Strange. I always thought these "rules" were more comparible to necessities.

Reading Lazere's "ground rules" elbowed me into a realization: I have long been aware of his standards in evaluating the soundness of an argument. Unconsciously, I have used similar standards in analyzing both my own arguments, and those coming from others. For one reason or another, I have unknowingly considered the “ground rules” to be requisite to the concept of argument itself, thinking them to be necessary in order to feel satisfied with one’s own argument. It doesn’t make sense that someone would conclude that any of Lazere’s ideas are unreasonable because I perceive them as stemming from pure reason. They only seem logical; I see no reason to think that Lazere's ideas are anything but necessity. But some would feel that way. Some do feel that way. I wonder why anyone would try to argue something unreasonable?

With full awareness of the realities of demagogury--the intentional use of fallacious arguments, which can appear so sound to the person who lives in the fluidity and passion of the moment--we must consider why an argument is supported to begin with. Shouldn't someone feel confident that his/her argument is correct in order to argue it? Why would any rational animal support an argument that is not analyzed under these logical standards; standards that are nothing more than a rational "checklist" for one's own correctness? For reasons, I think, that fall outside of rationality.

Not every argument is to find the best outcome, or the right choice. Not every argument is vying for truth. Some arguments come from our own flaws--the thirst for power, the proclivity to satisfy one's own emotional wants, the need to feel right.

There are those who would reject Lazere's standards because of a distaste for relative truth. Some arguments can seem to have no compromise because of the appearance of absolute truth on either side. Absolute truth does not work well alongside of relative truth. Relative truth, after all, has the potential to destroy the solid infallibility of purist beacons such as the Ten Commandments. So why, one might argue, should someone who "knows" her/his argument is correct give any quarter to the opposition?

For the reason of our own human fallibility: we are not perfect, and to assume our arguments is an ironic representation of our imperfection. Lazere's ground rules have the high idea of rationality flowing through them; the concept of arguing while remaining ever conscious of the imperfections and fallacies that affect the human mind. That means actually listening to the opposition to find out if you have made a mistake. That means evaluating your own arguments and that bias that it brings. It means recognizing that, within your own faction, mistakes can be made & fallacies can be found.

I have a tendency to assume the ultimate goal of an argument is to be as correct as possible. The more I consider Lazere's ground rules for argumentation, the more I think that there's no other way to argue if one wishes to argue with credibility. Lazere's rules are a kind of rational proof to check for one's own correctness; a tool to account for the imperfections that humankind bring to their arguments. If you do not care whether your argument is correct or not, then reconsider why you are arguing to begin with. Your true motivation may not be very appealing to those whom you would try to convince.

Whose Rules?

I remember reading the beginning of this article back in the first few weeks. Just from reading Lazere's actual ground rules, I thought that by the time any writer following those rules got to his point, a reader would have seen so many conflicting arguments that he would have no clue where the author stood.

See? Even that last sentence I just wrote was a little hard to follow. Sure enough, as I read through Lazere's article, I had no clue what his point was. Actually, that's not true. I did gather that he thought Lynne Cheney indulged in "invective."

Wow, people on opposite sides of the political spectrum using "abusive language"? Who would have thought? And does Lazere make his argument any more valid by using phrases such as "hyperbolic overgeneralizations" and "manichean oversimplifications." My, what a fine example of redundant repetition.

After Lazere spends 20 pages hiding behind big words and references to references and assuring us that he isn't attacking everyone (only those who don't agree with him), he finally gets to what I believe might be his point on the pentultimate (I can use big words, too.) page of the article, not counting his sources.

In typical Batman-Voice-Over fashion, he asks a serious of suspense building questions regarding whether the Olinites will "take the pledge to abide by...my ground rules for polemecists." And then Robin Hood called "conscientious conservatives" to join together to raise the level of ethics in their field that argues about argument and never comes up with solutions to real issues.

Paper 2 -- Fear

For paper 2, I’ve focused on a pattern of persuasion we haven’t mentioned in class yet, and one that I think is particularly popular right now, especially with Bush and Iraq.
These are some excerpts from my paper:
Fear is a powerful tool in the hands of the right people. It’s such a common emotion; insidiously sneaking into rationale of society, oftentimes leaving no trace of the havoc it’s wrought. Clumsily used, it is at best a bargaining tool, found in the hands of a schoolyard bully or highly trained terrorist. Wielded with acumen, it becomes one of the most influential forms of persuasion available, both compelling and commanding.

