Aim: How does the theme of “anonymity” affect the mood and tone of 12 Angry Men?
Do now: in your notebook, covering your paper, record what race/ethnicity you believe the defendant is?
Do you believe there ever be a time when someone can do something without anyone ever knowing? Is a certain amount of transparency necessary to ensure checks and balances?
Some of the responses to the do now included:
- People of color at the time lived in the slums
- Maybe Africa America, less accepted during the “olden days” before the 60s
- The juror that claims he grew up in the slums, may not have and may have just grew up in a bad area. Juror 8 might be a person of color, or a social equality warrior.
Overall the class surmised that the defendant is probably a minority or person of color.
- The government does things behind closed doors that nobody knows about. this is okay if it benefits public safety.
- It is possible, some people do get away murder and other crimes
- It depends on how significant the action is the you are doing. A more significant action won’t go unnoticed.
- Mrs Peterson gave the example that her mother used to snoop around her room without her knowing, showing that people do sometimes get away with doing things without other people knowing.
- Murder is difficult to get away with in today’s day in age, with new technology
Our class thought it was okay for things to happen behind closed doors, because sometimes this is for the benefit of others. However, if it something bad or a severe crime, it shouldn’t and probably won’t go unnoticed.
Common Fallacies
We analyzed a chart explaining a few types of common fallacies.
Hasty Generalizations - 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.
Reading pg 27-31
Today in our reading the jurors continued to discuss their opinions on whether the defendant was guilty or not. We see the jurors becoming more aggressive or irritated. It is revealed that juror 9 had changed his vote in the secret ballot, and agrees with juror 8 that the topic needs to continue to be discussed.
Juror 11 explained that he had come to America to have the right to disagree. Juror 3 was becoming frustrated when juror 9, or as he thought at first juror 5, changed their vote to not guilty. This prompted juror 11 to explain how people should have the right to their own opinion, even if it is different than others.
Reflection
Today we learned about the different types of fallacies that can occur in writing or reasoning. We can apply the fallacies to the arguments that the jurors make in 12 Angry Men. For instance, in the setting of the story, a juror may use a hasty generalization to jump to a conclusion without fully discussing something and making sure there is ample evidence to support it. This will help us to see the jurors train of thought, and whether or not they are speaking accurately, or if they are mistaken. I also think we may notice this happening more often, as time goes on and the jurors become more frustrated.
No comments:
Post a Comment