Brylie Zavislak

Personally, I don’t have any dramatic experiences of being in a natural disaster, but I have family members and friends who’ve experienced earthquakes in the past. My dad told me a story of an earthquake he experienced while at work in Washington in 2001. It must have been at least a 6 on the richter scale, significant enough to cause light damage. The building he was in was old, so when the earthquake happened and people realized what was going on, they evacuated outside. He recalled seeing a piece of the ceiling flake off and everything shaking. The shaking ground perplexed him and was disorienting. He said he couldn’t walk in a straight line, and that trying to run or sprint would have been impossible. Trees and telephone poles were swaying as well, and the whole experience was dizzying.

The earthquake my dad experienced was called the Nisqually earthquake which had a magnitude of 6.8. He said it damaged many of the older buildings that weren’t reinforced or built with earthquakes in mind. I did not know he had experienced an earthquake of this size before he told me. It was kind of cool to listen to his personal experience. The only earthquakes I have experienced were light shakings or ones too small to even notice.

I learned some interesting facts regarding fire in our last geography class. We watched a documentary by CBC, part of a series called, “The Nature of Things.” I’ve seen other videos from this series with David Suzuki, and the majority are very intriguing. The one we watched on fire did not disappoint. I didn’t realize there were many mysteries regarding fire, like how exactly it spreads and why certain houses can stay standing while ones right next to them burn to the ground. I learned how fire spreads horizontally, and that the reason it spreads horizontally is due in part to cold air pushing the flame down towards the fuel next to it, causing it to catch fire and spread. I also learned that fire travels faster uphill, partly because the hot gases from the flame travel against the slope a bit before they rise, heating up the material and making it even easier to catch fire from the flame next to it. A lot if our furniture today are made with synthetic, oil-based material that are highly flammable, compared to what furniture was made with in the past. Additionally, a wildfire cannot cross a road, but embers can, and its those very embers that often threaten homes by sparking fires on lawns and backyards. The video was a great way to learn about wildfires and end the class on a good note.

The poster assignment is an example of an assignment that gave me a lot of stress, but turned out pretty well in the end. We were required to make a poster synthesizing information about earthquakes, volcanoes, and tsunamis, while also incorporating a mix of images, drawings, and text. I learned that I haven’t lost my artsy touch when it comes to assignments like these. I’m no artist, but I try my best to make something visually attractive when it needs to be, even when time and stress threaten my creativity.

For this assignment, we were required to pick a natural hazard event from anywhere around the world and research it. I wanted to choose something unique, interesting, and something no one else would write about. I wanted my hazard to be something I was interested in writing about and researching. Asteroid impacts were considered natural hazards, but they were rare and we never touched upon them in class. From there, I immediately thought about the dinosaurs and how they went extinct from an asteroid impact. It was a natural hazard that ended up bringing about the destruction and extinction of an entire species! The thought about writing on this topic intrigued me, and I went with it. I love dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures, and the thought that I could put my own interests in a paper not initially intended for them made me want to write about it more. The research took much longer than expected, but the end product turned out to my satisfaction.

For my research essay, I’ve decided to write about a topic related to my previous essay on biased writing, which was about someone’s one-sided opinion on Canadian ISIS fighters returning to Canada. Originally, I was going to argue about returning Canadian ISIS fighters needing our help, and not prosecution, but finding information to support this argument was challenging. Instead, I decided I would most likely try to defend an argument about why returning Canadian ISIS fighters are not a serious threat to Canada. I feel that research for this topic won’t be as difficult as the previous topic because I have a slightly better idea on how to structure my essay based on this argument. So far, I’ve found information on some general threats that these Canadian ISIS fighters pose, as well as information on how Canada plans to deal with the returnees, with options focusing on prosecution and others focusing more on rehabilitation. Even though, for the moment, I am arguing that former Canadian ISIS fighters are not a threat to Canada and its citizens, I have not yet gathered enough information to properly form my own opinion on this matter. Hopefully, through researching this topic, I will be able to form my own opinions and views on this matter and decide whether I personally believe these Canadian returnees are a threat to Canada or not.

