The following is Randy Cohen's response to the previous scenario of the cell phone user on the bus. Please read his response carefully and write a comment which explains:
1) Whether or not you agree with him and 2) What literary devices does he use to persuade his reader? Provide an example from the text to support your answer.
Randy Cohen writes:
You should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly while screaming: ''Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!'' No, no. You can't do that. You should simply have grabbed her phone and thrown it out the window. And reveled in the cheers of your fellow sufferers.
O.K., not that either.
Her misbehavior falls between manners and morals and is difficult to rebuke because cellphones are a new technology; the social codes governing their use are still evolving. Here's my guideline: don't impose your cellphone conversation on people confined in a closed space -- a bus, a restaurant, a commuter train. If your loquacity prevents those trapped nearby from reading or working or simply thinking their own thoughts, then cut it out.
You correctly suggest that different social settings permit different behavior.
I can't ask everyone at a Jets game to pipe down so I can read my book. And there are different expectations at McDonald's than at the Four Seasons. Courtesy, however, is not reserved for the wealthy: even folks who can afford only the bargain bus are entitled to consideration.
As you imply, the ordinary conversation of your fellow passengers may be as loud as the cellphone prattler's, but it's not just a matter of decibels.
We forbid playing radios or saxophones on the bus (and I trust you keep your Walkman low); we can reasonably ban innovative sources of clamor and din like cellphones. Custom, too, has its claims.
You had every right to ask this passenger to curb her logorrhea, but it is not likely she would have complied.
The bus driver, had he been an English speaker, might have had more success: he commands moral authority that passengers lack. Better still, the bus company should post this clear policy: one quick phone call to make travel plans, and that's it. Your other recourse is the small electronic jamming device, the perfect gift for any occasion, but one that is, alas, illegal in many jurisdictions.
Alternatively, I propose this federal law: unless your cellphone conversation is amusing or intriguing, you must shut up.
As always, your response will not be graded if it is received after 5pm on Friday September 25th.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Even though Randy's response makes logical sense, I do not agree with his decision to make a "federal law" monitoring the use of cell phone calls on the bus. This would be a major breach of our personal rights. Since our country promotes freedom of speech and expression, it is our right to talk to who ever we choose, how ever we choose and at any time. How this is carried out should be left up to the discretion of the individual. Yes it can be annoying to others at times, but people just need to learn alternative ways of dealing with the situation. (Ipods CD players etc)
ReplyDeleteI know personally I would feel like my rights were being violated if i was faced with a restrictions such as this. The average American citizen has many things to juggle in there day to day lives. Families, work, relationships. If I was refrained from talking on my phone unless someone else found it "amusing" I would be appalled. Myself along with others, tend to have more things to handle then just using my phone on the bus to make a "quick phone call to make travel plans" Even though it may be an annoyance, people need to learn how to cope with their surroundings.
The author uses the literary devices hyperbole and imagery, to really give a visual description of his strong feelings towards the topic at hand. He exaggerates to persuade the reader to connect with his point of view. "You should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly while screaming: ''Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!'' No, no. You can't do that. You should simply have grabbed her phone and thrown it out the window. And reveled in the cheers of your fellow sufferers." This quote gives you a visual image of his exaggerated advice for a resolution and sets up for his opinionated response.
Joseph Fiddmont
Cohen's argument does bring up a good point that they banned the playing of saxophones and radios but allow others to have loud conversations in public places. Although this is a good point and does make sense, wanting to monitor the cellphone calls of people is a little bit much. As Joe stated, we are a country that gives our citizens the freedom of speech and monitoring the calls that we place completely goes against those rights. Although having to sit in an enclosed space, like a bus, may be very irritating when having to listen to the conversations of others but there are always other ways to handle the problem, one being to move your seat.
ReplyDeleteCohen uses the literary devices visual imagery and hyperbole to give the reader a visual image of his opinion. "You should simply have grabbed her phone and thrown it out the window." Cohen overexaggerates what the reader should have done to the woman with the phone to show how strongly he feels about the situation.
-Adia Brady
Randy Cohens argument did make alot of sense but I totally disagree with the fact of banning people from talking on there cell phones while in a confined space. I would have to agree with Joe, thats violating our first amendment rights by taking away the freedom of speech. I feel that the situatioin should be handled by the bus driver since its his bus and not by the people who are on it and annoyed by the young lady.
