Response to Weaver

I really enjoyed the reading on Weaver, because I agreed with most of his comments. After reading Dana’s earlier post and writing my own on the invasiveness of rhetoric into all aspects of life, I found Weaver’s ideas to be very interesting. I was interested in his idea that the types of arguments used by a rhetorician can define how that person sees the world. This can truly be seen in everyday activities. I had not previously thought about this; however, after reading the essay on Weaver, I have become acutely aware of the way I argue and how it reflects my personality. I found it very interesting the way that Weaver elaborates to explain that even the types of sentences and words a person choices, can represent their view of the world. I have become much more observant of the types of sentences and words and arguments that are chosen by my friends and have realized that their choices do reflect their views and personalities.I also agreed with the separation of the different types of logic and their importance. I do agree that some types are simply more soundly founded that others are. I was, however, slightly confused on his placement of genus and definition as the most important. It seems to me that it would be better to base something on its individual case rather than on the category into which it fits. I was particularly confused on the genus. It seems that such large terms, as sin, are often in debate and therefore can not be a good classifier. I suppose that Weaver does make the point that the “audience” is aware of the term and perhaps that is the separation between his thoughts and mine.
I also found his list of the types of ultimate terms to be very interesting. I like his separation of them into god terms, devil terms, and charismatic terms. I completely agreed with his definitions of each. I think that the use of ultimate terms is where American rhetoricians have the most difficulty relating to foreign audiences.
All in all, I agreed with Weaver’s theories and am enjoying trying to define people from their argument style.

Toulmin: Evolutionary or Revolutionary

Toulmin strikes on a sobering thought when he wonders if "intelligent fish learned to do science,...must they in the long run end up with the same body of ideas as human beings?" (118) I don't know - we have nothing to compare ourselves to except...ourselves. And so we can never achieve the objectivity Toulmin is referring to; we can only try new theories and keep doing what we do as humans. We are limited by our subjectivity, and Toulmin faces this by redefining rhetoric (though unintentionally at first) and allowing it to distinguish between types of arguments and situations - the rhetoric itself must change as the circumstances change.

Toulmin says that all change in thinking happens on an evolutionary scale of some sort - and that each move in that direction is fought by critics along the way. Toulmin's own work underwent an evolution; his ideas cost him close relationships. What interests me about Toulmin's "The Uses of Argument" is that it was rejected until it was "interpreted...as useful to scholars of rhetoric and argumentation" (119). That is, until his audience changed from British readers to American, the piece he thought out and put together was utter nonsense. Evolution, if you ask me.

Toulmin divides his arguments under two categories: practical and theoretical (or, substantial and analytic). The practical argument is built upon substance; theoretical argument is based upon form. Toulmin argues against the "tyranny" (121) of theoretical argument because it is immune to evolution, while the practical argument "deals with matters of probability rather than with universal truths, and it varies according to context" (121). Different arguments call for the use of one or the other of these forms of argument, and the article goes into much detail about when each is most appropriate.

The claim I am most interested in, though, is made on page 129: "ethics arise functionally only out of community life. Except for the fact that humans live together in social groups and communities, they would have no reason to think about questions of ethics." Implied in this statement are two extremely important claims: ethics exists because people live together, AND ethics must be addressed and discussed because humans will ALWAYS live together. There is the reason why Toulmin spends his time thinking and writing and arguing - because he has to, somebody has to. The question of ethics will not go away.

So, evolutionary or revolutionary? It seems that much of the time now the words are used interchangeably, and yet they are not the same. However, evolution and revolution can happen simultaneously - and with Toulmin it did. Over the course of time theories and the general thinking on rhetoric evolved, until it came full circle and produced its own field of study.

Response to Presentations

I wanted to start off by saying that I think that everyone’s presentations have gone wonderfully up to this point. I really enjoy learning about rhetoric in every aspect of life. I guess that I really had not thought about how much of our lives are affected by rhetoric. I completely agree with what Dana had to say about how rhetoric could not not be part of our life. Whether we ever gave the idea a name or taught people how to perform the art, it would still exist in our lives. We would still have to use rhetoric in order to convey our thoughts, feelings, and ideas. This has really been shown in the presentations because even the scub of reality TV has to rely on rhetoric for their support. Now, I am not downing reality TV (I may watch a few of those shows); but they are not the most intellectual shows. At any rate, I really enjoyed what Kevin and Emily had to say about them and the way that rhetoric must be used to convey our feelings about the shows.
Also, I enjoyed the presentation on the rhetoric on news stations. I feel that it is very important for people to realize what sort of station they are tuned into. Many people are not aware of the biases that many stations carry and are apt to believe the way that their station portrays any situation. When people’s knowledge of the facts is biased, then it is absurd to believe that they can make an unbiased decision. I feel that in order to get the most information, one must watch several news stations and be open to the ideas expressed in each one, so that they may form their own opinions based on true facts.
I also really liked Melody and Dana’s presentation on the Holocaust. It was different from the others because I expect that there would be a great deal of rhetoric revolving around the Holocaust. I really enjoyed the clips of his actual speech and the way they showed his different types of rhetoric. All in all, I have really enjoyed the presentations and feel that I have learned a great deal about how rhetoric has entered into every aspect of our life.

Response to Richard Weaver

Weaver's theory emphasizes rhetoric based in values, ethics, and culture. Whether rhetoric is good or evil is judged based on the values held by the rhetor presenting his case. Weaver believes that rhetoric, at first intent of relating truth, is degrading to a method of getting what one wants.
Weaver claims that truth is established when one aligns known facts and personal ideals. Ideals are developed through metaphysical dreams (one of the three types of knowledge/levels of conscious distinguished by Weaver, including ideas and beliefs), or philosophies. To convey truth, humans use the medium of language, and specifically employ two methods: the dialectic method is the practice of abstract reasoning and does not allow adherence to a position or action; the rhetorical method is "truth plus its artful presentation" (164) and does promote belief and action.
Rhetoric addresses real situations and ideals simultaneously and is essential to culture because it is rooted in shared principles of individuals of society, as well as universally valued ideal(s). Rhetorics power is founded in the fact that it embodies "the experiences and meanings of the words of all individuals" (165).
Weaver assesses the topic that I broached in my previous post, concerning the pervasiveness of rhetoric. He seems to isolate the dialectic as a non-rhetorical form of speech, but at the same time emphasizes the need for rhetoric and dialectic to be combined to be effective; thus they are nearly two parts of one discipline. Weaver also states that one cannot be objective; even the most matter-of-fact statement is given to support the speaker's purposes.
One section that stood out to me in this reading was the classification of the sources of argument. The authority and testimony division is what we have observed to be the basis for ethos in the speeches we have analyzed and evaluated. According to Weaver, these types of arguments are only as reliable as is that upon which it is based.

Weaver

The reading starts talking about Weaver’s views on rhetoric with addressing what Weaver believed the body was composed of. The body has a body, mind, and soul. The soul is the part that blends “intellectual, emotional and spiritual unity” together to make “the highest self”(160). The next part talks about Weaver believing in three kinds of knowledge. They are ideas, the shallowest level, beliefs and generalizations, the second level, and the highest level, the metaphysical, which also incorporates the other two levels. Truth is found in the metaphysical dream where the material ideas/things conform to widely accepted beliefs/ideals.

Next the article talks about culture. It is not culture as we think of and study, such as the way a group dresses, what they eat, what they do for fun, etc… Weaver talks about culture having a tyrannizing image. This is the ideal of cultural perfection that a group tries to obtain. This image allows people to be “ordered” or labeled in society, depending on how close they come to being like the tyrannizing image.

Rhetoric and dialectic are talked about next. Dialectic deals with universals and abstractions. It is not involved or applied to the actual world. It does not have the intention to move people to act differently or believe something. Weaver believes rhetoric helps to “move” people. It moves them towards believing something or believing in some value. It relates to the real world, by acknowledging present circumstances, but strives toward something universally better. Rhetoric can be used to move people to act good or to act evil. It is persuasive. The books talks about dialectic primarily aiming to create a type of understanding, but it does not relate the concept to real world circumstances.

Weaver believes some types of arguments are better than others. He calls genus and definition the best type of argument because it deals with unchanging ideals. Other arguments he talks about are arguments by similitude, cause and effect, authority and testimony, and rhetorical-historical. Rhetorical-historical combines dialectic and rhetoric because it uses “a definition of genus or principle and a reference to historical circumstances”.

Weaver also goes on to talk about sentence structure and word usage in speeches which qualify the speaker to be the type of speaker that he is. Though this may be “off” from what Weaver talks about, I think diction is very important in the speech. Churchill lost me as part of his attentive audience by the words he chose to use. Because he chose to use such derogatory colloquial terms in times where respectful word should have been used, he lost credibility in my eyes. Sentence structure and word usage can have the same effect on an audience. The last part of the article talks about the decline of rhetoric. I thought it was interesting to have Dr. Fishman assign us an essay where it bashes rhetoric teachers of today.

Correction

The BTK murderer was in Kansas, not Arkansas - sorry about that.

Defining Rhetoric

This blog is late, but late is better than never! This evening I finished the last few pages of chapter 4 that I had set aside a week or two ago - and I have a few things to say.

