This is a powerful differentiator from Comments.

This is so important to understand.

This is an interesting moment as we think the rhetorical tradition as a series of annotations, and as we recognize our own historical embeddedness.

This sounds like the concept of the motivated sequence (take public speaking, folks) where the speaker inspires the audience to take action, and I think this concept is brilliantly illustrated in Mark Antony's speech from William Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. This brief clip from the Mankiewicz film demonstrates how Mark Antony provokes a unique passion from his audience that directly leads to action - the chaos that consumes Rome in the second half of the play/film. There a plenty of examples of this motivated sequence from pop culture, but Shakespeare/Mankiewicz/Brando illustrate it brilliantly.

Now we know who made annotation #1,000,000!

Annotating the body.

The level of access--I guess that's scale--seem quite different.

How different would our definition(s) of rhetoric be if we viewed it through the lens of another ancient civilization? I think what this article (and many of the articles which we have read) is saying that in order to gain a broader and deeper understanding of rhetoric, we must view it from the perspective of multiple cultural interpretations.

Alludes to the "Q" question, possibly. To know if something has been fully "rhetoricized," we must understand how it falls into the context of rhetoric. Meaning we must understand how it influences and is influenced by rhetoric.

An interesting point—how can the learning and acquisition of knowledge of the outside world be contextualized in a way to benefit self-development? How can what we learn about others allow us to understand ourselves more deeply and establish a relationship with ourselves?

I thought this was a good piece to start the semester with. Not to oversimplify this chapter, but in a way, it was kind of like an annotative process. It's taking a large scope of writings and responding to/interacting with/comparing them. The annotations is sort of a smaller, beginning stage in interacting with texts in order to sort of trace what rhetoric is.

How to share specific annotation rather than a whole page

How to Annotate Jupyter notebook stored online

I added and annotation to this entity as an example of a note

Indeed!

I keep coming back to this question: does web annotation open up copyrighted texts?

Let's set aside whether it's ultimately legal for me to annotate a document and share that annotated document--or "republish" a portion of targeted content from a copyrighted source through an annotation service.

Web annotation does allow me to "open" copyrighted content to critique, commentary, and a certain kind of remixing. Quoting and critiquing/commentating is the oldest remix tool in the humanities scholar playbook.

To me this is the heart of it, especially in so far as this use case overlaps with the educational/classroom one.

Die LIBREAS-Redaktion lädt übrigens sehr dazu ein, die Inhalte der Zeitschrift aktiv zu annotieren. Weiteres folgt (vermutlich) in der kommenden Ausgabe #30. Thema ist dann: Post-Digital-Humanities.

Sometimes I'm not sure whether to do a page note or an annotation. Both?

"Penciling"? What's a pencil!?

Bullock team. Tyrrell Photograph Collection, Powerhouse Museum

Rigby's Romance evolved from the fifth chapter of the 1898 typescript version of Such is Life. In that text, the date of Tom Collins' arrival in Echuca is 9 January 1884. Although missing from TS, the date of the record is confirmed by internal evidence, such as Tom Collins’ two arrivals at Deniliquin in the closing pages; ‘2.45, p.m., on a cold winter day, nearly five months after the date of the events just recorded – or, to be precise, on the 3rd of June’ (TS 521); or ‘three o’clock on a Saturday afternoon, six or eight weeks after the date of the events just recorded’ (RR 249).

Situated in the Victorian Shire of Moira, Yarrawonga is 133 km upriver from Echuca.

With his insatiable appetite and his owner's vigilant protection and affection, Tom Collins' kangaroo dog, Pup, is a significant presence in both Rigby's Romance and Such is Life. Bred from greyhound and deerhound stock, kangaroo dogs were used primarily as a hunting dog and adapted well to Australian conditions. Kangaroo dog owned by Mr Dunn of Castlereagh Street, Sydney, 1853 / painted by Thomas Tyrwhitt Balcombe (State Library of New South Wales)

Echuca is located in the Victorian Shire of Campapse on the southern bank of the Murray River.

From "The Mother" by George Crabbe (1754-1832). First published as Tale VIII in Tales in Verse (1812).

Boom!

And new tools.

Its not only important for our curiosity but for the future of mankind too. It inspires people to be scientists, astronauts,and engineers that will even further help the space program. Nasa also does a lot of environmentally friendly projects even though they burn a lot of rocket fuel. They also study a lot of how to help the earth out from energy usage to climate change. Nasa also improves our daily lives with many objects they have created such as baby formulas, cell phone cameras, shoe insoles, and memory foam. Not only does he space program help on earth and beyond it, it also helps us put ourselves and the universe in perspective.

