I have also been informed that this Friday (9/4) there should be more copies of this text coming into stock. So please check the bookstore ASAP so that you can purchase this text. Beginning this upcoming week each student in the class will be responsible for owning a copy of the Mercury Reader.
For those of you who have not yet obtained the book, the Rowe article can be found here. Please read it.
I would like every one to post their responses to the Rowe article below as a comment. Here are the two questions I would like you to answer, with a full paragraph devoted to each:
1)How do you feel when you hear other people's cellphone conversations in public spaces? Why?
2) In your view, what is Rowe's strongest argument against cell phones? What is his weakest? Why?
I hope you all enjoy the long weekend. Have a safe Labor Day!
1)When I hear other people’s cellphone conversations in public space I personally don’t care. I feel that everyone has the right to do what they want in public, obviously nothing violent. But there is an exception to my opinion; I think it is wrong to do it in places that are relatively quiet such as a library. In that circumstance, people should follow the rules and respect others personal space and concentration. Although sometimes the conversations that are being publicly spoken can be annoying you would just have to deal with it because that’s life.
ReplyDelete2)In my view, I feel that the discussion of technology was Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones. I feel this way because I think it is true how people in general are so caught up in technology that they don’t pay attention to other things in life. For example, Rowe stated that the psychiatrist said, “How can we expect kids to pay attention if we are too busy to pay attention to them?” Kids, especially at a young age, need the attention of their parents. Without this can lead to not only emotional problems but also mentally. His weakness in my opinion was when he talked about cell phones being just as cigarettes. I feel that he’s discussing two different things, one is about a way people communicate and another is something that destroys your lungs. Although he feels cell phones are harmful, comparing them to cigarettes is too extreme and this comparison weakens the argument.
1)Cell phones have become the common denominator of communication within the past decade. Cell phones provide communication between individuals and grants individuals access to the interactive realm of the internet. While I am in public places cell phones do not bother me as much as they have previously. In an era of technological advancement, the common uses of cell phones are common. In order to progress in time and as a member of society, adaptation is essential. Therefore, I have no problem with individuals conversing on cell phones in public places.
ReplyDelete2)“Reach Out and Annoy Someone” depicts many sociological and psychological arguments against the use of cell phones and public conversing on cell phones. Many of which is very understandable and agreeable. The argument of sociological isolation is the one that stands out to me the most because of the many consequences that one can face due to this. The author, Jonathan Rowe refers to this as a “psychological polar field”. In an example given by Rowe, he depicts a matter where a mother and father are at a café along with their child. The mother is drinking her coffee while the father deters his attention from the children in order to talk on his cell phone. I can completely understand the author’s aggravation because due to lack of responsibility to the child the parents are more concerned with their own priorities rather than the real priority which is their child.
While on the other hand, Rowe Illustrates cell phones as a symbol of social status. I believe this argument to be completely accurate but irrelevant to the situation. I believe this is the weakest argument because everything in life revolves around status and in Marxist terms “Survival of the fittest”. Whether its fashion, electronics or employment; everything in life functions off of a pyramid system whereas the superior control everything and the inferior carry out the duties that superior do not want to. This discredits Rowe’s argument because the World will never change everything revolves around your status as an individual.
1. I regard privacy in the anywhere at any time. I don’t want others to get involve to my privacy and I am not interest in other’s privacy. There are plenty of conversations that I don’t care people talk on cell phone in public, except personal privacy. Space and privacy are the perfect distance between two people when one is talking on the phone in public. I feel extremely uncomfortable when I hear other’s cell phone conversation loudly about personal privacy in the public space. People use public space for group or individual activities, but not for private business. Sometime, they aren’t intentionally to share they privacy loudly on cell phone in the public which I don’t mind and I will try to be accommodating. However, they should be careful on what they are saying. I can understand and accept those people who talk loudly on cell phones about important matters or business works. If I hear people’s cell phones conversation about their personal lives or private secretes, I will move away from them. Especially when they speak with dirty words, I will turn a long headache from a relaxation.
