October 21, 2008, 10:19 pm by Tiana

So I really wanted to do a podcast response but I just do not have all the necessary tools with me to perform this activity. However, I am going to respond the “Pirate Cast.”

Ahoy swashbucklers! I definitely enjoyed this podcast. I was well entertained and the accents seemed not only like the Pirates of the Carribean accents but the information given was there but hidden well enough to keep me interested. I felt like I was on a ship and unfortunately I was going to have to get off of that ship. The information was there with good reference to the other students in the class’ comments. It was noce to hear that they used information that other people in class had given. It also seemed like it was not forced. It seemed like they were in a real situation and having a real conversation. I liked it a while lot! I am now terrified that my podcast will not be as entertaining!

Now onto the readings….the reading were of course- readings a little long winded for my taste but very informative. The one that I paid the most attention to was the one about the North American Indian Rhetoric.  I liked this one, especially the part about the Indian named Red Jacket. Red Jacket was apparently on his game, espcially to have been illiterate. He spoke well but I never really thought a person needed to read well in order to speak well but I do know you have to be able to speak somewhat okay in order to write well (or at least be able to go back and forth). I love how rhetoric showed the him that the words the men spoke were just based off their opinions and they did not hold fast to their word.

Rhetoric not only exposes truth but it also helps expose lies!!!! GO TEAM RHETORIC

September 3, 2008, 12:27 am by Brian

Until this very moment I have only thought of an argument as a statement of sorts with a premise and a conclusion which can be argued. Of cores I know that there is such a thing as a visual argument, but within visual arguments an implied premise and an implied conclusion can usually be found. Now, every day I manage to pry myself from bed I will wonder did some part of me just win and argument against another part of me about whether or not to get out of bed. I am inclined to think I will answer “no” every time. Getting out of bed, eating, taking a shower and so on are personal decisions. Sure someone can weigh one option against another, but whom retorts themselves (perhaps people with personality disorders)? In the example Heinrichs cites with his son and the toothpaste the premise might be, there is no more toothpaste; therefore, you should go get me more. To which there was no real argumentative response, what will you do to make sure this does not happen again, the conversation was not moved in any particular direction. Heinrichs responds with something to the effect of, you are sooo smart; now go get me some damn toothpaste. Instead of arguing Heinrichs applied different stimuli to his son until he got a desired reaction. This is the same thing that happens with more sensual situations. Couples don’t generally say to each other, “I am in the mood; therefore, you should satisfy me”. Instead one will apply particular stimuli until there ether is or is not a desired response. With that being said, I am nearly positive Heinrichs’ points were all in good fun and intended to engage his audience to pay closer attention to what an argument actually is. In which case he is applying a stimulus to his audience and hoping for a reaction. Perhaps the ancients would have thought this approach was perfectly acceptable as an argument, but I do not. If you punch someone in the face and they say “ouch” would you feel as though you convinced him to say “ouch”?

Because of the cynic that I am, I tend to think that this is what politicians do instead of arguing. Just like a dog owner will apply different stimuli to his dog in order to make it wage its tail, politicians apply different stimuli to voters ( “change” or “country first”) until they get their desired response.

August 19, 2008, 10:25 pm by AshleyJ

On pages 5-6 there is an excellent review of the state of ‘politics’ in the States right now. It was very well-put in that people have an aversion to listening objectively without looking for offense in others’ arguments. I feel that it has made open discussion of any realm of topics a brittle task for any one person or group of people, alike or varying. I think that one of the most interesting lines is when it is stated: “The authors of this book are concerned that if the Americans continue to ignore the reality that people disagree with each other ALL THE TIME, or if we pretend to IGNORE IT in the interests of preserving good manners, we risk undermining the principals on which our democratic community is based.” I was impressed at the acuity of this simple statement. America certainly does ignore our constant disagreement. No wonder the world laughs at us! We continually fool ourselves that there are ‘no cats in America’, to allude to Disney’s Fievel and refuse to address our issues from the ground up.

Moving on, the notion of democracy was discussed in one of my classes this summer and it ‘raised the question’ (thank you Grammar Girl): is there such a thing as democracy? Its definition continually changes and fluctuates, yielding to the constant trepidation that most likely roots from the ‘rhetoric sensitivity’ that the US harvests. Democracy morphs. Rapidly. Is it ever actually something?

The comparison of ancient to modern rhetoric is puzzling and interesting, I guess. It makes me wonder why it has become the way it is today and if it is better or worse….