First, the main point of the Olbrechts-Tyteca/Perelman article is that these two people basically redefined rhetoric and gave it credibility again. I think it's funny that every now and again everything needs to be redefined, from rhetoric to marriage. In a humorous sort of way, it makes me think of the awkward beginning stages of a dating relationship when one or the other (usually the girl) is in a constant state of unrest because she wants to know "where we are" or "what we are" or whatever. In much the same way, rhetoric was acceptable in the Greek culture at its beginnings, but later on they rejected it...and since it never went away, it came back and asked us, "so...where are we in this relationship?" Olbrechts-Tyteca and Perelman sat down with Rhetoric and had the talk, so to speak, and now everyone seems to be happy.

Second, the idea of audiences - this is perhaps what sets rhetoric apart. And we already knew that, but didn't know we knew it. Olbrechts-Tyteca/Perelman put it into words for us: there is a particular audience, a universal audience and a composite audience; depending on when the rhetoric is heard, and by whom, and even where the audience is, it will be received differently.

Another example of something that we may have taken for granted but was put into words for us is the connection we make with people and what they do, whether or not we mean to: "the relationship between person and act assumes that an act is an outward manifestation of the person" (100). That is, that a bad person will do bad things and a good person will do good things. In some cases this is legitimate, but not all - and so this argument can be faulty. Just this week a man was arrested in Arkansas for numerous brutal murders that had been committed over decades - all the while the murderer led a boyscout troop and went to church.

In summary, can I just ask why so many of the articles we have read end this way? "In summary..." then they give THAT SENTENCE that we were told in high school to stop using! In this article it ends like this: "In summary, Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca present a coherent picture of argumentation" (106). That doesn't need to be said, because they've been saying it for pages already. Is that some sort of rhetor's code? Just curious.

Presentation Ideas

We love and hate powerpoint...it's a great idea and it usually works fine, but the biggest problem is getting the thing hooked up in the first place. It was requested that I post a quick blog with some ideas for those who haven't yet presented - hope it helps!

First, if you have a laptop, make sure you have a cord that will hook up to the control panel at the front of the classroom. If you don't have one and don't want to buy one, you could probably borrow one from the communications center located in the P&A building. Their phone number is 864.656.3204.

If you have a laptop and absolutely cannot procure a cord, burn it onto a cd (and other related files) and then test it on another computer until it works the way you want it to.

If you don't have a laptop, good for you! You already know that everything can and will go awry!

Good luck to all - see you on Tuesday!

The Art of NOT Speaking Rhetorically

After the presentations given this week, I began to think how heavily humanity relies on rhetoric. I then began to wonder if we ever do not speak rhetorically. Even if we are telling someone something, such as "I love you" or "That was disgusting," you are trying to convince them of the way you feel about something, and that your feelings are legitimate. We have read in our texts about the near deaths of rhetoric and the work of various people to revive the discipline. But could rhetoric ever really disappear? I think not. Perhaps the study of it, the classification and conventions of different time periods, but not rhetoric itself. Rhetorical speaking is innate to human nature. We have named what we do, but it would exist and be practiced even if it remained unnamed.
The rhetoric in the programs hosted on television is easily identifiable; it was clearly shown that even when the claim to be unbiased and unbiasing was made, we were shown that bias existed. To communicate is to present information in some light, and it will always be presented in agreement with opinions and ideologies. And it will always be interpreted even more critically, in agreement or opposition to the recievers philosophy.
Wiesel's speech had obvious rhetorical content as well. He was defining and illustrating indifference while explaining how those in his examples manifested a praiseworthy lack of the attitude or a blameworthy possession of it. He spoke is such a way as to persuade his audience that his judgements were correct.
Even the reality shows themselves, aside from the intentional rhetoric employed by writers of commentaries, purport values, judgements, and standards on their audiences. They don't have to say anything explicitly to make the point that image instead of personality should be pruned until it meets the current societal ideal.
So, is it possible to speak without using rhetoric? That, I believe, would truly be an art.

Presentations

In response to the presentations last week, great job to all! I thought they all used great visuals. The audio clips in the 1^st and 3^rd were appropriately used to the point where they were effective but not over the top to just “fluff up” the presentation and fill in time. Emily had talked to me, worried about not using video clips in her presentation, but I think their presentation was great and, like I told her, if the video clips do not make a point or are just added to fill time, they just make the presentation worse. So anyways, great job to all so far!

As for the news presentation, I think the presenters were very informed about their topic and the way they presented the rhetoric and biases in the news was creative. I personally don’t watch the news enough but after I watched that presentation, I’m kind of glad I don’t watch O’Reily. Like Churchill, I think the man is a bit over the top and too opinionated for his own good.

Reality shows, however, I do watch….too much in fact. “The Swan” is a show that I never liked from the start though. The way they make people think that plastic surgery is the answer to your problems is incredibly superficial. It’s what’s inside that counts, isn’t it? I understand taking the burn victims or people who have deformities that cause them heartache everyday and helping them, but just taking average looking people and giving them a complete plastic makeover is too much for me to take. What is this show telling the younger viewers? We shouldn’t be happy with the way we look if we don’t look like a Barbie doll?

Rhetoric used in reality television is extremely influential on the way society thinks about themselves. The shows are pushing people to only be happy as swans or to be an idol, aka, skinny and beautiful. They are putting the message out there that beauty is only about what’s on the outside and although it makes for great entertainment, I think it does more harm to younger viewers than good.

Toulmin

Toulmin, poor guy, is a very uninteresting read.

The most notable thing is his seperation of practical and theoretical arguments. I don't think that a nation-state can be governed without some absolutism and generally accepted maxims, though. As much as I may like to disagree, it seems pretty obvious that humans generally don't like to think for themselves and prefer to have an absolute "truth" handed to them so they can refer to it rather than reason it out.

Case in point, when Toulmin gives his two type-cases (the premature infant and the terminally ill patient) none other than Terry Shiavo came to mind. She seems to be more a mixture of his two examples, though, since she has not been able to express her wish to die. I think a gross oversimplification of the situation would suggest it boils down to "someone has the right to die" and "All life is sacred."

I know in actuality there are a lot of other factors here, such as, if the Bush administration passes legislation to keep her alive they will be able to apply the legislation to other situations--such as abortion. This is the sort of value-based assumption Toulmin wants to avoid with theoretical arguments. It should be case sensitive.

Chances are, though, that a society that relies so heavily on basic fundamental "truths" (In God We Trust, "abortion is a sin," "gay people are going to Hell, etc.) will not be able to disregard value based maxims enough to appreciate his ideal of purely practical argumentation. I think it's only possible on individual levels.

Churchill 2 (I'm caught up!)

Churchill's response was overall very well done and had more of logos, ethos, and pathos. He established his ethos early He uses his book to present facts about the U.S. government's actions since World War II. Churchill also quotes Dr. Martin Luther King, Madeline Albright and Robert F. Kennedy. For logos, he provide many disturbing facts from within his text. He used patho, but in a way that angered most readers. Rather than appealing to them and getting them to agree with his ideas. The response was much less offensive.
Churchill, of course has his freedom of speech and should be allowed to address these issues, but at the same time, his university has discretion to rule against him if they find anything of a false nature within his ideas.

Best quote: "My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences”

Toulmin 2

Objective approach…
Simple properties are a simple concept. What can be perceived by the senses.
Complex properties are straight forward and without complication as well. They are able to be detected through routines.
The third category of ethical terms is more confusing…they can be detected by routines but they are not perceived.
While values are not directly perceived they can be thought and understood. They can also be seen in the way a person acts/interacts with others. Thus they can be perceived.
Subjective: reporting the way we feel about something.
Toulmin says subjectivity cannot provide an account of what is a good reason for an ethical judgment or provide a standard for criticizing it.
Why not? Dictators can be subjective and account for it. Cops can pull people over by profiling and rationalize that…even though it is illegal!
Imperative approach displays our feelings by calling something good or right…
This is like a mom talking to her kid. Not only does she say that you shouldn’t shoot a squirrel, she then tells you not too. Why then, can’t it explain ethical judgments? Is it not wrong to shoot a squirrel if you don’t need it for food?

Toulmin 1

I liked most of what Toulmin had to say…his ideas on substantial and analytic arguments seem to make sense. Arguments should be judged by substance and less on situation. Theoretical arguments can get confusing. Is killing wrong? Yes/no. regardless of how you answer that a master of the Socratic Method is going to turn you inside out! But since Rhetoric is less a part of Philosophy now than of English I will not belabor that point. I don’t agree with Toulmin trying to get rid of an entire method or approach to arguments. His ideas that syllogism are wrong or useless is incorrect. The notion that people are mortal and thus Socrates is going/did die is correct. I’m more of a moderate. I don’t like to argue, I don’t like to blame, I don’t like to get rid of methods, and I don’t like to talk about why I think the things that I think. In short every method has value. Some may be more relevant, but how can we get rid of one method! One man’s trash is another’s treasure. For Toulmin to argue that one method is weaker, supporters of that method argue back in sharp contrast. And thus we are stuck in mediocracy! Ah…It’s bliss…Yes I was there for the speech about mediocracy and I watched it live the first time around!

