Animal Rights Rhetor

Animal Rights are a very sensitive subject and everyone feels a certain way about them. Most people feel a certain level of compassion for them and will do anything and say anything to empower and help animals. Whenever there is an incident such as an oil spill or an animal abuse story we are very quick to all get together as a group of people and help. Whether it be documentaries we see or a story on the news most will feel some sort of compassion, some may even feel more compassion for these animals

For me, I am on the compassionate side for animals and care very deeply for them. When people write articles on this subject they tend to have a certain level of rhetor and bias. Think about it, how hard would it be to remain completely fair and not cater to the animals feelings in these stories. Do you as the reader think that this is okay?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7478859/Violent-clashes-animal-rights-protesters-try-shut-horrible-circus.html

For example in the article listed above they describe the circus as horrible because of the animal abuse they believe is going on with the zebras. While they may be right about the abuse, they put their own spin on the story by defining the whole circus as being "horrible." I would like to know your thoughts on the subject and if rhetor with compassion for animals has gone to far or if it is just fine.

What Rhetoric is the right Rhetoric?

In chapter 3 we read about the different types of Rhetoric that can be used. "Forensic Rhetoric, Demonstrative Rhetoric, and Deliberative Rhetoric. Forensic Rhetoric is something we usually do not use in our everyday lives. This comes in handy with forensic scientists and detectives. The three types correspond to the three tenses. Past, present, and future. Forensic Rhetoric is used in the past tense, determining who's to blame for a crime. Demonstrative Rhetoric is used in the present tense usually based around morals on what is and isn't good. Deliberative Rhetoric is focused on the future tense, what to do in the future. So, do you know which type of rhetoric you are using and if it is the most effective type of rhetoric for your argument? Demonstrative Rhetoric is mainly used in sermons. This is only effective when you should be playing to morals and not in an argument about music or movies. Deliberative Rhetoric is used when talking about uncertain truths and not hard core facts. This is easily used when picking a movie or music. You ask them to put on something you know they'll hate so, when you suggest what you really want to listen to they are more likely to play that because it was a much better option that what you had originally suggested. Hopefully, this gave some insight of the types of rhetoric you can use and when you should use them.

The Art of Persuasion

Have you ever wondered what tactics are used to advertise products to the public? All advertisement and marketing companies use the same persuasive methods discovered by Aristotle. Aristotle determined that there are three modes of persuasion: ethos, logos, and pathos. Advertisements now use these three persuasive methods to effectively advertise their products to the public.

In order for companies to sell their product or brand to the public, they must make a connection with their audience. Ethos can be used to make a connection by identifying the ethics or credibility of a product or company. Credibility allows the audience to trust whatever the product may be or what the ad is trying to sell. Logos persuades the audience by appealing to logic or reason. Companies or Ads may include evidence in order to convince their audience and strengthen their claim. Lastly, pathos is used in order to evoke emotion from their audience, whether good or bad. The audience will feel a connection to the ad if they are emotionally invested in it.

All modes of persuasion are used in advertising to make a lasting connection with their audience. The next time an ad grabs your attention check to see what modes of persuasion it uses to appeal to you.

Does Rhetoric Have a Definition?

There are so many ways to define rhetoric using many different words. Some that may come to mind are persuasion, influence, deceit, along with many others. All of these words influence people, because it is the power of how the rhetor communicates their message.
 Some people may think that Rhetoric is always a form of manipulation. But is it true? Yes, it is always a different kind of manipulation but it may not be malicious. Meaning, someone might manipulate you into buying a candy bar at the store because of such a great sale. But at the end of the day they just persuaded you to do something with no harm, so that is not malicious. But, the way Nick Naylor convinced people to smoke cigarettes in Thank You for Smoking was malicious. Because he knew that cigarettes brought harm to people and he did nothing about it, because he only cared about getting his paycheck.
One of the main questions to ask about rhetoric is "is it bad?" In the case of the movie Thank You for Smoking the use of rhetoric was bad. All of the following words come to mind when thinking of this movie, bad influence, bad manipulation, deceit, destructive.
Depending on the situations that you are in will determine the different ways that you define rhetoric.
So, there is not one set definition for this term.