This is an interesting quote because it shows how personality and traits of a person actually affects the potential of their effort into college courses. A student's personality plays an important role in how they do in college or academics because whether they are enthusiastic or depressed will show in their study habits as well as test scores. When it comes to academics, many people will think it may come natural rather than utilizing the cognitive skills, which is believed to be a skill that applies. However, cognition is an important asset - there is more that contributes into this criteria of education. Although, what draws the line to being fully considered as a thriver student or a diver student. Can someone(a student)be considered both?

Originally a British daily newspaper, the Guardian has expanded its reach to worldwide news reporting on a variety of issues.

Jessica Valenti is a feminist author and blogger, and is the founder of feministing.com. A short biography of Valenti can be viewed at: http://jessicavalenti.com/about

McEwan expertly phrases this important point! This excerpt could be used to support my claim that culturally, white males are privileged and coddled which can lead to violent outbursts.

By offering further evidence of misogynistic crime, the reader begins to understand how pressing this issue is. This plays to both the ethos and logos of Valenti. Ethos, because the author includes a link to the source, and logos because a list of examples can be seen as data, as evidence of wrongdoing.

Valenti is aware of the way in which crimes of this nature (and their perpetrators) are typically addressed in the media, and she makes a point to not allow the excuses. Too many times, excuses are made for men who commit heinous crimes like this. The perpetrator is referred to as the "lone wolf" who got in over his head, or was in some other way irresponsible for his own actions. By addressing this issue head on, Valenti gains trust from the reader and grows her ethos.

Valenti addresses her claim head-on here. Misogyny is toxic ideology that contributes to white male privilege. When that privilege is disrupted, and self-image is threatened, disaster can ensue.

Valenti, Jessica. "Elliot Rodger's California Shooting Spree: Further Proof That Misogyny Kills." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 24 May 2014. Web. 13 Oct. 2016.

In all fairness, Fortgang is considerably younger than any other author whose work I annotated. However, his work is published to be read and evaluated by whomever sees it, and he is still responsible for any stance he chooses to take on an issue.

TIME is a well-trusted source across the United States and around the world. However, reading this article makes me wonder how loosely regulated the publishing process is. This article comes off largely as a complaint regarding human interaction, and less of a professional essay on privilege in America.

This excerpt is a piece of Fortgang's claim. On a broader scale, this article's purpose is to address those who attempt to remind Fortgang of his privilege and explain why those people are out of line.

Objectively, this article is full of evidence to support the author's claim, but all of this so-called evidence is personal information. Personal information is impossible to corroborate which leaves the reader to simply trust the author to report honestly. However, in some respects, personal anecdotes can contribute to an author's ethos and pathos. Some audiences may find the content relatable, and agree with Fortgang that privilege is something to embrace and not to be ashamed of. If a reader agrees with Fortgang's assertions, their common frustration will build trust and emotional connection.

Personally, I do not believe that I am sacrificing anything in trying to better our environment, and that makes this comparison fall short. Separately, one thing to make clear in teaching people about privilege is that no one is at fault, and having privilege is not inherently bad. This article is somewhat difficult to argue because Fortgang's understanding or description of privilege is surface level. "Property and a set of values" are arbitrary to the discussion of pervasive, institutional racism.

This article serves as a perfect example of what the "other side" believes about white privilege and institutional racism.

Fortgang has a narrow view of privilege. An audience that disagreed with the author would assert that privilege is not just freedom from oppression, it is entwined in every aspect of society. Privilege is bigger than a family name or "legacy" as Fortgang states. It is layered, and its effects seep into every level of culture, economics, law enforcement, and further.

Again, a little too over-embellished, this sentence forces readers to piece things together. On another note, this sounds interestingly similar to the hypotheses of Lowery and Unzueta. When faced with evidence of white privilege and the myth of meritocracy, whites will feel their personal hardships have been downplayed and will be threatened by the thought that their accomplishments may have been handed to them because of their race.

Beginning the article with this statement will either hook or alienate the audience, depending on their opinions regarding these current issues of political correctness. Either way, from a writing standpoint, the casual yet dramatized tone makes for a strange introduction.

Upon googling Fortgang's name, the first several results are articles responding and criticizing Fortgang for this very article.

This title certainly does not beat around the bush.

Fortgang, Tal. "Why I'll Never Apologize for My White Male Privilege." Time. Time, 2 May 2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

Unzueta, Miguel M., and Brian S. Lowery. "Defining Racism Safely: The Role of Self-image Maintenance on White Americans’ Conceptions of Racism." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44.6 (2008): 1491-497. Elsevier. Web. 10 Oct. 2016.

This is a powerful point that illustrates why many individuals, when faced with evidence of white privilege, want to deny the facts: they feel threatened by the downplay of their own contributions to success (e.g. merit).