This is the true story of 2 people, picked to do a presentation...

SUCH a great topic! What could be more relevant in this day and age? Reality TV shows are everywhere- we’re bombarded with them every time we turn on the television. Kevin and Emily made great points about how they rely on provoking their audiences pathos to get a reaction. It’s totally true—how many of us have watched The Swan and wished we, too, could get a plastic surgery makeover? How many of us have watched The Batchelor, making remarks like “If Batchelor Bob had any sense at all he’d pick Christy over Kelly, Gah!” or “If I were on that show, he’d realize that he’s really MY soulmate!” (Ok ok, so maybe we ALL haven’t made those comments). But anyways, you get my point. Reality TV is a growing trend because it’s rhetorical strategy is to use pathos to get you involved and interested. Humans are curious by nature, and we like to poke around in other people’s business. What better place to so than from the comfort and privacy of your own living room? Kevin and Emily also used good logos by providing actual pictures and scripts from The Swan and Survivor. They showed exactly what these reality television shows show audiences to make them come back for more. I think it’s really sad that the media has such a powerful effect on society. You would think that with anorexia and women’s self esteem issues on the rise television would be used to help create a healthier society. Clearly that’s not the case—anything to increase ratings, right? Great job Kevin and Emily!

Presentations and other's posts

First of all, I would like to say thanks to all of my class for the nice things they had to say about my and Kevin's presntation. As many said, we did focus on the current reality shows and tried to touch on the controversial side of reality tv. However, not wanting to seem biased and in order to get a better understanding of people's thoughts, we used an article that praised reality tv. One class mate stated that an audio clip of Simon would have been good, and I agree. Keven and I searched everywhere, specifically, of a video or audio clip of Simon telling someone they were fat, but could not find one. That was the only dissapointment I had about our presentation.

As for the other group that went Tuesday and Thursday, I though they did excellent jobs. They provided interesting and relevent information about thisr topics, in turn showing how rhetoric is essentially applied everywhere. Jillian crtisized her presentation by stating she did not meant to come off biased toward fox news, but I never got the impression that her and her partnew were. She explained that fox just had the most information about it, and with it being the youngest and most controversial, there would be the most information about it. Overall, I thought they did very well and provided great information that helps not only to show the type of rhetoric each station uses, but even to be observant of these when watching the various news programs. I will have to agree that fox takes the most risks, not only in news shows, but in all of their programming. Just last night they showed something like famous people without make-up, where they aired footage of various stars without make-up or nice clothing. A new spin on reality tv, I guess. This is the down hill path entertainment has taken.

To the group that presented about the Holocaust, I really enjoyed your presentation as well. It was very informative and creative. I liked the visuals and actually being able to hear Elie Weisel speak the speech that you were presenting. I was impressed that you were able to focus on such a difficult topic and be able to separate his uses of rhetoric from the content and subject of his speech. It was something that we all had a difficult time doing with Churchill. I also found it interesting to compare Churchill to Weisel. They are such different rhetors, yet they saying many of the same things to their audiences. I would have never expected to be able to make a comparison like that, and without looking at the rhetorical aspects, you would not be able to compare the two.

I look forward to hearing the rest of the presentations and geeting more information about various things going on that others find interesting.

Source for my previous PLEASE READ post!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148597,00.html

The transcript of the interview, Bill O'Reilly and victim's relative. FILLED WITH PATHOS, because that is ALL Bill O'Reilly can do, he has no facts, and he's an idiot.

Oh, he's an idiot.

Did I tell you that Bill O'Reilly is an idiot?

Well he is.

Really.

He is.

PLEASE READ: CURRENT/PERTINENT

What up guys, so A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum was offfff the chain. Ok, moving on. Guys, I thought this would be pertinent. I was just flipping through the channels and guess what was on FOX? The Bill O-Reilly Factor. Oh yes, so pondering the powerpoint we witnessed earlier, I tuned in for a few moments, although I feel an unsettling rage against Bill O-Reilly.

The O-Reilly was talking about Ward Churchill (how familiar) speaking at U. of Hawaii. He brought the brother of a 9-11 victim on his show to discuss this. (Note: PATHOS). Here is what the guest, a victim's brother, said about Churchill:

""The Ward Churchill controversy is not about free speech--it's about hate speech. The radical professor hates America, and is being rewarded for that point of view by some major colleges. The University of Hawaii gave Churchill an all-expense paid trip to Oahu to reiterate what he has said before--that Americans working at the World Trade Center were justifiable military targets. Churchill has also said that many killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon were little Nazis. Ward Churchill is not a danger to America--he is insignificant. What is not insignificant is that the University of Hawaii embraced Churchill and the audience gave him three standing ovations. This is disgraceful. In addition to being a propagandist, Churchill is unrepentant about anything he has said. This controversy is not about Churchill, who is desperate for attention. It's about major colleges in the US legitimizing this man. Shame on the University of Hawaii." ---Michael Faughnan.

And Bill O-Reilly tells him, in regard to Churchill, ""You shouldn't engage this guy because he's beneath you. He's not a person you can reason with. He hates America and I don't think you'll ever get him to stop hating America."

At this point, I am enraged, absolutely enraged with O'Reilly. After reading Churchill's statement, then his response to the criticism, I think he is very reasonable in his logic. He presents factual evidence, unlike Bill O'Reilly who persists in putting words in other peoples' mouths. Example, he says Churchill "hates America." Bill O'Reilly is an idiot.

And honestly, I believe America has plunged Churchill into a mess and an ICON he didn't want to be. Churchill states in Hawaii, ""I never wanted to be a poster boy for academic freedom. You can't give an inch. If you let this one down, you've lost it all." Now, he is in a fight for "freedom of speech" and "academic freedom" when all he wanted was to put his views out there and enlighten America. Now look where he is. In his response to criticism that we read, he is attempting to clarify the defamation of his character. Bill O'Reilly is a key FACTOR in the defamation of his character.

In anger and disgust, I sign off here.

Ward Churchill Response 2nd Posting

After our multiple class discussions on Ward Churchill, and after our reading his response, I honestly feel that his response to the criticism was what he should have written to begin with. In essence, Churchill basically stated his entire list of points in short, concise, factual bullets that consisted mostly of logos and said what he wanted to say.

Again, the purpose of his response was to clarify his views and perserve his character. The widespread misconstruance (yeah, thats a word) of his views "resulted in defamation of my character and threats against my life." Therefore, I think the goal of his response changed. This is important because the first statement of his views focused on the facts and a lot of negative words, obviously representing how he felt. The goal of his response to the criticism was to GAIN ethos, which he felt he had lost because of America's reaction. So essentially, he used logos in the response to re-establish himself as a factual scholar.

Therefore, his overall goal changed to recover his character.

Again, the urgency of the situation was present because so many people misconstrued his views, and for a man of his stature (a professor at a state-funded university) it was imperative that he clarified he wasn't anti-American or involved in a treason plot. Thus, the urgency was to pull his character up from the slum of falsified information.

Another thing we discussed: should he be terminated or no. Speaking honestly, I do not know. My conflict: Churchill is a professor at a state-funded institution, a tenured professor representing higher education as a whole, working at a public university, so regardless of the freedom to say what you want, you have to be careful because your work represents more than just you. A freelance writer truly has freedom of speech. But Churchill is tied to a university. On the other side, can we restrict his freedom of speech just because he works at public university?

EXAMPLE: When FOX channel puts on a show, sometimes they provide a disclaimer that says the values of this show don't necessarily reflect the values of FOX media.

Also, I just got a job at Abercrombie and when you get hired there, you have to sign a multitude of forms and such about employment, etc. However, one particular form we had to sign was that we never do anything that would reflect negatively on Abercrombie as a company. While working there, our actions reflect upon Abercrombie as a name, and its important that we, as employees, realize that and don't obligate Abercrombie by our actions.

In a way, Churchill obligated his university to make a statement about their position on his views. If they agreed with them, oh dear God what would happen. If they did not agree with him, the public wants him fired. Therefore, he has obligated his university without "their consent," per say.

So what is needed? A disclaimer? I don't know, but thats the thoughts of Kevin Jennings. Have a fantastic day fellas! AND chicas! and professors!

Hey look, two of my classes are overlapping, I love it when that happens!

Toulmin and Socrates; where rhetoric and logic combine.

I was really interested in Toulmin's theory that the new "age" comes after a major assassination such at Henri IV of France and John F. Kennedy. I don't know if I quite agree with that logic but it is interesting nonetheless and definitely something to think about. Toulmin also suggests that the Theoretical argument is irrelevant in today's society and especially in the study of Rhetoric. After taking half a semester of Logic, the jury is still out, but I think I understand where Toulmin is coming from. Syllogisms are very odd. A valid syllogism does not have to be a logical syllogism and can have true premises with a true conclusion, one true premise and a false premise with a true conclusion etc... It can be very confusing. The book says what Toulmin suggests; "formal logicians consider all arguments to be deficient unless they follow the form of deductive logic" (124). This is very impersonal and does not separate the field of logic from any other field. Syllogisms also do not account for change. There is no change in logic; no grey area. It is or it isn't. Just because something is assumed to be true does not make it true. People and things both have the ability to chance and putting them in a box gives a closure to the situation. Very rarely do people want to open the box and try new ways of thinking. This is not the best way to progress. People should always be exploring and growing in different ways instead of simply defending their views. Arguments should always have evidence behind them before they are implemented. Arguments come from evidence, support and a willingness to allow change. Arguments should not be put into boxes.

