As an Advertising major, I will probably use a great deal of fallacies to successfully produce advertising campaigns for my clients. It may not be pretty, but it is my chosen career field and what I will have to do if I want to be successful. I consider myself a creative person, though. Perhaps I will be able to come up with new ways to sell products and services and not have to rely on existing fallacies. Then again, my new techniques, if any, may just be an update to the already long list of fallacies that exist. Who knows?
Don't get me wrong, when it comes to writing, especially persuasive writing, this should be one area where facts and figures reign and fallacies are thrown in the dungeon, unless the fallacy is used constructively to further the story. Some fallacies are best used in fictional works. Non-fiction should always be fallacy-free. Appropriate fallacies for fictional stories and events would most likely be: "changing the subject," "either-or," "hasty generalization," and "Occam's Razor."
These can often be used to throw the reader off course, particularly in mysteries and psychological thrillers. But the best way to write persuasively and in a non-fictional manner would be to follow the often used phrase from Dragnet's Sgt. Joe Friday: "Just the facts maam!" By just dealing with adequately established facts and figures, the writer gives the reader the necessary tools to make an informed, educated determination about the topic.
Showing posts with label Things For Class. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Things For Class. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Cherry-Picking
Cherry Picking is defined metaphorically to indicate the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. Sometimes, when a person believes strongly in a topic, as I originally did with my view on national or "universal" health care, it is very hard to remain objective. You sometimes believe the way you think is the way everyone should think. To that end, when you are doing research for a persuasive paper or speech, you may very well find yourself "cherry-picking" without even knowing it.
It is fine to find all the data that supports your side, but you should always report the other side. Most people tend to look at a one-sided persuasive argument as a rant. They usually think that you think they are not capable of making an informed, rational decision on their own and they are likely to dismiss your side before you ever make your case.
There are times when cherry-picking is acceptable, even necessary. Defense lawyers and prosecutors, for example, use cherry-picking to build their cases for court. In this instance, cherry-picking is very vital to the situation at hand. But when doing research for a paper, especially a persuasive argument paper, a student must deliver both sides. Doing so will not hurt your point of view. On the contrary, it is likely to help you greatly. It says to the reader: "the writer cares about my knowing both sides so I can make an educated decision about this topic and not feel pressured into choosing their side of the argument." If the reader reads your paper and chooses a side other than yours, then so be it. At least you were fair and balanced to the situation and allowed the reader to exercise their right to choose as, hopefully you would want the writer of something you read to extend the same courtesy to you.
It is fine to find all the data that supports your side, but you should always report the other side. Most people tend to look at a one-sided persuasive argument as a rant. They usually think that you think they are not capable of making an informed, rational decision on their own and they are likely to dismiss your side before you ever make your case.
There are times when cherry-picking is acceptable, even necessary. Defense lawyers and prosecutors, for example, use cherry-picking to build their cases for court. In this instance, cherry-picking is very vital to the situation at hand. But when doing research for a paper, especially a persuasive argument paper, a student must deliver both sides. Doing so will not hurt your point of view. On the contrary, it is likely to help you greatly. It says to the reader: "the writer cares about my knowing both sides so I can make an educated decision about this topic and not feel pressured into choosing their side of the argument." If the reader reads your paper and chooses a side other than yours, then so be it. At least you were fair and balanced to the situation and allowed the reader to exercise their right to choose as, hopefully you would want the writer of something you read to extend the same courtesy to you.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Think Globally, Act Locally
I have completely missed the River City Writers series. I am going to try to make the last one on Monday night granted that I don't have to work. However, I have RSVP'd for the first speaker, Andrew Couch, on the Think Globally, Act Locally series in the morning. I am very interested in hearing this speaker. Not that I wasn't interested in hearing any of the writers speak, I just couldn't find the time. Given that I NEVER have a fixed schedule at work, it is very hard for me to go to some of these outside events unless I can plan them a week or two in advance. There are a lot of students whose mommy and daddy float them financially and that they don't have to work as much as me or others. God, I wish I had that arrangement. However, I don't. I have to work to pay the bills and school ties with my job. Neither is more nor less important than the other at this time.
