Props to trinity for finding this awesome picture. Man that's a lot of blow, I wonder if he would be willing to share.Communists are simply misunderstood. Seriously is this the face of evil?
(not sure what a teddy bear armed with a Kalashnikov has to do with Communism but I thought it to good to waste)Well Karl Marx (finally a name I can spell) must be blushing, because today we talked about mine and his favorite subject, communism. The point that Hecht mainly focused on was how the Cold War affected religion in America. Such as how the United States motto was changed From E pluribus unum to In God We Trust and how under god was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. (They didn't accept my suggestion of under the capitalist pigs) These changes were made because Communism and Atheism were seen by the vast majority of Americans as inseparable. So in order to be the antithesis of our opponent the United States experienced a resurgence of religion. Enter our annoyingly abrasive protagonist; Madalyn Murray O'Hair. She is large responsible for separating Communism and Atheism in the minds of Americans. She also helped maintain the separation of church and states. She also appeared in an article in Playboy in 1965. [Who knew Playboy has articles? :)]
This brought us to our factual question:
Who is largely given credit for separating the Communism and Atheism in American minds?
A. Karl Marx
B.Walter Kaufman
C. Margarete Susman
D. Madalyn Murray O'hair
And our discussion question was:
Is it necessary to be controversial (i.e. crass, obnoxious, rude, etc) in order to get your point across?
No I don't think that it is necessary to be controversial to get your point across. Does it sometimes help? Yes, it does but it can also weaken your argument or your point. Because if you are offending your audience by being crass or obnoxious they are not going to be very receptive of your thoughts and points of view. When someone calls you a moron that doesn't make you want to listen to them. That makes you want to punch them in the face.
And boy, did she get punched!I much prefer the "nicer" style of Sweeney & JMH.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't someone start a campaign to reinstate "e pluribus unum"?
Cats+cocaine=win
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this section, I was very surprised to find out how relatively recently the US had changed it's motto. And in all honesty, I had no idea that it had been anything different than "In God We Trust". Learning this cleared up some questions I have had, however, like, "If this is our motto, what about the separation of church and state?" Unfortunately, our country acted out of fear and hastily changed our motto and pledge of allegiance, excluding many of it's patriotic citizens. Again, unfortunately, this change slowly evolved a new idea on what a "true patriot of America" really is.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, to answer the discussion question, I don't believe that it is necessary to be obnoxious, abrasive, etc to get your point across or to be heard. Unfortunately, acting this way really has the opposite affect that is desired. Also at times, people that speak abrasively, seem to lack in proper debating skills and resort to insults, which is no way to be listened to.