Response to CA's Link

Did we read the Crazy Horse article? Is that the one I was supposed to be directed to? At any rate, on the Ann Coulter website, that's the one I read.

I agree that discretion should be used when addressing such a touchy subject. And I really don't know too much about Churchill, but I seriously don't think he's crossed the line. He is not saying we need to die, he's just saying we need to examine the facts and think about the consequences, in a very emotional manner. =) Nevertheless, I can't help but generally like what he says; pin me as a conspiracy nut.

I did, however, have a couple of irritations with Churchill, and I do also with Coulter.

"— Indian reservations are the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps. I forgot Auschwitz had a casino."

This is a bit grossly oversimplified. I think casinos are pretty terrible for Indian reservations, even if they aren't the equivalency of gas chambers and the like. Then there is the fact that we took their land and the Trail of Tears, etc. Old Ward still is a bit hung up on that.

"The whole idea behind free speech is that in a marketplace of ideas, the truth will prevail. But liberals believe there is no such thing as truth and no idea can ever be false (unless it makes feminists cry, such as the idea that there are innate differences between men and women). Liberals are so enamored with the process of free speech that they have forgotten about the goal. "

Isn't it true that America has done the things he's claimed? With the exception of the blankets...I'm really not sure about that one. I wouldn't doubt it, even if it just happened as an accident. What is truth anymore? Can truth be based on values of "good" and "bad"? Active "liberals" are generally just "progressives." I don't think they've lost sight of the goal...we all want to live in an educated society that can put their personal beliefs aside to come to some sense of order. In one of my other classes (that some kids in rhetoric are also in) we have seen that we are still debating the topics of the enlightenment. Where do morals come from, can one seperate the ruling of others from God and God from science? These issues have never been resolved and I think the Churchill debate can be attributed, if not mostly, to that fact.

"Why is it, again, that we are so committed to never, ever firing professors for their speech? Because we can't trust state officials to draw any lines at all here? Because ... because ... because they might start with crackpots like Ward Churchill — but soon liberals would be endangered? Liberals don't think there is any conceivable line between them and Churchill?"

Campus is a place where the new thoughts are generated, where ideas of change can be implanted into our young, impressionable minds. Does free speech here scare people? Why? If he hasn't been forcing his opinions on his students, and has just been writing books--possibility of training some kids to make bombs aside--then really, what's the damage?

=)
I should edit this. I've probably contradicted myself. Oh well.

Presentation Problems

Becki and I did not mean for our presentation to sound quite so biased against Fox News. Originally, it was a much more objective presentation. However, due to video troubles, we had to use different clips from a movie that could be considered biased (although it is very interesting and I recommend everyone watch it with a grain of salt). I would recommend, if you are going to use any video clips, either bring a chord to attach your laptop to the projector, or make sure that the video clips burn onto a cd with the rest of your presentation.

Obvious enough stuff, but hey...even the best of us can muck it up.
=)

We tried to keep it interesting by not directly reading everything off the slides...I'm not sure how that worked out. Anyone who has not done their presentation yet may want to consider comparing the two ways...reading slides and not reading slides. My personal problem with not reading slides was that, since I have the absolute worst memory in the history of humans without alzheimers or amnesia, I had difficulty remembering exactly what I wanted to talk about with each slide and had to keep checking my notes.

This also made it more fun and more of an excersize for me to practice my knowledge, because I saw things as we went through the presentation that I hadn't planned on discussing.

I hope some of this info is helpful to someone, somewhere.
=)

Response to CA

1st let me say thank you to CA for sending this link out. I think that Kevin Hotaling succinctly wrapped up all of our feelings in class, as well as the world's opinion of America/Americans.

Kevin starts out talking about the war between Colorado students. I find that ironic because we fought in class as they did in the picket lines. Nothing gets resolved that way. When we are tired of yelling the end result hasn't changed.

With out a doubt Kevin hit the mark with this paragraph. "We certainly should defend freedom of speech with all our might, but there is a huge gap between saying something and influencing someone. If we are to truly respect freedom of speech, we must have the intelligence and desire to access and assess diverse ideas. Churchill's intention was to enlighten the public by offering an opposing take on the causes of 9/11."

Freedom of speech is the basis of this country we all need our 15 minutes to talk and be heard. The last part is the most important. "BE HEARD" if we don't feel we are being heard... we get louder...the terrorists did the same thing. They were not being listened to and so they did something we would hear. If Churchill would have used the words in the above paragraph instead of using absurd references and words that made him sound mean, and spiteful. He would have been taken a lot more seriously. The connotation is set for people to be relaxed and not automatically jump to a defensive position. While Churchill wanted to enlighten, all he managed to do was to make people mad!

"Faux" News and Reality TV

First, I would like to extend a kudos to the groups that presented in class on Tuesday. It really takes guts to go first.... and each group chose a very interesting and informative topic.

When it comes to news, I will admit that I sometimes watch Fox News ONLY because I feel that they update their news ticker at a decent speed for me to read what is happening in the world. Much to my dismay, I do not watch news shows in their entireity because I am constantly on the go... as many of you know. I'm lucky if I can sit down and eat...
One thing that I have a problem with FoxNews is that it is "trendy and cool" to watch FN. I don't think so, only knowing half of the facts was not cool the last time I checked. I just think that the station is marketing to our age group and they are suckered in daily. I also enjoyed the analysis of rhetoric used by Stossel, Russert, and O'Reily. As a COMM major, and hoping one day to be in the profession, I have followed the works of the first two mentioned. I encourage each of you to read Stossel's book entitled, Give Me A Break, the same name as his show. I found Bill O'Riely to be overly obsessive AND extremely offensive. The video clips were priceless...


As for Reality TV, I liked the pictures used in the presentation. As people in my majors stress, visuals and their presentation is everything... and I liked how the visuals were very current to what is actually seen on TV this season. The articles were nicely reviewed and evaluated the use of rhetoric which it seems people in our class can't get enough of. I would have liked an audio clip of Simon Cowell saying that someone sucked to drive home the impact that our society has put so many constraits to have what it takes to be an "Idol"... and here I use that term loosely because Mr. Cowell stands to make a lot of money if the chosen one is a best seller and chart topper since he owns the record company.

As for the beauty shows, I will agree with a previous posting that something is not right with our society when people have to go on television shows to fix themselves and hold themselves to another person's concept of beauty. I would not have a problem with this show if they were strictly helping people like the deaf girl and the fire victim that I mentioned in class to have a more normal lifestyle. However, the producers of this show modify these women into WHAT THEY think is beautiful and then subject them to a competition among all the people on the show, even twin sisters during the 2nd season of the SWAN that wanted to be different. Give me a break...

Tuesday's presentations

Both groups on Tuesday covered a part of television that I don't tend to watch. Neverless, I found both powerpoint presentations to be very interesting. I learned a lot about the different news coverage and the different reality shows on television.

Before Tuesday I had heard the name Bill O'Reilly, but I had no idea what kind of anchorman he was. I was shocked to see how he treated his guests. No matter what the guest's story was, I couldn't help but side with him because O'Reilly was being such a jerk.

I've never been a big fan of the reality tv shows, but I can't help but keep up with them because everywhere I look they are being covered in some way by the media. I was still shocked to hear about the show "The Swan." I knew they made over ordinary looking women, but I didn't know it was for them to be judged in a beauty pageant. I have to agree with what the group said about it defeating the purpose. All these ordinary women go through these extreme surgeries to be beautiful, yet some of them are still told in the end that they are not beautiful enough.

Overall, I think both presentations were very effective.

listen to npr.org

Before I begin, I must say that all the groups that went on Tuesday were great. Very interesting, informative, and entertaining.

In regards to the "faux news" presentation, here's where I stand. TV news is hindered with a built-in defect, it survives on viewership. It has to attract large amounts of people to subsist. Therefore, it's going to be as "sexy" and contraversial as possible. It's because of that (I'm to sound like a really big nerd here) everyone should listen to NPR. Go to www.npr.org. If you listen to it on the radio up here, you'll hear little more than classic music (which is fine), but for news, go to the website. There's some incredible interesting stuff.

Anyway, I've got to go, so I'll finish the rest of this later....

On Toulmin

By describing the two types of arguments, he offers a whole new platform of viewing media...to me. It may be the same descriptions I've given the two types of arguments, but at least he has named them. In regards to Olbrecths and Tyteca, I would apply the two types thusly:

1. Substantial/practical--value driven. One would want to use this when addressing a particular audience.
2. Theoretical/analytical-- This would be better applied to a universal or composite audience. With so many perceptions and values, the best way to weild rhetoric would be to just lay out the facts. No jumps or assumptions should be made; the audience can individually do that for themselves.

This is all very much like the news, most news.