However, I am free tomorrow morning when Couch will be speaking, therefore, I am going. My next blog will be about him. I know that it is important for me to go to these events, not only because they are figured into my grade, but because I am truely interested in these events. But sometimes I have to make the hard choice of going to an event to keep my grade up, or going to work and making money that keeps Memphis Light Gas and Robbery from turning my electricity off. Hearing Rebecca Skloot speak or putting food on my table. Hard choice, but I make the best decision that I can until I have my career. See you guys on the flip side. Later.
However, I am free tomorrow morning when Couch will be speaking, therefore, I am going. My next blog will be about him. I know that it is important for me to go to these events, not only because they are figured into my grade, but because I am truely interested in these events. But sometimes I have to make the hard choice of going to an event to keep my grade up, or going to work and making money that keeps Memphis Light Gas and Robbery from turning my electricity off. Hearing Rebecca Skloot speak or putting food on my table. Hard choice, but I make the best decision that I can until I have my career. See you guys on the flip side. Later.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Get Out The Vote
Michael Parker
ENGL 1020 (046)
“Get Out The Vote”
“Get Out The Vote” was a very interesting article in that the author at first seemed to be pressuring people to go vote no matter what. Upon reading more into the story, I realized the writer was justifying people’s reasons for not voting as well as for voting. At first, I felt that I should feel guilty if I do not want to vote or cannot make it to a polling place on time. The phrase that most made me feel this way was, “Three years ago anyone who failed to vote had to face the combined scorn of both political parties, the schoolteachers, boy scouts, war veterans, chambers of commerce, and leagues of women voters. Last year bar associations, girl scouts, tavern keepers, President Eisenhower, radio and TV stations, and junior chambers of commerce joined the crusade.” I pondered, for a moment, who was telling this story and then I realized the speaker of these words to be the political machines that were mentioned in the article. Political machines are best described as the wealthier candidates who spend a great deal of money on campaigning and who wish to clog up the polling places with voters who don’t want to be there as well as voters who are not well-informed and do not know all that much about the candidates. “The notion that "getting out the vote" makes for better election results is neither non-partisan, patriotic, nor logical. It is a device to favor the machines of both parties.”
As a matter of fact, those apathetic and uninformed voters are the intended targets for the machines, as well as the primary audience for this article. According to this article, it seems like the candidates would almost prefer the majority of voters be the misinformed kind. The candidate would get the votes from the informed voters and the uninformed ones might vote for them not realizing any better. And pressure placed on the non-voter would most likely make them cast a vote that would cancel out an informed voter’s casting.
I was not surprised to learn this article was written in 1955. Near the very beginning of the article, I read , “There is every prospect that in future elections, nonvoters will face jail sentences or fines, or be called to testify before investigating committees.” Upon seeing these words, I was reasonably sure that this was a dated piece. Authorities today would not even consider arresting or jailing someone who didn’t vote. Though this was written in 1955, another slogan has sort of captivated the youth of America recently. MTV’s “Rock The Vote” has encouraged young people to go vote during an important local or national election by telling the youth that their voice deserves to be heard. Entire “Rock The Vote” parties and televised events have been held and they often immolate the political conventions held by both the Democratic and Republican parties. What MTV has failed to do with this slogan and with these events is place a sense of urgency on the youth learning all they can about the candidates that are running for a particular office or position.
The central argument of this article, I believe, is that voting is important. As stated in the article, it should be a privilege, and not a duty. A main point of this argument is that we should all attempt to learn as much as we can about the candidates so that we can make an informed decision.
