Watching season two of Two-and-a-half Men, episode 7 (A Kosher Slaughterhouse Out in Fontana); the housekeeper gets her sister hired to cater a party for the mother of the two brothers living together.
The sister wakes the older brother standing above him in his room as he sleeps, then asking permission to take a shot of his alcohol (which she has already poured for herself, drinking immediately after permission is given).
She goes on to tell him about her troubled life, saying "My husband left me for another woman. Know how I found out?".
As Charlie, the older brother says "to tell you the truth", she remarks "relax, it's rhetorical."
She then goes on with her story.
About 5 minute, 30 seconds into this clip:
This scene is an encomium of rhetoric for me to assess:
Rhetoric is used here in her asking a question that was "rhetorical," which in asking supported the continuance of composing her discourse effectively.
The Rhetorical Question didn't necessarily have an answer that the audience knew the answer to, other than the fact that he knew the question was asked for reasons relevant to the answer being provided by the person doing the asking.
The rhetorical distance appears to come from the notion "relax" in that she was putting off a scary vibe, but wasn't expecting anything from him, so "relax," because she just wanted him to listen.
The rhetorical situation involved the rhetor (the housekeepers sister), an issue (her being left by her husband), and the audience (Charlie). The issue was at a time where she was expected to cater this party, and the situation involved her letting Charlie know the complexities of her functioning effectively to provide the catering services needed at that time (kairos relevant).
This is where I am left with invective question on my own capabilities as a rhetorician, and my completion of this assignment the way it was suppose to be completed.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Page 186 Rhetorical Activities #3
Articulation of the statement "Elvis has left the building."
"Please, young people . . . Elvis has left the building. He has gotten in his car and driven away. . . . Please take your seats." - Horace Logan, 12/1956
although the phrase was routinely used to encourage the audience to leave, the first time that it was announced it was to encourage them to stay in their seats
"Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building. Thank you and goodnight." - Al Dvorin, 1970s
Enthymeme of its original use:
Major premise: "Elvis has left the building" (there is no show outside of your seats any longer)
Minor premise: "The hayride will continue" (more show will continue in your seats)
Conclusion: "if you would like to sit down now, we are going to go on with the show here in just about five minutes" (please stop standing, and sit down)
"Please, young people . . . Elvis has left the building. He has gotten in his car and driven away. . . . Please take your seats." - Horace Logan, 12/1956
although the phrase was routinely used to encourage the audience to leave, the first time that it was announced it was to encourage them to stay in their seats
"Ladies and gentlemen, Elvis has left the building. Thank you and goodnight." - Al Dvorin, 1970s
Enthymeme of its original use:
Major premise: "Elvis has left the building" (there is no show outside of your seats any longer)
Minor premise: "The hayride will continue" (more show will continue in your seats)
Conclusion: "if you would like to sit down now, we are going to go on with the show here in just about five minutes" (please stop standing, and sit down)
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Chapter 4: Progymnasmata: Common-Place #1
Common-place, by Aphthonius, “appears to favor a focus on evil,” attacking those that have done evil rather than favoring those that have done good or those that approach issues in ways that attempt to look at both sides.
(PROLOGUE): Since bullying of classmates has been known to lead to lower self-esteem, can lead to the harm, even hospitalization and death, of persons, the bullying of classmates must be considered.
(CONTRARY): Not letting nature take its course in bulling and the bullied of classmates while at school can also be supportive of being capable of observing the actions occurring under supervised conditions, rather than outside of view. Also, it draws on building up the confidence of those who are bullied, by leaving them to deal with the problems on their own, leaving them with a learning experience on how to deal with the “real world.”
(EXPOSITION—to gain interest of the reader): However, this leaves the bullied lacking “real world” conditions because on many occasions bullying is outside of one’s ability to control, and authoritative stands and influence on such conditions needs to occur. These acts, when handled properly, can leave one who is bullied with the notion that support does exists (as opposed to the alternate message one may receive; that one is incapable of preventing oneself from harm, and incapable of reaching for support).
(COMPARISON –attaching blame to the accused): Bullying, being repeated acts of dehumanizing, picking on, or beating up an individual, done without repercussions or intervention of others, leaves the bully with the notion that such acts are permissible. This not only gives the bully a false sense of what society will allow them to get away with in the future, but also gives the bullied a complex that can escalate to the harm coming to them (continuing to come to them) and perhaps others.