ReplyDeleteRandy Cohen uses the literary device imagery to give a little visual to the readers on how he is feeling towards the situation."You should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly while screaming: ''Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!'' No, no. You can't do that. You should simply have grabbed her phone and thrown it out the window. And reveled in the cheers of your fellow sufferers." This should give a the reader a clear enough visual on how he is feeling about the whole situation
- Michael Palmer
Personally, I do not agree with Cohen's belief on limiting the use of cell phones to calls that are only seemingly intriguing and amusing. Not all calls were meant to be amusing or even intriguing for that matter. Sometimes people would like to call other people to let them know how there day went, a funny joke they might have heard, or anything else of the sort. Besides, people have different sense of humor so just because a phone conversation that you over hear on a bus isn't amusing to you doesnt mean that it isn't amusing to the person telling it. As Joseph & Adia stated, we are a country that gives our citizens the freedom of speech and monitoring the calls that we place completely goes against those rights. Since this is true we should never be limited to one phone call. What we can do is at least have enough courtesy and respect to keep our voice to a minimum at all times on the bus (as well as other forms of public transportation).
ReplyDeleteThe literary device that Cohen uses is hyperbole to let the reader know that he really feels strongly about the topic and attends to go overboard. When Cohen states that the irritated passenger " should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly ", he took it too far. This is exaggerated entirely too much in my opinion.
Personally, I do not agree with Cohen's belief on limiting the use of cell phones to calls that are only seemingly intriguing and amusing. It also should not be made into a federal law. Not all calls were meant to be amusing or even intriguing for that matter. Sometimes people would like to call other people to let them know how there day went, a funny joke they might have heard, or anything else of the sort. Besides, people have different sense of humor so just because a phone conversation that you over hear on a bus isn't amusing to you does not mean that it isn't amusing to the person telling it. As Joseph & Adia stated, we are a country that gives our citizens the freedom of speech and monitoring the calls that we place completely goes against those rights. Since this is true we should never be limited to one phone call. What we can do is at least have enough courtesy and respect to keep our voice to a minimum at all times on the bus (as well as other forms of public transportation).
ReplyDeleteThe literary device that Cohen uses is hyperbole to let the reader know that he really feels strongly about the topic and attends to go overboard. When Cohen states that the irritated passenger " should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly ", he took it too far. This is exaggerated entirely too much in my opinion.
- Jay Carter
I agree with Randy Cohen in the fact that there are different social expectations at various places. It is natural for people to adapt to the environments they're in at the moment. For example, good etiquette tells us to keep our voices down and respectful at an opera however we become more relaxed and carefree in informal settings as a movie theatre.
ReplyDeleteSarcastic or not, I do not agree with Cohen in the idea that a federal law should be put into place to limit our use on cell phones.If the law was passed, Not only would it be violating our rights, but would begin to justify the idea of dictating how one should live their life.
Cohen uses hyperbole, and argument by analogy to persuade his readers. He analogizes the previous scenario to Cohen asking everyone at a Met's Game to be quiet. His use of hyperbole is also persuasive, "You should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly while screaming: ''Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!'' " This was a great sentence to use as the opening as it captured my attention and drew me into his response.
-Saba Davis
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe opinion Cohen proposed made me think; do I entirely agree with him? When Cohen shares his "guidelines" it persuades the reader to agree with him. He doesn't only persuade but he writes with impressive diction. He uses captivating words, his own personality, and some creative license that explain his beliefs perfectly. But I had to think about it for a second - a minute in all seriousness... and my thoughts processed. I made my decision. Cohen makes a great point, but I don't completely agree with his "federal law". I think that if a person is acting disrespectful and their loquacity is unnecessary then they should stop. However, a law that requires a person to "shut up" because of their enjoyable conversation is unnecessary. If it's so bothersome that you'd propose it as a federal law then why not tell the person to respect you and talk more quite. Don't worry, asking them to talk quietly It's a 100% legal. But if you don't have the character of doing so, bring a iPod with headphones and ignore the person who's speaking loudly. It's that simple!
ReplyDeleteRandy Cohen makes a beautiful analysis on the use of cell phones. That their use to impose conversations on people is a lack of manners and morals and that different social settings hold a different code of conduct. Also that manners aren't only for wealthy people, buses say no saxaphones or radios but if something like a cell phone conversation reaches the same decibel level as those things, a person should use their common sense to tell themselves they are being rude. Even though a person's cell phone usage in confined spaces is a question of morals, a person has every right to be on their phone as guaranteed by our first amendment so i disagree with Cohen's idea of a federal law banning cell phone conversations unless they are amusing.
ReplyDeleteRandy Cohen paints a two hilarious scenes of a person being beaten with the cell phone and a person becoming a hero by throwing a cell phone out a window by using hyperboles and visual imagery. Without saying his position, this imagery gives the reader a clear visual of Cohen's feeling towards the situation.