Another point raised states that if you have learned all you can and you do not like or cannot support any of the candidates, then do not cast a vote just for the sake of voting. I believe this point completely undermines the cultural idea set forth by our politicians that we should all get out and vote and make our voice heard. “The silliest idea of all is the notion that it is un-American or unpatriotic not to vote,” is the phrase that I most agree with because I did not vote in the last Presidential election that we had. I didn’t like Bush and didn’t know Kerry. None of the other candidates appealed to me either. So, on election day, I sat at home and watched the news to see just who did win.
This article was extremely fun to read because I can identify with the author. I think it is great that the politicians want you to get out and vote, but I believe that they should encourage all Americans to learn as much as possible about the candidates. They should also let Americans know that if they cannot find a candidate that they like or agree with, then it is acceptable not to vote.
ENGL 1020 (046)
“Get Out The Vote”
“Get Out The Vote” was a very interesting article in that the author at first seemed to be pressuring people to go vote no matter what. Upon reading more into the story, I realized the writer was justifying people’s reasons for not voting as well as for voting. At first, I felt that I should feel guilty if I do not want to vote or cannot make it to a polling place on time. The phrase that most made me feel this way was, “Three years ago anyone who failed to vote had to face the combined scorn of both political parties, the schoolteachers, boy scouts, war veterans, chambers of commerce, and leagues of women voters. Last year bar associations, girl scouts, tavern keepers, President Eisenhower, radio and TV stations, and junior chambers of commerce joined the crusade.” I pondered, for a moment, who was telling this story and then I realized the speaker of these words to be the political machines that were mentioned in the article. Political machines are best described as the wealthier candidates who spend a great deal of money on campaigning and who wish to clog up the polling places with voters who don’t want to be there as well as voters who are not well-informed and do not know all that much about the candidates. “The notion that "getting out the vote" makes for better election results is neither non-partisan, patriotic, nor logical. It is a device to favor the machines of both parties.”
As a matter of fact, those apathetic and uninformed voters are the intended targets for the machines, as well as the primary audience for this article. According to this article, it seems like the candidates would almost prefer the majority of voters be the misinformed kind. The candidate would get the votes from the informed voters and the uninformed ones might vote for them not realizing any better. And pressure placed on the non-voter would most likely make them cast a vote that would cancel out an informed voter’s casting.
I was not surprised to learn this article was written in 1955. Near the very beginning of the article, I read , “There is every prospect that in future elections, nonvoters will face jail sentences or fines, or be called to testify before investigating committees.” Upon seeing these words, I was reasonably sure that this was a dated piece. Authorities today would not even consider arresting or jailing someone who didn’t vote. Though this was written in 1955, another slogan has sort of captivated the youth of America recently. MTV’s “Rock The Vote” has encouraged young people to go vote during an important local or national election by telling the youth that their voice deserves to be heard. Entire “Rock The Vote” parties and televised events have been held and they often immolate the political conventions held by both the Democratic and Republican parties. What MTV has failed to do with this slogan and with these events is place a sense of urgency on the youth learning all they can about the candidates that are running for a particular office or position.
The central argument of this article, I believe, is that voting is important. As stated in the article, it should be a privilege, and not a duty. A main point of this argument is that we should all attempt to learn as much as we can about the candidates so that we can make an informed decision.
Another point raised states that if you have learned all you can and you do not like or cannot support any of the candidates, then do not cast a vote just for the sake of voting. I believe this point completely undermines the cultural idea set forth by our politicians that we should all get out and vote and make our voice heard. “The silliest idea of all is the notion that it is un-American or unpatriotic not to vote,” is the phrase that I most agree with because I did not vote in the last Presidential election that we had. I didn’t like Bush and didn’t know Kerry. None of the other candidates appealed to me either. So, on election day, I sat at home and watched the news to see just who did win.
This article was extremely fun to read because I can identify with the author. I think it is great that the politicians want you to get out and vote, but I believe that they should encourage all Americans to learn as much as possible about the candidates. They should also let Americans know that if they cannot find a candidate that they like or agree with, then it is acceptable not to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