(INTENTION—attack on the doers motives): Those who bully have various motives, whether they be learned conditions from home, genetics, the environment they live in, a medical condition needing attention, a lack of attentiveness they need, a lessening of the pressures too much attentiveness is bringing them, unawareness of their doing any harm, etc.
(DIGRESSION—castigates the doers past life): These conditions perhaps need evaluation and the root of the problem sought out, while perhaps also working on the issues at the surface (the bullying going on) as well.
(REJECTION OF PITY): Those that bully, and those that let it slide (perhaps considering it a phase, something they went through their self, something the bullied need to learn to deal with, etc.) hold less, if not just as much, weight in their actions as those that are bullied, and those that intervene (perhaps considering it for what it is, an escalating problem; something that holds qualities similar to those that end up placing people in legal conflicts later in life; something the bully needs to learn to deal with).
(reminder to audience of the standard topics that were relevant to the common-place being amplified: legality, justice, expediency, practicability, honor, or result):
(LEGALITY): “If it is custom to praise those who protect people, then it follows that it is right to punish those who destroy them” (pp.156).
(JUSTICE): Given that laws have been set up to prevent the spanking of students, it should follow that actions should be taken against those that bring harm to other students.
(ADVANTAGE): Those that are bullied will be provided with learning conditions that are capable of worrying more about their academic performance, rather than spending time worrying about unnecessary harm coming to them while going to school.
(POSSIBILITY): If intervention occurs properly, those prone to bullying could have less concern/worry leading to emotional-based fatigues which prevent one from learning to their fullest potential. If intervention occurs properly, those that bully may learn social skills at a critical time which benefit the rest of their life; where not learning them could lead to their living a less fulfilling life. If intervention occurs properly, it may avert the nonproductive living and social skill conditioning of the bullied.
(PROLOGUE): Since bullying of classmates has been known to lead to lower self-esteem, can lead to the harm, even hospitalization and death, of persons, the bullying of classmates must be considered.
(CONTRARY): Not letting nature take its course in bulling and the bullied of classmates while at school can also be supportive of being capable of observing the actions occurring under supervised conditions, rather than outside of view. Also, it draws on building up the confidence of those who are bullied, by leaving them to deal with the problems on their own, leaving them with a learning experience on how to deal with the “real world.”
(EXPOSITION—to gain interest of the reader): However, this leaves the bullied lacking “real world” conditions because on many occasions bullying is outside of one’s ability to control, and authoritative stands and influence on such conditions needs to occur. These acts, when handled properly, can leave one who is bullied with the notion that support does exists (as opposed to the alternate message one may receive; that one is incapable of preventing oneself from harm, and incapable of reaching for support).
(COMPARISON –attaching blame to the accused): Bullying, being repeated acts of dehumanizing, picking on, or beating up an individual, done without repercussions or intervention of others, leaves the bully with the notion that such acts are permissible. This not only gives the bully a false sense of what society will allow them to get away with in the future, but also gives the bullied a complex that can escalate to the harm coming to them (continuing to come to them) and perhaps others.
(INTENTION—attack on the doers motives): Those who bully have various motives, whether they be learned conditions from home, genetics, the environment they live in, a medical condition needing attention, a lack of attentiveness they need, a lessening of the pressures too much attentiveness is bringing them, unawareness of their doing any harm, etc.
(DIGRESSION—castigates the doers past life): These conditions perhaps need evaluation and the root of the problem sought out, while perhaps also working on the issues at the surface (the bullying going on) as well.
(REJECTION OF PITY): Those that bully, and those that let it slide (perhaps considering it a phase, something they went through their self, something the bullied need to learn to deal with, etc.) hold less, if not just as much, weight in their actions as those that are bullied, and those that intervene (perhaps considering it for what it is, an escalating problem; something that holds qualities similar to those that end up placing people in legal conflicts later in life; something the bully needs to learn to deal with).
(reminder to audience of the standard topics that were relevant to the common-place being amplified: legality, justice, expediency, practicability, honor, or result):
(LEGALITY): “If it is custom to praise those who protect people, then it follows that it is right to punish those who destroy them” (pp.156).
(JUSTICE): Given that laws have been set up to prevent the spanking of students, it should follow that actions should be taken against those that bring harm to other students.