On Reality TV: "The Swan"

I was quite impressed with the group presentations. They each did an excellent job with presenting their material, and the topics were organized in such a way that was both interesting and insightful.

Both groups focused on entirely different aspects of the media. One leaned towards news media and the other towards “entertainment” (if you want to call it that). I found the presentation on Reality TV particularly interesting. The background information on the show “The Swan” was almost heart-wrenching. The group focused on articles that exploited America’s drive towards a sense of “perfection”. They made a good point: Average looking people (with no real deformities) enter the show, have a number of surgeries done to completely alter their appearance for a pageant they will still have to compete in to determine who among them is “truly” beautiful. I guess in some twisted way it’s nice for these people to gain a confidence in themselves that maybe they never before possessed. But the show, from the information that was given, seems to say “If you’re ugly and unhappy we can change your life with a few ‘minor’ surgeries.”

The sad thing is, the crave for “perfection” doesn’t simply end at the season’s close. The statistics they gave about the rise of plastic surgery in America were not surprising. It’s sad that America has come to a point where any dissatisfaction with physical appearance can be “commonly” cut away with a knife. (Dissatisfactions, I might add, that are primarily there because of the media’s exploitation and America’s embracing of a particular “look.”) I saw a recent interview with a 29-year-old woman who had already undergone 26 plastic surgeries. She sat and confessed that, if she could, she would willingly go under the knife every day—that she still had a list of surgeries she wanted to have done so that she could achieve this sense of “perfection” and satisfaction with herself. A perfection that is, apparently, a never ending process of simply removing, changing, or adding more skin. I’m not trying say that everyone who has had plastic surgery is this extreme, obsessive, or discontented. CA gave an example in class of a woman who had entered the pageant specifically so she could regain her hearing. There are people who have been completely disfigured because of fires, car accidents, and other traumatic events that have undergone plastic surgery to restore their physical features. However, when America encourages individuals to choose plastic surgery as a means of self-help and as a self-esteem booster (as this particular TV series shows) there is a deep problem and a deep need for something more than plastic surgery.

Stephen Toulmin

When Toulmin was still a graduate student at Cambridge Univeristy, he became interested in the nature of rationality. He asked himself if "intelligent fish learned science, . . . must they in the long run end up with the same body of ideas as human beings?" Toulmin started out with more of a philosophical approach to rationality. It wasn't until his later work that he started to see the importance of rhetoric to philosophy.

In in book The Uses of Arguments he introduces two types of arguments: substantial and analytic. The conclusion of a substantial argument involves a leap from some sort of data or evidence. Unlike substantial, analytic requires no leap because the conclusion is still based around the argument of the premises. Those who use analytic arguments focus on unchanging claims. Ones who use substantial arguments take their claims and place them in a particular situation. The terms substantial and analytic are discussed again in a book by Jonsen and Toulmin. In the book they refer to analytic as theoretical arguments and substantial arguments are practical.

Between the two types of arguments that Toulmin presented, I would think that substantial arguments have the greater affect. Substantial arguments actually place the principles being discussed in particular situations. They also discuss probability of such circumstances. Substantial arguments don't just rely on facts and numbers. The audience being spoken to would probably get more out of a substantial argument than they would an analytic argument.

Toumlin

I found the Toulmin quite interesting. Admittedly, I'm a relativist on most matters, so I have an inclination to be receptive to anything that tries to diminish the belief in absolutes. However, being a relativist, I am also well aware of the contradiction of saying there are no absolutes. The fundamental ideas of balance and coexistence within Toulmin's work are what appeal to me. The idea that practical argument doesn't have to supplant the theoretical the way he believes it has for the past 300 years makes his argument more acceptable because it doesn't simply dismiss the mode he is in essence arguing against. He does relegate it to a greatly diminished position, though.
The structure he lays out for evaluating the practical was simple and easy to comprehend. The evolutionary model of conceptual change makes a world of more sense than the overly simplistic idea that a paradigm shift occurs and ways of thinking fall into step immediately. The main problem I have with his work is that I have to agree with some of his critics that despite his best efforts to bridge the gap between relativism and absolutism, he seems to end up favoring one more or the other. More often than not, he seems to side with the relativists, but some notions that don't seem to have a particularly clear definition such as the impartial rational standpoint would appear to stem from a more absolute concept of whatever is being evaluated.

Response to Toulmin

After reading Toulmin’s essay, I found that agreed with what he had said about rhetoric and the different types of arguments. He begins by differentiating between substantial (practical) and analytic (theoretical). He explains why theoretical argumentative styles have more greatly valued throughout history.
Toulmin also explains the “revival of casuistry.” This is the art of comparing a present argument to a previous one and realizing the differences and similarities between the two. I feel that this is a very important thing to do. I have always attempted to do this when making any major decision; I simply did not know that name for the skill. I think that casuistry provides a good basis on which you can make future decisions. In addition to showing that you should compare an argument to a previous one, Toulmin also explained the importance of realizing the individuality of each situation. He used many good examples to show these differences in circumstances, such as the abortion or right to choose death arguments.
In addition to recognizing the differences between different arguments, Toulmin also presented the basic structure of any argument, which can be used no matter the circumstances. This structure was made of the grounds (the facts on which the argument is based), the warrant (the assumption made between the grounds and the conclusion), and the claim (the final decision or conclusion). He then went on to expand on this to include the backing (explanation of the warrant), the modality (the strength of the warrant), and the rebuttal (the special circumstances that could have been involved). I completely agreed with the former as the being the basic parts of any good argument. I enjoyed this reading much more than previous ones because I was able to fully understand what was being said and see how to apply it to my life in some way.

Churchill Meets Coulter

Okay, we'll try this again....

I think that Churchill in his defense of his "Chickens" is based on that the American press took the article in question out of his book and completely blew it out of proportion and context. However, I must say that as a man of academia, he should know and expect his work to be cruitinized in the media by people who are looking for just that... a story. I do not doubt that the "Chickens" came across the desk of a major news media mogul and they said, "run with this, it looks like it would increase ratings."

I do not doubt that Mr. Churchill has issues with the government of the United States... come to think of it, I don't know very many people who absolutely love our government and worship Bush Jr. However, I think that Churchill in previous "statements" against the government in the dealings with Native Americans might have set him up for some of this speculation.

I do not think Churchill should be fired for speaking his mind. I think that he has the right to say how he feels, and someone must agree with him because he did get this book published and it is selling tons of copies. I also do not like the way that Ward Churchill is being portrayed by the news media. I saw a headline on Fox News today that called him a traitor and violator of the truth... ouch, that's kinda harsh cosidering the media took his work out of context.

Lastly, I will close with a link to Conservative Ann Coulter's website. She recently made some comments on the whole Churchill situation that were very interesting, and I encourage you to read them. The article can be found at: http://www.anncoulter.com/

Toulmin

Toulmin first defines the terms substantial and analytic arguments. Substantial arguments are evaluated on content while analytic arguments are evaluated by form. "Analytic arguments base their claim on unchanging and universal principles...substantial arguments ground their claims in the context of a particular situation rather than in abstract, universal principles" (120). He uses the distinction between these two to define the distinction between theoretical and practical arguments. Toulmin says that practical and sunstantial arguments are similar, and can be used in everyday situations and decisions.
Toulmin's attempt was to "emancipate people from the the domination of theoretical argument" (121). He believed this domination came from the fact that philosophy made little progress and it settled on an absolutist, theoretical approach. Toulimin's approach to arrgumentation assumes the irrelevence of theoretical argument in making everyday decisions(123). Toulmin says that "the prototypical example of theoretical argument is the syllogism, a method of reasoning that produces absolute knowledge from the combination of two premises," which are a major and minor premis (123). Because "formal logic assumes that arguments never change regardless of their subject matter," then it cannot be used to determine the outcomes of everyday decisions. "Practical concerns are rarely governed by a single overriding principle" (124). This absolutists approach to everyday problems also falters in that many of these problems are probably or maybe a certain way rather than absolutely that way.
Toulmin is not trying to completely rid of the uses of analytic logic altogether, he just feels that the range that it had been covering should be more narrow. This type of argument was beleived to be the correct form for all situations, yet Toulmin says that is not the case. He suggests an alternative which is relativism. Anthropology is field that uses relativistic argument, becasue they see that arguments vary between cultures. However, Toulmin is not suggesting that it must be completely absolutist or completely relativistic. He maintains that it can be a balance between the two. (126-127)
To define the emancipation of the practical argument, Toulmin defines three kinds of properties. The three properties are: simple, complex, and scientific qualities. With this argument he is claiming that values are not directly perceived properties. His second approach is with sunjective arguments and the beleif that by saying something is good or right, then that is our feelings toward it. The third approach is the imperative which states that saying something is good or right, we are displaying out feelings. For example, to say lying is bad is the same as telling someone not to lie (128-129). As an alternative, Toulmin offers the good reasons approach to ethics (129).
Toulmin developed a model, or layout for the practical argument. Because practical arguments justify a claim, they must include aspects that back that claim. Toulmin defines this by stating the differences between good and bad arguments. Good arguments have a claim, a grounds for that claim, and a warrant. A refined version of this has six elements which include gorunds, backing, warrant, modality, claim, and rebuttal (131-133).
Toulmin also describes the idea of conceptual change. Toulmin beleives that "conceptual change is evolutionaryand not revolutionary" (134). Toulmin beleives "concepts develop through according to pattern of evolution much the same way that organisms evolve biologically" (134).
Toulmin beleives that rationality id the median between relativism and absolutism. There is a similar answer for the question of moral ethics. Causitry, case ethics, is this answer. Toulmin defines causitry as a way to solves moral problems without using theoretical arguments. Toulmin and his pratner Jonsen offer a model for causitry in a practical argument. The model contains grounds, general warrant, claim, and rebuttal. (136-139).
Toulmin concludes with his hopes not only for the emancipation of the practical, but also the humanizing of modernity. (140).