Instigating fear can range from raising doubt about a particular product to an all out assault on someone’s senses. Fear is a powerful motivator, and can be used by companies including the government to encourage behavior, influence public opinion, and monitor societies’ movements.

We’ve discussed Bernays’ managed public opinion, Luntz’s doublespeak, and the ideas present in Trust Us, We’re Experts as means of persuading a public to consume something- be it a material good, or governmental policy regarding the environment, or their own image of themselves. We have brought up the technique of the “apology”, and the appeal to common sense. This paper introduces the technique of scaring someone into submission.

I’m not sure how valid this method is, if it can even be called persuasion- or if it’s a form of coercion. I’m sure I’ll be taking a closer look and re writing for a better grade!

Civility in public discourse

In the wake of recent trends which include privatization of governmental services such as health and education, intensified competition, globalization of the economy, reduced real wages, drastic cutbacks in social welfare and the soaring unemployment rates; how is the community to capture its’ individuals? Social movements are possessed by the idyllic expanding consumer society and can help one discover new directives for future economic and social development. Imagine if civility could find its place in social movements.
An endless cycle of confrontations over difficult distributional and moral issues is produced in our increasingly diverse society founded on our different intents and interests. This “continuing confrontation is inevitable, the enormous destructiveness which commonly accompanies these confrontations is not. “Constructive confrontation” is an approach that harvesters an understanding of conflict processes, dispute resolution, and advocacy strategies to facilitate advancement of individual interests.

CHECK OUT THIS SITE!!! http://www.etchouse.com/cpd/

Paper 2

I decided to write my paper off of paper 1 a little. I was going to discuss how language effects different ppl in the matter of persuasion and also with the different languages we have to use in our lives. I figured i'd talk about how important language can be with the way you use it to the way ppl understand it. I will also discuss from paper one how language is most effective in persuasion with the way you use it as well.

Second Paper

For paper number 2 I am going to write about the Clinton crisis that happened during his second term as president. I am going to examine what went on between him and Monica, and relate things to certain redaings we were assinged so far from the beginning of class. For exmaple Clinton made an apology, and we talked about that in class, so I will discuss that a bit. Also, there was a bit of persuasion going on by both sides of trhe white house, and I will talk about that and analyze the topic in the eyes of our authors thus far.

Paper # 2 thoughts

So I was just reading alot of other people's blog postings on their papers. I actually wrote (started to write) a paper, but then after the last class on Tuesday, I realized I really did not like the topic. It was not something that interested me in the least, so I decided to make a "fresh start". I have nother class this semester that is sort of connectyed to the material we talk about and read in Advanced Comp. (The class is called culture and Media with professor Schwartz... just in case you were wondering). Anyway, we were in that class and we started to talk about slang. He was asking all of us different words we use for slang and what they mean. Then he went into the origins of the words. Why did they take on the meanings that they did? How did they get this way? When you really think about it, it makes alot of sense. How did the word "cool" mean "popular"? So I decided that this was a good opportunity to make this my topic for paper #2. Hopefully I can get into how they bring a community together, and use some quotes from the language war, and emergent publics. I didn't like Trust Us were experts too much, so I might stay away from that book. Just some thoughts I had. Let me know if anyone thinks it is a bad idea.

Topic for Paper 2...

For my paper, I was affected by the way common sense affects language. I want to write about the ways common sense influences our actions. In a situation that merits the response "Well it's common sense not to do that/ do that. " I am going to examine the guidelines of common sense and why common sense tells us we can/can not do something in a given event or at a given time. I'll use Lakoff's ideas on common sense as a reference, of course. I will also use "Trust Us, we're experts!" for examples as well.

Altering Common Sense

I was affected by some of Angus's arguments in Emergent Publics. He suggests that the changes which are necessary for sustaining democracy in America require a shift in America's perception of what the solutions are. The altering of common sense one could say. But how could this be? Common sense is the foundation on which we all move: common sense is the laws of physics, the color of the sky, the life-death cycle. Could there be anything more difficult than stripping and restocking the elements of our common sense? In my essay, I plan on interpreting what is meant by the altering of common sense, how it could possibly be done, and what it means to Americans.