For our upcoming assignment on biased writing, I would like to look at controversial pieces of biased writing. One of the more controversial topics occurring at present is the recent legalization of marijuana in Canada; Donald Trump’s shenanigans is another. It isn’t hard to find someone’s heated opinion on the legalization of Marijuana, and news about Donald Trump has become so widespread and common these days that it has become nearly impossible to ignore.

So far, I have directed my attention towards looking at opinionated articles and editorials focusing on Donald Trump, as well as “letters to the editor” of various newspapers mostly focusing on the legalization of Marijuana, carbon and the environment, religion, and other current, controversial issues. Most of the letters have been written by everyday citizens expressing their opinions and concerns, but I have come across a few individuals of authority, such as CEOs, authors, deans, and university professors.

I find that I am looking at the letters far more often than the opinionated articles because the bias in them is much more obvious. I believe this could be owing to the authors involved. Most of the editorials and articles I’ve read had been written by people who write professionally as well as grammatically correct. The letters, on the other hand, are written by individuals wishing to express themselves and their opinions openly to the editor. Of course, not every letter I had come across was as painfully biased to me, but most had bias that was easily recognizable when compared to the articles.

The way the writers biased or manipulated their writings varied, but they often used similar techniques. Many of the opinionated articles focusing on Donald Trump tended to use colloquial language, which made the articles sound less serious and professional. There was often some slanted language used when it came to describing Donald Trump and/or his actions; this made the article feel more manipulative. The writers would often “attack” Donald Trump’s character, thereby employing an “argument to the person” fallacy. “Hasty generalization” fallacies were also used often. The writer would make a claim after giving only one or two examples to support that claim and it usually wasn’t enough to sound believable, at least not to a critical thinker. Hasty generalizations, for me, were the most common fallacies to find. They were in many of the letters-to-the-editor I read. A few letters were pretty vague and simply gave a “it’s the only way” statement, implying it was either one way or another: that’s an “either-or fallacy.” Additionally, some letters don’t provide sufficient evidence to support their arguments and claims; sometimes the evidence simply isn’t specific enough to be used as reliable evidence (“according to some studies…” etc). One letter used slanted language (emotional words such as “misery”) when arguing against the use of marijuana, as well as the use of “we” to indicate “everyone,” which is an example of a hasty generalization. Unfortunately, most letters that I’ve read through only contained a few logical fallacies or manipulations. I repeatedly came across the same, most common fallacies and manipulations in the majority of the letters and articles I’ve read, those being hasty generalizations, slanted language, colloquial language, and arguments to the person.

 

          From one person to another, a community could mean something completely different. A community could mean something as large as a city to something as small and trivial as a fandom to one which belongs; one can belong to multiple communities. For me, a community is a group of people that feels as if they belong together based on shared characteristics. These shared characteristics could be belonging to family, friends, sports teams, schools, and the region in which one lives, or they could simply be belonging to groups that share particular likes, dislikes, or beliefs. I live in North Vancouver, so I see myself as a part of the North Vancouver community. North Vancouver, which is a city, is also a community at the same time. There are many perks to being a part of this wonderful community. For starters, North Vancouver is a beautiful city with an abundance of forests and trees. It’s right next to the ocean as well! One has access to the wonderful outdoors in the form of hiking, sight-seeing, and exploring the ocean. The community has concern for the environment, which is important to me. North Vancouver has a great recycling and organics disposal system in place. I couldn’t imagine living somewhere that didn’t recycle or properly dispose of organic material. Also, our tap water is some of the cleanest in the world, and it’s all thanks to our Seymour-Capilano filtration plant. Another perk of living in the North Vancouver community, for me, is the familiarity I have with the city and areas within it. There are shopping malls, restaurants, movie theaters, and all manner of entertainment to be found here in North Vancouver. However, there are a few major weaknesses in the community of North Vancouver: high housing prices, traffic, and copious amounts of garbage littering the ground in places. People won’t be able to afford to live in and be a part of this wonderful community if the price to live here continues to increase. And, yet, if more people live here, traffic might get worse, littering could intensify, and more problems would potentially arise.