The Art of Argument

Rhetoricians define Argument as a source to appeal to the audience. They involve the "how" in the process of making an Argument-- It asks them what kind of language is appropriate to make an Argument more persuasive to the audience. There are three main strategies to appeal to the audience: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. Logos relies on the use of logic and reasons, in which statistics, facts, and drawing conclusions based on hard evidence, are mostly based upon. Ethos relies on the use of character, in which credibility or reputation plays a huge role for Rhetors to build trust with its audiences. Pathos relies on the emotional reaction of its audience, in which the argument leans more toward the audience's anecdotal or personal life. 

Rhetoricians uses these three appeals to effectively accomplish their sets of goal or goals. While These three appeals may be effective when using it altogether, Rhetoricians may not use them all at the same time. They may only use what appeal will work most effectively and quickest to their audience. To use the maximum potential of these strategies, Rhetors analyze their audiences, in which they developed to thoroughly understand their audience such as their beliefs, value, educations, etc. The analyzation of the audience is maybe perhaps the foundation of this argumentative strategy that Rhetors mostly rely on. Rhetoricians uses the analysis of their audience to fully and explicitly win an argument, may it be an audience, crowd, or even a person. When Rhetors follows these procedures, they have mastered the Art of Argument.

Power of Persuasion

Applying the power of persuasion to our tactics used communication can benefit in many ways. I have asked as I read through the book Thank You for Arguing, "Is rhetoric just a modest way of manipulation?" I believe it just depends. Class examples of rhetoric have shown me tactics used by society to reach an audience. People might hear what you say, but rhetoric almost assures you that people will listen. The goal of rhetoric is to get to the audience.

I was sitting in Psychology a few days ago and the lecture was about the causes and effects of stroke and Alzheimer's. The teacher gave his own personal examples of his mother and grandmother. I have noticed I retained more information from the lecture than my classmates. When my classmates ask me how I remember everything, my answer is that "I relate". I relate to my Psychology teacher because my mom had a stroke and my great grandmother had Alzheimer's. Yes, I am more interested in the subject regardless, but I specifically remember how I felt and how much more I craved to know. All because I related to the topic of discussion. Even though the teacher may not have realized, his speaking drew me in through his use of Pathos.

Arguing using the power of persuasion and rhetoric will at least get your audience thinking. Some rhetors use factual evidence by putting a dramatic spin to "wow" the audience. In my Communications lecture, the example on the board was how a speaker got ahold of their audience using a statistic saying "such and such is three times more likely to happen if this is the case." The speaker gave the fact, but the numbers were 2.2% up to 6.6%. Yes, that may be a fact, but it is not really as relevant as the speaker made it seem to the audience. In class today, the example of "Over 90% of Planned Parenthood deals with abortion" was not true. Manipulation comes from me, as an audience, trusting the sources used by the speaker. It is always important to do your research.

Pathos, Logos, and Ethos were the main points made in Chapter 4. Everyone wants to make a successful point and be heard. Using logic, ethics, and emotion will connect to your audience. As a speaker, it is so important to do research on whom you are speaking to. It is not smart to go into a group of homosexuals with a sign saying "God Hates Fags". This example in class opened my eyes to how offensive a speaker can be. Well, it is clear that whoever spoke in that instance was heard. But, no logical individual would listen to who is holding that sign. Where in the Bible does it say "God Hates Fags?" The answer is, no where. God commands followers to love everyone. So, that person looks stupid, is committing a foolish and offensive act, and has nothing but their opinion backing it up. How affective is that?

Tactics used by rhetors may be biased. Question the rhetors point of view and do your research. It is always important to be thinking about who you choose to listen to. As a rhetor, use Pathos, Logos, and Ethos, along with other specific tactics to reach your audience. To be successful, have good intentions as well. Nick Naylor, as we all know, was good at getting people to listen to him. But questioning him is how others were able to call him on his BS. The power of persuasion is such a useful tool. In society, there are many persuading poor ideas, and others persuading positive ideas. It all depends on what you believe.

The Art Persuasion vs. Arugementation.

 Persuasion aims to change a point-of-view. A writer who is trying to persuade their audience uses their "Truth", or beliefs. Persuasive writing identifies a topic and a specific side. The writer's job is to convince their audience that what they are saying is true. Persuasion has a single- minded goal based on personal beliefs. The writer's job is to convince their audience that their way of thinking is the truth. Persuasive writers have to approach their audience aggressively to gain that other "vote", and get more readers to believe them. They have to be passionate, personal, and emotional.

