Who should speak?

Geoffrey Guilcapi
English 1100
5 September 2016
Prof. Young

Who Should Speak?

In Friendswood there is problem that affects everyone and everything living in the area because of the toxic chemicals present; so the question comes in, who should speak out? There are multiple ways to get results but each situation has to have its own way. In this situation, the citizens should speak out about the situation as they are the ones directly affected by the toxic chemicals. It is easy to forget about something that you are not directly in contact with everyday making it the citizen’s duty to speak out. However, the citizens are not the only ones that should be responsible with that task. An esteem institution should speak out as well as it is their job to do so and help the environment along with the living organisms that live there. The institution has a wider reach and the resources to get the situation straightened out. Therefore the people speak out on the current situation, but with the help of the institution other similar situations will be prevented and the damage will be avoided. For example, Avery wants to build another complex for people to live in the area of the toxic waste just to a profit. Without anyone speaking out there will be a vicious cycle of the same damaging events.

When it comes to dissenting it is almost always permissible. In smaller arguments dissenting is not a big problem like when everyone’s favorite color is blue but one person’s favorite color is red. In that regard no one is getting hurt and could actually show the differences of another perspective. However when one does not care about what is being disputed and is just dissenting just to dissent then it is wrong because there is no reason behind it- causing it to be pointless to the overall meaning of the discussion. Dissenting should be done to bring a valid point to a discussion or argument, so if that is not being done then dissenting is wrong. When it comes to the bigger problems like fixing the environment or when others are hurt then dissenting is always acceptable. The right action should always be done no matter the amount of people behind the action, even if you are considered a “tree hugger after some glory” (Steinke 47). Not only in the book has toxic chemicals affected people but in real life as well with the people in the West Calumet Housing Complex and other similar events causing people to show that dissenting is not done as frequent as it should be done. When it comes to doing the right thing sometimes that means to stand out against a crowd, however, when it helps others it should be done. In the Brock case, the two graduate students passing by had to interject because it was to help the victim; in this case it was obvious what had to be done but in some cases it is not as clear. Every situation had dire affects on the people it affected making dissenting crucial for the people that it affected and for the people it would effect in future similar situations.