Diamond Raptor Response:
1) Abraham Lincoln’s “Second Inaugural Address” and Emily Dickinson’s poem, “Success Is Counted Sweetest” are both forms of rhetoric. Both works encompass the four resources: argument, appeal, arrangement, and artistic devices. Lincoln argues that neither side, slave state nor non-slave state desired war. He appeals to the readers sense of pathos by stating that each side “read[s] the same Bible and pray[s] to the same God”. By using the symbol of religion, Lincoln is appealing to a wide audience. He continues to reference more symbols as he furthers his address. This is an arrangement strategy. By use of multiple apostrophes such as, “Woe unto the world...” and “The Almighty has His own purposes”, Lincoln develops a unique artistic device. Dickinson argues that the only people who truly understand success are those who have not yet achieved it. She appeals to those who have never experienced the feeling of success. She arranges her ideas in stanzas. Dickinson uses rhyme and assonance to argue her point. Both works are forms of rhetoric but can be distinguished by the four rhetorical reasons. SHANNON CARLSON
Although there is a wide variance between Abraham Lincoln’s speech, “Second Inaugural Address” and Emily Dickenson’s poem, “Success is Counted Sweetest” both are still forms of rhetoric. In each, they share the opinion and beliefs of the rhetor, and are expressed in ways that use the four recourses. Both Lincoln and Dickenson recognized how divided the country had become during the Civil War, and expressed their views a certain audience. Emily Dickenson’s poem was about how those who have a lot success value it less than those who don’t. This could make the audience, whether it be someone with much success or someone with little, realize the true value behind each small victory. In Lincoln’s speech he did not promise the North a victory, and did not criticize the South for its wrongdoing, but instead offered a framework for reconciliation. This makes his speech appeal to all audiences who seek peace. The speech and the poem are also arranged in ways to best appeal to the audience. In Emily Dickenson’s poem, she used Iambic Pentameter, giving the poem a certain flow that would make it more memorable the person reading it. Abraham Lincoln also arranges his speech in a way that would leave his audience moved. His use of very long, and very short sentences throughout the speech makes that audience refer back to the differences between north and south, and as he uses both in the address gives the audience a sense of unity between the Confederacy and the Union. Although there are big differences between the Second Inaugural Address and Success is Counted Sweetest, both use the four recourses, and are forms of rhetoric. DANIELLE WALLENFANG
In discerning between two different genres of literature I don’t think we can disband either as not being rhetorical. Both make an argument, in Dickinson’s case victory is only comprehended by the losers, and in Lincoln's case, both sides experienced loss, everybody tried to avoid war etc… Both thought carefully who they were writing to, and wrote appeals according to the nature of their audiences. Both of them realized the country was broken and in disarray, and both wrote of loss because that was what the country was experiencing. Each was set up in clever arrangement to create the best effect on their audiences and both used artistic devices like rhythm and figurative language to enhance the clarity of their messages. Though they may be different categories of literature, I consider both rhetoric. CONNOR DREXLER.
