virus can itself cause paralysis. (A current theory is that paralysis results in recipients with existing immune deficiencies.) This risk, while devastating, is “accepted” by administering agencies as a necessary cost of saving “hundreds of thousands” of children each year from crippling.”

A Google search led me to the website http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/polio , which is supported by the National Network for Immunization Information, a nonprofit organization based in Texas that is recognized by WHO.

Quotes from the source:

“The oral polio vaccine (OPV) is no longer administered in the U.S.

…

However, about 1 out of 2.4 million doses of OPV distributed in the United States actually caused vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP). In an effort to reduce this terrible side effect, a new polio vaccine schedule was recommended in 1997 (two doses of IPV followed by two doses of OPV). The new schedule decreased, but did not guarantee elimination, of vaccine-induced paralytic polio; so, effective in the year 2000, an all-IPV schedule was recommended, and OPV is no longer administered in the U.S. OPV continues to be used in countries where wild polio infections still occur.

…

OPV causes vaccine associated paralytic polio in a very small percentage of those immunized. It is more likely to occur in those with weakened immune systems. IPV cannot cause paralysis, as the vaccine virus has been inactivated.”

This information puts a new spin on the question of whether to force innoculations to be rid of Polio. Without this information, the argument in the paper is along the lines of “the only way to remove the threat of polio is to use the method that causes 1 in 2.4 million people to become paralyzed.” But with this information, the argument shifts to “We’re only prepared to spend the money to eradicate polio in a way that leaves 1 in 2.4 million people paralyzed, as opposed to a way to eradicate polio with no side effects.”This is a radical change, especially considering that in the U.S. (and presumably other more developed countries) the safe IPV method is used.

Posted in White Paper Polio | 1 Comment

White Paper Polio- Aime Lonsdorf

Posted on February 2, 2012 by aimelonsdorf

In the early 2000’s, a British study released that the measles and mumps (MMPR) vaccination could cause early onset autism or interfere with a preexisting condition, a study conducted by Columbia University researcher Ian Lipkin and Irish pathologist and co-author of the previous study have proved that the MMPR vaccination does not affect children with autism. However, it is still believed that there are specific substances that can irritate autism.

This is a definitial claim– it changes the way people can look at vaccinations and autism.

Google –> CNN –>>Study: No link between measles disease and autism.

There are some substances that are still believed to have altering affects on autism. Many autistic children have GI or other digestive issues, so doctors urge those with the disease to eat foods that will improve digestion. Items to avoid: gluten rich foods, dairy based products and other common allergens such as tree nuts. Other suggestions are to add vitaman and mineral substitutes. For example, iron and vitimans D, C, and B4v have had proven affects that can alter moods and even severe depression and digestive issues.

Definitial claim– How to treat eating habits.

Google –>> Foodforthebrain.com –>> autism

Posted in White Paper Polio | 1 Comment

Safer Saws pt. 1 – Bill Brooks

Posted on February 2, 2012 by billbrooks175

Resubmitted as a post instead of a reply.

Steve Gass, inventor of the Saw Stop system, was quoted in an interview with FineWoodWorking.com as saying “a person should not be cut more than 1/8th of an inch deep when contacting or approaching the blade at a speed of one foot per second”. The system that he developed out preforms this standard by far. Steve Gass is making an evaluation claim overall because he is stating that although his saws cost more than the average, they are well worth it in the long run. As Gass has said a trip to the emergency room can run well into the thousands of dollars and he claims that the extra few hundred bucks for his type of saw would be well worth it in retrospect. This claim is accurate because Gass has lab testing and video to back up the claim. The claim is very resonable because there isnt much argument to the statement “a finger is worth a few hundred dollars”. Also the nature of this claim is very persuasive due to the fact that it concerns a debilitating injury which anyone in the field of woodworking seeks to avoid.

Posted in X Stop Saw | 1 Comment

Safe Saws 2 — Cassie Hoffman

Posted on February 2, 2012 by choffman17
  1. Manufacturers
    Constituent: Steve Gass
    Claim: “About 3,000 people take their fingers off —about ten a day.”
    Claim Type: Casual; Table saws cause about ten people a day to lose their fingers.
    View: The way in which Gass breaks down the more abstract figure of 3,000 people to a realistic view of ten people per day really makes his argument effective; imagining ten people losing their fingers in one day is a horrible thing to think about.

