September 30, 2008, 10:30 pm by Angela

The problem with extrinsic proofs in modern rhetoric is that everything that is written is not always actually true, neither everything that someone says.  We find this most in the media.  The media is full rhetoric of all kinds and not all of it is always true.  We can assume that writers use a certain integrity in their work and do not deliberately deceive us with their words but they do.  All reporters for tabloid magazines are not living examples of professional integrity.  One text to self observation I can make is in my work as a journalist for the AJC. All of out information and facts were supposed be and expected to be checked if we wrote it in a story. There was a serious expectation of truth and or fact in everything we sent to edit.

We can assume that people who swear to give accurate testimony in courts are actually going to tell the truth too but their truth is not always true either.  That is why we have something called perjury.

We have to assume that much of what we read is true in certain situations like text books, newspapers, journals, etc. but we have to know not everyone is going to always tell the truth.  Extrinsic proofs have the luxury of using data, artifacts and testimony to add to its validity.  Things we consider as facts today were not the same facts as established by ancient rhetorician who used laws, documents , maxims and worse of rumors!  But even with these proofs the ancient rhetoricians knew there was room for error an the possibility of deceit.

, 9:32 pm by Angela

3 Good Reasons Why Obama Can Not Win the Race for President

There are three good reasons why Barach Obama can not win the race for president in 2008.  It could be argued that he can not win the presidency because of his lack of experience, the Republican tactics and mostly his race!  While many believe Obama has mass appeal, good looks, quality rhetoric and a rock solid education he is still black!  And unfortunately his race coupled with the Republican’s shanigans will do more to arrest his attempts to become America’s first black president of the United States than anything else.

First, let me state upfront that I am a loyal Hilary Clinton supporter and I am having a problem lining up behind Obama because I simply do not believe he is an ideal candidate.   I believe not having Hillary Clinton as our nominee will be tragic mistake for the United States because it will mean McCain will surely win the election.  Hillary said during her campaign that Obama can not beat McCain and I agree. It seems that a fair amount of Hillary supporters also agree according a recent Associated Press Poll which says only 58% of Clinton supporters now support Obama.  Many are still on the fence or are simply voting for McCain because they don’t like Obama as a candidate, like me or they resent him not selecting her as his running mate.  It is helpful to Obama’s candidacy to have The Clintons asking voters to support Obama but he will have to win those votes on his own.

While both Obama and his wife, Michelle have impressive educational backgrounds, his political experience pales in comparison to Hillary and even his running mate, Joe Biden.  Yes, he has eight years of experience in the Illinois state senate, a seat on the Foreign Relations Committee and he has sponsored some 152 bills and resolutions according the A.P. poll but that is miniscule in the world of politics. His total years of experience in politics do not put him in good stead which is why I believe he chose Biden, someone who has strength in the areas where he is weak. Ultimately his lack of experience in Washington politics and the backstabbing from his opponent will harm him.

And in addition to his lack of experience in politics, Obama simply will not be able to survive the Republican attacks which will get increasingly sinister the closer we get to the November elections.  Remember the 2000 and 2004 elections?  Well it’s going to get much worse from here.  The Republicans are well known for their trickery and antics they have shamelessly used to win past elections and this one will be no different.  In fact, I believe the Republicans will do more to prevent Obama’s win than even his race, which will be significant barrier.  The Republicans “whatever it takes to win” philosophy will be running full speed ahead over the next few weeks as we approach the elections.  Even though the Republican administration has made a mockery of this country and has literally brought us to our knees as we head towards a depression, they will want the sweet taste of victory at any cost.

Presently, Obama’s race will be the most significance factor in his race for the White House.  Unfortunately, America has not been able move past the color factor. Although Obama is not the first Black to run for president, he has certainly come the closest to winning by securing the nomination. The 70’s saw Shirley Chisholm make a run for the seat, in the 80’s we had Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988, the 90’s would have welcomed Colin Powell had he decided to run and in 2004 we had Carol Mosely Braun and Al Sharpton as candidates; none of whom were legitimate threats. But Obama’s blackness will be a major roadblock to the White House. There are both Whites and some Blacks who simply are not supporting him just because he is Black, which is exactly why many Blacks have chosen to support him. We have a joke in the Black community that Bill Clinton was the first Black president because of his well-known relationships and friendships with Blacks, unlike any other president before him.  White America simply will not accept a Black man as president of these United States and that includes the ones who voted for him in Iowa.  Even the majority of White people who support Obama now will most likely switch when they get in the voting booths.  This is something that many Blacks and Whites know for a fact. This country is still far too racist to accept a Black man as Commander and Chief of this country.  Some political analysts have talked about “The Bradley Affect” haunting Obama’s candidacy as it did Tom Bradley. Bradley was a Black man running for mayor in Los Angeles who was highly favored to win. But he did not. The many Whites that supported his campaign simply switched gears on voting day.  This is what some analyst believe will happen to Obama.          