6) By claiming rhetoric as manipulation, an assumption is made. The goal of a rhetor is to change minds, persuade, and therefore gain approval. Yes, I believe that in some ways this is true. The whole purpose for speaking, writing, and other things is to gain the approval and beliefs of others. Rhetoric is words, formed into a point, often a discussion, that is then made into an argument with the main goal of changing minds. When rhetoric is considered a form of manipulation, the assumption made is that the rhetor convinced or persuaded his audience and the audience had no say in it. This is not true because everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Even though a rhetor tells his audience their own thoughts the audience does not need to change their thoughts to model them after the rhetors. Manipulation is not rhetoric and should not be considered a form of it. SHANNON CARLSON
It is difficult to not associate manipulation with rhetoric if we think of the motives of the rhetor. The reason they speak out is in fact to inspire change, so a sense of manipulation must be used because the soul reason of an argument is to change the ideas of the people you are speaking to your own ideals. But to claim this always as manipulation seems insulting to the definition of rhetoric since manipulation suggests poor morals and the use of trickery and falseness, which is not often used and should not be used when using rhetoric. Rhetoric is less of a means of manipulation than a means of conveying truth, opinion, and change. If we would want to avoid rhetorical manipulation in it’s most sinister sense, truth must be held in highest regard and pure morals must be the drive behind the rhetoric. CONNOR DREXLER
The purpose of rhetoric is to share ones opinions and convince an audience of the validity of a belief, idea or course of action. In some ways, this does make us associate manipulate with rhetoric in the sense that when using rhetoric, it is an attempt to persuade an audience into changing or solidifying their beliefs all at the intention of the rhetor. However, labeling rhetoric as manipulation also implies some sort of shrewdness to the act. When thinking about manipulation, the association of twisting the thoughts of others in an almost deviant way is made, which most often is not the case with rhetoric. The purpose of rhetoric is not to manipulate the audience’s thoughts, but to spawn new ideas and promote different opinions and beliefs. There is a fine line between twisting one’s ideas and inspiring one’s ideas to promote change, and that is what sets manipulation and rhetoric apart. DANIELLE WALLENFANG
1) Abraham Lincoln’s “Second Inaugural Address” and Emily Dickinson’s poem, “Success Is Counted Sweetest” are both forms of rhetoric. Both works encompass the four resources: argument, appeal, arrangement, and artistic devices. Lincoln argues that neither side, slave state nor non-slave state desired war. He appeals to the readers sense of pathos by stating that each side “read[s] the same Bible and pray[s] to the same God”. By using the symbol of religion, Lincoln is appealing to a wide audience. He continues to reference more symbols as he furthers his address. This is an arrangement strategy. By use of multiple apostrophes such as, “Woe unto the world...” and “The Almighty has His own purposes”, Lincoln develops a unique artistic device. Dickinson argues that the only people who truly understand success are those who have not yet achieved it. She appeals to those who have never experienced the feeling of success. She arranges her ideas in stanzas. Dickinson uses rhyme and assonance to argue her point. Both works are forms of rhetoric but can be distinguished by the four rhetorical reasons. SHANNON CARLSON
Although there is a wide variance between Abraham Lincoln’s speech, “Second Inaugural Address” and Emily Dickenson’s poem, “Success is Counted Sweetest” both are still forms of rhetoric. In each, they share the opinion and beliefs of the rhetor, and are expressed in ways that use the four recourses. Both Lincoln and Dickenson recognized how divided the country had become during the Civil War, and expressed their views a certain audience. Emily Dickenson’s poem was about how those who have a lot success value it less than those who don’t. This could make the audience, whether it be someone with much success or someone with little, realize the true value behind each small victory. In Lincoln’s speech he did not promise the North a victory, and did not criticize the South for its wrongdoing, but instead offered a framework for reconciliation. This makes his speech appeal to all audiences who seek peace. The speech and the poem are also arranged in ways to best appeal to the audience. In Emily Dickenson’s poem, she used Iambic Pentameter, giving the poem a certain flow that would make it more memorable the person reading it. Abraham Lincoln also arranges his speech in a way that would leave his audience moved. His use of very long, and very short sentences throughout the speech makes that audience refer back to the differences between north and south, and as he uses both in the address gives the audience a sense of unity between the Confederacy and the Union. Although there are big differences between the Second Inaugural Address and Success is Counted Sweetest, both use the four recourses, and are forms of rhetoric. DANIELLE WALLENFANG
In discerning between two different genres of literature I don’t think we can disband either as not being rhetorical. Both make an argument, in Dickinson’s case victory is only comprehended by the losers, and in Lincoln's case, both sides experienced loss, everybody tried to avoid war etc… Both thought carefully who they were writing to, and wrote appeals according to the nature of their audiences. Both of them realized the country was broken and in disarray, and both wrote of loss because that was what the country was experiencing. Each was set up in clever arrangement to create the best effect on their audiences and both used artistic devices like rhythm and figurative language to enhance the clarity of their messages. Though they may be different categories of literature, I consider both rhetoric. CONNOR DREXLER.