-Sean Thomas
As for the advice given to the irritated woman on the bus, Cohen's response was logical and expected of the woman. However, I do not agree with the ethical suggestions he gave to the talkative woman on the bus. Her "misbehavior" did not fall under the categories of "manners and morals." It was simply an expression of our First Amendment rights. If somebody does not like how or what somebody else is saying, they have the option of walking away, or in this case, finding another seat or an alternative means of entertainment(i.e. an ipod).
ReplyDeleteThe author uses hyperbole and visionary imagery in the beginning to grasp our attention. "You should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly while screaming: 'Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!' No, no. You can't do that." Cohen's descriptive and over the top scenario quickly dives us into the heart of the story. Through this creative opening we already know what position he takes on the situation and are more likely to be persuaded to believe the same thing because of his relatable, informal tone.
-Sundae Holmes
Randy Cohen brings up good points to ponder, but his main argument is a bit extremist. A policy banning the usage of cell phones on PUBLIC transportation? That is a bit over the edge. Even though i do not completely agree with Mr. Cohen's solution for the bus passenger, his language was very convincing, which made me believe i agreed with his solution.
ReplyDeleteCohen states that "there are different expectations at McDonald's than at the Four Seasons. Courtesy, however, is not reserved for the wealthy: even folks who can afford only the bargain bus are entitled to consideration". This use of argument by analogy makes the reader actually think about the situation. Does this passenger have to suffer through this woman's obnoxious phone call just because he did not take a more expensive mode of transportation? People should not receive certain dosages of courteousy because of their surroundings. Courtesy should be a universal value of all humans, spread equally throughout the world, and even smaller, public transportation. -Monique Mitchell
I agreed with Randy Cohen until he made his proposal. With that in mind, I disagree in regards to placing a federal law that will limit the use of cellular phones. Not only will this ideal violate personal rights but it would suggest a dictatorship. As my peers have previously stated, our country defines freedom of speech and expression. So, taking that into consideration would imply that people are given the right to do whatever they please. I would advise Cohen to include himself in the equation before making these extreme accusations because making this federal law would limit his personal rights and eliminate his individuality.
ReplyDeleteCohen uses rhetoric to command the readers attention and draw them into the response. For example, he says, "You should have grabbed her phone and pummered her with it ... screaming Shut up! Shut up!" This captured my attention immediately and made me eager to read the response because it made me laugh and I could picture this image in my head.
He uses hyperbole, which sets his tone and visual imagery, which portrays how strong his feelings are toward the situation. An opinionated argument is not likely to persuade the reader because opinions often vary. Therefore, the rhetorical devices such as: scarcasm and exaggeration are used to persuade the reader and develop a stronger argument.
I do not agree with Randy Cohen guidelines that the use of cell phones should be banned in confined spaces. A person should be able to talk on the phone whenever and wherever they want in public. If others become annoyed with the loud conversation of others then that’s their personal problem and they should find a way to deal with it as Joe stated “(I pods CD players etc)”.
ReplyDeleteCohen uses visual imagery and sarcasm to persuade the reader. He says ''Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! No, no. You can't do that. You should simply have grabbed her phone and thrown it out the window. And reveled in the cheers of your fellow sufferers.
O.K., not that either.” He uses those literary devices to convey how he truly feels about the use of cell phones. He also uses hyperbole in that quote because he exaggerates to get his main point across which is to get rid of the cell phone due to the personal conflict it has created upon him.
-Tara Harris (:
While this may be his opinion,I personally do not agree with Randy Cohen on monitoring your phone calls. I believe since it is a free country and people do have the freedom of speech, there shouldn't be a law towards monitoring phone calls.
ReplyDeleteThe literary device Randy Cohen used to persuade his reader was hyperbole. An example where he used hyperbole was in the response, You should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly while screaming: ''Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!'' Even though he may not have meant the response literaly, he was able to keep the readers attention and tried to persuade the reader to his opinion.
Although Cohen was correct in stating there are different social expections in places of different social standards, but like some of my peers, I would have to disagree with his ultimate argument that there should be a federal law banning cell phone usage. Firstly, although the noisy woman should have exercised discretion, she was not obligated to. There is no rule that says she has to decrease her cell phone use because it annoys those around her.
ReplyDeleteCohen implements the use of hyperbolic statements to enhance his argument and persuade the readers. When he says, "You should have grabbed her phone and pummeled her with it mercilessly while screaming: 'Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!' " he adds to the feel of personal despration to get this woman off of her cell phone, and the reader automatically understands the severity of the problem on the bus.