    Constituent: Power Tool Institute
    Claim: “Gass (SawStop) is asking for 8 percent licensing/royalties on the wholesale price of each saw sold, a figure that [may be a] near-extortion and monopoly position.”
    Claim Type: Definitional; Gass’s 8 percent licensing/royalty request is a near-extortion and monopoly position.
    View:     This claim can easily bring many to the defense of the power tool corporations; by using such strong language — near-extortion and monopoly — the PTI is illustrating how serious the financial impact of SawStop becoming mandatory would have on the power tool industry. Perhaps if Steve Gass lowered  his percentage request for licensing and royalties, power tool companies would be more likely to oblige.

  2. Customers 
    Constituent: Everett Schneider
    Claim: Making the SawStop technology mandatory would “double the price of entry level power saws.“
    Claim Type:     Evaluation; Entry level power saws made with mandated SawStop technology would cost twice as much compared to what saws cost without the technology.
    View: This customer’s point of view is a good support on behalf of the power tool companies because it harmonizes with the industry’s worry of the financial impact that the technology would have on the companies and their products. Of course customers are concerned about their safety, but as Schneider implies here, the added safety of SawStop may not be worth paying double for an entry level power saw.

  3. Industry Spokespeople
    Constituent: Power Tool Institute
    Claim: “Consumer choice can dictate whether this technology … will gain widespread acceptance by consumers.“
    Claim Type:     Casual; Choices consumers make while buying will dictate the technology’s success.
    View:     This claim is extremely weak and has no real significance. The same can be said for any product or service; it is always the consumers choices that reflect the success of any company.

  4. Consumer Safety Advocates
    Constituent: National Consumers League
    Claim: “Current table saw safety standards have proven ineffective in protecting consumers.”
    Claim Type: Definitional; Current table saw safety standards are ineffective standards in protecting consumers.
    View:     This claim is ineffective because it is too vague; they don’t mention why these standards are ineffective, nor how it has been proven, or to what extent they expect the standards to protect the consumers (saving a finger? saving the financial burden of a new saw? saving their life?).

  5. Injured Plaintiff
    Constituent: Ryszard Wec
    Claim: Bosch Tool Corporation “has also actively lobbied the Consumer Product Safety Commission … to prevent the adoption of flesh detection systems as a safety standard on table saws.”
    Claim Type: Definitional; Bosch Tool Corp. is a company that has lobbied the CPSC to prevent the saftey standard legislation.
    View: This claim is extremely subjective because it essentially points fingers at Bosch Tool Corp. for “actively lobbying” against the legislation, which casts them in such a negative light, as if they were actively lobbying against consumer safety.

  6. Personal Injury Lawyers
    Constituent: The Schmidt Firm, LLC
    Claim: “Table saws cause more injuries than any other woodworking tool.”
    Claim Type: Evaluation; Table saws cause more injuries compared to other woodworking tools.
    View:     While this claim does a good job of presenting the dangers of using a table saw, it is ineffective in making it clear which side of the argument this law firm advocates protecting. Rather than demoralizing the power tool industries or claiming that the passing of increased safety legislation would create a large financial loss, they instead make the table saws themselves appear to be the problem.

  7. Government Officials
    Constituent: Consumer Product Safety Commission
    Claim: “The Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year. ”
    Claim Type: Definitional: The CPSC is determined.
    View:     This claim is somewhat vague; although they say that they want to be “part of the solution,” they don’t really state whether or not they have plans to do something or if they just want to be part.

  8. News Reporters
    Constituent: Larry Okrend
    Claim: “… mandating SawStop’s technology across the board is unnecessary and counterproductive. “
    Claim Type: Definitional; Mandating SawStop is unnecessary and counterproductive.
    View:     This claim strongly states Okrend’s opinion on mandating the technology. It’s strange to think that increased safety on a product could be viewed as counterproductive, but this claim will at least make people think about the power tool’s side of the argument if they hadn’t already.
Posted in X Stop Saw | 1 Comment

Saw Stop Part 2 – Jesse Samaritano

Posted on February 2, 2012 by jessesamaritano

1. Manufacturers – “During a braking event, carbide teeth could be thrown through the blade opening”

This claim is categorical claim because the manufacturer is giving an example of what could go wrong with the SawStop technology. This is not a very persuasive or reasonable claim because there is no evidence of this and a small piece of shrapnel would likely do less damage than a blade coming in contact with flesh.