ReplyDelete2. In my view, Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones is that cell phones are like cigarettes. Cells phones have the same impact on people’s health as cigarettes. They are gradually invade to people’s life when use normally. The most effective impact is that people can’t stop using cell phones once they become addicted to them. As Rowe says that using cell phones are the same as smoking, they produce secondhand noise, just as cigarettes produce secondhand smoke. The pollution of secondhand noise will be more serious than secondhand smoke and it will become a biggest issue in the next decade. The weakest argument against cell phones is to prove Quite Cars for non cell phones users as the way they provide No Smoking Cars for non smoker. In my opinion, I think this a thoughtful idea for people, like me, who want to have a quiet environment during traveling. However, this idea doesn’t have a great impact on people who enjoy working while they are traveling. In the age of technology, people have their own model of travel. Instead of having a Quite Cars without cell phones, they prefer to sit together in the Noise Cars.
Reach Out and Annoy Someone
ReplyDelete1.How do you feel when you hear other people’s cell phone conversations in public spaces? Why?
A: Quiet honestly, I don’t mind. Sometimes, I even find the conversations hilarious, other times annoying, not much because they are using their cell phone near me as much as some of the things they might say. There’s a lot of times when I’m walking down the street and some random stranger who’s passing by me, deeply submerge in his conversation, says something so out of the blue and random that I can’t help but stifle a laugh. In my opinion, if a certain conversation that a person nearby is having is irritating, then it’s a simple matter of being able to tune out the white noise, which, at least for me, is not much of a hassle.
2.In your view, what is Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones? What is the weakest? Why?
A: Personally, I believe Rowe’s strongest argument to be the scenario with which he opens up the piece. The weight of importance he invokes by opening up the pieces with the issue of parenting, or lack thereof, attracts the reader and also highlights a problem with cell phone use. Another which I believe is equally as strong is when he mentions the case of John Gould, a Main essayist, who told his wife to wait yet ran down the ladder of his roof just to get the phone. This is because it is something which I believe many of us do, and therefore by stating this, makes us reevaluate our actions, thereby hooking us into his piece yet again. His weakest argument, in my opinion, is the one found in the last two paragraphs of page 24, where he mentions how annoying hearing a cell phone ring and a person shouting into it can be, especially during travel. This is because, at least for those who are city dwellers, it is a costume to constantly go through this process, and some of us have found a way to tune out the white noise. Also, because of the way the author composes this part of the piece, these two paragraphs sound more as an opinion, a rant if u will, rather than a form of backing up his argument.
Reach Out & Annoy Somebody
ReplyDelete1) Personally I don’t care when I see or hear people talking on the phone, as long as its not about me and they’re not speaking too loudly. I know we all talk on the phone not only at our homes but also in public, but it seems nowadays people tend to speak so loud that they forget people are around them hearing everything they say out loud; most people don’t consider it rude too because they thing it’s a free country to they should have the right to speak as loudly as they want in public.
2) Mr. Rowe seems to really have an issue with people that talk on the phone in public, regular volume or loud seems to bother him. He states in his article that “people get sucked in by the vibrating sound or even the alarm of their phone.” I agree with him on that but it seems he really doesn’t like the invention of cellular phone. He even made a joke of inventing a device that blocks all telephonic devices, or is he joking?
Reach out and Annoy Somebody
ReplyDelete1.I feel annoyed when someone has their cell phone conversations in public spaces. Most of the time I can zone them out but when if they are loud enough it can get really distracting. You try not to eavesdrop but certain words just bring your attention to their conversation. Having those conversations in public spaces makes people seem obnoxious especially with their blatant bragging or gossip and it can get really aggravating. I also find it disturbing that someone who has those Bluetooth headsets can make eye contact with people yet are completely somewhere else mentally.
2.I find that Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones is how it can negatively affect the lives of people around the user. The example he used about the father who neglected his children shows how its use can cause health problems to the people who accompany us just like second hand smoking does. While on the bus I have seen mothers on their cell phones with their child next to them doing whatever they want, just to get their attention. This argument presents cell phone use in public areas negatively and reinforces the idea that its usage should be limited. Rowe’s weakest argument is how cell phones completely taken over in China. In such a crowded area I think that it helps people psychologically to be able to break free from such an environment, even for a few minutes. There are so many people that public conversations are just as annoying as if they were on a cell phone.
Hearing other people’s conversations in public spaces can be annoying sometimes. If the person is being loud and unaware of their surroundings I become very annoyed. I feel that they interrupt my concentration and force me to focus even harder to ignore what they are saying.
