Skateboarding and Such

David Langley relies heavily on evidence in his skateboarding piece. He tells several personal stories about his run-ins with unfair laws and police officers. Langley also poses questions to make the reader think more critically about his piece. Further on into his piece, Langley acknowledges other views on skateboarding and disproves these theories by putting forth facts and his opinions. Langley uses several of the tactics Michael Levin administers in his “A Case for Torture” article.
Langley’s essay begins with a personal story. He tells of a time he was frisked and his friend was fined because they were caught skateboarding. Before they were caught, Langley and his friends thought they were skateboarding legally because a nearby sign allowed skateboarding on holidays. When the police officer stopped them, though, she told them the sign only meant “rolling” was legal; tricks were not allowed. This introduces the argument that Langley later writes about, stating that skateboarding signs should be clearer. Langley goes on to tell of a time that he asked a police officer if he would arrest a skateboarder who was performing tricks, even with no endangered people around. To this, “the officer admitted that he might arrest the lone skater anyway and not be questioned by his superiors” (127).
At one point in his piece, Langley poses a question: “Where are skateboarders supposed to go?” He explores this question by writing of skate parks and parking garages, telling why both are inadequate. By posing this question, Langley is asking the reader to think of solutions, subtly forcing the reader to become engaged in the writing.
In an appeal to ethos, Langley acknowledges other views on skateboarding and skaters. He admits that skating does damage property to some extent, but, as he writes, “skateboarders help the environment more than they hurt it” (127). He explains that skateboarding is “green,” meaning it produces no toxins to be released into the ozone. He also says that skate parks are unsafe and crowded. He discusses how some skate parks are designed poorly and so endanger skaters. By revoking common opinions some have of skaters, he makes a clear argument about why cities should be more accommodating towards their skaters.
Langley, like Michael Levin, briefly acknowledges other views people hold on the issues at hand. Levin is very forceful in his writing, though. He thoroughly discredits other views and makes it seem almost sinful to not believe in torture. Langley, however, is not forceful, and he doesn’t disprove other opinions. Instead, he confesses that there is some truth in what others think about skateboarders, but he then gives reasons why people should rethink skateboarders. Furthermore, Levin cites a lot of hypothetical situations in his article to illustrate his point. Langley employs stories of his own experience to fortify his argument.