2. Customers- “The greatly reduced risk of injury (and the associated medical costs) more than justifies the saw’s higher price.” – Larry Okrend

This is a proposal claim. The claim is reasonable to other customers because it can easily be proven right and it is persuasive in putting the price aspect into perspective on the safety of the  users of the saws.

3.Industry Spokespeople – “Consumer choice can dictate whether this technology, and its associated potential issues and added cost, will gain widespread acceptance by consumers.”

This is a proposal claim. This claim is reasonable and persuasive because consumers should have a choice in having SafeSaw technology in there table saws, and the manufactures should offer at least one product with the technology.

4. Consumer Safety Advocates – “An average table saw equipped with an automatic safety system will deliver $753 in benefits due to reduced injuries.” – Dr. John Graham

This claim is a evaluation  claim. This is a persuasive claim because there is a clear estimate of how much money the technology  would save just by helping prevent injuries and lawsuits.

5. Injured Plaintiffs –  ”[Robert Bosch Tool Corp.] colluded with its competitors” – Injured plaintiff in Chicago.

This is an evaluation claim. The plaintiff says that Bosch Tool Corporation worked with the other table saw companies to keep SawStop technology out of all of their table saws. This is not a very persuasive claim because, yet it is agreeable, there is no evidence of this to back it up.

6. Personal Injury Lawyers – ”By agreeing not [to] employ such safer alternatives, defendant and its competitors attempted to assure that those alternatives would not become ‘state of the art,‘ thereby attempting to insulate themselves from liability for placing a defective product on the market,” Ryszard Wec claims in Cook County Court

The lawyer states that a name brand manufacturer of the saws is trying to keep the SafeSaw technology from being used in all table saws. This is a consequential claim because he is explaining that by the companies not agreeing, the technology of SawStop is not state of the art. This is not a persuasive claim because the companies are not trying to dismiss the technology, but only saying that they do not want to adapt the technology to there products.

7. Government Officials – “Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made”– report by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commssion

This is an evaluation claim.  This is a persuasive claim because it will make it more likely for power tool companies to try and make there items more safe because more people are turning against them.

8. News Reporters – “For some time now an inventor has been trying to persuade power tool makers to use a new safety device.” – NPR News’ reporter Melissa Block

This is a proposal claim. This is a reasonable claim because it is true that Steve Gass, the creator of the SawStop technology, has been trying to get big name power tool companies to use his patented SawStop technology in their products.

Posted in X Stop Saw | Leave a comment

Safer Saws Part 2- Sam Sarlo

Posted on February 2, 2012 by samsarlo93

1. Manufacturers claimed that sawstop was not “proven”

Steve Gass put his finger into the blade of a saw with sawstop. I’m not sure how the manufacturers think they can argue with that proof. This claim means that there is no irrefutable evidence that sawstop will prevent amputation or serious injury, but Steve’s finger looked fine to me.
2.”There’s no substitute for staying alert and focused and strictly adhering to safe work practices.”
This claim is supposed to convince us that regulation requiring sawstop on all saws is “unnecessary and counterproductive”. This claim is not effective within the argument because nobody ever said sawstop was a substitute for safe work practices, and I highly doubt any table saw user would simply throw caution to the wind just because the saw probably won’t cut their hand off.
3.Industry spokespeople said “False positives can trip on common materials such as moist wood”
This claims not only that the sawstop system is prone to false positives, but also that they can be caused by common materials. This claim implies that such false trips would be rather frequent when working with moist wood. This claim is an attempt to convince the possible customers and government regulators that the system would be impractical for real-world use.
4. Chairman Inez M. Tenenbaum of the Consumer Product Safety Commission said in a statement “Despite my public urging for the power tool industry to make progress voluntarily on preventing these injuries, no meaningful revisions to the voluntary standard were made.”
This sentence contains many small claims, but I am most interested in the claim imlied by the word “meaningful”. What constitutes a meaningful revision? Wouldn’t any revision mean something to somebody, even if it’s just the assembly line worker who has to put one more screw in the table saw assembly? I think what he meant was that none of the major manufacturers started using sawstop or any other measure that would prevent severe injury in case of blade contact, but he doesn’t actually say that anywhere in the statement. If this guy wants action to be taken, maybe he should be more specific.
5.”Wec says his permanent and “traumatic injury””
This is a definitional  claim about the nature of the victim’s injuries, and one that is quite difficult to refute. Amputations are certainly permanent, and if he says it was traumatic, I believe him. This claim is effective because it creates an argument that nobody will challenge.
6.”not all table saw manufacturers have adopted it.”
Although technically true, this claim is weakly worded. In actuality, no table saw manufacturers have adopted sawstop. the only table saws on the market that have sawstop are the ones manufactured by Steve Gass, who never made table saws without sawstop, so even he did not “adopt” the system.
7.”the Consumer Product Safety Commission is determined to be part of the solution to reduce the serious number of preventable table saw injuries that occur each year.”
This claim, directed toward manufacturers, is intended as a warning that CPSC wants to do something to make manufacturers make safer saws. Were this claim followed by some sort of specific information about possible “solutions”, it would be much more effective within the argument that table saw manufacturers are obligated to employ sawstop technology. As it stands, they are saying something akin to “we want to do something about this problem, but we have no idea what it will be”.
8. This inventor, a guy named Steve Gass, had actually figured out a way to prevent just about all of those accidents. Over the years, he’s proved that it works, too.
This claim is part of a journalist’s article about sawstop, and it is effective as such. She is saying that he figured out how to prevent most table saw injuries, which is better than saying all injuries, which could be refuted by a hypothetical scenario in which someone falls on the non-operating table saw. She also cites the many demonstrations of the system’s effectiveness in the claim “he’s proved that it works”. This is a  compelling and truthful claim that is backed by real evidence.
Posted in X Stop Saw | 1 Comment