Although, an argument on the other hand is aimed to make a claim and back it up using evidence. The writer's goal is to get the reader to acknowledge that their side is valid. They provide evidence to support the claim and credible facts. This provides the writer with a worthy perspective. When a writer is creating an argument they not only have to state their perspective but they also have to acknowledge other opposing views that exist. This gives the writer the opportunity to counter these views to show their point of view is valid.

Does Nick Naylor think smoking is good?

In the Movie Thank You for Smoking Nick Naylor persuades people to smoke but does he think its good?. He portrays it as good in the movie for his business but that's because he is trying to make money. In the movie Nick says "if I can get one of these kids to smoke I just paid for my trip". That shows its all a business he just is in it for the money, just because it kills people he could care less. As a lobbyist he has to portray it as good and get people to think the same way. There is evidence in the movie that shows us he doesn't think its good personally though. When they ask him in the movie if he would let his boy smoke he says no he wouldn't. If Nick thought smoking was good he would've said otherwise but as his job he has to portray it as good. Nick looking at smoking in a job standpoint he would persuade people to smoke but as a father to his son he wouldn't want his son smoking. Its all about the money and his job.

The Three Tenses of an Argument

The main idea of chapter three in Thank You for Arguing was that there are three tense to use in an argument. The three tenses are blame for the past, values for the present, and choice for the future. This was a little confusing at first, but the more I read the more sense it made and I could see how each tense fit with the arguement type.

Blame is used to say who did something or who is responsible for an action. If you look at conversations were blame is used, you will see that these conversations are set in the past tense. Some examples for this would be blaming someone for eating all the pizza. This would be set in the past because someone has already eaten the pizza.

Value is used for the present because it has to do with what is happening at that time. Value is found in conversations that have to do with political matters or matters that have a value to others. An example the book gave was using values in an argument about abortions. This one is the most confusing for me and I still dont totally undersatand it, but the basic concept of it is that value is linked with whatevere is happening now.

Choice is used as the future tense because it is indicating that you will do something. Choice is also used in the future tense because there are often many different choices that you can make. An example that the book gave was a wife asking her husband to turn down the volume on the tv. He says that he will do that, but then he says or would you like to watch something else.

Extreme vs Reasonable and Blame

Honestly the only thing I could really understand in chapter 3 of Thank You for Arguing was the fact that if you’re trying to persuade someone to get your way in a decision the both of you are making is – start out with something extreme and then slowly dial down the choices. I really thought that was a really smart trick that I had never heard before, because if you threw different things out onto the table of things you and another person are deciding on then it will just be easier for the other person to toss your ideas in the trash without really any thought. However, if you threw out some ridiculous decision that would make them think “What the hell?” then you’ve hooked them – possibly on the road to agreeing with another idea you throw out there that’s dialed down a bit more. Then they will think that’s MUCH better than the previous idea you’ve had, and they probably won’t want to give you more time to think up another ridiculous idea.

That’s honestly all what I took away from chapter 3. Literally my mind can only understand so much ha-ha. Sorry. But I guess that’s better than nothing.

On another note, I feel like blaming the other party in your argument is a bit counter-productive isn’t it? I think that putting the direct blame towards one person would make things escalate too quickly and tempers would flare. I don’t think anything would get accomplished in that aspect of things.  When in an argument, one must keep a level head and each argumentative statement needs to be formed and said correctly – one wrong move and it could destroy the levelheaded argument you have made.

(I literally have no idea if any of this is correct. Probably not honestly.)

Is Nick Naylor a Bad Person?

In the movie Thank you For Smoking, Nick Naylor, the main character, is a bad person. He was using his rhetoric skills in a bad way by lying to people on mass media. For example, Nick Naylor said that his company is opening an organization for cancer awareness surrounding the youth, but it was a lie. This is not the way he should have used his rhetoric skills and that is just one reason he is a bad person. Another reason Nick Naylor is a bad person is because he tried to get the youth to smoke cigarettes. He said, "if I can convince one kid on every flight to pick up smoking then I have paid for my trip." This is absolutely insane because he knows that cigarettes cause cancer and other issues.
Nick Naylor has high class persuasion skills that he could use in an industry. This makes us wonder why is he still in the cigarette business.  So, is Nick Naylor doing this to pay his bills? or is does he just generally enjoy being a bad person?