6) By claiming rhetoric as manipulation, an assumption is made. The goal of a rhetor is to change minds, persuade, and therefore gain approval. Yes, I believe that in some ways this is true. The whole purpose for speaking, writing, and other things is to gain the approval and beliefs of others. Rhetoric is words, formed into a point, often a discussion, that is then made into an argument with the main goal of changing minds. When rhetoric is considered a form of manipulation, the assumption made is that the rhetor convinced or persuaded his audience and the audience had no say in it. This is not true because everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs. Even though a rhetor tells his audience their own thoughts the audience does not need to change their thoughts to model them after the rhetors. Manipulation is not rhetoric and should not be considered a form of it. SHANNON CARLSON
It is difficult to not associate manipulation with rhetoric if we think of the motives of the rhetor. The reason they speak out is in fact to inspire change, so a sense of manipulation must be used because the soul reason of an argument is to change the ideas of the people you are speaking to your own ideals. But to claim this always as manipulation seems insulting to the definition of rhetoric since manipulation suggests poor morals and the use of trickery and falseness, which is not often used and should not be used when using rhetoric. Rhetoric is less of a means of manipulation than a means of conveying truth, opinion, and change. If we would want to avoid rhetorical manipulation in it’s most sinister sense, truth must be held in highest regard and pure morals must be the drive behind the rhetoric. CONNOR DREXLER
The purpose of rhetoric is to share ones opinions and convince an audience of the validity of a belief, idea or course of action. In some ways, this does make us associate manipulate with rhetoric in the sense that when using rhetoric, it is an attempt to persuade an audience into changing or solidifying their beliefs all at the intention of the rhetor. However, labeling rhetoric as manipulation also implies some sort of shrewdness to the act. When thinking about manipulation, the association of twisting the thoughts of others in an almost deviant way is made, which most often is not the case with rhetoric. The purpose of rhetoric is not to manipulate the audience’s thoughts, but to spawn new ideas and promote different opinions and beliefs. There is a fine line between twisting one’s ideas and inspiring one’s ideas to promote change, and that is what sets manipulation and rhetoric apart. DANIELLE WALLENFANG
PAJAMA DAY ASSIGNMENT #2: CRAFTING RESPONSES TO CHAPTER 6 -- AN OVERVIEW OF RHETORIC
3.) Yes, I agree. I think that rhetoric is persuasive in social life because it distributes power and it depends on who is leading the discussion. I think that most important type of rhetoric that is persuasive in social life is personal power. When people have the capacity to express themselves effectively they personally advance themselves and are often successful when trying to achieve their goals. An example of the ability to use rhetoric on the personal level successfully is when you are applying for a job. If someone has a better argument for why they could offer the best position even if they aren’t as experienced as the other people applying they are more than likely to be hired. This is simply based off the fact that they have a better argument to best present themselves for the company. I think rhetoric is seen less in groups and organizations of people with the same views and opinions. Although there is always persuasion within organizations for people to come to the same conclusion on what their club supports and funds, I believe rhetoric is used less because group members often believe in the same issue or can identify the same problem. In organizations people use rhetoric to convince others on effective solutions that would solve agreed upon problems. (Anna Stover)
I also believe that rhetoric is pervasive in both private and social lives, as the chapter suggests. Without realizing it, we use rhetoric every day. We are always having discussions about what we personally feel is best and we use rhetoric to convince others to agree with us. I think rhetoric is more persuasive than pervasive. While rhetoric can be used poorly to convince people to agree with bad ideas, more often it is used effectively. Rhetoric is used, for example, to convince your younger brother to help you with the dishes. Getting your brother to help with the dishes benefits both you and your brother, your brother learns how to clean up after himself, and you get the dishes done faster. Using rhetoric to convince him to help you is good for both of you, and more persuasive than pervasive because good came out of the situation. I think the influence is greatest when the person using rhetoric is someone that you are close to and trust. This person is already held highly in your opinion, so the person would have to use less convincing to gain your support on the topic. (Megan Breimhurst)