Safer Saws Part 2 – Ally Hodgson

Posted on February 2, 2012 by allyhodgson93

1. Manufacturers:

Claim: Manufacturers say the price of their saws would rise with SawStop which would eliminate lower priced bench-top saws and give SawStop an unfair advantage.

*The part of the claim I focused on is bolded since more than one claim is given.

Claim Type: Consequential; this claim is saying the adopting the safer saw technology would end up giving SawStop an advantage.

Claim Evaluation: This is not a good claim. I do not understand what they are trying to say at all.

2. Customers:

Claim: Approximately 40,000 Americans go to hospital emergency rooms every year with injuries sustained while operating table saws.  About 4,000 of those injuries – or more than 10 every day – are amputations.

Table saw injuries cost the United States approximately $2 billion every year.

Claim Type: Consequential

Claim Evaluation: This claim makes sense and really appeals to people’s brains as well as their pockets.

3. Industry Spokespeople:

Claim: This claim is made by Larry Okrend, the Editor in Chief of HANDY magazine. Okrend says, “almost any tool can cause a serious injury when used improperly.”

Claim Type: Consequential

Claim Evaluation: This claim is not contradictory and does make sense. The claim is accurate because there is a risk in almost anything. While using a pen, as safe as it seems, someone could hurt them-self. This claim is very supportive to his argument because it is showing how unnecessary the SawStop is.

4.Injured Plaintiffs:

Claim: A plaintiff, Ryszard Wec, says his injury could have been avoided if the manufacturers had adopted the SawStop.

Claim Type: Consequential; Wec is saying not adopting the SawStop was bad because his injury could have been prevented. 

Claim Evaluation:  I think Wec’s claim is a very good one. It says something that is very substantial and powerful; that his injury could have been avoided. People who hear that would be very persuaded if they heard his claim.

5. Personal Injury Lawyers:

Claim: SawStop is a safety device that can detect skin contact with the saw blade, and stops the blade within milliseconds.

Claim Type: Definitional

Claim Evaluation: This is a good claim because it makes sense.

6. Government Officials:

Claim: Inez Tenenbaum, a chairman on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, states that many injuries from table saws are gruesome.

Claim Type: Consequential; Tenenbaum is saying table saws can cause gruesome injuries.

Claim Evaluation: This claim makes sense and is persuasive. It is a fact that appeals to people’s emotions.

7. News Reporters:

Claim: An NPR.org writer, Chris Arnold, says, “Gass’ saw uses an electrical sensor to detect when the blade touches flesh instead of wood. “

Claim Type: Definitional; he explains how the SawStop works.

Claim Evaluation: This claim is informative and gets the point across. It appeals to people’s brains and makes them think.

Posted in X Stop Saw | 1 Comment