While reading this, I kept considering the authors' names and could not understand why, until I remembered that these writers also contributed to the second article I annotated, "Deny, Distance, or Dismantle"! This helps me as a reader to trust that these experts truly know what they are talking about.

Lowery and Unzueta explain the differences between the individual and institutional conceptions of racism, giving examples for each. This keeps the audience on the same page as the writers, and encourages ethos.

This short paragraph states all sides of the claim in understandable concise sentences, part by part. First, white Americans may deny racism as an institutional issue because it makes the individual more aware of the privilege he or she possesses due to the color of their skin. The authors found that is it is much less threatening to white individuals when they consider race an individual issue, a case-to-case offense, because then they are not faced with their privilege.

Author Brian S. Lowery is currently a professor of Organizational Behavior at Stanford Graduate School of Business in California. He earned his doctorate at the institution for which his co-author currently teaches, UCLA. Lowery's work also focuses on inequality experienced by individuals. In fact, his findings indicate that "individuals distinguish between inequalities framed as advantage as opposed to disadvantage," and that this correlates to "how individuals perceive inequality and the steps they take, if any, to reduce it," (Stanford Graduate School of Business).

Both authors have focused their academic passion on the issue of diversity, social inequality, and perception of racial inequality. In sharing their findings on white's perception of racial in equality, the authors can shed light on the psychology behind the issue, hopefully having a positive impact on future race relations.

Biography and information on Lowery: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/faculty/brian-lowery

Author Miguel M. Unzueta is an associate professor of Management and Organizations at the UCLA Anderson School of Management. Unzueta's work focuses on the interworkings of social hierarchy and how that affects the way in which we view social in equality as a society. A short biography is available at the School of Management's website: http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/faculty/management-and-organizations/faculty/unzueta

This is the MLA citation: Flentje, Annesa, Nicholas C. Heck, and Bryan N. Cochran. "Experiences of Ex-Ex-Gay Individuals in Sexual Reorientation Therapy: Reasons for Seeking Treatment, Perceived Helpfulness and Harmfulness of Treatment, and Post-Treatment Identification." Journal of Homosexuality 61.9 (2014): 1242-268. Web.

This article is found in an academic journal, which means that it is reliable.

The psychologists behind this study and article respond to the idea that conversion therapy is useful to the lgbt+ community because through their experiment they disprove this 'logic' of the other side's arguments. They want to prove that conversion therapy causes more issues for people then if these people were able to just express their lgbt+ identities. People with extreme religious backgrounds may disagree with this article because they want to believe that even though they are putting their children in harms way through this therapy, that the end result of their children being able to live an eternal life in heaven is more important.

Through the study that these authors conducted on lgbt+ people who had underwent conversion therapy at some point of their lives, the data and quotes from these people who have experienced the harshness of the therapy, they establish pathos. Pathos is shown because these people went through traumatic events and still identify as lgbt+. This study shows that the harm that they went through to become heterosexual was not worth it in the end.

This study is interesting to me because it shows that conversion therapy may never actually work on anyone. It makes me question if there is anyone who would say that it helped them realize that they are heterosexual instead of homosexual? If there are people out there who believe conversion therapy was a good thing for their identity, are they in denial because of the pain that conversion therapy brings or did it truly change their identity? This is something I would like to investigate more with in the future.

Flent Je, Heck, and Cochran decide to use arguments of the other side's perspective in order to show that the controversy of conversion therapy has multiple arguments and sides that show the complexity of the topic at hand. This evidence is reliable because they also cite their sources and invite the other side into the conversation. It may not be a recent discovery, since Zucker's argument appeared in 2003; however, it is an excellent idea on the authors' of this article to include to show the history of the controvery of conversion therapy being used on lgbt+ individuals. Since, they include arguments of the other side, it helps establish even more ethos because they are willing to acknowledge the people who have not agreed with their views on this therapy in the past. This shows that the authors are not bias and have done research on all angles of the controversy.

This is the claim that the authors are making through their observations of the certain lgbt+ individuals that they decided to write about. They state that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and should not be treated as one, especially not with conversion therapy, since it causes the individual more pain.

Flent Je, Heck, and Cochran are the authors of this article. They are all professors in Psychology, which establishes their ethos because they are all professionals in their field of study and will be able to analyze the harmful affects of conversion therapy successfully.

[](https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/09/20/gay-pride-china-activists-fight-conversion-therapy/ This is a link to an article that is about a man who went through conversion therapy in China and how he is planning to fight for it becoming banned. This helps relate this article to what it is like in another country besides America.

Https://www.facebook.com/JournalistAmyWillis. "Gay Men Still Subjected to Electric Shocks to 'cure' Their Sexuality." Metro Gay Men Still Subjected to Electric Shock Therapy to Cure Theirsexuality. N.p., 08 Oct. 2015. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

This is the MLA format for this source.