Paper #2

For my second paper I am continuing the discussion from last class about Lakoff's interpretation of apology. My argument will be how people should only have to apologize for things they have personally done themselves and for nothing else. I also plan on showing the differences between an apology and feeling remorse for someone because I felt that there was some misinterpretation of that in last week's class. As of right now I have only used Lakoff's book because my paper is still only in its beginning stages.

Goals for Paper 2

I have long been interested in the rather recently coined political technique called "doublespeak." It is a way of conveying a particular meaning, which rhetoric does, through softened, if you will, language. Doublespeak’s trickery is its real genius; it not only makes terrible, sometimes inhumane acts justified, but it makes the person who uses the device (most of the time a political leader) sound superlative. Take, for instance, the candy-coated validation of the Iraqi war by George Bush when he said we must continue in the war because of “unsubstantiated statements, for the lack of evidentiary support, and for the purported manipulation of intelligence data.” This, to the public, may come across as pure linguistic genius, but it is nothing more than unnecessary banter. My job, then, is to examine why this rhetorical device known as “doublespeak” successfully manipulates or dismisses public opinion in light of the events that can, and do, directly affect them. Perhaps Angus would agree with this technique, disputing that it propels the public to understand political discourse so that they can form opinions based on the arguments beneath the language. Lippman and Bernays, in contrast, would and probably do disagree with this tactic, as it not only disguises human error—for example, the use of military terms like “collateral damage” which actually means the unintentional death of innocent civilians by military action—but it also displaces that fault on other people.

paper 2

I'm analyzing the way the republicans and conservative religious leaders frame the policies of the right with religion to get swing votes and pump up their base so they go out and vote. Although I am looking at a speech given by President Bush to a group of southern Baptists most of my paper focuses on press releases given out by the Family Research Council about Justice Sunday-Stopping the Filibuster against People of Faith and Justice Sunday II-God Save the United States and this Honorable court. These were events on Sunday evenings that were broadcast on television and over the radio. They used religion to talk about politics and the fight against liberals. I was expecting them to have a small audience and feature speakers who were radical conservatives with no real power in politics but Justice Sunday II featured six current Congressmen and was watched in 79 million households. This is not a huge part of the American population but it is still a significant number of people.

paper 2

I am going to write on the Apartheid in South Africa, and how through the rhetoric of the white South African government the public was persuaded to think that the Apartheid was a good idea. I think I am also going to find documents from Ronald Reagan, who continued to trade and have commerce with South Africa, regardless of the way they were treating their citizens. I'm not really sure what text I am going to refer it back to. I'm still in the process of researching the topics... so we'll see where it goes from there. Good luck everyone!

Thought about paper #2...

After last Tuesday's class, I feel somewhat compelled to write about the patterns of discourse in relation to human responsibility. I found Lakoff's writing about patterns in apologies very interesting and I want to go further into that. Also, I would like to use some of her arguments to discuss one major argument that we discussed in class as well. I want to talk about the act of apologies, themselves, and then I want to try to relate that back to certain degrees of accountability we should/ should not have for issues of the past. A rhetorical analysis of metaphors and references will be key in my paper. I want to find out why we feel guilty or ashamed to apologize for acts of the past that we were not present for, yet still affect us day to day. I also want to figure out why it seems it's harder to apologize for something when it is evident that we are wrong in a certain situation. The art of skirting apologies with generic half-assed "I'm sorry"s is another area that I would like to look firther into.

Trust us...

