A pseudo-argument is an argument based on opinions, which can be started by both sides and both sides can stimulate the argument. I have had many of these types of arguments in my life. One pseudo-argument is one I used to constantly have with my parents. We constantly debated my bed time. This is a pseudo-argument because it is an argument between to sides, which both sides are opinionated and have the ability to further stimulate the argument.
My parents always wanted me to go to sleep early. They felt that if I had more sleep then I would be more willing to wake up in the morning and also to better in school. I thought that the amount of sleep I had really didn’t matter, and that I could run on about 5 to 6 hours of sleep. Neither my parents nor I had sufficient evidence to back our claims up besides our opinions of my actions. In the end they won because they are the parents and they can easily punish me.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Visual Argumetn
Visual argument can be more persuasive. I don’t believe in all cases that visual argument trumps any other kind of argument, but I do believe that in most cases it does. Most people believe in the phrase seeing is believing, which means that its only true and believable if it can be seen. In most cases if you can provide visual evidence to your argument, then the opponent is more likely to believe you based on what they’ve seen. The best example of a place where visual argument is bad, is when it comes to religion. You can’t see a God are a celestial being, so visual argument would be bad to use. If you could provide visual for religious arguments, I’m pretty sure it would be the most effective.
Visual argument allows you to see what is happening and see what the argument the opponent is making. In most cases the sight of something is more powerful than just the telling. A picture says a thousand words so to speak, so it is easier to depict your argument through a visual reference rather than spoken or written. Not only is it more powerful, it can make the story more believable. People could change any aspect they want to about their argument with lies. It is more difficult for a visual image to lie than a person saying of writing down lies. In the end visual argument is more overall effective than any other argument.
Visual argument allows you to see what is happening and see what the argument the opponent is making. In most cases the sight of something is more powerful than just the telling. A picture says a thousand words so to speak, so it is easier to depict your argument through a visual reference rather than spoken or written. Not only is it more powerful, it can make the story more believable. People could change any aspect they want to about their argument with lies. It is more difficult for a visual image to lie than a person saying of writing down lies. In the end visual argument is more overall effective than any other argument.
ethos and pathos in today
The ethical responsibilities that an author has is not to use ethos and pathos to manipulate the story. The author must be responsible and use ethos and pathos to accurately depict something. To me it isn’t so important for fiction as it is for non-fiction, because fiction is false anyways, but non-fiction is the truth and is facts. If the author uses ethos or pathos without ethical responsibility then the writing may no longer even be non-fiction from the changes.
The news today doesn’t always use ethical responsibility. They have used the use of ethos and pathos incorrectly on a couple of occasions. When we went to war in Iraq, they major belief was that there were weapons of mass destruction located there, and that was one of our main reasons for going. Now that we’ve infiltrated and found that there is no WMD’s, then what are we to believe? Some of the media made it seem that there were WMD’s and we believed. Our emotions were falsely changed and the info was incorrect. I feel that a lot of the time the media over exaggerates, which plays on ethos and pathos. It plays on ethos because it’s the information we receive and it always isn’t necessarily true, and pathos because they make it seem more important that what it is or the downplay it and we don’t know exactly how important it is. I feel that the news today is not ethically responsible for how they use ethos and pathos.
The news today doesn’t always use ethical responsibility. They have used the use of ethos and pathos incorrectly on a couple of occasions. When we went to war in Iraq, they major belief was that there were weapons of mass destruction located there, and that was one of our main reasons for going. Now that we’ve infiltrated and found that there is no WMD’s, then what are we to believe? Some of the media made it seem that there were WMD’s and we believed. Our emotions were falsely changed and the info was incorrect. I feel that a lot of the time the media over exaggerates, which plays on ethos and pathos. It plays on ethos because it’s the information we receive and it always isn’t necessarily true, and pathos because they make it seem more important that what it is or the downplay it and we don’t know exactly how important it is. I feel that the news today is not ethically responsible for how they use ethos and pathos.
'Pathos'
The appeal to ‘pathos’ is such a powerful rhetorical device because it connects you to the argument. Many can be swayed just by the sheer emotion put into something. Some of the greatest occurrences in history happened because of one’s emotion. Having emotion is a critical part in being human. We all have some emotion, so pathos can relate to a lot of people. Pathos also is a powerful tool in argument and you don’t even have to have evidence or data or credentials to back up your argument. You can sway people just by emotions alone.
Using a metaphor or a story to get the reader interested is a common hook used when focusing on the appeal to pathos. It is easier to you to see the point of view with a story or a metaphor rather than a table of data. People may not be as bored with a story, and more willing to continue reading or listening to your argument. The appeal to pathos makes your argument related to humans and makes it more important to you. Passion is also a commonly used when appealing to pathos. When someone is more passionate about something, people usually think that they care more about the subject, which would make it more believable and easier to persuade you. I believe the appeal to ‘pathos’ is a powerful rhetoric device, but the use of all three in harmony is the best way to argue and persuade.
Using a metaphor or a story to get the reader interested is a common hook used when focusing on the appeal to pathos. It is easier to you to see the point of view with a story or a metaphor rather than a table of data. People may not be as bored with a story, and more willing to continue reading or listening to your argument. The appeal to pathos makes your argument related to humans and makes it more important to you. Passion is also a commonly used when appealing to pathos. When someone is more passionate about something, people usually think that they care more about the subject, which would make it more believable and easier to persuade you. I believe the appeal to ‘pathos’ is a powerful rhetoric device, but the use of all three in harmony is the best way to argue and persuade.