I do believe rhetoric is very pervasive in both public and social life. Everyone has their own argument and opinion with most things in life. Those who wish to use rhetoric are most concerned about expressing their power and opinion in the most effective way. Rhetoric is not all about who is the smartest and necessarily right, but who can bring their point and argument best to the table. For example, in my opinion Obama made it appear that he was the better choice for president, with his persuading words and ideas. In reality for me, I thought Mitt Romney was truly the best candidate. Romney was the better choice, but Obama made himself seem like the more suitable pick. In religions, there is a basic outline for what one should believe and follow. Here we don’t see a ton of rhetoric, but still people have their own opinions, which bring up arguments. I feel the greatest influence is in the public setting because there is more of a wide variety of people and ideas. (Ashley Kohler)
6) Yes, I think rhetoric is manipulative, but I think it’s a necessary manipulation. Most of the time we do not think about it, but we are all manipulating each other to get what we what or need out of life. We are always convincing each other to do certain things that benefit us. For example, last night my roommate persuaded me to go to the café with her after I had already eaten dinner. She convinced me to go with her, but I convinced her to wait an hour so I could run and shower before we went. In this situation we both convinced each other to do things in our own best interest, manipulating each other to benefit ourselves. We both benefited from our uses of rhetoric, therefore rhetoric is manipulative, but an important manipulative we need in our lives. (Megan Breimhurst)
I personally think that rhetoric does not need to be manipulative. It is only manipulative if you let it. An audience that a rector advocates does not have to agree with their view points. Every audience member is in titled to their own opinions on the subject. One approach to constrain the practice of rhetoric so that it does not become a tool for manipulation would be to have the audience come prepared on the topic and open to different viewpoints. When the audience is educated on the subject and is well informed they are more likely to create and value their own opinions on the subject matter and less likely to have their personal morals and values swayed or manipulated by the rector. (Anna Stover)
By nature, I do believe rhetoric is manipulative. People who use rhetoric find an audience and try to captivate them. Not in an evil way, but to get their main focus across and hoping their audience to agree. To get their audiences attention, you must possess concern for them and the idea. The speaker uses a certain language and words to alter the audiences view. Everyone does have their own outlook and opinions, but if someone has a good enough argument they may change their thoughts. So, this is what the speaker is seeking for. Using emotions can capture ones mind. For example, when you see the puppy commercials with the sad music it makes you want to cry and send money. There, they have captured you. A rhetor wishes to gain your loyalty and trust with moving words and emotions. Their goal is to get you to agree with them, so rhetoric IS a carefully planned discussion. (Ashley Kohler)
I also believe that rhetoric is pervasive in both private and social lives, as the chapter suggests. Without realizing it, we use rhetoric every day. We are always having discussions about what we personally feel is best and we use rhetoric to convince others to agree with us. I think rhetoric is more persuasive than pervasive. While rhetoric can be used poorly to convince people to agree with bad ideas, more often it is used effectively. Rhetoric is used, for example, to convince your younger brother to help you with the dishes. Getting your brother to help with the dishes benefits both you and your brother, your brother learns how to clean up after himself, and you get the dishes done faster. Using rhetoric to convince him to help you is good for both of you, and more persuasive than pervasive because good came out of the situation. I think the influence is greatest when the person using rhetoric is someone that you are close to and trust. This person is already held highly in your opinion, so the person would have to use less convincing to gain your support on the topic. (Megan Breimhurst)
I do believe rhetoric is very pervasive in both public and social life. Everyone has their own argument and opinion with most things in life. Those who wish to use rhetoric are most concerned about expressing their power and opinion in the most effective way. Rhetoric is not all about who is the smartest and necessarily right, but who can bring their point and argument best to the table. For example, in my opinion Obama made it appear that he was the better choice for president, with his persuading words and ideas. In reality for me, I thought Mitt Romney was truly the best candidate. Romney was the better choice, but Obama made himself seem like the more suitable pick. In religions, there is a basic outline for what one should believe and follow. Here we don’t see a ton of rhetoric, but still people have their own opinions, which bring up arguments. I feel the greatest influence is in the public setting because there is more of a wide variety of people and ideas. (Ashley Kohler)
6) Yes, I think rhetoric is manipulative, but I think it’s a necessary manipulation. Most of the time we do not think about it, but we are all manipulating each other to get what we what or need out of life. We are always convincing each other to do certain things that benefit us. For example, last night my roommate persuaded me to go to the café with her after I had already eaten dinner. She convinced me to go with her, but I convinced her to wait an hour so I could run and shower before we went. In this situation we both convinced each other to do things in our own best interest, manipulating each other to benefit ourselves. We both benefited from our uses of rhetoric, therefore rhetoric is manipulative, but an important manipulative we need in our lives. (Megan Breimhurst)