Second Response to Churchill

After having discussed these pieces in class and having read Churchill’s response to the original essay, I feel that my opinion is changed only a little. I still must stick to my first view of his ethos, which was supported by Annie’s response. I feel that he does not establish good creditability for himself. Also, I have done some research on him and still can not find anything he has done that greatly impresses me. I feel that his job as a professor does not give him any more ethos than being a student gives me. He teaches subjects that are only vaguely related to the topics on which he is speaking. Other than his tour in Vietnam, he seems to have little to do with the government or its workings. While he obviously has extreme opinions on foreign policy, he seems to have little experience in attempting to change the government’s view.
I will agree that he presents many valid points and uses countless examples to back them up; however, I still feel that he does not present them well. I think that his criticisms
of Americans puts them on the defense; and therefore, he can not cause much change in their way of thought. I feel that this theory even applies to myself, as I feel that I can not view this piece of arguement without some bias feeling.

On Toulmin

I found it interesting that Toulmin’s book wasn’t widely used or even accepted until it was presented in the United States. Beyond that, it appears that what Toulmin had originally intended it for—philosophy ("to relate traditional philosophical paradoxes…to…contrast…aspects of reasoning and argument")—was rather embraced by a different group of academia: scholars of rhetoric.

In his book he categorizes two types of arguments: "substantial" and "analytic." These two approaches to rhetoric seem to be rooted in earlier works by Plato and Aristotle and distinguish arguments as being either "practical" or "theoretical."

I learned in another class last semester how to develop an argument from the basis of an enthymeme’s construct. Is this similar to the syllogism approach? Toulmin makes the claim that arguments cannot be pursued theoretically or analytically because practical affairs are "too complex to yield to a single universal principle." Rather, Toulmin lays out an argument on the basis of three primary elements (warrant, grounds, claim) which went on to serve as a model for individuals to construct and communicate arguments.

America

I just wanted to address a minor point if I could in a few of the Churchill responses. I noticed a recurring point that people were as displeased with how they believe Churchill views America as anything he said. The idea that if he doesn't like the way things are here he should just leave. And well, i've never been a big fan of that love it or leave it mentality. I think it misses the point of being here. We live in a place where our voices are supposed to be heard even if that voice is discontent. Actually, it's especially for that purpose. Part of the idea of America is that we can make a difference and make changes. So besides the point that I think is criticism is an expression of American ideals, I also worry that the mentality that opposes it is the same that has led our country to adopt grossly un-American policies such as the Sedition Acts that were in place during previous times of war. Maybe I'm being a little paranoid, and I'm certainly being a little preachy, but the ability to say you support someone's right to speech while simulatneously expressing a desire for them to shut up or leave is not far cry from the right circumstances for darker times to come back into style.

Response to Toulmin

Stephen Toulmin was, unawares, a leading source of teachers and students of rhertorical theory for some time before discovering that the type of argument he defended in his work, thinking it was lost, was being promoted under the title "rhetoric." (119)
Toulmin claims that we spend too much time utilizing analytical or theoretical arguments, which are founded upon absolutes and are idealistic, when we should focus on developing the more effective substantial or practical arguments, which are based on probability and can be applied to particular, everyday problems and circumstances. (120-121)
Two extremes constituting erroneous, unconvincing argument - namely, absolutism and relativism - are avoided by adopting Toulmin's median model, the practical argument (125-126). Today, it is evident that the two extreme models maintain much unresolved conflict. An example is the debate over the legitimacy of sex before marriage. One group asserting the act is wrong based on what they hold as absolute truth tries unsuccessfully to convince another group who believes that there are no absolutes and that truth varies individually. It is established as an important principle today that one cannot impose their morals, beliefs, or values on anyone else; yet I contend that by doing so we eliminate the method of argumentation. How can someone try to convince someone else that they are more correct while asserting that each is entitled to his own opinion? Then, too, how can laws be imposed? If not all are agreed, isn't it just the imposition of the convictions of a few on others who may disagree? Toulmin believes that his method of practical argumentation provides the middle ground.
The practical argument bases claims upon the sense of duty or the moral code of a community. Thus, it appeals only to the absolutes established in agreement by groups of people living together. The absolutes, or ethics, bolstering the argument are established based on the consequences of the action in question. So, the practical argument is successful by way of justification (129).
Toulmin proposes that in most cases the absolutes are developed for individual situations based on the force (strength/power of claim) and criteria (standards used to justify adequacy of claim) for each. This disallows absolutes to be applied to every case, although some may have similar or the same force and criteria (130). "Practical arguments are contextualized" (132). Although I largely agree with Toulmin on this point, I also believe that there exist some absolutes which can and must be applied in arguments of any type and topic.
I had never heard of the practice of "casuistry" before reading this text. This mode seems to be summarized in the explanation that "moral experience does not lie in a mastery of general rules and theoretical principles, however sound and well reasoned those principles may appear" (138). It is adopting practical argumentation to solve daily conflicts instead of relying on the theoretical argument.
Stephen Toulmin's contribution to the discipline of rhetoric, though initially unintentional, is evidently substantial. It applies directly to modern errors of argumentation which pursue extremes.

Toulmin

The reading on Toulmin mainly dealt with how Toulmin thinks analytic arguments, at one extreme, and arguments based in relativism, being the other extreme, should be brought together with the practical argument. He applies this type of argument to the area of ethics. He comes up with a “good reasons approach” to replace the objective, subjective, and imperative approaches that have dominated ethical questions. Ethical concerns are not black and white, therefore, they cannot be objectively considered. Subjective and imperative approaches are too biased and cannot logically explain the reasons for something being right or wrong. Ethics should be considered by using the practical argument, analyzing each situation based on its own context. Toulmin stresses that arguments in different areas differ from one another and cannot logically be resolved using absolutist thinking.

Toulmin does describe one way that arguments are all similar though. This is that they can all be analyzed according to his layout of argument (131). An argument, he says, has six parts. The claim, grounds, and warrant all make up the basic elements of an argument. These parts make up an analytic argument. What sets a practical argument apart from the analytic argument are the remaining three parts, the backing, modal qualifier, and rebuttal. These elements take the absolutism out of the argument and consider the circumstances of the specific argument.

Toulmin also talks about bringing back casuistry. Casuistry involves comparing certain type cases to the situation at present and determining what the situations have in common and seeing what differences or problems exist between the two. Toulmin proposes a model to explain casuistry that is similar to the previous model, but backing is taken out and modality is incorporated into the claim. This type of argument applies better to modern times of considering ethical dilemmas than an analytic argument would.

Toulmin’s overall argument seems obvious to me. I think arguments should be resolved, depending on their specific situations and rebuttals need to be considered. I was questioning whether or not to include set limitations in my speech on taser guns, wondering if presenting a rebuttal would weaken the argument. According to Toulmin, these special circumstances need to be considered in the presentation of an argument, therefore, I do not think my argument will be weakened by mentioning limitations.

Churchill Part 2

Churchill was a tough person for me to critique without including bias in my reaction to what he was saying. As we went through the logos, pathos, and ethos elements of rhetoric, I became very aware of just how hard it was for me to be fair in judging his skill as a rhetorician. In terms of logos, he jams tons and tons of quotes and facts into his writing, but I don’t think they did much good in helping his goal of persuading Americans into thinking we need a change in our government. Because he presents the facts in a manner that makes his American audience feel like idiots with no morals, values, or hearts, I think his logos loses some of its effectiveness.

I understand what many are saying about his establishing ethos really well, because of his role in society, being a professor, ex head of ethics, and all, but I don’t entirely agree with this. While his experience in the Vietnam war shows that he probably cares enough about the well being of this country, I don’t think the teacher status gives him any credibility. When people were mentioning this status as giving him leverage in the ethos department, I just kept thinking about some of the professors/heads of departments at our school. If some of the professors at our school had written this, I would have most likely laughed and thought, “What makes you so great that you think people will actually listen to this?” Teachers should be well respected in society, but I don’t think this role makes them experts on how we should handle our government affairs. So I guess his ethos didn’t do much for me and I’d probably give him a low B, the Vietnam status being the redeeming factor in the grade.