We can look at the lop-sided criminal justice system in America and tell there is no way for Obama to win. When innocent Black males are shot down in hails of gunfire by the police like Sean Bell of New York, or we witness the miscarriage of justice against the young Black males who made up the Gena 6 or most recently the 11^th hour stay of execution issued for Troy Davis who was almost put to death after evidence has surfaced to prove his innocence.  Is it really possible that we could have a Black man as president of a country that still exercises this kind of justice in 2008? I don’t think so!

 

                                                                                                             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, 3:43 pm by Robert

Frankly, I find Walker’s argument to be stinking of racism. I do understand that things were different in 1896, but I cannot help but to see the argument from my own eyes here and now. I mean, Plato, Aristotle, and many more from the merry gang of Rhetors came before that, and I really feel like an educated person, one trained to see the multitudes of possibilities stemming from an issue, should not have been able to write words obviously spurred by stinking, racist filth. Thus, I evaluate her argument quickly and with my nostrils pinched.

Walker uses lots of data and some testimony as her extrinsic proofs within her crusading argument of trying to stop the “ignorant and brutalized peasantry,” the “peasantry from the countries of eastern and southern Europe” from immigrating to our country because they will lower the current wages and the economic status quo (415-416). One example of a proof she uses is the statistic that “five thousand persons have passed through the gates … during the course of a single day … [,and] no very careful scrutiny is practicable” (414).

She draws upon common beliefs of the population e.g. it is against American tradition to keep immigrants out. She writes, “From the beginning, it has been the policy of the United States … to tolerate, to welcome, and to encourage immigration, without qualification and without discrimination” (415). She then applies the logic of one of the Aristotlean fallacies by saying: what was right in the past is not necessarily right in the present.

She backs up this application by citing that during the times of the pioneers, tradition held that cutting down the forests of the wild was a good thing, but as time passed, they discovered it was not and ceased the destruction (416). Walker is inferring that the same logic can be applied to the immigration debate i.e. what was traditional and right before can be wrong now.

Next, she points out the argument, her opponents’ no doubt, for immigration in the past, a two-fold argument: it was a “net reinforcement of our population” and it provided “laborers who should do certain kinds of work … which natives of the soil were unwilling to undertake” (416).

Walker, then, negates the first point by stating that instead of increasing the population of areas, the added immigrants merely replaced “native” people who were forced to move to different areas (417) .

After that, she gives statistical facts, raw data, to back up her point that the “native” population was increasing and would have continued to increase quite sufficiently on its own without help from immigration (417). Furthermore, and this is the kicker, she cites a “standard of height, of weight, and of chest measurement” as “steadily rising” within the “native” population pre-immigration (417). This gradual, almost Nazi-ish, breeding of a super-race, was quelled, according to Walker, when the immigrant population began to increase, though she cites no actual source for this information, although she does say, “These three facts, which might be shown by tables and diagrams, constitute a statistical demonstration such as is rarely attained” (417).

Her next argument, which she again backs up with so-called facts like the previous one, that “might” have been shown, is that the arrival of immigrants with lower standards of living, causes the “native” element to procreate less (418). I know what she means. Damn immigrants make me not want to do it, too.

As to the second point, her argument is that the “native” element did the hard work before the immigrants came, and the inclination to not do manual labor was born from the arrival of immigrants who would do the work. Sans immigrants from the start, the “native” would be have been inclined to do the work the whole time (418). I don’t get it. Work that sucks to do, sucks to do, no matter who is doing it, right?

Concerning the “general conditions” of the economy, wages, and unemployment, I can find no faults or fallacies (419-22).

Her final arguments, citing proofs, including testimony from highly regarded men of the community, I would still pass off to hasty generalization i.e. one bad apple or ten thousand bad apples do not spoil the barrel, or something like that (422-23).

Overall, I conclude that, minus all the faulty and fallacious aspects from the piece and change the core of the woman’s beliefs viz. that her race and similar ones are inherently superior over others, the argument might have had a chance.

September 29, 2008, 12:10 pm by Robert

Our book tells us to “know the emotional states of mind of [the] hearers or readers” (252) in order to persuade. Furthermore, the text advises us to be emotionally involved with that subject within which the need for persuasion comes from. Personally, I cannot recall a time when I wrote something which I was not emotionally involved in, and maybe that is what makes me an “okay” writer. So, I summon the emotion to discuss some ideas that came to me after completing the reading for today.