ReplyDeleteRowe’s strongest argument would be the lack of communication between families even though cell phones where suppose to help bridge that gap. I felt that this was quite significant because the cell phone has become another obstacle in the lives of families. It gives adults a faster more handy connection with work, which would cut into the time being spent with their families. I felt that the weakest point was when Rowe stated that we were obedient to answer a phone rings. Although this is true, I feel that there are good reasons why we must pick up. There could be an emergency or a person that we lost contact with for a few years. We use it to stay in contact with those we feel close to and are important to us.
1. There is nothing more annoying than people disturbing your peace of mind. When I hear people converse on their phones like they are in their living rooms- acting as if they are the only people around, it makes my blood boil to the brim. But what can I do? Nothing, because in this world that we live in, everyone has their rights and freedoms- America is a free country. But as public a place as it might be, does it mean you have to act without thinking of other people? No I don’t think so. In the end my only view on people who make noise on their cell phones in public are nothing but selfish.
ReplyDelete2. The master and slave relation have been ongoing for so long and as much as we have fought and still fight to end that relationship, we find ourselves creating new ones without even us knowing it. And that my friend is what technology has done to us- the cell phone and its owner. In his article “Reach Out And Annoy Someone” Jonathan Rowe makes some strong points against cell phones. One point he makes that I consider to be really strong is when he mentions the Amtrak train rides he used to look forward to but has now become a headache because cell phones has caught up with him there too. May be I’m attracted to this point because I also enjoy the train rides from new York to Connecticut- sleeping from the beginning to the end and would be very devastated if my sweet dreams were to be cut short because someone decided to talk on a cell phone or starts playing a loud music. At the other hand I noticed a point Jonathan Rowe made that I didn’t quite think was strong enough. That’s when he talks about everyone putting their cell phones on tables in a conference room to show whose is better. “Smaller cell phones are much more expensive therefore they have more status”. For me I don’t think having an expensive cell phone causes any public distraction and therefore need not to be mentioned or stressed on. Look if you want to and maybe give a compliment or just don’t look at all.
1) 1) When I hear other's people cellphones conversations in public spaces I feel normal because I do the same thing so it doesn’t bother me to hear people talking next to me. In my opinion “Latinos” are the type of people that speak loudly on cellphones.
ReplyDelete2)
2) One of the strongest arguments Jonathan Rowe made is at the beginning of the reading which describes the scene of a father talking on the phone and the lack of attention to his kids. I consider this a strong argument because is like the secondhand smoker the ones that are going to be affected are the kids. In the other hand, one of the weakest arguments J.R. made in the reading is when a woman calls her husband to tell him something but he just said that he was working. After a while the phone rang and he quickly answered it. This is why I consider this a weak argument because it doesn’t matter what we doing if the phone rings we will answer it automatically without thinking.
1. Personally, I have mixed views on the issue of cell phone usage in public places. There are some places where I believe they should be restricted. One of such places I believe is in hospitals. Having spent time in the emergency room and hearing people speak on their cells while everyone is quite can be quite frustrating and annoying. I find people who speak on their cell phones in libraries to be quite a nuisance also. The last thing I want to hear while I’m reading or studying is someone consistently jabbering on their phones.
ReplyDelete2. Rowe’s strongest argument in my opinion is his argument of the phone controlling the person rather than vice versa. That cell phones demand to be used, just as a cigarette demands to smoked. People believe that if they do not make use of their cell phones constantly then they are wasting money by purchasing it to begin with. This adds to people interrupting the necessity one demands of peace and quiet just to fulfill their own desire of making their money’s worth. However, Rowe’s weakest argument I believe is the connection he makes between the lack of communication between the family while there father is on the phone. There obviously shouldn’t be much eye contact if the father is not communicating with them. My father spends much of his time on the phone but it hasn’t affected the bonding between me and or the family at large. Relating cell phone use to the lack of bonding in a family is off topic in comparison to the article which is predominately about the annoyance one feels when around an individual on the cell phone.
1) How do you feel when you hear other people's cell phone conversations in public spaces? Why?