The documentary establishes pathos through talking to Chinese lgbt+ youth, as well as by showing disturbing clips of the conversion therapy process in China. The documentary does not include bias because it gives insight on what the doctors who perform conversion therapy in China believe and provides insight on what lgbt+ youth are subjected to.

The documentary amplifies that conversion therapy is something that Chinese parents are willing to make their lgbt+ youth go through in order to make sure that they will not shame their family. In China, it is less about the religious aspect of homosexuality and more about how lgbt+ youth affect the honor and status of the entire family. The documentary shows that the conversion therapy that happens in China is hurtful to the individuals that are forced into it by their family members to restore honor. The people who would disagree with this documentary, as to why conversion therapy is harmful, would be the families who feel that their lgbt+ youth should feel ashamed that they cannot bring future generations to their families. Personally, I think this documentary will be an excellent source to include in the future because it shows the perspective that China has on lgbt+ youth and also brings a new direction with how another country feels. Usually with the homosexuality argument and the conversion therapy debate, the opposing side is arguing due to their religion, but this debate is more about honor of a family.

The author of this article is Amy Willis; however, she is not the person who created the documentary. She is just reporting on the documentary that the source 'Unreported World' created.

The article appears on the internet to get the word out there that there is a documentary that will be airing live in order to show that conversion therapy takes place in more than just one country in the world.

The stakeholder in this video article are the lgbt+ individuals in China as well as the viewpoints of the doctors who are subjecting these people to conversion therapy. It is reliable because they interviewed both sets of people, since it was filmed it is known that this is exactly what they said about the topic.

This article would not let me use hypothesis.is in the actual article; however, I decided to write the entire source needs up here.

Erin Dean is the author of this article that appeared in the news. As a reporter, Dean is expected to research conversion therapy through out time. This source does not provide much insight on the conversion therapy or the lgbt+ youth that are subjected to it; however, it does provide an interesting viewpoint on how it affected the people who were on the other side of these tests.

Dean suggests that this 'cure' of conversion therapy on lgbt+ individuals through out the ages is unpleasant and harsh; however, it also explains that conversion therapy was not just harsh on the patients, but those involved with administering these treatments were also affected.

Dean explains that conversion therapy is harmful to more than just one group, which may be an unpopular opinion to people who believe this is solely an lgbt+ individual's issue because they may believe that by talking about the nurses and doctors involved in this practice that it takes away from the issue at hand.

The author of this article uses the facts of historic occurrences and suicides that happened to people who were involved in conversion therapy.

I would need to do more research on how the stakeholder of nurses and doctors involved are affected by doing following orders of hurting the lgbt+ individuals for their 'treatments'. The nurses are stakeholders because they have opinions on the horrifying therapy that they placed on another human being. [](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/28/gay-conversion-therapy-ruins-lives-lgbt-rights This article explains that conversion therapy hurts lgbt+ the most, however, it should affect the community as a whole.

Here is the MLA Citation: Dean, Erin. "Shock Therapies." Nursing Standard 30.23 (2016): 25. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

This source is goes into more depth on the Islamic views on homosexuality, which provides a base on what their views on conversion therapy may be.

These are the authors of the article and are professors with PhD's. This shows that they are qualified and have knowledge in their field of study for homosexuality and conversion therapy.

This is a journal that this article is derived from in order to critique the journal that was created by Ahmed, as well as to explain the Islamic viewpoint on the situation of conversion therapy.

This is the MLA format citation

Junaid B. Jahangir and Hussein Abdul-latif establish credibility through the evidence that they use throughout their article. They explain that Kutty's reasons for supporting conversion therapy are not justifiable, and then provide statistics and research based evidence, as to why these reasons are not logical reasons for conversion therapy to be needed.

I think for the future of my research, that this source will be helpful because I will be able to include other countries views and reasons for using conversion therapy to strengthen my argument against it.

Since the author of this article is an American, he could be bias to the Islamic faith and viewpoints. However, this may be unlikely considering America has individuals who are religious as well with the same kind of approach to conversion therapy that doctors have over there.

The author of this article is arguing against the ideas of a different homosexual viewpoint through the perspective that Islam has. The author uses evidence from an Islamic source to point out the flaws of the idea that sexuality can be changed through a variety of ways that may be harmful to an individual. Also this compares and contrasts America's ideas of homosexuality versus another country. In the American culture many arguments against homosexuals is mostly based on religious affiliations, which seems to also be the same approach many of the Islamic faith have as well.

Junaid B. Jahangir and Hussein Abdul-latif are responding to the views of the Islamic faith and their views on homosexuality and the treatment that would be best for this 'mental illness'. The author's disagree with the point of views that are explained by conservative Muslims, who would also not share the viewpoints of the authors of this article. Since, the Islamic faith categorizes homosexuality under a mental illness, the way they handle it is harsh and meant to be solutions to an actual disease.

