May 9, 2020
Gabriel Garcia
Period 9
Sophomores 2020
We started off the day with the Do Now of writing what race we thought the defendant was, and then discussing with the class. I wrote African - American as did several of my classmates. My fellow peers brought up several interesting points regarding the topic. They supported their argument by noting that some of the jurors, namely number 10, refer to the defendant as being “one of them”, or “those people”. This shows that perhaps they view the boy as different from them or maybe even a little inferior. One interesting point that was brought up is that perhaps juror number 8 is a person of color as well. This could possibly explain why he sympathizes with the boy more than the others, and wants to ensure that they do not send an innocent man to his death.
Next we discussed the possibility of someone committing a crime and no one ever finding out about it. The class seemed to be split with some students saying that because of our interconnected world or due to the guilt weighing on the person, then somebody else will always find out. However, the other argument was that there have been a multitude of murderers who committed heinous crimes and were able to evade punishment. Finally, Ms. Peterson brought up the idea of the law of three where if you tell someone a secret they will most likely tell three other people. Thus, those who were able to literally get away with murder were those who took their evil deeds to the grave with them.
Then we talked about the different types of fallacies and what they mean, this is helpful in our own writing but it can also be applied to 12 Angry Men, as many of the jurors use these fallacies in order to speed up the decision-making in making the boy appear guilty. For example, juror 10 says that he’s lived with “those people” all his life and that they cannot be trusted. This would be an example of a hasty generalization as he barely knows the defendant, and is basing his point of view on ideas that are biased and not factual.
Gabriel Garcia
Period 9
Sophomores 2020
Aim: How does the theme of “anonymity” affect the mood and tone of 12 Angry Men
Do Now: Write what you think the race of the defendant is on a piece of paper and cover it
Notes
We started off the day with the Do Now of writing what race we thought the defendant was, and then discussing with the class. I wrote African - American as did several of my classmates. My fellow peers brought up several interesting points regarding the topic. They supported their argument by noting that some of the jurors, namely number 10, refer to the defendant as being “one of them”, or “those people”. This shows that perhaps they view the boy as different from them or maybe even a little inferior. One interesting point that was brought up is that perhaps juror number 8 is a person of color as well. This could possibly explain why he sympathizes with the boy more than the others, and wants to ensure that they do not send an innocent man to his death.
Next we discussed the possibility of someone committing a crime and no one ever finding out about it. The class seemed to be split with some students saying that because of our interconnected world or due to the guilt weighing on the person, then somebody else will always find out. However, the other argument was that there have been a multitude of murderers who committed heinous crimes and were able to evade punishment. Finally, Ms. Peterson brought up the idea of the law of three where if you tell someone a secret they will most likely tell three other people. Thus, those who were able to literally get away with murder were those who took their evil deeds to the grave with them.
Then we talked about the different types of fallacies and what they mean, this is helpful in our own writing but it can also be applied to 12 Angry Men, as many of the jurors use these fallacies in order to speed up the decision-making in making the boy appear guilty. For example, juror 10 says that he’s lived with “those people” all his life and that they cannot be trusted. This would be an example of a hasty generalization as he barely knows the defendant, and is basing his point of view on ideas that are biased and not factual.
- Hasty Generalization - A conclusion that is based on insufficient or biased evidence; in other words, rushing to a conclusion before all the relevant facts are available.
- False Equivalence - It’s when you set up two opposing sides of an argument, and make it look like they hold equal weight, when really, they don’t. And presenting both of these views as valid is a logical fallacy, or a “false equivalence.”
- Either/Or - A conclusion that oversimplifies the argument by reducing it to only two sides or choices
- Ad Poplum - An emotional appeal that speaks to positive (such as patriotism, religion, democracy) or negative (such as terrorism or fascism) feelings rather than the real issues at hand.
- Moral Equivalence - A comparison of minor misdeeds with major atrocities
- Red Herring - A diversionary tactic that avoids the key issues, often by avoiding opposing arguments rather than addressing them.
We read from the beginning of Act 2 till the end of page 31, a section that really begins to put the jurors at odds with one another. It is revealed that juror 9 was the one who switched their vote from guilty to not guilty because he understood number 8’s point of view that they cannot convict the boy unless there is no reasonable doubt of his guilt. However, tensions rise as juror 3 continues to strongly present his view that the defendant is guilty and that no further talk is needed.
Before class ended we read an excerpt from “On Civil Disobedience” by Gandhi in which it said that if a ruling authority mistreats the people then the populace will not tolerate it. They will fight through non-violence, as it says that for a quarrel to occur there must be two participants. Furthermore, if the ruling body wishes to enact punishment on the people then they will take it, yet they will never oblige unjust laws. So in the end, the oppressive government will have no choice but to change. This can be applied to 12 Angry Men because in the play, juror 3 tries to exert his will over the other judges in order to come to a swift decision
Reflection
Today in class we mainly learned about the different types of fallacies and how to spot them in literature. Many of the jurors frequently used fallacies such as generalizations or ad populum in order to get their point across. We learned this in order to understand the meaning of today’s aim which is how anonymity affects the mood and tone of the play. Since we do not know anything of the appearance of neither the defendant nor the jurors, we make our own conclusions based on the dialogue present. We assume that the defendant is an African - American based on how characters such as juror 10 react to him, yet this is simply our best guess as we cannot be sure. The anonymity present in the play leads us to dig deeper into the reading, making us immersed in the characters and plot better than if the author had simply used direct characterization. We can use what we learned in order to avoid using fallacies both in our writing and discourse with others, in order to build the most logically sound, and strongest argument possible. Furthermore, the idea of anonymity in the play can even be applied to our own lives, as so often we make incorrect judgements about people we do not even know based on rumors or stereotypes, when in reality we should actually get to know them and then form a factual opinion based on truths.
No comments:
Post a Comment