I personally think that rhetoric does not need to be manipulative. It is only manipulative if you let it. An audience that a rector advocates does not have to agree with their view points. Every audience member is in titled to their own opinions on the subject. One approach to constrain the practice of rhetoric so that it does not become a tool for manipulation would be to have the audience come prepared on the topic and open to different viewpoints. When the audience is educated on the subject and is well informed they are more likely to create and value their own opinions on the subject matter and less likely to have their personal morals and values swayed or manipulated by the rector. (Anna Stover)
By nature, I do believe rhetoric is manipulative. People who use rhetoric find an audience and try to captivate them. Not in an evil way, but to get their main focus across and hoping their audience to agree. To get their audiences attention, you must possess concern for them and the idea. The speaker uses a certain language and words to alter the audiences view. Everyone does have their own outlook and opinions, but if someone has a good enough argument they may change their thoughts. So, this is what the speaker is seeking for. Using emotions can capture ones mind. For example, when you see the puppy commercials with the sad music it makes you want to cry and send money. There, they have captured you. A rhetor wishes to gain your loyalty and trust with moving words and emotions. Their goal is to get you to agree with them, so rhetoric IS a carefully planned discussion. (Ashley Kohler)
JägerBOP-
Question 2:
Patrick has never experienced rhetoric discourse in his high school career. Rhetoric discourse should be taught in high school because during high school knowing how and when to use rhetoric discourse is helpful in many situations. The most important uses of rhetoric I can think of is using to make myself stand out in a pile of applications for a university, job, or a scholarship. These skills should be taught in high school because making an argument of why I am better than another applicant, for the reasons listed above, is important to have knowledge of for when I am trying to persuade someone into wanting me verse someone else. I wish rhetoric was taught during my high school years because I would have had a better background on it.
Oliver has experienced about being taught rhetoric in Germany. Being taught rhetoric in high school should be mandatory because it is important to know when to use it. I am thinking about going into business as a major, and using rhetoric discourse in the business field is essential. It is important to persuade business partners, clients, and employers on your ideas. Using proper rhetoric is mandatory to convince businesses and costumers on why your ideas will be successful verse other ideas. To secure a successful future, rhetoric should be taught pre-college. The sooner students get familiar with rhetoric, the better their understanding of it will be in their college careers.
Breanna has taken a certain class that covered rhetoric discourse in high school. Education should be introduced in late stages of middle school and thoroughly explained in and used in a high school setting. Using rhetoric can be useful in many situations other than an application setting. Speaking to a professor or teacher on why the grade a paper received is wrong in the students eyes and convincing the professor on what the student thinks is right is a common rhetoric action in a college setting. Talking to your parents or relatives on letting you do a certain activity or get a certain present or item also involves rhetoric. Convincing friends to go to movie or restaurant “a” verse movie “b” is another example of how using rhetoric can come into play in a not professional manor. Rhetoric is a useful skill for everyday life and should be taught in education.
Question 6:
Patrick thinks that rhetoric discourse is manipulative. When trying to completely change a persons’ way of thinking or their opinion into what you believe in I think is very manipulative. A personal connection I can make is to my hockey career. Hockey coaches try to convince and manipulate players into committing to their team and program. They tell players why or how their team is right place to be and why another team is not a good fit for that particular player. Even when you do not want to listen or know the facts, they keep persuading and arguing for why their team is better. Rhetoric discourse is manipulative because the speaker or writer is trying to influence your decisions.
Oliver does not think rhetoric indeed is manipulative. As soon as I try do convince someone of something or try to change someone’s opinion, I try to be manipulative. If I succeed, and this person now represents the same views and thoughts I do, I manipulated him, to my advantage. I don’t think that ethnical guidelines are required for two reasons. First, there had to be someone to define what the restrictions are. I do not think that one small group of people can do something like that for the entire world. Secondly, who says that those rules have to be followed, and why should we do what this person or group of people say, being convinced by someone is your option.
