"Truth About Steroids" Response

     This video was very shocking to me because it seemed to promote the use of steroids. However, the program only interviewed healthy weightlifting men. The argument that was formulated was weak because they failed to take into consideration regular use of steroids by women, young people, and elderly people. Despite the lack of range of people interviewed, I think that anabolic steroids may be used responsibly by individuals not in high school, collegiate, or professional competition if used according to a prescription. A physical examination should be required before a person begins use and there should be a minimum age. 

     I think athletes on all levels and in all sports that use steroids are creating advantages for themselves that can be impossible to compete against and are unnatural. Athletes that use steroids are also setting an example of using an shortcut to success. I don't think steroids should be used by athletes in any level of competition or any sport and they should be tested for regularly to ensure this.

     Steroid usage is a problem in this country not just because of the amount of use but also the use by people of younger ages. There is a pressure in our society for people to perform at a young age, and adolescent use of steroids is a sign of this.

Paraphrasing

Because many use too many direct quotes in their papers students should try and look at the material once and rephrase the ideas as they are taking notes. This will allow the students to avoid overusing direct quotations.

   The first article is arguing that the the image of action figures is sending the wrong message to younger boys. It is influencing them to think that they have to be as bulk and muscular as these dolls are. Even those these dolls are unrealistic they are giving off the wrong impression. These younger boys often feel that they have to or need to look just like these action figures when in fact the dolls measurements are no where near precise. Boys too often develop eating and body disorders due to the image that these dolls are giving. There has been discovered many body disorders that is being contributed to these dolls. Along with time these dolls are becoming more and more unrealistic. There muscles and body image are becoming bigger and bigger. Body disturbances that boys have are being said to be a product of these action dolls. 

   The second article is arguing that action figures are just plastic toys that have no effect on the way that younger boys are perceiving themselves. It argues that boys eventually stop playing with them thus implying that they have no impact on their body images. This article sees no harm in the unrealistic body measures that these dolls take on. Kim Franke-Folstad sees no reason that one should be concerned that these action figures are portraying a bad picture for its participants. He feels that boys are always wanting to become muscular with or without the influence of action figures. He argues that these dolls have absolutely no effect on the eating and body disorders that the first article attributes them to. 

   The tone of the first article is much more professional and creditable. It does a good job at portraying ethos. The author uses many references and statistics. He also gives a whole list of references at the end of the article. He gives you many dates and years to go by so the audience gets a clearer picture. For example he gives you the details about the action figures body styles changing with the year. "It developed a new body style from 1973 to 1976 as the GI Joe Adventurer with kung-fu grip and lifelike body." He also gives you body measurements and how they would be converted to a real man's body which makes it more realistic and relatable for its audience. 

   However the tone of the second article is way more laid back and merely just rambles on. The author gives no statistics or references as to his argument. He gives his audience only his opinion to go on. He doesn't give any support for his opinions or reasons as to why he thinks that action figure dolls are just plastic and do not affect young boy's body images and how they perceive themselves. The author shows no creditability. He uses his opinion way too much and should be backing it up with some kind of facts. "For years, I've been defending Barbie against accusations that she promotes an unrealistic body image for little girls." The author should have used statistics to reinforce his opinions. 

   The assertions made in the first article were more reliable to me. They persuaded me a lot more than the second one did. Because the first article gave facts and references it was easier to relate to and was more realistic than the second article was. When i was a little girl i was really into Barbies. I played with them most of the time and could even go as far as to say a little obsessed. My parents never really told me i couldn't play with a certain toy but they were always stressing the fact that i needed to be a lady so they did influence me to play with Barbies and dolls to maybe keep me away from the more violent toys and action figures. 

Pro-ana websites and blogs should be shut down because of the negative message it sends to all of its viewers. It gives its readers and participants the idea that it is ok for them to feel this way and by writing how they feel and having others agree with them makes their thoughts ok. Instead of encouraging those that are having these feelings to seek help it encourages them to post their feelings and thoughts online so that others can see what they are experiencing. By them seeing that others are feeling the same things makes them feel that they actually fit in. They want people to understand how they feel to a certain degree but they also like having that little "dirty secret" that only they know about. In the reading Clairgirl says, " I kind of want people to understand, but i also like having this little hidden thing that only I know about, like-- this little secret that's all yours." I feel like the pro-ana websites encourages the kind of thinking that its ok to keep this kind of secret but in actuality it is not. Its not healthy in any shape or form. People with this problems seriously need professional help and if they are being told that its ok to feel this way they are putting their lives at stake. Davis from the reading says, "When young women get into the grips of this disease, their thoughts become very distorted, and part of it is they believe they're unique and special. The sites are a way for them to connect with other girls and to basically talk about how special they are. And they become very isolated. Women with eating disorders really thrive in a lot of ways on being very disconnected. At the same time, of course, they have a yearning to be connected." Women that are feeling isolated and disconnected do not need other people that are experiencing the same things to be their guide. Its like the blind leading the blind. These sites provoke them to continue in their ways. Therefore instead of talking to others about how special they think they are they should be seeking out professional help to get their lives and health back in shape. 