Not only would the Islamic faith disagree with the viewpoints presented in this article, but they would also be considered a stakeholder in the topic of conversion therapy. Since, conversion therapy is different for other cultures and does happen around the world, they do have different ways to go about the therapy. This is a reliable source for the Islamic faith viewpoint on homosexuals and conversion therapy because the article features many thoughts by a Muslim doctor.

The study the authors identified earlier in the paragraph is summed up excellently in this one statement. When faced with examples of the privileges of whiteness, those who identified strongly with their whiteness tended to feel threatened and insecure, consequently directing that negativity toward the outgroup.

Said in other terms, increased pride in whiteness equates to increased opposition to legislation that could negatively impact white privilege. This reminds me of the fact that most violent or murderous incidents in the news lately have been committed by white men who have considerable white pride and act out against people or groups threatening their privilege.

Peggy McIntosh's "White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack" is an important and eye opening read! I was assigned to read this in a Race and Membership in American History class in high school. Here's a link to it: http://nationalseedproject.org/white-privilege-unpacking-the-invisible-knapsack

The authors interestingly admit that they disagree with the invisibility thesis, yet still want to discuss what it means and how credible it is. Continuing to give the audience both sides of the argument further solidifies ethos.

Before this statement, the authors are addressing what those with opposing views think about the topic of whiteness and privilege. This plays toward their ethos because it clearly outlines for the reader both sides of the issue, helping the reader to feel informed and to trust the authors to deliver credible information.

Furthermore, the authors use the terminology and apply it to their theory that when faced with evidence of white privilege, a white person will react in one of three ways, each reaction relating to their "concern for racial inequality and commitment to measures that might reduce it."

Knowles, Lowery, Chow and Unzueta give the reader vocabulary, defining and explaining the terms they use to discuss their theories. This works to hold the audience at the same academic level as the writers, assuring there is nothing lost in translation, so to speak.

The authors directly address their claim in this statement. Beginning the article with the reference to Ebony magazine vaguely introduces the topic of discussion, then by the end of the second paragraph it is understood by the audience what the intention and argument of the article is.

Knowles, E. D., B. S. Lowery, R. M. Chow, and M. M. Unzueta. "Deny, Distance, or Dismantle? How White Americans Manage a Privileged Identity." Perspectives on Psychological Science 9.6 (2014): 594-609. PsycINFO [EBSCO]. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The main author seems to be Eric D. Knowles. Knowles is an associate professor of Psychology at New York University. You can find a list of his publications with his contact information here: https://psych.nyu.edu/knowles/

The journal this article is published in, Perspectives on Psychological Science, is a bimonthly publication that is peer-reviewed and contains a wide variety of content. View the description by the parent company SAGE Journals: http://pps.sagepub.com/

A company that has vested interest in making GMOs appear safe.

The author really connects to the opposition here, voicing their concerns and somewhat agreeing with them.

In all the previous articles I've read it has been stated that these GMOs are not required to be tested, so I would probably like to research this topic more so I could determine whether or not these products are tested for safety.

The overtly sarcastic tone in this article is just obnoxious. With such a controversial topic I think it would be wise for the author to be a bit more serious.

While bragging that the crops have been introduced very recently and their benefits in such a short time the author is missing the very controversial point that these crops have not been tested for their long term effects.

This statement seems overly defensive possibly turning away the author's intended audience. It also has improper grammar, further lessening the author's credibility.

I have trouble fathoming how something can kill insects but is completely harmless to humans, is is because of the dosage? I would like to do more research on this to see if this is possible.

The author states this as if it is an important fact, whereas most GMOs are produced by a private sector.

Selecting genes to pronounce in food is different than taking genes from other organisms and inserting them into another organism. Author loses credibility here for presenting GMOs as selective breeding.

Entine, John. "The Case for GMOs and Sustainability | Genetic Literacy Project." Genetic Literacy Project. 02 June 2015. Web. 12 Oct. 2016.

The author just led his readers to believe that the two were the same in the beginning of the article, yet now he states that they are different things. Again, losing credibility.

The author's claim is that selective breeding and genetically modifying foods are essentially the same and we have been doing this for thousands of years, so GMOs must be safe.

The author here loses credibility because selective breeding in plants is different than genetically modifying plants genes.

The author already loses the interest of the audience they are trying to reach here by mocking them. The "they" the author is trying to persuade is probably cautious of genetically modified foods.

This is a stakeholder because they are from the medical perspective of topic of conversion therapy. They are a organization that deals with mental health especially for youth. They are reliable with the information that they have because they are close to the field that is being observed for this research. Many of the people apart of this organization are doctors, social workers, etc. This is relevant to the current topic of the affects of conversion therapy because they are educated in the mental health category and have been apart of helping the individuals for years.