Pathos, when coming from a Marxist interpretation of the world, brings to mind the concept of ideology (differing from our text’s version), as a tool used to reinforce the dominant mode of production. James M. Decker says, “the ‘needs’ of an institution (e.g., a religion, government, or family) manifest themselves via ideology and establish a milieu wherein a subject will ‘naturally’ desire what will benefit the larger institution” (Decker 11).

The Allen story brings Decker’s words into our discussion. She describes the two belief systems, situated as opposites of each other i.e. one being a subject, the other being an object, of white people and Indian people and how each side’s belief about the other differed from the reality concerning menstruation. The whites created a myth about the Indians in order to enforce an idea that the Indians are bad or wrong, thereby evoking emotional appeal. Likewise, the Indians reciprocated. The Truth is that the two sides are actually alike i.e. not defined as an other or in contrast to the other, but rather as a one, but that is not the point.

Pathos and ideology is the point. One is an instrument useful in persuading, the other is a guiding system, set up by a hierarchical spider-web (roots of a large tree would work here as well) of a power structure to reinforce the dominant mode of production. Pathos is utilized within the system to help one unified group to strengthen their unity by opposing, being different from, or even demonizing another group. This difference is illusion or mythology.

This system of ideas, framing our perception of reality, creates these dualities, these opposites. Pathos can be utilized in the message to reinforce the “us” versus “them” mentality, to keep the people on on the “good” side, the “good” path. Likewise, the other side, the “bad” one, can use pathos in their message to keep their people unified. The process is equal and opposite.

Where I am going with this, I don’t know. It may be a matter of tiredness of being persuaded by others, mainly the existing structure of power, only to find out that the persuasion is illusion i.e. that which was convincing was really nothing, just smoke and mirrors or sleight of hand. The text brought up how we all were pretty emotional after 9/11. We were all ready for a fight. It seems pretty easy to get us to do something is all I’m saying. Want to convince me? Just use pathos. I’m a sucker as soon as I see some pictures or clips of people suffering, especially children. Throw in some poor helpless animals, and I’ll do whatever you want.

, 11:03 am by Ian

It is easy to conjure of alligator pathos, and it is hard to reach true pathos. Of course, that is obvious to most everyone; always easy to fake, then to confront the truth. But, I feel that the fake, conjuring, lets-scrunch-up-our-face-to-squeeze-out-tears pathos isn’t always there because we want to be manipulative, but rather, it’s an emotional response we feel that we should have, though not always able to obtain. Again, these are obvious observations about pathos, but thinking about now, with real scrutiny, reveals a latent epiphany for me.

 

Harvey Milk’s “The Hope Speech” is drenched with historical context, and for a hot minute I thought, ‘how could that be pathos?’, until I realized that historical moments are seeping with potential pathos. Individually, we interpret historical events in our own lens, so that we take into account what those historical moments mean to us. Of course, these interpretations can go beyond the individual, and affect a large group. Take for example Mr. Obama’s acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention. The day of the speech was the exact date that Mr. King recited his famous “I Have a Dream Speech”. Now, in the historical narrative of our country, those two separate moments produce a pathos that is both emboldening and transcendent. For me, knowing the history, understanding the events, and acknowledging the journey from Mr. King’s moment to Mr. Obama’s moment produces a pathos that is striking and one-of-a-kind.

, 10:57 am by Shafinaz

Out of all the readings, the poem If We Must Die, written by Claude McKay, truly opened up my eyes.  My mother always says that it is better to be the only one right rather than following a group that’s wrong.  She says this to me and my siblings almost everyday.  This poem made me think of her words.  For a moment, I felt as if my mother was the writer of this poem.  The poet is consantly reminding himself and his audience that the decisions we make in this lifetime will remain even after we die.  When I read the poem for the second time, I attempted to imagine who the poet could be addressing.  I feel as if he is speaking or even praying to God.   However, he isn’t speaking only for himself.  He writes for a group by addressing the speaker(s) as “we”.  In today’s world, it is sometimes difficult for an individual to stand up for his or her own belief especially when there is no one else present with the same ideals.  However, the poet makes it apparent that being truthfully good at heart will be rewarding in the end.  The poet asks that his belief will be accurately accepted. 

“Like men, we’ll face the murderous cowardly pack,

Pressed to the wall,dying, but fighting back!”

These last two lines of the poem helps me as a reader.  It allows me to believe that as long as I am on the path that I believe to be right, people will understand, honor, and respect my decisions even after I am gone.

, 9:52 am by Brett

 pathology - 1: the study of the essential nature of diseases and especially of the structural and functional changes produced by them 

source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathology

I didn’t do enough research into the etymology of the word pathology to rightly claim that the emotional appeal of an orator is akin to spreading a disease; however, if you think about it in the right light, pathos is the contagious part of rhetoric.

