David and Weaver

Oh David, David....We were just joking about the stick in the mud thing. Yes, you have a right to free speech, and so do we, and while some thought your comment a little harsh, I thought it was funny and thought we could make fun of you for saying it. (In a light hearted way, of course.) So no worries- your comment inspired deep thought in the classroom, that's a good thing:)
As for Weaver, I have to say I was surprised that we were supposed to gain something new from this reading. While the ways of analyzing a rhetorician, based on his choice of argument along with sentence structure was new, I didn't think the fact that rhetoric should be used for good was new at all. I actually thought that was a given. I think it was the introduction to rhetoric using MLK's speech that made me think rhetoricians use their art to forward society and encourage actions that would lead us to better places. I guess I was naive to think in this way. I know, of course there are people out there who use rhetoric for evil, (example: Hitler), but I just thought the main purpose was to use it for good and that the people who were using it for evil were abusing its power.
On to another topic, I do think Weaver might judge rhetoricians a bit harshly. To classify a good rhetorician based on the argument he uses or the sentence structure is pretty tough. I think some situations to be argued lend themselves to one particular argument sometimes and it has to be tough to always use the "genus and definition" argument. Also, we have to think about the audience we are addressing. In terms of sentence structure, if we are speaking to a group of uneducated and illiterate people, I don't think simple sentences would qualify the speaker as a not so great rhetorician. I just think he knew to use language and sentences that the audience would most likely understand and relate to.