The reading of Rampton and Stauber to me, was definitely the hardest of the readings thus far. In the beginning of the first chapter they started to discuss Microsoft and the claims against them in general. Microsoft's idea behind their public backing of the product is actually ingenius in itself. Getting the public to be all for their product so that no other product could pass them in sales. They also use software that is specific to Microsoft and will only work with other Microsoft products, which is actually really annoying for any college student who has to work with not only their own computer, but the computers of their university as well.
One part of the reading that I thought was interesting was when they say that advertisement are the obvious kinds of propaganda, and they're what we're used to seeing every day. But the third party technique in its more subtle forms is designed to make their audience numb to what they're hearing or seeing or experiencing. They say, "You'll never know when a PR agency is being effective, you'll just find your views slowly shifting." This is kind of scary to think about; that we might be that numb to some kinds of advertising that we don't even see it as advertising at all. We just view something in a completely different light and we assume that it's because our attitude has shifted. Really though, it's someone elses attitude or views. They state, "Every new means of communication carries within itself a means of deception."
They talk about how public relations industries have become invisible because their ideas and persuation is virtually everywhere. We don;t even see them as advertisements anymore, more of a way of life.
They talk about expert opinion as opposed to the feelings of the general public. But really, the general public has no say because we see things like, "nine of of ten doctors agree..." and we believe it because we are not experts, ourselves. So we are generally an easily manipulated public. But how far will these experts go to manipulate and control our perceptions of reality? It's actually kind of scary, if you think about it. They talk about how whoever gets its version of the truth out there most effectively, wins. So then really, are we believing someone who lies extremely effectively, or do we really make our own decisions?
The section of science and the "intelligent few" really shed some light for me. The "democracy" that we have is seen as dangerous, and that's why we leave the decisions up to a select few. Bernays added to this theory by saying that being herdlike led people to be remarkably susceptible to leadership. Therefore, he saw public relations as an applied science. So our leaders could use this idea and bring order from chaos.
John Scalon really made me think when he stated that truth can be liquid, not solid. "What seems to be true is not necessarily the case when we look at it and we dissect it...whose truth are we talking about, your truth, or my truth?" That basically states the fact that sometimes we are not even conscious of our own decisions, even attitudes and beliefs because of all that is going on around us. We have people trying to persuade us in one ear, and then we have our inherent morals and beliefs, but who wins in the end?

The Language War

Lakoff calls herself a linguist, and through the reading I couldn't really tell that at all. I just saw her as a debator of rhetorical situation more than language itself. She really gets into the issue of gendered discourse and I think you really had to read between the lines to get her ideas and controversies about the topic. She discusses language choices and the use of metaphors in writing that can persuade us as readers, or get us to think in a certain way. One part of the reading she talks about how we cannot let word associations and word meaning interfere with our general understanding of issues or products. This is basically what I wrote about in my first paper. I discussed the fact that the media has a code for us as individuals and it plays on our weaknesses and our fears in order to get us to buy. Government does this as well when they want us to agree on a particular issue or when they want us to understand what they're saying, without really understanding it at all. They try to manipulate us so that they we are on their side. In my paper I stated that the media makes us feel good about ourselves at first, but always keeps us needing them in the end. "They create a situation where we create our own fear, and therefore we need their products to feel safe again." I think that this is basically what Lakoff is trying to convey to us in her book.
One specific part of the reading that I thought was pretty confusing as I read it was the apolgy section. The phrase, "I'm sorry I stepped on your cat," as opposed to, "I'm sorry your cat got stepped on," or, "Why'd you leave the cat in this room?!," or, "Can't the stupid animal watch where it's going?" all shift the blame of the issue itself. When you say that you're sorry the cat got stepped on, your not actually taking blame or accountability for doing the act, itself. When you ask why did you leave the cat here in the first place, you're actually shifting blame to the innocent party completely. When you say can't the stupid animal watch where it's going you're shifting blame to the cat, the innocent animal whom you stepped on. I now see how government officials use this technique to get out of certain situations. Apologizing is humbling and a lot of people have a very hard time doing this, especially if they know they are wrong in the situation. Certain government officials will sometimes shift blame entirely, or apologize without taking responsibility. This is kind of an art, if you think about it. Because they have the power to say that they apologized for something that they never even held themselves accountable for.
In class we discussed this in firther detail about history in general. I would not have felt comfortable apologizing for acts of the past that I was not even around for. Plus, the issues weren't even things that I agreed with in my life today. But some students pointed out that if I had lived back then, my whole mindet would definitely be different, so really, who am I to say what I would have agreed with or been against? Things that I never even really thought about was that fact that history repeats itself and the past affects the present. We also discussed practical reasoning for apologizing for past issues like trade with countries and the direct link of the wealth that Americans now have with the past. I now would agree that there is significance in apologizing for certain things, even if I had no direct coorelation to them to begin with. It actually helps the whole cause in general. I now kind of see that I was pretty ignorant to this logical kind of thinking before.