Saturday, September 8, 2007
implicit vs. explicit
Implicit and Explicit arguments have very distinct differences. An explicit argument “states directly a controversial claim and supports it with reasons and evidence. An implicit argument, in contrast, doesn’t look like an argument. It may be a poem or short story, a photograph or cartoon, a personal essay or an autobiographical narrative” (Writing Arguments p. 4). To me this means that explicit directly attacks the problem and gives evidence. Implicit is a more opinionated way of arguing, through one’s ability to communicate through other means. The big difference to me is that they attack different parts of the human personality. Explicit focuses more on facts and the intellectual part of a person, but implicit attacks the emotional side of the person, attempting to make a connection through emotion than just facts. Both the photo and the poem are implicit. Neither states a specific argument and they both aren’t backed up by facts. To me they both are focusing on the emotions of one and not the factual side. The photo looks like a very touching moment between two officers and the poem is also emotional in the descriptiveness of the horror of what war was like. It is based on his personal bias and his thought process and not on what we call facts.
Cartoon vs. Ad
The cartoon and the ad both have different arguments. I feel like the cartoon with the hippie and the starving person is showing the side of which thinks that it is ok for us to eat the food. I feel the ad with the can that says “ingredients- none of your business” is for the side that believes GE (genetically enhanced) foods are not ok.
The ad and cartoon have to completely different genres of making you understand their point. The cartoon’s genre is comedy. It’s a comical drawing. You look at it and see an overweight hippie wearing buttons saying “NO FRANKEN FOODS” GLOBALIZTION” and a button with the peace sing (an upside down y in a circle). The hippie has a piece of corn in his hand that has “drought resistant” and then “reason resistant” pointing at the hippie. On top of all of this he is telling a starving person, that’s so skinny you can their ribs, “you don’t want this (corn), its genetically enhanced.” To me this was funny. This hippie won’t feed a starving person just because it was a piece of GE corn. The idea that this cartoon is trying to get across is that people that resist GE foods are hippies. Not only are they hippies but hippies are reason resistant and they wouldn’t feed a hungry person GE food. This cartoon is very negative towards the people who believe GE food is bad. Their intelligence, look, and thought process was insulted by this picture. I feel like the artist was trying to draw you onto his side by making the other side seem stupid and funny in their beliefs. This reminds me of the drawings the Nazi’s used against the Jews, demeaning their look and intelligence.
The ad on the other hand is a very serious concept. The picture of the can without ingredients but instead a note saying it’s none of your business makes you think, “what if that were real?” “What if I picked up a can and I didn’t know the ingredients?” “Would I even buy it?” All of these are valid questions that I would assume most people would think of if the picked up a can of corn and saw that same label that was on the fake can. This ad is trying to get their point across by showing you their perspective on the matter. They do this without bashing and degrading the opposing side. I feel that in most cases the more serious diplomatic approach is better, so I like the can ad more so than the cartoon.
The ad and cartoon have to completely different genres of making you understand their point. The cartoon’s genre is comedy. It’s a comical drawing. You look at it and see an overweight hippie wearing buttons saying “NO FRANKEN FOODS” GLOBALIZTION” and a button with the peace sing (an upside down y in a circle). The hippie has a piece of corn in his hand that has “drought resistant” and then “reason resistant” pointing at the hippie. On top of all of this he is telling a starving person, that’s so skinny you can their ribs, “you don’t want this (corn), its genetically enhanced.” To me this was funny. This hippie won’t feed a starving person just because it was a piece of GE corn. The idea that this cartoon is trying to get across is that people that resist GE foods are hippies. Not only are they hippies but hippies are reason resistant and they wouldn’t feed a hungry person GE food. This cartoon is very negative towards the people who believe GE food is bad. Their intelligence, look, and thought process was insulted by this picture. I feel like the artist was trying to draw you onto his side by making the other side seem stupid and funny in their beliefs. This reminds me of the drawings the Nazi’s used against the Jews, demeaning their look and intelligence.
The ad on the other hand is a very serious concept. The picture of the can without ingredients but instead a note saying it’s none of your business makes you think, “what if that were real?” “What if I picked up a can and I didn’t know the ingredients?” “Would I even buy it?” All of these are valid questions that I would assume most people would think of if the picked up a can of corn and saw that same label that was on the fake can. This ad is trying to get their point across by showing you their perspective on the matter. They do this without bashing and degrading the opposing side. I feel that in most cases the more serious diplomatic approach is better, so I like the can ad more so than the cartoon.
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Carlos Fuentes Response
In Carlos Fuentes’s “How I learned to Write” his purpose to me was to show how language is so important to culture and to show how a culture cannot exist in solitude. In his writing he explores the fact of the importance of language to each country. His father was a devout Mexican and he was forced to learn so much about Mexico even though, to him, Mexico has a very disappointing history full of defeats. But, even though they had a humiliating history it was still important to learn about his heritage.
The other purpose was for him to show us how learning and remembering our culture is important to defining a culture identity. This is so important because that is how we are different from each other and how we define ourselves as people. We also need to share our culture because culture can’t survive alone. We need to have other people to share our culture with and be different from at the same time.
The other purpose was for him to show us how learning and remembering our culture is important to defining a culture identity. This is so important because that is how we are different from each other and how we define ourselves as people. We also need to share our culture because culture can’t survive alone. We need to have other people to share our culture with and be different from at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)