ReplyDeleteHonestly when I hear other people’s cell phone conversations in public spaces it has no affect on me. I don’t find it irritating, annoying or aggravating. I simply have no feelings towards it for I mind my own business, and don’t judge anyone for what they’re doing. In my point of view it is wrong to even sit there, and get upset over some one being on the phone. Everyone has their own reasons to why they want to speak to a certain individual on the phone while being in a public area. Whatever the case may be it is not right for us to be judgmental towards anyone. Some people have a habit to speak in a rather loud tone however, that’s how they would speak with someone sitting beside them as well. So we should not make that into a big issue, or the usage of a cell phone in any public area. The only time the usage of a cell phone would be wrong is in a library or a study place for silence is essential in such places, and I have not seen any one disrupt such places talking on the phone.
2) In your view, what is Rowe's strongest argument against cell phones? What is his weakest? Why?
Rowe makes many arguments against the misuse of cell phones in his article “Reach Out And Annoy Someone”. One of his strongest arguments is right in the beginning as he sees this scene where “Mom is nursing her mocha. The kids are picking at their muffins, feet dangling from their chairs. And there's Dad, pulled back slightly from the table, talking into his cell phone.” This shows us how cell phones have taken over our lives, and we don’t even realize it. Especially when you’re with family, cell phones should be avoided for the importance of spending quality time with family can diminish, and everyone can be busy doing their own thing. This can also affect the kids mentally because they may feel like they don’t get much attention. As Rowe also states “How can we expect kids to pay attention if we are too busy to pay attention to them?” which is absolutely correct. It’s like the father is there physically but his mind and attention is somewhere else and there’s no point for that. Kids in particular need the most attention, and by the father not giving them that it does not set up a good example for them. One of Rowe’s weakest arguments was when he compared speaking on the phone to second hand smoking. He stated “they produce secondhand noise, just as cigarettes produce secondhand smoke”, I find this statement of his to be absolutely ridiculous for how can he compare these two things. Cigarettes are something that can harm our health severely, and when someone around us is smoking it affects our lungs as well. However, if someone around us is speaking on the phone he refers to it as second hand noise but that isn’t harmful to our health in anyway. He just does not have the tolerance to sit there and hear people speak on the phone.
1) When other people around me are having loud conversations in public space I honestly don’t care. Everyone has the right to do whatever he or she pleases to do in public, expect for committing a crime or act of violence. However there is a limit to how you talk on the phone in public and where you are doing it. If you are in a hospital talking up a storm to one of your friends that to me would mean a lack of respect for those who work and who are in intensive care. It all boils down to your environment if people cant deal with the loud talking and annoying conversations, put your iPod in your ears and move on with your life.
ReplyDelete2) Rowe has an issue with people and the annoying conversations that they have loudly without any care for the others around them. Rowe states in his article that “ People get sucked in by the vibrating sound or even the alarm of their phone.” This I would argue is one of the strongest points in his writing because when your vibrates as to a custom ringer where you would know whose calling or texting you, you are more inclined to take your phone out of your pocket and start talking or typing which or may not get on your bad side but will surely cause trouble if you want to have nice and quiet moment and your phone suddenly gets in the way.
Fahim rashid
ReplyDeleteEng125-PQ1
Prof .D’Amato
Aug 31
1) I find hearing peoples cell phone conversations in public spaces annoying. In public spaces a person should not have to be bothered by someone else’s’ cell phone conversation. It is extremely distracting for people who are trying to do work. It can prevent people from getting there tasks done on time. Cell phone users must understand that public spaces are not right for private conversations.
2) I felt Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones was in his 15th paragraph. He states whatever is happening, their cell phone comes first. I was able to directly relate to this statement from previous experiences. Most people do give their calls priority over their surroundings without realizing it. It is rude to interrupt a person to pick up a call but people still do it because there is a sort of authority behind a call.
His weakest argument I felt was in his 7th paragraph. He quotes Thomas Carlyle saying, ‘for centuries travel has played this quiet role where a person is able to "sit still and label his thoughts"’. I don’t disagree with this statement, however I wasn’t convinced by the statements Rowe used to support this quote. He says he had a “hunch” that Madison and Jefferson sort out their thoughts and worked over their sentences in their minds on the long ride to Philadelphia. He predicts something based on no facts but his own opinion. I feel he should use stronger facts before stating something like that.