This is the citation in MLA format.

There is no cited author of this article; however, it seems to be someone associated with the SAMHSA organization, which is an organization that is for the mental health of lgbt+ youth. This article seems to appear in a pamphlet format, which is often displayed in doctor offices , in order to inform patients. If this is the case, then this may be seen by multiple kinds of people, including parents and the lgbt+ youth.

Throughout this article, the author uses research based evidence. Although, they never use quotes about other's opinions, they do paraphrase with the citations of where the information is derived from. The evidence always seems to support the idea that conversion therapy is harmful and does not seem to go into the other side's perspective, but the information is reliable and recent.

The author includes a list of individuals who contributed to the panel, which consists mostly of professionals with multiple different backgrounds. This is done to establish more ethos throughout the article.

The SAMHSA group establishes ethos through explaining that they collaborated with another organization called the Federal Agencies Project. This shows that they are credible, since it is not just the idea of one professional organization to end conversion therapy. There are multiple groups and organizations around the United States that have input on the situation. Although, this establishes credibility, it could also be believed that the author of this article only seeked out the opinion of another organization that already believed that this is a harmful therapy. This could show bias toward the idea that conversion therapy is harmful, since they do not seem to include much information about why the other side believes that it is not a harmful technique.

The author of this article realizes that therapies that try to change the identity of the youth are harmful and should under no circumstance be used to 'treat' their lgbt+ identities. This kind of conversion therapy is not a treatment, instead it hurts the person who is forced into it, especially if they are mostly sure that they are not heterosexual, but this is a discovery that the child has to make on their own. []http://www.soc.ucsb.edu/sexinfo/sites/default/files/files/styles/large/public/field/image/conversion%203.jpg This is a picture that relates to the standpoint of the author of this article. The picture is from a protest on conversion therapy because it is harmful for those involved. It is relevant because it is becoming more known by ordinary people (not doctors) that this kind of therapy is not helping the lgbt+ youth.

Moving forward in my research I would like to explore more of these symptoms that lgbt+ youth often have after the rejection of their identities. I believe this would be an interesting way to see what kind of emotions this kind of rejection leads to for many youth. For instance, do many youth who are rejected based on their lgbt+ identities feel shame, want to commit suicide, etc.?

Children need to feel a sense of security and confidence when it comes to learning about themselves; however, this is deeply influenced by the people around them. If someone 'comes out' at a young age or during puberty they often are met with multiple challenges, especially from the people they hold the closest. Many children do not know how their parents may take the news that they currently identify with the lgbt+ community. They long for validation and acceptance and are afraid of rejection, especially from their parents. Often, when a child has more conservative parents on the lgbt+ views, they are often afraid of what will happen to them when they decide to disclose the information of their possible sexuality. For instance, many of these children are afraid to be left on their own or kicked out because of their sexualities. Many years ago, I knew a boy who was older then I was, who grew up with a Catholic background. When he was open about it to his parents after years of struggling with finding his identity, he was met with rejection and acceptance. His mother could not accept that her son was gay and did not know how to handle the information in a positive manner, which caused a rift in their relationship. However, his father was completely accepting and never treated him differently for something he could not change.

SAMHSA is trying to explain that sexuality varies in human beings and is a perfectly natural attraction. The audience is most likely toward parents who do not know how to handle their feelings about their child being lgbt+, more specifically a parent who may be more conservative about their views. For instance, families with strict religious backgrounds have a tendency to believe that homosexuality is a sin. In order for the author of this article to continue with how a parent or guardian should handle these negative feelings toward their child for not being heterosexual, they use the word "normal" to validate the youths' sexualities.

The claim in this journal is placed in the summary and argues that lgbt+ youths experience multiple different issues in the mental health category, which is where SAMHSA comes in to exclaim the negative effects on the child that often occur when a family acts in a negative fashion to their child's sexual identity and/or gender identity. Ultimately their goal is to create a more positive environment for these youths, especially through getting the conversion therapy thoughts out of a parent's or guardian's head before it causes more damage to the lgbt+ child.

Not very reliable since it links us to the author's own website.

The author's call to action to the people.

Interesting, since this is one of the main arguments for GMOs. I would like to look further into this for scientific proof for my paper.

Since a lot of studies are conducted by the GMO pioneer companies themselves, such as Monsanto, it really is impossible to get diverse and unbiased information out to the public.

Such as? The author isn't a doctor and does not present his education, so I do not know where he is claiming to have gathered this information.

The author is losing ethos here as he does not even have an example. These claims would have been super convincing if he had some citations to back them up.

Without a citation, all of the evidence he is presenting from apparently his own knowledge is hard to believe.