As for pathos, I think he did an alright job of establishing it, but it could have been better had he not taken such a bitter, accusing stance. The way he so callously talks of the victims of 9/11 cancels out the sympathy he tries to convey for the Iraqi children. It seemed like one moment we are thinking he is a nice guy feeling sorry for the children, but then he turns into Dr. Evil saying that the 9/11 victims had it coming to them. In my opinion, any pathos he had established and used to effectively persuade his audience is gone at this point. In his later response, he tends to mollify his remarks, and we kind of see where he is coming from better, but basically, he is just saying the same harsh statement but in a nicer way…..isn’t that what one definition of rhetoric was? So maybe he is a good rhetorician……

So I guess I am still a little biased in my critique of Churchill. I think a biased reaction is going to be inevitable in the cases of many because of the harsh approach he took in presenting his beliefs. His defense did not make me like him any better, mainly because he made me so disgusted with his first approach. I am probably way too biased in my reviewing his rhetoric, but honestly, how many Americans that read this are going to say, “Awww…he’s trashing us, but he’s such a good rhetorician that I don’t care!” I’d have to bet on not many.

I apologize for being blog-happy all of the sudden...

Here's a great quote to keep in mind while thinking about Churchill's words...

"Sometimes a particular audience is composed of so many varied elements that it should be considered a 'composite audience.' Because members of a composite audience may hold a variety of different values, or at least, may arrange their values differently, the speaker should use a multiplicity of arguments to gain their audience."

-Olbrecht-Tyteca and Perelman

I love how his defensive arguments are so little!

It really is great. He has all these rants/arguments in the initial essay. He gets death threats...bam, a page and a half of defending himself. If you dont like it, fine, just don't threaten his life anymore. Good man.
=)

Alright, I'm not trying to be offensive either. I truly think his comments were blown out of proportion. All of his allusions to Germany, his derogatory phrases, and the like, were very much needed. Maybe it's good to start an uproar. People will be mad, but IF they do start paying attention to the world around them, then perhaps they will remember his analogies.

I'm glad he supported himself with evidence in the response. That was much needed. In this sort of stream-of-conciousness rant, which is what he claims the first essay is, it would be difficult to back up and be thorough. He even mentions this fact at the end of it.

He was angry and we're all allowed to be angry. His response is more cool and less tempermental. I am glad it is not apologetic. I am glad it is short.

Or maybe, sometimes offense needs to be taken. =)

Response to “Some People Push Back”
(sorry this is a bit late...i decided to go with my first reactions to the article despite the fact that others in the class may have already said similar things.)

I must start with, despite everyone’s objections, I think the article, or rather “‘first take’ reading, more a stream-of-consciousness interpretive reaction” was great. Call me cynical. I don’t know, since I did not read the book, who exactly the audience is. After reading Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca, I realize just how important the audience can be…it is especially clear with this article.

One of my main concerns with “Some People Push Back” is my lack of knowledge of the audience. At times, he seems to be speaking directly to those who are not happy with U.S. actions and basically those who are of the same ilk as he is. But…he switches sometimes into a very accusatory tone that is intended for those not of this ilk. For those who do not care and are too self-absorbed to even try to learn about world events. Why address them, without quoting facts, as if assuming they know the facts, just to accuse them of not caring? Then I am drawn out of this train of thought and back to…”Oh, yeah, he is basically on a rant and trying to get this out of his head.” Fair enough. A quick fix, however, would be to say that calling Iraqis “sand-niggers” and waving American flag pom-poms is a general thing in the U.S. that has undeniably happened, rather than this tone of accusing the individual reader of these distasteful (if not downright shameful) actions.

Under the section “Meet the ‘Terrorists,’” the secretary of defense of the U.S. during the Reagan eraRobert S. McNamara, immediately came to mind. There is a documentary, called The Fog of War, in which he gives lessons he’s learned from war and from being in power. One of these lessons is “you must empathize with your enemy.” He tells of how a member in Reagan’s cabinet was, basically, able to keep Cuba from being blown to smithereens by simply understanding what the enemy was actually after and being able to work towards a compromise. Churchill states, “…[blah]…that they waited so long to do so is, not withstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.” He definitely empathizes with the Iraqi people, and noting this simple fact could have made his argument ten bazillion times stronger.

Another interesting thing about that small quote is the use of the word “action” over “attack.” When he talks about the U.S. government and war policies, it is all genocide and attack. This could be taken as a bad thing, but I think he is trying to point out the difference in motives here.
Sorry, everyone. This might be a very long blog.
Also in that section, “Meet the ‘Terrorists,’” he uses the term, ‘starved and rotting flesh of infants.’ Call me crazy, and it is more than probably a true point that he is making, but it is a bit over the top when you are, in general, presenting a solid argument. He is already (at least, now, after this became so publicized, and I know, too, that he had no way of knowing who his audience would end up being) arguing with a disdainful audience. These little emotional outbursts he has seem to weaken his arguments, because of the audience, rather than strengthen them.

Further in the same section, he talks about the “secular activists” and their desperate attempt at countering the “grisly realities of the U.S. war against them.” His argument could have been stronger here by the mention of the previous French and Russian occupations. This would have appeased the readers who took offense at his article and emphasized his point--that the people were desperate.

He begins talking about likely future attacks, many teams in place with other tactics, etc. all aimed at getting retribution, or at least, stopping our foreign policies and war tactics…he seems to be using his own scare tactics. He seems to be laying blame on the media for pulling the wool over America’s eyes with scare tactics. It’s subtle, but I seem to get the feeling he is saying this, on some level. Oh, right, in the section, “In the Alternative.” The first paragraph is an attack on the media.

There is SOO much I could write up about this article/speech/excerpt thing. My copy has scribbles all over it if anyone is ever interested and hearing what I think about the article line by line. I doubt that’s the case, so I wont include it all here. Lucky you!

My summary is probably one that many have already given…that he’s saying the right thing in the wrong way. But I have to stand by the position that, depending on who this article was actually aimed at, it could be quite perfect and fitting for making me want to do more than sign petitions and eat frozen pizza and complain about the government and play Diablo II on my computer, etc.

jillian

Churchill revisited

As appaled as we all were by the approach Churchill took in conceying his opinions about 9-11, Americans, and our government, taking an unbaised look at his material and his response helped me in focusing on the aspect of the text that we were meant to be critiquing. The task at hand was made difficult by Churchill's blatantly derogatory statements and disrespect.
We were asked to look at both the original text and his response. Although his response was less offensive and had more of logos, ethos, and pathos, his orginal text included these devices as well. In his original text, he establishes ethos by being an ethnics professor, American, and war veteran. He also quoted Madeline Albright and JFK. For logos, although he gives facts that are dirturbing, he does provide many facts within his text. Pathos however was ineffective. He had many instances in the text where he used pathos, but he used it in a way that angered people rather than appealing to them and getting them to agree with his side of the issue. So while he did have pathos in the text, it was not affective.
His response was much more toned down and far less offensive. He was able to get across major points in a short response by changing his tone that he could not get across in his long, original text. In the response he had ethos again for the same reasons, but he also quoted more people to stregnthen his credibility. He used logos by stating facts clearly and backing up the points he was trying to make (All of which we discussed in class). However, he did not use pathos in the response. I do not feel as if this affected his text in any way. In fact, I believe the nature of teh text and it's purpose was appropriate without it.

Okey-dokey.....here goes.

Just read Dr. Churchill's response, and the man's got some good points.

I'm still not sure if "Some people push back is a good example of something taken out of context or a bad example of how to use rhetoric. The language he uses in the article is so caustic where as in his response he seems so calm and collected. With the bullet points, he just lays out exatly what he "meant" by what he said. Shouldn't he have done that to begin with.

I don't know. I think if more people had read his response first or if he had included his points from the response in the original article, then there would never have been a problem.

It just seems that his tone is completely different in the two peices, and one is more likely to respond positively in the latter of the two....unfortunately for him.

That's all I got for the moment....

Robert

Some more thoughts...

Class today and a closer look at Churchill’s response helped to clarify his purpose in writing. He makes three very clear points:

1. The U.S. government has "engaged in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights." His point is to say that the government’s foreign policies have reaped "expected" consequences.
2. In referencing MLK and Robert F. Kennedy he says, "Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable." In order to end violence, he seems to say we must promote peace by taking responsibility for and putting an end to "the slaughter perpetrated" by the U.S.
3. Finally, he says in order to prevent such attacks as 911, American citizens must "compel their government to comply with the rule of law."

His response took quite a different approach and tone from his original article. One can, perhaps, read this in its entirety without cringing or balling fists. And there seems to be a slight echo of the Golden Rule running throughout. However cheesy that may sound, it’s what I thought. "Do unto others…" Expect to be treated how you treat others. (Or maybe I just read that into it?)

All in all, his response, I thought, was quite effective. He addressed the criticism with clear information. He did not simply mention that what he had originally said had "been lost," but he went on to explain how it was by providing viable facts. I felt a great deal of his credibility was restored—or maybe for the first time really established. The only thing that could have possibly been added would have been a brief apology for an offensive approach. He does not have to recant his argument to sympathize with those he offended because of misunderstanding (as he seems to suggest).

Churchill

Ward Churchill's response was overall very well done. He established his ethos early on as the author of On the Justice of Roosting Chickens and a Vietnam veteran. He uses his book to present facts about the U.S. government's actions since World War II. Churchill goes on to quote Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy. He also also quotes Madeline Albright. His use of ethos and logos was very well done, although he fell a little short with the use of pathos. The only place that pathos really comes out is when he refers to the death of the 500,ooo Iraqi children. Overall, he does a very good job of presenting his argument. The points he made were very convincing to me.

