Comment in reply to Shayen’s comment on my “Introduction” post: https://iwritejosh.wordpress.com/2017/04/11/introduction/ (“Education in employment law should be mandatory in Aotearoa.”)
Date posted: 04 May 2017
I appreciate the praise/feedback on this Intro and my chosen claims.
Yes, it’s concerning to know that employees do not know of their legal rights, which otherwise directly affect them in the workplace. To think back on all my employment experiences, virtually none of my workmates (even myself at the time) knew of their legal rights. Making this kind of education mandatory would allow all employees in NZ to know of their legal rights, as well as employers.
Comment posted on Neda’s blog: https://nedajanif.wordpress.com/
Date posted: 02 May 2017
Neda’s main claim: New Zealand should increase national refugee quota.
In reply to: “Recent changes by U.S. President Donald Trump means thousands of refugees are unable to seek refuge in any U.S. state or controlled regions.”
I would disagree that Denmark’s placement of pork dishes in schools is necessarily passive-aggressive. This sounds intentional? Also, are there laws in New Zealand that specifically discourage refugee settlement? I am only aware that, comparative to another nations, NZ has the least amount of refugees.
In reply to: “Moral obligation to accept.”
I like your use of statistics. Definitely get a dire sense of the refugee issue, and the human compassion/empathy of New Zealanders, despite our government’s attitude. When New Zealanders actually care, they are very compassionate/empathetic people. Your point of this being a moral/ethical/human obligation is a strong one. Also, your Counter-Claim of refugees/asylum seekers being a threat, is a strong one. Definitely a concern not only for NZ but for all countries. Recent Terror attacks in France (etc) are examples of our xenophobia to refugees/asylum seekers.
In reply to: “New Zealanders are largely influenced by US biases often produced through political influences.”
Totally agree. Another strong claim. Also, America’s influence is evidenced by how we are heavily inundated with American-sourced media, such as the TV shows/movies we watch. New Zealand is definitely suffering from a US/Western bias, and this affects how we regard refugees/asylum seekers.
In reply to: “Auckland’s current housing crisis – where will the refugees go?”
Another strong claim. It seems that when we (Kiwis) become affected ourselves, then we begin to care and take notice.
All the claims you have argued, and the way you have backed up these claims… I see you getting top marks for. Keep it up!
Comment posted on Esme’s blog: https://esmebrief2.wordpress.com
Date posted: 11 April 2017
Esme’s main claim: Auckland’s public transport networks need to be prioritised over building roading infrastructure.
I agree that public transport and reducing traffic should be prioritized. At least, Auckland Council should make public transport the absolute focus. Improving roading infrastructure is only a “plaster,” and covers up the problem. In fact, it makes people more frustrated because travel times are increased because of road works, for example. My opinions aside…
Less single-user vehicles on the road: Great and crucial point to arguing the main claim. You might also talk about the benefit of bus lanes and T2/T4 lanes in “coercing” single-passenger travellers to adopt public transport, or to consider carpooling.
Less congestion means less pollution: Great point also. I am sold by any structures in place that reduce unnecessary pollution to the environment. Do refer to statistics.
Freeing up the road by improving public transport: I feel this point is restating your main argument. You could possibly talk about improvement of public transport through significant reduction of fares, therefore enticing single-passenger travellers to compare their petrol costs with low costs offered by public transport.
LINKS: You have a good array of links to work with, that will help aid your main claim. However, definitely choose more links that specifically relate to each of your sub-claims.
ARGUMENT PLAN: You haven’t included a Counter-Claim or Rebuttal. You could possibly counter that roading infrastructure should be a priority over improving public transport, for example: it is only when single-passenger travellers ‘see’ the adding of more bus lanes and T2/T4 lanes, or public transport incentives, that they will see the merits. So it’s sort of a catch-22; in many ways ‘seeing is believing.’
Comment in reply to Antonella’s comment on my “Plan” post: https://iwritejosh.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/plan/
Date posted: 11 April 2017
Thanks Antonella, for the feedback.
Based on experience in working at a large company, employers being trained in the rights of their employees is not necessarily true. For example, I have had experience where no-one at the company, including workmates, managers, and HR people, knew of employee rights. In fact these rights came as a surprise. The opinions that countered employee rights were based on opinion, and my focus for my argument is on facts.
Comment in reply to Antonella’s comment on my “Links” post: https://iwritejosh.wordpress.com/2017/03/28/links/
Date posted: 11 April 2017
I intend to condense my number of Counter-Claims/Rebuttals, etc. I just wanted to start with a good base, and remove the weak ones.