1. When I hear a cellphone conversation I personally become distracted. I begin to pay less attention on what I am doing because I am distracted by the conversation being held next to me. I really am not interested in what the person is saying because that's their personal life but some can be unappropriate. For example you don't want to be listening to some guy having a conversation with his friend of what he did with his girlfriend. But some can be helpfull. A terrorist can be talking on the phone. Someone can accidently hear the conversation and report them to the police. I agree with Rowe there should be places that should be respected because some people do want peace and quiet. I also agree that it has become an addiction because here on campus out of 5 people I see 3 were on the phone.
ReplyDelete2. Rowe provided many information regarding his argument about cellphone usage. But I believe that his strongest was comparing cellphones to cigarette. He says " cigarettes are intrusive when used normally, they produce secondhand smoke." He meant that the noise produce by a cellphone user can affect a person around the user than te actual person talking on the phone. It can also be compared as an addiction. For example he has seen people blabbering away on thir phones and when they are done they stare at the phone looking for someone else to call. I believe his weakest point was how a call has become a priority. Where many people stop what they are doing to answer a call I believe this is his weakest because there are always the type of people that are doing important things and avoid a call
because they won't let themselves become distracted.
1) When I hear other people’s conversations in public spaces I do not have a problem with it if I’m not trying to concentrate on something else. However, if I am in say, a train and I’m trying to read a book, I would get very annoyed if someone is talking on the phone really loudly because I like quiet when I read and if it is not quiet I would be unable to concentrate and very easily distracted. On the other hand it is a free country and I believe people have the right to talk however they want in public places. It really shows peoples level of manors and respect for others, for example, if you’re on the phone and you see that someone near you is reading a book, a respectful person will talk softly on the phone or move away from the person, while a rude and disrespectful person would talk obnoxiously and rudely with complete disregard to who is around them. I believe in respecting the people around you because by giving respect is how you receive it.
ReplyDelete2) In my view, Rowe's strongest argument against cell phones is when he talks about travel. He says, “In more recent times, trains have served as a link to that kind of travel. I used to look forward to Amtrak rides almost as a sanctuary. They provided precious hours in which to work or read or simply muse without the interruptions of the telephone and office… They have turned Amtrak into a horizontal telephone booth.” This is a very strong argument because of the fact that before cell phones became so popular, the Amtrak rides were peaceful and quiet and people were able to read and do work, unfortunately, the cell phones became popular and more and more people began using them which caused the Amtrak to become very noisy and no longer a place for quiet and solitude. I like his idea for “Quiet Cars” because it gives the people a place to have quiet and be away from the “loud talkers” and in this way, everyone is happy. Rowe’s weakest argument, in my view is when he compares cigarettes to cell phones. He says, “They produce secondhand noise, just as cigarettes produce secondhand smoke”. This comparison is completely irrelevant because of the fact that cigarettes are completely different from cell phones in that they are dangerous to your health where as cell phones on the other hand are not. Secondhand noise may be annoying and rood to do around others who need quiet but it’s not so serious that you can die from it like cigarettes are. So he overreacted a little too much with that statement.
1)I was always wondering what bother me more, the noise or the distraction caused by the cell phone. I really get annoyed when people start to talk loud making their conversation public in a crowd and tiny spaces. However, irritate I got when I am at some costumer service or trying to purchase something and the workers cell phone rings and a conversation starts as I was not there.
ReplyDeleteOn the article “Reach Out And Annoy Someone” by Jonathan Rowe, the pleasure of a quiet moment while on the train is being taken away on intrusive cell phones conversation. Rowe states that he and many others would be pleased if there were train cars where the use of cell phones was not allowed. He justifies his opinion by affirming that many people enjoy the train rides because they can get many work done while on it.
On the other hand, I would not get really annoyed with others people conversation as long as they keep their voice volume low. My problem is more about the good sense of the usage of cell phone than people conversation in public spaces. The good sense that many sales associate don’t have when they let a cell phone interrupt the process of selling his products. When this happen it just make me feel discouraged in go ahead on the negotiation there was interested to. The fact of keep a parallel conversation on the cell phone while I am standing or sitting in his front just surrounds a felling that myself and my business is not really important to them.
Many companies don’t allow the use of cell phone, but still many others where their business is supposed moved by the cell phone. Buying a house or a car gave me this bad experience where the “ sells person” instead of motivate me in their business, they just let it down by ignoring you in a extended conversation on their cell phones with a simple excuse – I was waiting for this call today!