Ward Churchill

I was appalled by Churchill’s “Some People Push Back.” I was offended by many of his words. While some of his comments were indeed true and many of the points he had may have needed to be made. Despite this, I was offended by many of the statements he made and I felt that he did not present them well. First, I felt that his ethos was not well established. While he is a professor and has written several works, he has yet to actually participate in government (as far as one can tell from this essay). Also, his use of foul language tends to decrease his creditability. Also, his degradation of almost all recent American presidents including George Bush Sr, Clinton, Bush Jr, and Johnson does not help his case. I feel that his use of logos was fairly good; however, I feel that if he had presented the logic in a less offensive way, he would have received a better response. His pathos was obviously the majority of the paper and worked fairly well for him. His description of the “dead children” is heart wrenching; however, his discussion of American victims was less than appealing.
Also, Churchill seems to have some difficulty in relating to his audience. He does not seem to realize that criticizing the people he is attempting to effect is not an effective strategy. He refers to the American people as “sheep” and degrades their intelligence (this does not seem a good way to get people to listen to you).
His response to critics was slightly more coherent and appealing. While he does not take back any of his words, he does seem to take back some of the harshness of the words. He seems to turn the points more towards logos than pathos. I felt that his response was much more acceptable and rhetorically effective.

Churchill's Response: LOGOS LOGOS

Hello friends, first a beautiful Happy Valentine's wish to you all, may chocolates, flowers, and blinding red pervade your every sense! A little pathos to begin because Churchill didn't use any at all. Why not? According to the craft of rhetoric, pathos should be used last; because while it is effective, its the least important aspect in bringing someone to your views. Churchill followed this logic by berating us with logos. He listed the facts of what he actually said, the facts of injustices done abroad, and many other facts.

In fact, he begins with "I hope the following facts will be reported at least to the same extent that the fabrications have been." This is important to us as rhetoricians. Why? In attempting to persuade someone, the use of logos, ethos, and pathos are all integral and useful. Yet, logos, or facts, are things you cannot argue with. The audience can bicker over ethos and they may not feel the emotional aspect, but facts are concrete and immovable. Here, Churchill outlines many facts.

However, in this response to the criticism, we find a lot more of ethos than in his original speech. First, he establishes a GREAT deal of credibility as a Vietnam war veteran: "as a U.S. soldier in Vietnam I witnessed and participated in more violence than I ever wish to see." Also, he references many powerful people: "As Martin Luther King, quoting Robert F. Kennedy" and "Madeleine Albright, then Ambassador to the UN and soon to be U.S. Secretary of State." He also establishes ethos because he seems well educated with his facts, he has written a published work, and he appears to be on top of his game.

I fear that many people have been outraged and quick to spread rumors and fabrications; now, he unequivocably shoots them down with this response to their criticism, filled to the brim with ethos and logos.

As far as forensic, deliberative, or epidiectic, I definitely don't see any epidiectic. He isn't praising any one; however, he is outlining facts to "shame" our government. In a way, forensic and deliberative are tied together because he outlines facts from the path in an effort to bring our nation to the realization that we aren't innocent, and yet show us a path for the future: "If we ourselves do not want to be treated in this fashion, we must refuse to allow others to be similarly devalued and dehumanized in our name."

Essentially, I feel this is a powerful work of rhetoric because it follows strict doctrine, outlines point by point.

Ward Churchill

I’m at a loss for words.

In class we discussed the effectiveness of Churchill’s argument. The tone he took in approaching such a sensitive subject. And the class seems to agree that he could have presented his information and perspective from a different angle—a little more tact and foresight and a little less insult. I was very much put off by Churchill’s article, but his response to the criticism (and threats) seemed to be well-organized, providing more background to his analysis.

I’m still confused about how the article was brought out. Was this not originally part of a book he had published? It’s hard not to keep in mind that if this was a part of a larger piece of publication, then there is the possibility of missing the whole of his argument. His response seems to address some of the underlying issues for his publication and further explains his intentions in writing as he did. He says, "My point is that we cannot allow the U.S. government, acting in our name, to engage in massive violations of international law and fundamental human rights and not expect to reap the consequences." There seems to be nothing wrong with his argument, as presented in this case. Perhaps he should have approached the article with the same calculated judgment of the possible response of the audience at large.

I really don’t know. As far as freedom of speech, I feel he has every right to address certain issues, but at the same time, working for a university puts him under the university’s discretion.

Winston's got nothing on this Churchill

wow... that's some interesting writing right there Mr. Churchill. I can't say that I disagree with him at all in any respect. I can believe that Ward got some pretty heavy criticism on this article-turned-book, but everything he said in his words needed to be said.
I love my country and I am incredibly happy that we are living in a time of extreme patriotism, but Americans need to open their eyes. The world literally stopped in order to watch the 9-11 events, speeches and reactions of the American people. Whether they cheered in the streets or cried with us; they watched. How many times has this happened in reverse. When a train was blown up in Northern Spain in the not-so-far away past, the world stopped as well...except for America; I'm sad to admit that I had no idea about this either. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. We as Americans tend to rest very comfortably inside our capitalist bubble and ignore the rest of the world, but it is very obvious from the terrorist threats and attacks that the rest of the world does not ignore us at all. This is very dangerous. We cannot trust our leaders to hold our hands and protect us from the people who will do us harm. It is our right and privilige to seek out this information, especially those of us who are quick to judge Mr. Churchill and call him a nazi or equate him to anything remotely resembling terrorism.
Yes it was hard to read this article knowing how close the tragedy of 9-11 still is in the heart of the American people, but the statistics that Churchill brings to light are incredibly important as a way of putting things in perspective and maybe seeing the situation from someone else's eyes. Maybe this book will inspire more people to educate themselves about the way of the world, no matter how ugly the picture. The more educated people are and the more they care about other people who do not have the opportunities that we enjoy, the less violence and hatred we will see, at least this is my hope.

CA's Churchill Response

Ok, so after the weekend, I have come to the following thoughts of the Ward Churchill piece:

1- I think America was partly to blame for 9-11. I think Dr. Fishman's example of what he collegue said after the attack illistrates my point. It seems that America is constantly into the world's business when obviously we should not be. Just my personal opinion there, but I won't go as far as Churchill and compare the American public to Nazi Germany. I think that is a little too far fetched.

2- Ward Churchill should not be fired. Let's see, if he had done this in Clemson, he would be fired. Thank goodness he lives in Colorado because the "mountain folk" from around the area would have killed him and of course the University would have fired him because he was not helping CU gain the all-mighty "Top 20" status with negative press. Churchill is lucky to live in America where free speech is protcted... good thing he didn't make these claims while living in a Nazi controlled Germany or he would be a goner.

3- This piece, like many people have noted, is from a larger work by Churchill. I bet some of the stuff he has written in "Chickens" has been taken out of context by the media and cynical readers like you and me who are looking and over analyzing his work. Or, he could have done this just to create a stir, to get people to think outside of the conservative box. Who knows... but what I do know is that the entire book must be read before I can draw any concrete decisions on the piece.

4- I saw little on the news about Churchill. Most of what I learned about Churchill had to come from outside research. So, it can't be that big of a deal if it's not scrolling across the screen of every major news station... or is it?

Just some thoughts... go free speech!

Response to Ward's response

The tone of Ward's second piece has been obviously affected by the reaction to his first piece; he is more methodical, and besides this he is speaking to people who do not agree with him. In fact, they heartily disagree with him. I find it funny (but not funny "ha-ha") that his life was threatened - maybe the person who posed that threat never read his article!

First, it must be kept in mind that Churchill is native American - and his job is to be outspoken on the behalf of his people, and on behalf of others who have been persecuted. I respect that. I think he's also very wary of American government, and that he has more than just a chip on his shoulder. He got carried away, that's for sure - but then again, didn't our president? I think it's safe to say "dubya" stuck his foot in his mouth for some of the things he proclaimed soon after the attacks - who didn't have an opinion?

Second, Churchill brings up a good point about our country's policies being hypocritical; our president could be charged as an international criminal by the ICC. A lot of other leaders could be met with the same charges, too, but then again not all leaders make moral claims as big as ours does.

In terms of his argument, Churchill could have done a better job at organizing himself, in both cases. Especially in the second, though, because he essentially composes a sheet of FAQ's. I know he has a lot of credibility scholastically, but if I didn't know that I'd probably not pay much attention to his response. If the response was a transcript, though, I think it would have been much more effective than his first attempt because he uses the terms of his audience and not exaggerated, pathos-charged verbiage. I also think that if I were in his audience for the initial article I'd be afraid of being verbally sliced for asking a question; in the response he is much more receptive. Maybe because someone is holding a gun to his head as he writes. At any rate, I agree with his last statement that "The gross distortions of what I actually said can only be viewed as an attempt to distract the public from the real issues at hand and to further stifle freedom of speech and academic debate in this country." Maybe that's because no one thought his essay was academic.