What does it do to our environment?

Are herbicides bad? Bad for humans, the environment?

The only reason why this is bad is because of the possible negative effects of GMOs. If GMOs are safe then this reason would not matter.

Throughout this whole article the author is trying to convince the people who do not oppose GMOs. The "they" he is addressing is the group of people who are convinced that gm foods are safe.

Smith, Jeffrey. "10 Reasons to Avoid GMOs." Institute for Responsible Technology. 14 Mar. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The author's claim is in the title, he wants consumers to avoid GMOs for 10 specific reasons. And obviously this author is very biased as he is advising his readers to avoid GMOs without providing any evidence first.

This appears to be a credible and reliable source https://www.aaemonline.org/

Would like a citation for this, this is too serious of a claim to not have any proof.

This article was written by John Seiter, Harold Kinzer and Harry Weger Jr. They write for Routledge about nonverbal background behavior in live debates. They made a study claiming how nonverbal background behaviors influence the audience and the credibility of the speaker. They used evidence from past debates, including John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, watching the opponent not speaking doing gestures like shaking his head. Not only does opponents attacking each other verbally through a debate have an impact on the audience, this study shows that nonverbal behavior influences it, if not more. The audience knows that the opponent should not interrupt with the other person is talking, so they are coming up with a new strategy. They uses nonverbal behaviors to draw the attention of the audience to them rather the opponent speaking in that moment. The authors seem credible in how they did their research to do this study and how they conducted this study themselves rather than getting facts from the internet. There seems to be no bias in this article. Those who would disagree with this article would be the people who think that the only way to influence the audience is by how the candidate speaks on either an issue or talking about the other opponent negatively. This article would appeal to anyone interested in voting for the presidential debate. People tend to educate themselves on who they should vote for before they choose a preferred candidate, and articles like these will have them paying close attention to the candidates body language along with their verbal responses to figure out who they like better.

restating claim

This kind of discredits the author, it seems like he is jumping around the issue or does not think his audience is intelligent enough to comprehend the data.

So while tests have not been conducted on gm foods, there have been tests conducted on the herbicides sprayed on gm crops - which have been found to be toxic.

I really appreciate that he has links for every one of his claims, no matter how small.

Interesting because I just annotated an article from the AAAS and did not notice an inherent bias, but also did not notice any criticism of gm foods.

ok but what about present gmos?

This shows that the interests of large companies (monopolies in the GMO industry) do not put the concern of the consumer first, instead profit is the end goal.

This is an accident related to gm foods, without gm labeling,companies could not be held accountable for deaths caused by their products (may be why they're pressing for non-required gm labeling)

again, boosting his ethos by showing the reader that he has experience in this subject.

The author states the supposed harms of gm foods, but also says that there is a possibility that some of them are perfectly safe. This adds to his credibility by showing he is open to the possibility that gm foods may be perfectly safe, just a bit testing is required to prove that.

Quoting the World Health Organization which is very reliable is a big ethos booster for the author. The WHO is an unbiased organization that doesn't have any corporations interests in mind.This is also very valuable information for me and my twine project, who would want to each a verified carcinogen?

He is addressing the "they" throughout the article that do not believe it be necessary to label GMO foods. Here he states his reasons simply upfront with citations.

He is a Salk Institute scientist with plenty of experience and education.

This is the author's claim, he is stating that even though there are many studies claiming that GM foods are safe, there is mounting evidence that says differently.

Schubert, By David. Gene Watch Page. Gene Watch Page. Jan. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

Again these are claims without any evidence. How do we know that many animals in factory farms do not have tumors because we do not see them and many tumors on larger animals are not easily visible.

Now this just doesn't make sense. Something designed to kill another living organism is somehow considered safe to consumer for humans?

I agree that this does not add up, but also I think that it is implausible that such a large number of the rats developed such significant and life threatening just because of their breed.

http://www.gmoseralini.org/category/critics-answered/

The author of the study that they are criticizing has his own website. It honestly does not look very credible, but I have not read the information that he has provided regarding the study he conducted.

This article continually makes claims that are not supported. I am confused as to if they expect their readers to go and research the claims they are making or if they expect them to believe them without evidence.

This journal is attempting to claim that there was some duplicitous motive to the study they are critiquing. Kind of unnerving that it feels like they have to defend the standards of regulations on GM foods.

The bias in this paper is palpable. If they were simply reporting facts and left out the claims that the this study was "erroneous" without first supplying proof then I would trust this article much more.

Claiming that nations that are "competent" because they agree with the authors of this article is extremely biased and an unsound claim.

Off the bat the source they cite does not appear credible, they reference a study that the company itself (Monsanto) conducted that had different results than an independent study.