Connections

As I researched my selected "instance" in public discourse, the gay marriage debate, I couldn't help but wonder how I could make more of a connection to our reading material in class. First, I thought I could take a look at the language surrounding the debate to see if I could find frames or appeals to "common sense."

Just before I started researching that, I thought of class discussions that involved people saying things such as "I can't believe gay marriage was such a big issue in the 2004 campaign. " That, in turn, made me think of Angus who talked about politicians deciding what the big issues were. How many times have you heard someone say they should have focused more on the war, or the economy.

So before finding arguments on the gay marriage debate, I went to the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) website. It turns out, that in all three presidential debates, consisting of about 55 questions total, there was only one question about gay marriage. The Iraq War and Homeland Security were the subject of about 22 questions.

So, in addition to the language in that particular debate on gay marriage, I thought I might look into why people thought it was such an important issue. Obviously, the politicians were focusing more on the war and security in their debates. Maybe people actually do care about morality (how awful) in their everyday lives and just thought they should care more about the war.

Trust us, yeah right!

Isn’t it amazing that everyone in some point in their lives will ask for an expert opinion? How are these experts manipulating us into believing they are experts? According to Rampton and Strauber there are two different types of experts, the mad-men “spin-doctors” that linger behind the scenes and the selected and cultivated readily prepared for an audience. The persuaders can reach groups in the large public by contracting leaders and/or experts that mold public opinion. This third party technique can prove worthy and valuable if applied properly.
Personally, my attention was focused on the statement that forbids the federal government by law from spending money on public relations. Excuse me? So the heading for PR is now Public affairs and the attributes stay the same, how convenient. Who said there can never be enough loop holes? And I bet you can find an expert to justify and concur. So who do we trust?

Trust us, yeah right!

Isn’t it amazing that everyone in some point in their lives will ask for an expert opinion? How are these experts manipulating us into believing they are experts? According to Rampton and Strauber there are two different types of experts, the mad-men “spin-doctors” that linger behind the scenes and the selected and cultivated readily prepared for an audience. The persuaders can reach groups in the large public by contracting leaders and/or experts that mold public opinion. This third party technique can prove worthy and valuable if applied properly.
Personally, my attention was focused on the statement that forbids the federal government by law from spending money on public relations. Excuse me? So the heading for PR is now Public affairs and the attributes stay the same, how convenient. Who said there can never be enough loop holes? And I bet you can find an expert to justify and concur. So who do we trust?

How did America amass her wealth?

The United Fruit Co.
(1950)

Pablo Neruda

When the trumpet sounded, it was
all prepared on the earth,
and Jehovah parceled out the earth
to Coca-Cola, Inc., Anaconda,
Ford Motors, and other entities:
The Fruit Company, Inc.
reserved for itself the most succulent,
the central coast of my own land,
the delicate waist of America.
It rechristened its territories
as the "Banana Republics"
and over the sleeping dead,
over the restless heroes
who brought about the greatness,
the liberty and the flags,
it established the comic opera:
abolished the independencies,
presented crowns of Caesar,
unsheathed envy, attracted
the dictatorship of the flies,
Trujillo flies, Tacho flies,
Carias flies, Martinez flies,
Ubico flies, damp flies
of modest blood and marmalade,
drunken flies who zoom
over the ordinary graves,
circus flies, wise flies
well trained in tyranny.

Among the bloodthirsty flies
the Fruit Company lands its ships,
taking off the coffee and the fruit;
the treasure of our submerged
territories flows as though
on plates into the ships.

Meanwhile Indians are falling
into the sugared chasms
of the harbors, wrapped
for burial in the mist of the dawn:
a body rolls, a thing
that has no name, a fallen cipher,
a cluster of dead fruit
thrown down on the dump.

Translated by Robert Bly

Notes:

The United Fruit Co. is a real company incorporated in New Jersey in 1899 by Andrew Preston and Minor C. Keith. United Fruit became the major force in growing, transporting, and merchandising Latin American produce, especially bananas. The company is also notorious for its involvement in politics and is a symbol for many people of "Yankee" imperialism and oppression.

Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Tacho (Nicaragua), Carias (Honduras), Martinez (El Salvador), and Ubico (Guatemala) were all political dictators.

Pablo Neruda (1904-1973) won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1971

Source: (Kirszner&Mandell Eds., Literature: Reading Reacting Writing, Compact 4th ed., p818-819)