Readings for Tuesday, Sept. 2nd

After completing the readings for Tuesday, the most interesting detail that stuck with me the most was in our book ARCS about karios. When debating over a certain topic, it never really struck me until after that reading is that sometimes, there may be a more opportune moment. The sentence, "Karios is not about duration, but rather about a certain kind or quality of time, a period during which opportunities appear to those who are prepared to take advantage of them," (ARCS, pg. 38) really just struck a light in my head. It really does make sense. There is always a time for opportunity and I believe that may separate the great from the weak. The patience behind waiting to seize a moment of power can unravel your opponent. The book's example of Wall Street was a perfect example because it put Karios into a relatable perspective for me at least, because there is always a better time to sell than to buy. When it comes to rhetoric, there is always a better, more auspicious time to argue a point.

Another prominent point was made on page 41 of ARCS. It said: "Karios also points to the situatedness of arguments in time and place, and an arguments suitability depends on the particulars of a given rhetorical situation. The particulars of a rhetorical situation includes the rhetor, of course: her opinions and beliefs, her past experiences, as well as her position on an issue at the time she composes a discourse about it. But the rhetorical situation also includes the opinions and beliefs of her audience at that time and in that place, as well as the history of the issue within the communities with which they identify." This paragraph was also very powerful and also extremely truthful in my eyes. Along with the ideal time, also comes along with the idea that every argument needs to have the correct characteristics to create the most compelling argument. If a rhetor is arguing a point to an audience with a biased personality and no desire to change their minds, the rhetor may not have a winning chance. However, don't get me wrong, with valid points, factual information and a touching personal experience that drags out the emotion from the audience, the rhetor could win, however, it does dwindle back down to the situation.

During chapter two of ARCS, gun control was touched on. It is obviously known that this has been an issue in the US for years. The examples given in the book are just a few of many occurrences that we have seen in the past few decades. After every attack, more and more questions come up about gun control and what we can do about it. I am every bit in favor of being in control of guns and who has them, however one question that I will always have is this: If people didn't have control of guns, what would be next? I believe that there is a balance to most everything, so why doesn't the government find the balance on this? If not guns, then what would other people find to kill others? It's not the guns we should be worried about, it's the people who have them that should be the bigger concern.