I think that pro-ana websites and blogs are a positive thing and should be encouraged. It promotes support and lets girls know they are not alone in the situation. It builds friendships and trust. People with these diseases need a support system and these sites provide that. "The members of a few sites send bracelets, like friendship bracelets, as a symbols of solidarity and support." This sort of act lets these women know that they have support and that they are not the only ones experiencing these feelings and thoughts. It gives them hope that they are not outcasted as they feel they are. It makes them feel better to know that they are part of a group and not isolated. Futurebird says, "What I'd like people to understand is that it is very difficult for people who have an eating disorder to ask for help. What a lot of people are able to do is to say, well , I can't go to a recovery site and ask for help. I can't go to a doctor or a friend and ask for help. I can't tell anyone. But I can go to this site because it's going to make me worse. And instead what I hope they find is people who share their experience and that they're able to just simply talk." These sites provide better support than recovery sites would. Recovery sites sometimes look down on people for saying certain things but when logged in to a pro-ana site you can voice your feelings and not have to worry about being judged about how your feeling. These sites simply validate that these girls are not abnormal and at this time in their life is what they need. They need to know there are others out there that feel the same way and are going through the same things. These sites are a positive thing that can help these girls realize they are not crazy and that they are not alone. 

I think that these pro-ana sites and blogs can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. While it promotes support it also doesn't encourage these girls to seek out professional help. These feelings are dangerous and could possible lead to death. On the other hand these sites lets one see that they are not alone in this world and that they have others out there that know how they feel and can relate to them. "A place where a group of for the most part very unhappy and in some part very angry girls and women come together to support each other in sickness rather than in health." These sites lets one's own uniqueness and individuality come through and encourages them to feel comfortable with themselves. Although these sites can be supportive they cannot give these girls the help they sincerely need to get better. 

Fallacies

Strawperson: "Nurses are kind people. They always want to help people and make them feel better. "

Either/or Reasoning: "Either your occupation should nursing or nothing at all."

I was really surprised at how derogative the ad was. It  brutally criticized the joggers and made them seem useless. It painted a picture of how better and more important runners are in how it stated that the they are always the ones that find the dead bodies and how much they contribute to society. The discrimination of this ad stood out to me the most. It greatly looked down on joggers and aggressively down sized them. The fact that it would criticize one group of people just to promote a product greatly shocked me. 

I personally not being a runner considered this ad to be degrading. I think that the company should have took into consideration how non-runners may be offended by their ad and not buy the product. 

I found the text of the "We are not joggers" campaign to be some what disturbing. I do not see how you could take the evolution of the human body and turn it into we are meant to run. There are a lot of people in this world who use the advantages of being the most evolved species for other uses than simply running. I feel that the creators of this ad took certain subjects from the humans' historical past and greatly twisted it to fit the cause of running. The statement "if you weren't already a runner you would have never have been born" is just simply ridiculous. All of the sayings included in the presentation are very biased. I will give the campaign credit for its layout. It is interesting and eye grabbing. 

The values of being a real runner is significantly promoted in this ad. Real runners do not need music to pass the time. They truly enjoy the whole experience. It promotes determination and competition  in the fact that joggers may feel more determined  and motivated to out do the runners. It also promotes the values of citizenship. Runners may feel a greater sense of unity and  strive more to run down those less popular routes just so they can be on the lookout for anything that seems to be abnormal. 

I do see marketing advantages in dividing the runners from the joggers in the sense that the ad was so harsh towards joggers that it could encourage more of them to take up running, which would  lead to them buying the company's shoes. The company was tactful in the way that they used the the sense of division to promote joggers to move forward to running. 

In the first ad, I feel that the campaign was largely based on ethos. The company was trying to play on runners feeling of pride for being the better version of a "jogger." However, the company was also trying to play off of a joggers' emotion of feeling inadequate. If either of these emotions were promoted by this ad, it would cause both the runner and the jogger to want to purchase the merchandise. I think that the second ad was based more on logos. I think this because it is persuading consumers to be smart about not pushing themselves, which by showing the runner throwing up is logical. I think that this ad would have a larger audience that it would appeal to than the other. 

In considering which ad to appear in a magazine, i would choose the second Reebok ad. It is a simple ad that clearly gets the point across in not so many words. The Pearl Izumi's ad is too long, and I think readers would lose interest or be apt to not read it at all if they just considered the length. The Reebok ad is more effective in that it only has to make one statement. The picture does a great job at getting the point across. It is a great attention grabber. I also feel that this ad is less offensive, which in itself would be more productive for the company.