Cell phones are every where and we should take an advantage of its benefits with caution. Not everyone understands the urgency of your call or the high volume of your voice while talking on the phone. Other time, business can get less effective when during personal negotiations one person let be interrupting and prioritizing a cell phone call.
2)On the text “Reach Out And Annoy Someone” Rowe relate a series of negative view of the cell phone use. Rowe starts by assuming that parents can be more into their cell phones than their own children. Further he explains his own disapproval of the unlimited usage of cell phone on the Amtrak. Rowe tried to compare the noise of the cell with the smoke caused by the cigarettes suggesting that the Amtrak should create a cell phone free area as they did when smoke became a problem.
ReplyDeleteThe matter of his concept is that almost everyone has a cell phone today. Of course every individual uses it in different frequency, but the reality is that no one wants to be the last one to know the news. Also, cell phone is the only way people can be easily reached. Cell phones bring to us many advantages besides the status that cigarettes brought in past decades. So, why not to use it at public spaces?
Trains were built to connect places in a secure a fast way. People spent their time while on the train to relax, to hear their favorite music with ear phones and also talk to someone that might have tried to reach them while they were working. Cell phones are a way to keep alive friendship and keep informed of what is happening at home. Rowe’s try of keep some cell free car at Amtrak was weak in many aspects because at his all explanation cell phone at the end just creates a noise conflict. Cell phones do not cause cancer on outside listeners as the smoke cause to passive smokers.
Cell phones are out there at any price for every budget. This is an effective way to connect people. There is nothing to do then hear conversation that we don’t belong while on the train, bus and ferries. The common sense comes to each individual of what they are going to talk when many people can listen and judge their conversation. Cell phones will be still welcomed at any public transportation that it can be activated.
Azikiwe Albritton
ReplyDelete"Reach Out and annoy someone"
1) when I hear someone else's phone conversations in public places it dosen't bother me. Its kinda of entertaining im curious to hear what the person is talkin about. Sometimes I even like to imagine what the person on the other line is saying. However if its not so interesting and I dont want to listen,I can always put my headphones in my ear and drown the conversation out.
2) Rowe's strongest arguement about cellphones is when Rowe discusses that even when the conversation is done we continue to look at out phone as if were lookin to call someone and start up another conversation. Rowe argues that "It demands to be used, almost the way a cigarette demands to be smoked". I really like how he compared the need for a cigarette to the need to use a cellphone.
His weakest arguement was when he compared amtrak to a horizontal phonebooth. He overly stresses it as if everyone on the train were on their cellphones talking.
Kristian Lani
ReplyDeleteENG 125 College Writing
Professor D’amato
Assignment #2
9/1/10
“Reach out and Annoy Someone” by Jonathan Rowe
1.) How do you feel when you hear other people’s cell phone conversations in public spaces? Why?
When I hear other peoples cell phone conversations it makes me want to eavesdrop only because I know that when I speak loudly on my cell phone other people eavesdrop on my conversations as well. People today, all they do even when they are out socializing at a café with all of their friends you would see all of them being on their cell phones texting, talking on their phones and while you’re talking to them they kind of hear you but at the same time not necessarily because they are so focused into their conversation they’re having at the moment and it just annoys you. At least for me when people are on their phones it doesn’t bother me anymore since I'm used to it so much. Sure it’s rude but who cares right? Everyone does it so you can’t get mad or upset. So when it comes to that I don’t have any problems at all.
2.) In your view, what is Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones? What is his weakest? Why?
His strongest point about cell phones is that it does destroy relations between people. It’s a way to socialize but it is also a way to destroy bonds and socializing with your mouth. I liked that fact that he mentioned the example with the dad being on the phone that was all the way out of the conversation and excluded himself outside of the family bond with his wife and kids by talking on his cell phone. So I thought that was a superb example of showing how cell phone conversations destroy certain bonds. His weakest argument was when he was comparing cell phones to cigarettes. I myself am a smoker and cigarettes and smoking are way different than cell phones and conversations on cell phones in my opinion. His argument to me was rather weak. He made a weak assumption and many will agree with me as well as disagree with me but at least that’s how I feel. Could it give cancer? Perhaps but there wasn’t enough information of proof that it could give cancer, in the article.
1) How do you feel about other people’s cell phone conversation in public places? Why?