The claim for this article is that another study has had many inaccuracies that have led the public to distrust GM foods. The "they" that they are refuting is the people who have read and trust the conclusions presented by the article they are attempting to disprove in this article.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manuel_Portero-Otin

This author appears qualified and has some other articles he has published on different topics.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Gemma%20Arj%C3%B3%22

This author appears to have several articles on the safety of GM foods showing she already has a set opinion on this topic.

Arjó, Gemma, Manuel Portero, Carme Piñol, Juan Viñas, Xavier Matias-Guiu, Teresa Capell, Andrew Bartholomaeus, Wayne Parrott, and Paul Christou. "Plurality of Opinion, Scientific Discourse and Pseudoscience: An in Depth Analysis of the Séralini Et Al. Study Claiming That Roundup™ Ready Corn or the Herbicide Roundup™ Cause Cancer in Rats." Transgenic Research 22.2 (2013): 255-67. Springer Link. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

As a general comment on this article, I'm left wanting more, but this is a good article to get me started off. This piece gives me some background information and a bit more direction in terms of what I'm researching. I may just use this source for back up in the future, as opposed to using it as the main support of an argument.

Even when many white men were accused of such acts, for some reason, the white men are deemed innocent while the scapegoats become stereotypes of their race.

This is a poignant assertion. Non-whites (and their actions) are usually seen as a representative of their larger group, whereas whites are given the benefit of being considered as an individual. For example, if a black man robs a store, that group (either African Americans as a whole, or African American men) is assumed to have the tendency to rob; whereas if a white man robs a store, he is seen as the outlier, the exception to the rule.

Martinez, Amanda R. "REVIEW OF: Redefining Rape: Sexual Violence in the Era of Suffrage and Segregation." The Journal of Race and Policy 10.1 (2014): 111-15. Ethnic NewsWatch [ProQuest]. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The author of this review, Amanda R. Martinez, is an assistant professor in communication studies, sociology, and gender & sexuality studies at Davidson College in North Carolina. This review is posted in The Journal of Race and Policy.

Martinez's claim is that "Redefining Rape" by Freedmen is an important read that chronicles the history of rape and how it intertwines with race and gender relations in the United States.

The author of the original piece being reviewed ("Redefining Rape" by Estelle B. Freedmen) includes context in how rape and sexual assault have been addressed over the course of history. She addresses cultural response to rape and accusations of such beginning in the 1600s and working toward the present.

I would consider referencing or quoting highlighted portion to show that it is nothing new for white men to be excused for their wrongdoings and, in turn, for non-whites to be accused and then stereotyped for such crimes.

I think the "they" the authors' are addressing in this article are people are unaware or in denial of the urgency of this situation.

Unlike one company making all of the decisions, we need multiple organizations working together to keep the interests of the people and the environment in mind.

The authors' appear to be doing a good job of leaving their biases out of this article. They evenly present to pros and cons of the situation and offer solutions but also explain the drawbacks.

They say "we" as though they have a dog in this fight with the universal acceptance of GMOs.

This goes right back to my current research question. Monopolies in the food industry, especially in the agrichemical business delete competition and innovation leaving the consumers' interests behind.

Is it dangerous that we are switching from a public to a private source? Do these private sources have the consumers' best interest in mind?

Genetically modifying foods can make them resistant to certain toxins which are sprayed on the foods. To do this they insert a gene to make these plants resistant - do we know where these genes come from and if they're safe?

Conventional breeding of selected traits could increase yield and limit crop losses.

This is basically the thesis for this article.

All the ways that humans formerly increased food production are becoming less available as it is destroying our ecosystems. Therefore other solutions must be found.

The authors' claim is that the way we are producing food now is not sustainable and there needs to be a new way to get food to the masses without further damaging our environment.

American Association for the Advancement of Science is the world's largest general scientific society. It publishes five respected peer reviewed journals.

http://www.futureoffood.ox.ac.uk/people/charles-godfray

Godfray has a lot of experience and including nine other authors this article most likely has a lot of relevant information.

Godfray, H. C. J., J. R. Beddington, I. R. Crute, L. Haddad, D. Lawrence, J. F. Muir, J. Pretty, S. Robinson, S. M. Thomas, and C. Toulmin. "Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People." Science 327.5967 (2010): 812-18. AAAS. Web. 11 Oct. 2016.

The article is already setting the tone that it will be exploring the ways for the majority of people to get fed with the skyrocketing population.

Important to recognize how huge the problem is. If this issue is so big why haven’t we been raising awareness?

Even if we do not experience loneliness or feel that we experience it we should still be made aware that it is a serious issue. We should be made aware on how to address those who are experiencing the pain of loneliness and how to help them heal.

Another great way to take action against loneliness by helping students feel comfortable and in an enviroment with no ties to their social life and being able to express openly to someone who has no idea of their persona around their friends or family.