texting + music argument

Loaf of Rye

I fear the world’s future because of texting and music implemented into its being. I mainly have a problem with texting and listening to music. This may be a bias discussion, but my past is what leads to believe this way.
I. Texting
1. Those that text focus their being into more than one place at the same time. If we cannot provide a major influence over the world while we are fully “conscious” what will the world become when we are dividing this up?
2. It draws from our attention. Texting blocks what actually goes on around us. We are not focusing on the finer points of life, its meaning or existence, rather a phone screen. I have seen people distracted, not caring, and often unobservant whilst powerless to the control texting has over them.
3. Its general meaning is a smart one, to get a bit of information across quickly, such as an address whereas speaking may confuse someone. But texting has been taken too far. People try to convey emotions through a text where that is extremely difficult if trying to shorten phrases and break up thought. You see the text as the mood you are in, because there is no mind behind the text you see.
II. Music
1. This generally refers to Pop Culture and new modern styles and types of music. I have great respect for classical music, due to my experience in Band.
2. Punk, Pop, Emo, etc. musical pieces to me have no thought behind them. Everybody is just trying to make that one popular song. Classical music has years of deep thought and perfection behind all its pieces. In this new music, every singer sounds the same, the beat is general and bland, and if you can understand what they’re saying it’s menial thought with no true basis of thought, perplexity, or anything that will perpetuate its time. They bring up no effective argument or different way to view the world. They simply talk about it, getting nowhere but introducing it to the few listeners.
3. It’s a distraction in society. There was a time when families discussed meanings of lives, or listened to the world around it when their car window was open. Now, this music needs to be constantly played. The listeners’ short attention span simply NEEDS the music because they cannot even grasp emotional understanding of life. In short, they have no way to decipher thought, think about it, analyze it, and then interpret it. To hide their confusion, they throw this music out into their face where pure memorization is displayed. I’ve asked an abundance of listeners what this music means to them, where they were not able to answer. They blabber about how feel like they are listening to something strong and meaningful, yet they do not know what is meaningful about it. They like the beat, its popular, they want to fit in, and therefore they memorize without caring what the song actually says (in my opinion the singer doesn’t even know what he is saying) so they can sing along with their friends.
4. Not only do the listeners of this new, “innovative” music not know what goes on within in the music, but they don’t know what goes around them. I’ve touched on this before in viewpoint 3, but now, it’s being taken a step further. Application. The listeners now apply this mindlessness to everyday life. (This is greatly displayed in Ray Bradbury’s novel “Fahrenheit 451”). I’ve sat in my car before with my girlfriend to whom I was greatly opening up my feelings to while driving along a serene road. I put much passion into my words and it meant a lot to me. A minute into the conversation, she was interrupted by the radio she of course put on. “Oh my gosh, I love this song! Oh okay go on.” I was alright with that even though I don’t see how a song can impact someone so much that they love it…along with a hundred other songs she’s said that to. Though, I still decided to test my theory. I continued and realized her lips were moving with the words of the radio. Was she even thinking about what I was saying? So I just stopped talking and she posed no argument, as if I had never even started. I’m not conceited in thinking that everyone should listen to me when I talk, but it was just used as an example. Furthermore, listeners are not considering what’s around them. The world is music itself and there’s much going on to hear outside and listen to the beauty of the world working its magic. Since the listeners cannot understand or perceive this, they just play music so they don’t look stupid. Singing along with a ‘jamming’ song does nothing for me because people are just blind-sighted to what’s actually happening. We are a fast paced society with no patience and therefore need more, more, more! Now! If we do not understand the world when thinking about it slowly, how can we get anything done when whizzing past it? Take the time, as expressed in “Fahrenheit 451,” to see the colors of the flowers alongside the road.
III. Conclusion
Our society’s general downfall will be because of our need for speed. The finer points of life, the points of meaning are being passed up to get to somewhere we are not prepared to go. We are not ready for what’s ahead of us until we have solved what’s going on now. Music with deep thought that can lead to discussion is looked up to by me and should be thought more about by the youth of our nation. So, I stress, discuss with peers your viewpoints because it may open up a whole new realm and spectrum of ideas, thought, and meaning. Find something where full thought is put into and passion is evident.

IV. Questions/Comments/Concerns?
I urge you to express your opinions referring to this page. Make corrections the contents of this paper. If you agree, provide something more I can add. If you disagree, please explain why and provide an argument so I can see through your eyes. I am open to change and my main goal is to understand the world from everyone’s viewpoint. Express this all on the thread or at [email protected], subject “texting + music argument.”

 

Too lazy to fucking read all of this. What is this about? How texting is making our youth bad or some shit? Learn better things to argue about, like our crappy ****** president or our economy.

 

Some major fallacies you possess are:

1. You argue that texting takes focus from the world and true meaning of your own life. Wouldn't reading a book take that focus also? Instead of words on a screen, ABOUT YOUR OWN LIFE, you are reading words on a page, ABOUT SOMEONE ELSE'S LIFE. According to your logic, reading a book is to be considered bad, and even worse than texting.

2. Lets Extend point 1 with your playing of classical music. Instead of focusing on human interaction in texts, you are reading notes off a page. Wow, relate back to #1 where reading words on a page is worse than texting. Notes off a page, according to your logic, also worse than texting. So, your two seperate arguments nullify each other.

3. "Everyone is just trying to make that one popular song". Well, duh. Do you want to make an UNpopular one? Of course, you could say that you didn't care what others thought, but then you are living in a little world, such as an imaginary one inside a book. And remember, going back to #1 and #2, words on a page or notes on a page is worse than text on a screen. --- You really just defeat yourself throughout your post.

4. What's with all these pop culture attacks? Just because you (presumably) cannot understand it, does that mean its wrong? Who put you in charge of which culture is correct?

5. "When people listen to music they cannot percieve around them". Aww man, hurt yourself again. I guess when you play 'high-brow culture' classical music you are immune to this? Of course, classical music MAY be so monotonous and boring that you really don't pay attention. Again, thanks for nullifying your own arguments.

For starters, don't expect to win any arguments by calling texters and people who listen to non-classical music ignorant of life. That will offend or turn off 99% of the population. I know it might not be idealistic or right, but that is how it works. To extend the 'it works' argument I offer you this scenario:

Real smart, in depth guy, gets into an argument with me about whether existence exists. Of course, he can out argue me, as there isn't really a way to prove it. However, by my luck, I tell him that "Existence exists because I see it". He, brightly or stupidly, you pick, counters by telling me he perceives a pink unicorn above my head, and I cannot know existance, because I do not see it. To finish the story up, he beat me, and made me mad. I retaliated by calling the crazy shack and having him locked up for hallucinating and seeing pink unicorns in midair. Was it right, no. Did it work, yes.

what is the importance of loafs or rye at the top?