There is an effort to spread your enthusiasm for your argument when you speak to an audience. You want to produce “structural and functional changes” in the minds and actions of your speaker. One accomplishes this by creating an argument that has not only the proper logos and ethos, but a pathos that carries the argument to the audience.

Just like disease, there are different ways of spreading the pathos around. Crowley and Hawhee speak about methods like enargeia, honorific and pejorative language. A rhetor speaks about events with such vivid language that the audience is transported to a scene in their minds - smack! . . . they just got slimed with the pathos transported by the enargeia germs. Another rhetor speaks honorably about all the good deeds and respectful accomplishments of a person - aaagh-cheew! . . . the rhetor just sneezed a whole slew of honorific language all over the audience. I hardly want to imagine what it is like to have pejorativitus.

Once the pathos has linked the rhetor with the audience, it is easier to persuade them with the use of logos and ethos. They are on your side, because they are sick with the same disease the rhetor has. The world becomes a shared experience.

You’ve all had experiences where you’re feeling on top of the world, then you meet your cynical and pessimistic friends for lunch, and once lunch is over, suddenly you see that dark rain cloud moving from atop their heads over yours. That’s the contagious nature of pathos at work. So next time you feel like going out into the world, remember there is another side of disease you have to avoid, and washing your hands 25 times a day won’t help a bit.

, 9:21 am by Jennifer

• Housekeeping: Schedule & Basic essay format?
• Citing Podcasts: In MLA:

Author. “Episode title.” Date and time of publication. Media type. Podcast Title. Site title if applicable (and not the same). Your access date <URL (can use the short URLs)>.

Example:

Bowie, Jennifer. “Screen Space 9: Design 101b (Some Basic Vocabulary).” 9 Sept. 2008 11:59 pm. Screen Space; A Blog and Podcast about Users, Texts, and Technology. 29 Sept. 2008 <http://www.screenspace.org/?p=95>.

• Go over CTW grading, criteria, word count, how they fit into the class (writing & analysis)…
• Proposals & Opportunity
• Discuss Pathos & Reading
• Discuss Debate

, 12:36 am by Arch

Pain is universal…so is glory. 

There is a scene in Apocalypse Now when Marlon Brando’s character is explaining the Viet Cong’s solution to the American’s system of giving inoculations.  He tells the horrific details and then says the he “felt like tearing out his own teeth”.  This point in the film, believe it or not, is the most vulnerable insight into the mind of a man who has found freedom in losing hope.  Time and the eventuality of harsh, unyielding times have taken its toll on the character and I feel all of this is fitting because there is no such thing as too much emotion.  

The time and place may be questioned but what does one have to apologize for if the tone is too brash or the pitch is to high.  I am reminded of Howard Dean’s speech where he was railed against because he thought it was a good idea to display his commitment by yelling over the noise of the crowd that was surrounding him.  Inflection should not be a cause or a case for dismissal.  I keep hope for the future of our party.

I shook Jesse Jackson’s hand in San Francisco in 1989.  (If you give me extra credit for this I am going to withdraw from your class)

After a certain amount of time of traveling up the river of emotional transgression there comes a point when all is lost and new definitions must be put in place.  The time and the place can be circumspect, but never the less, the point is made to those in attendance.  I do believe in what I am saying and who cares how loud I say what I believe?   I do!

�

September 28, 2008, 10:48 pm by AshleyD

It’s funny to read Jesse Jackson’s 1984 Democratic speech with the present election looming. There was obviously a different focus of that election year than what’s the most concerning to us presently. Because the times were so different, Jesse Jackson’s approach to his audience was different from what we hear from the current Democratic nominee. He focused on the issues of race, and equality. Today, we seek to correct the economy, end a war, and improve our environment-among other things.

                Senator Barack Obama and Reverend Jesse Jackson both use appeals of pathos when addressing the public. However, I noticed that Jackson used “we” repeatedly in his speech. This made me think to what the specific times were then. I was born in 1984 and inequality was still a high-priority issue; however, I believe Jackson’s appeal was due more in part to his involvement with the Civil Rights Movement. In addition, if his address to the Party had been less about inequality and more about the economy or international affairs he would have lost appeal to some members of his audience.

                Inequality still exists in many areas of the world. Maybe in today’s election it isn’t discussed in terms of race, as much as it was in ’84, because Senator Obama’s nomination has given a hope to the African-American community that no amount of words could bring. I just wonder what has changed so much in the minds of Americans that today we are more accepting and willing to embrace change at the highest level of government, as opposed to attempts by previous candidates. While I ponder the acceptance of a different race in the White House, I also consider those so resistant to change, that given the chance, they’d rather give their vote to Hitler.

Newer Posts »