Why use Rhetoric?

The use of rhetoric is very important for daily lives. It is a positive way to get what you desire in a useful manner. If you get in a situation, the use of rhetoric gives you a way to talk yourself out of it and end up with the best result possible. 

    

 Thank You for Arguing gives a wonderful example of how to argue your way to victory. For example, the author of Thank You for Arguing uses the example of getting pulled over by the cops. If you want to get out of a speeding ticket, you probably don’t want to use sarcasm and attitude as your first option. This is where the usefulness of rhetoric comes along. Think through your words and put them in a tone that makes the police officer seem correct. This will more than likely make them happy and give you some leniency. The use of rhetorical argument here makes it seem as though the cops win which makes them happy, but in reality, if you get off without a ticket, you won that situation. If you know the skills of rhetor, then you can be prepared for any situation. Rhetoric is a helpful tactic to use for anything and is good to know for any future circumstances that it may need to be used for. 

What is Rhetoric?

The Term Rhetoric started a long time ago. It was considered the essential skill of leadership by the ancient Greeks and was placed at the center of higher education, the author of Thank You for Arguing explains. This taught them to persuasively read and, write, and give informative speeches. This creation of persuasion helped create the world's first democracies, helped Julius Caesar, and inspired William Shakespeare. Even the constitution uses Rhetoric principles.

The term Rhetoric has many different meanings and can be defined by many different terms. So what is Rhetoric? The book Thank You for Arguing explains rhetoric as the art of influence, friendship, eloquence, of ready wit, and irrefutable logic. All these meanings advert to to the topic of argument. The intention of using Rhetoric is to persuade your readers to believe in what you are arguing. You may not realize that when writing an argumentative piece of writing, you are using Rhetoric.

Put This Man (Person) in Front of a Crowd

I titled this post with good reason. I have spent a significant amount of time over the past few days listening to musicals. That line minus the person part, comes from the ever famous Hamilton on Broadway written by Lin-Manuel Miranda. The song that uses this lyric is titled "My Shot" and is about the title character Alexander Hamilton not giving up on his golden opportunity. Now the point I want to get across isn't taking opportunities, but rather is the lyric in question; the point I want to make which has been a prevalent theme in class so far is the affects of putting someone in front of a crowd.

If we jump back throughout time there have been many people that stand out in a crowd. Often times they are not particularly different than anybody else, they just have something a little extra about them. In most cases this tends to be their charisma and ability so sway people a certain way. Someone standing proud over a crowd doesn't necessarily have to me a politician or someone of government standing or in any sense even have to be standing in front of a crowd. They just have to be in front of people in some way or on the forefront of something. In other words people need to look up to them or admire them.

Notable figures in my life include three different presidents: George W. Bush, Barrack Obama, and Donald Trump. These are government officials which I did say they didn't have to be, but they are still very notable figures. They are notable figures that all have varying views that all sorts of different people agree with. In my life you also have actors and actresses making a big motion in the right direction like Chadwick Boseman and Brie Larson who took up major superhero roles for both women and minority.

These people are able to change our thinking. That isn't always a bad thing, but it isn't always good either. Often times now it is a wonderful thing such in the sense of Brie and Chadwick who represented a not-so-well represented are of Hollywood and gave them the respect they deserve. It is important to stay informed about any situation though. Just as most people tend to bicker back and forth about Donald Trump. That is the sort of negatives this can cause.

The important take away as well is that anyone can really influence someone and if you are able to do good then do it. Take the step to be an advocate for something you believe in and encourage others. Everyone is fully capable of doing the right thing. It is just a matter of whether they do it or not. At least try to get in front of that crowd though.

Breaking A Kid

In the movie Thank You For Smoking, big tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor embarks on a variety of escapades in manipulation, bribery, and twisted words that technically aren't lies. Throughout the movie, he is shown to have less and less redeemable qualities, and one striking example of this is his son, Joey.

Joey is first seen as a sweet kid who wants to spend time with his dad, and when he asks Nick for help writing an essay, he is met with the excellent advice to "tell them what they want to hear". As he spends more time with his father, Joey is seen adopting more of his manipulative mannerisms both in conversation with him and with his peers. He twists words to convince his mother to let him leave on a business trip with Nick and brings his class to applause for a speech that he had no emotional stake in.

