Irving Kristols Pornograpy, Obscenity, and hte Case for Censorship Ess

Irving Kristols Pornograpy, Obscenity, and hte Case for CensorshipAfter reading Irving Kristols essay called Pornography, Obscenity, and the Case for Censorship, we found positive and prejudicial examples concluding his research. Kristol makes major(ip) claims throughout the course of his essay. A few examples of these major claims are in paragraphs 7-9 when he uses a story about an old small-arm in a hospital ward, dying an agonizing death. The old man loses control of his bowels, and they empty themselves on him. Kristol states that this is a private moment that should be kept private. Kristol asks the reader to think about this sad scenario and what it would be desire to see this on television. Kristol relates the claim to sex, saying that it is a private moment and shouldnt be viewed by the public. He says viewers wouldnt want to watch the old man losing his bodily fluids on himself because its a personal matter and it sightly needs to stay private and unseen by the pu blic. In paragraph 8, Kristol again rebuts his major claim when he relates humans to sensuals. He claims sex is like death, it is found both within humans and animals. As Kristol (1971) says, When sex is a public spectacle, a human relationship has been debased into a mere animal connection. In paragraph 11 Kristol makes a major shift change from his claims in the previous paragraphs. The placement of this paragraph was poorly chosen because it steps outside of Kristols main lineage, which states that humans and animals are the same. In paragraphs 5 and 7, Kristol uses the rebuttal method, which means to repeat the same point in different words. In paragraph five Kristol dialog about public nudity and how it is so improper to have in our soci... ...ure condition has not improved as a result of the new freedom. Kristol destines his major claims to the reader and makes a connection through rebuttal that gives his essay meaning. Kristol also uses very dramatic statements, which help his argument claims. Despite having these major claims he fails to show support to the reader that his facts are true. He has no hard-core evidence that supports his research. Even further he fails to connect with the opposing side about his argument about pornography, obscenity, and the case for censorship. ReferencesFaigley, L.& Selzer, J. (2000). Good reasons with contemporary arguments. Boston Allyn & Bacon. Kristol, I. (1971). Pornography, obscenity, and the case for censorship. In L. Faigley & J. Selzer (Eds.), Good reasons with contemporary arguments. (pp. 535-538). Boston Allyn & Bacon.