ReplyDeleteHonestly, it doesn’t bother me as much, so I really don’t pay attention to it. However, if someone is loud with their conversation obviously I’m going to listen to it, if their talking about something that interest me. Really, it doesn’t matter to me when people use their cell phones. They bought it; they paid for it; so they should be able to use it.
2) In your view, what is Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones? What is his weakest? Why?
His strongest is when he talks about the lack of attention parents have toward their kids when using a cell phone. Parents have to be caution of what their children are doing; talking on a cell phone can distract a parent from watching their kids. Parents have to make sure their full attention is on their kids, for safety reasons.
His weakest is the whole relating second- hand noise as second- hand smoke. Technology does cause cancer or has been said to cause cancer, but it isn’t has serious has second- hand smoke causing cancer. Cancer is caused by many things that surround us. Second- hand smoke, however, causes cancer but almost many other health issues, such as asthma, bronchitis, rotten in the teeth, and other health issues associated with smoking. Second- hand noise, it’s just loud to our ears. It isn’t hurting the person next to us as much as second- hand smoke would. Second- hand noise is does annoying. Second- hand smoke is basically a more serious health issue. That’s why we have non- smoking areas and smoking areas. It’s just a more serious problem than second- hand noise.
Hwk #2: “Reach Out and Annoy Someone”
ReplyDeleteQ#1: How do you feel when you hear other people’s cell phone conversations in public spaces? Why?
A#1: When I hear other people’s conversations generally it doesn’t bother me if it’s in a larger public outdoor space like the street or a bus. I feel that if you are out in the streets it’s common and accepted to be on a cellular. The problem begins when you are no longer in those public outdoor settings it becomes a nuisance. I become more agitated when I hear people’s conversations in more crowded or intimate settings, where privacy and courtesy are required; for example the movies, or a fine dining restaurant. It is a serious pet peeve of mines that while in the company of other people someone is talking on there cell phone, people tend to forget the basic rules of etiquette and how no consideration for there surroundings.
Q#2: In your view, what is Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones? What is the weakest? Why?
A#2: I believe that Rowe’s strongest argument against cell phones is his point on noise pollution. Noise pollutions is in my opinion comparable to second hand smoke, people fail to realize the effect constant chattering on the phone. It is difficult if not impossible to find a secular place for some peace and quite. Even in places that require quite; for example the library, you still find people whispering on a phone. I feel Rowe’s weakest argument is his proposed solution for noise pollution. His main argument consists of a quite car on the Amtrak trains, what about the hundreds of other places where there is a need for peace and quite? What is the solution for these other places? He does not provide an answer. Instead he proposes new technology that is not yet readily available to the mass market, so till then we all must suffer from noise pollution.
Ariel Gayle emailed on 9/7 at 1:26pm:
ReplyDeleteWhen I hear other people’s cell phone conversation in public spaces it doesn’t really bother me a lot. Only when the person is being really obnoxious then it would really bother me. Other than that I don’t have a problem with the use of cell phones in public places because I always use my cell phone and honestly I don’t see how it is affecting others around me. If I was yelling and screaming then I would understand why some people would be unhappy with the use of it in public places.
I believe Rowe’s strongest argument was when he made reference to the parents not paying attention their children and how the major problem with cell phones is the noise that it produces. He asked the question, “How can we expect kids to pay attention if we are too busy to pay attention to them?” which is true because kids always look up to their parents to set the right example. If their parents are not setting the right example then the child tends to feel neglected and would respond negatively. I agree with Rowe in the fact that cell phones are noisy and can be distracting. It’s not that he doesn’t like cell phones, but he doesn’t like the distraction and the interruption of silence. If people were to use a soft speaking voice then maybe society wouldn’t have such a big problem with it.
I believe Rowe’s weakest argument was when he compared cell phones to cigarettes. I fully disagree with this because cell phones do not cause lung cancer or emphysema. He stated, “They produce secondhand noise, just as cigarettes produce secondhand smoke;” Comparing an electronical device to something that takes people’s lives is like comparing a librarian to a serial killer. It just doesn’t make any sense. Overall, I think he made is argument well and supported it well also. Cell phones can’t be treated like cigarettes and have special designated areas because everyone in the world uses them unlike cigarettes who are only smoked by certain people.