Readings and Other Assorted SCAAAAAAAARY Things for Oct 31

This week we are going to talk about pronoun consistency and what the various rhetorical purposes of the third, second, and first person pronouns are. Please read the following paragraphs and come to class ready to discuss.

Also, news of note: someone from section 10 (3:45-4:15) has my Writing About Art text book. Please check your copies and make sure that you don't have my copy. If you do have it, please sheepishly return it to me.
Also a reminder that your homework for last week was to write a sample introduction to an essay under the topic of either "The War in Iraq" or "The Nuclear Tests in Korea". Remember, just a sample intro (the handout is below if you forget), with a thesis, NOT the whole essay.

Without further ado:

Paragraph 1:
I think that despite these statistics, a traumatic childhood alone does not create a killer. In a lot of cases, though a killer has some type of brain disorder and may hear voices. They can have a hard time distinguishing reality from the dream-like state in which they live. You might kill because of the fame that it brings them; the media tends to love a sensational murder and the killer can often be glorified. Even some killers admit to being in satanic cults. I read that Richard Ramirez, the infamous “Night Stalker”, drew satanic symbols on his palms for his murder trials. Charles Manson worshiped Satan. Most serial killers just feel an uncontrollable urge to kill. Edmund Kemper was quoted as saying, “It was an urge.... A strong urge, and the longer I let it go the stronger it got.” They need to kill like our bodies need water.

Paragraph 2:
The response to that argument goes like so: we, as members of the Western world, only believe that what the Nazis did was evil, because we were brought up to believe that. We are socialized to believe and act certain ways; therefore if we were raised in the Hitler Youth Movement, we would believe there was nothing evil about Nazism. When the point is raised that justification for morals does not make morals “good”, a further response is prompted. One, when looking at morals and the issue of what is “good”, must take an ultimate objective view. Further, one must jump out of their cultural skin, out of their socialized upbringing and internalized views, and only from that omniscient view is one able to see what is “good” and what is “bad”. I think the only being that could possibly hold such a position is God and surely no mortal can hold such a position. Therefor no knowledge about absolute knowledge can be known. Everything must be relative. Also is an expansion of that idea, it is noted that, if we can say other cultures may or may not be evil, we must concede our own culture may or may not be evil.