Breanna believes that rhetoric discourse is not manipulative. The purpose of rhetoric discourse is to try to convince a person on what the speaker or writer believes and feels is right. The person who is getting the rhetoric discourse directed at always has the choice and power to deny the persuasion and provide there opposite feelings. The definition of manipulation is using devious influence for one’s own advantage from WolframAlpha.com. When trying to convince someone on there own opinions, I believe using rhetoric discourse is not trying to take advantage of the other person, providing the flaws of their opinion is a tool a person can do to make it seem not as manipulative. Rhetoric discourse is a specific planned discussion and choosing to agree with the speaker or writer is up to the listener or reader.
Question 2:
Patrick has never experienced rhetoric discourse in his high school career. Rhetoric discourse should be taught in high school because during high school knowing how and when to use rhetoric discourse is helpful in many situations. The most important uses of rhetoric I can think of is using to make myself stand out in a pile of applications for a university, job, or a scholarship. These skills should be taught in high school because making an argument of why I am better than another applicant, for the reasons listed above, is important to have knowledge of for when I am trying to persuade someone into wanting me verse someone else. I wish rhetoric was taught during my high school years because I would have had a better background on it.
Oliver has experienced about being taught rhetoric in Germany. Being taught rhetoric in high school should be mandatory because it is important to know when to use it. I am thinking about going into business as a major, and using rhetoric discourse in the business field is essential. It is important to persuade business partners, clients, and employers on your ideas. Using proper rhetoric is mandatory to convince businesses and costumers on why your ideas will be successful verse other ideas. To secure a successful future, rhetoric should be taught pre-college. The sooner students get familiar with rhetoric, the better their understanding of it will be in their college careers.
Breanna has taken a certain class that covered rhetoric discourse in high school. Education should be introduced in late stages of middle school and thoroughly explained in and used in a high school setting. Using rhetoric can be useful in many situations other than an application setting. Speaking to a professor or teacher on why the grade a paper received is wrong in the students eyes and convincing the professor on what the student thinks is right is a common rhetoric action in a college setting. Talking to your parents or relatives on letting you do a certain activity or get a certain present or item also involves rhetoric. Convincing friends to go to movie or restaurant “a” verse movie “b” is another example of how using rhetoric can come into play in a not professional manor. Rhetoric is a useful skill for everyday life and should be taught in education.
Question 6:
Patrick thinks that rhetoric discourse is manipulative. When trying to completely change a persons’ way of thinking or their opinion into what you believe in I think is very manipulative. A personal connection I can make is to my hockey career. Hockey coaches try to convince and manipulate players into committing to their team and program. They tell players why or how their team is right place to be and why another team is not a good fit for that particular player. Even when you do not want to listen or know the facts, they keep persuading and arguing for why their team is better. Rhetoric discourse is manipulative because the speaker or writer is trying to influence your decisions.
Oliver does not think rhetoric indeed is manipulative. As soon as I try do convince someone of something or try to change someone’s opinion, I try to be manipulative. If I succeed, and this person now represents the same views and thoughts I do, I manipulated him, to my advantage. I don’t think that ethnical guidelines are required for two reasons. First, there had to be someone to define what the restrictions are. I do not think that one small group of people can do something like that for the entire world. Secondly, who says that those rules have to be followed, and why should we do what this person or group of people say, being convinced by someone is your option.
Breanna believes that rhetoric discourse is not manipulative. The purpose of rhetoric discourse is to try to convince a person on what the speaker or writer believes and feels is right. The person who is getting the rhetoric discourse directed at always has the choice and power to deny the persuasion and provide there opposite feelings. The definition of manipulation is using devious influence for one’s own advantage from WolframAlpha.com. When trying to convince someone on there own opinions, I believe using rhetoric discourse is not trying to take advantage of the other person, providing the flaws of their opinion is a tool a person can do to make it seem not as manipulative. Rhetoric discourse is a specific planned discussion and choosing to agree with the speaker or writer is up to the listener or reader.