Throughout the movie, Joey's slow regression into more scummy communicative behaviors is a sad thing to see, but hope still remains by the end of the film, which shows us Joey winning his school's debate championship. While his father may have used his rhetorical powers for more unsavory purposes, the scene grants us the possibility that his influence on Joey may not have been enough to send him down a similarly dark path,

Arguing with Rhetoric

In chapter two of the book Thank You for Arguing, Jay Heinrichs writes about the difference between fighting and arguing. He mainly uses a study done by a psychologist John Gottman where they videotaped married couples over nine years. After the nine years they watched all the arguments and fights and came to the conclusion that both happy and unhappy couples fought. The difference was that the couples who stayed together used their disputes to solve the problem, where the couples who didn't used these to attack each other.

So how does Rhetoric help with arguing? The difference is that when you're arguing you're probably using rhetoric, while fighting is a different story where the only goal is to win the confrontation. In the book it uses the example of his son, George, where when his words failed him he used his fists. George was only trying to win the confrontation but in the end this can lead to revenge or hatred towards him.

Rhetoric helps people get what they want and to achieve a goal during an argument. It might take a lot of courage and pride to do this but it will have a better result. For example say someone starts talking to you and you get into a fight/argument, it might be easy to just get mad at him and start a fight back but that outcome will be way worse then if you use Rhetoric and an argument and try to persuade him to leave you alone, what you should want to happen. Rhetoric requires more of a skill but many people have some experience in this since most of us have been in a argument before. So do you think that winning a fight is better and leaving bad blood between you guys or using rhetoric within and argument and achieve peace and your ultimate goal in the discussion?

Persuading with Seduction

Jay Heinrichs, author of Thank You for Arguing, brought up how subduction can be used as the most insidious and enjoyable forms of argument. Subduction is used for more than just consensual sex, and Heinrichs summed up its power perfectly.

Heinrich’s details a story of the time a used car salesman seduced him into purchasing a used Ford sedan. As soon as he buckled in for a test drive, the man asked if he wanted to see P.T. Barnum’s grave (the real guy from The Greatest Showman). They stopped and saw peacocks and brilliant-green parrots in a huge fir tree. The visit had definitely delighted Heinrich which lead to him doing whatever the salesman suggested including buying the Ford.

Subduction is the act of changing an audiences mood leading to a consensus, or a shared faith in a choice. It is basically a way of manipulating, but in more of a lighter since.

The Food Network is one great example of subduction. They use similar techniques as the porn industry—good looking characters, over-miked sound, little plot, and fancy close-ups. Their tactics can make anyone enjoy watching food be made through creating these mood changing effects.


Even the great Greek philosopher Aristotle believed in the power of subduction. Getting people to have faith in anything requires usually more than logic. There must be an emotional feeling behind it which creates a desire. Although subduction can be considered immoral to some, it’s better than a fight or argument to win an audience.

Morality: How much does it matter?

While watching something that tugs at your heart as much as the movie "Thank you for Smoking" most people contemplate of whether or not what Nick Naylor is doing if right. Even though it is a natural reaction to go to that place in your heart we should try to avoid our first instinct and should try to be higher as a people. Often times you will get a feeling about something and this should be how you judge all of your decisions in life and what to think about and to go for in life. If you are always trying to have morality then you are doing it wrong. Watch the video down below about morality too if you need a clearer definition of what I am speaking about.



Morality in life is what we should strive for. We should all try to be good people, but often times the most beautiful thoughts come from the darkest thoughts and they are often intertwined. Throughout this movie I think we think are too concerned with who Nick Naylor is as a person when we should be fine with whatever he does because he, himself accepts his occupation. We also should stop judging other people on what they do in order to get by. Even though it does seem like Nick Naylor enjoys his job throughout the movie it can be interpreted that a big reason why he has a job like this is money and he refers to the money as "paying his mortgage."

Overall the overarching theme of this blog is that morality doesn't matter and feeling does. Even though we should always strive to be better people we are all not. I mean come on we are all human and think bad thoughts and do bad things. Despite this we still as a race do very good to compensate for the bad. What do you think about these topics? I would like to hear others sides to this idea and know if I am the only one who thinks this way. Give me your opinion how much morality matters and whether or not we should just go off "feeling" as I like to say.