(ADVANTAGE): Those that are bullied will be provided with learning conditions that are capable of worrying more about their academic performance, rather than spending time worrying about unnecessary harm coming to them while going to school.
(POSSIBILITY): If intervention occurs properly, those prone to bullying could have less concern/worry leading to emotional-based fatigues which prevent one from learning to their fullest potential. If intervention occurs properly, those that bully may learn social skills at a critical time which benefit the rest of their life; where not learning them could lead to their living a less fulfilling life. If intervention occurs properly, it may avert the nonproductive living and social skill conditioning of the bullied.
Chapter 4: Rhetorical Activity #5 (part 3 of 3)
Rush Limbaugh, a conservative, received a lot of attention for saying that we it wasn't necessary to donate any more to Haiti.
He says we already support them enough by paying our taxes, and suggests that what happened has occured for reasons that should not be (do not need to be) supported.
The Wall Street Journal, considered conservative, supports the notion that ending foreign aid would help Haiti.
The article says that the support will end up leading to "more poverty, more corruption and less institutional capacity. It will benefit the well-connected at the expense of the truly needy..."
CNN appears to be supportive toward helping Haiti.
They hold the slogan of being "the most trusted news," and I assume they attempt to keep this stand by not taking sides on issues. I didn't see anything in this article read suggesting not supporting Haiti, though.
This article from Time draws on the emotional impact of the tragedy, and apparently is supportive of helping Haiti.
USA Today draws on the stats involved in the casualties that have occured, the poor conditions, how less support is present than was from the Katrina catastrophe, and the despiration of those affected leading to acts of despiration.
An article in The Nation (considered liberal or left-liberal) appears to cover more sides of the matter than the others I have read did, and concludes that the US response should also consider more long-term supportive aid, in addition to the current support given.
Another article by The Nation challenges the anti-support of Haiti notion, and concludes that under circumstances where so much "death and destruction" has come, not helping shouldn't be considered for any reason.
The Pueblo Chieftain has an article involving Puebloans helping out.
From what I read, the Earthquake in Haiti has caused a lot of damage and injury; more than commonly occurs in tragic events such as earthquakes or hurricanes. Supportive effort debates question the emotions and good will of others. There is also debate on whether or not giving support would cause more harm than good (i.e., support leading to less funds to support more people elsewhere in other ways). This incident has been all over the news, yet other catastrophes, at times, get little to no attention. This catastrophe, occuring in a country of poverty, does not appear to draw on any gains coming from supporting them, making it appear to be a good thing. It is argued that the support going to the country will end up in the hands of the privileged and not reach those who need it most. The exaggerated remarks by Limbaugh appear to have deeper-rooted notions at play than heard or read about on the surface. Of course, it also could be the case that making such remarks led to radio show hosts losing their jobs, like when Don Imus attempted to plead his case after losing his job for saying something (I am not sure if this is similar, but I did not really hear anything about underlying issues involved in the surface of this remark that lost him his job.). I do believe that certain natural disasters occurred in the Phillippines, not too long ago, and received little to no media attention. In a struggling economy, like the one we currently live in, where it is difficult to even pay ones own bills, I don't think 'not' looking toward the future of attempting to take care of oneself via giving money or other support one really does not have should be considered (nor even give up ones attempts at trying to live in ways that make them happy...like giving up a much needed vacation.) However, if capable of helping, then it does appear that Haiti is a place one can give it, where it is greatly needed, and has the potential of being given in ways that relate to the aid actually reaching the places it really needs to go.
He says we already support them enough by paying our taxes, and suggests that what happened has occured for reasons that should not be (do not need to be) supported.
The Wall Street Journal, considered conservative, supports the notion that ending foreign aid would help Haiti.
The article says that the support will end up leading to "more poverty, more corruption and less institutional capacity. It will benefit the well-connected at the expense of the truly needy..."
CNN appears to be supportive toward helping Haiti.
They hold the slogan of being "the most trusted news," and I assume they attempt to keep this stand by not taking sides on issues. I didn't see anything in this article read suggesting not supporting Haiti, though.
This article from Time draws on the emotional impact of the tragedy, and apparently is supportive of helping Haiti.
USA Today draws on the stats involved in the casualties that have occured, the poor conditions, how less support is present than was from the Katrina catastrophe, and the despiration of those affected leading to acts of despiration.
An article in The Nation (considered liberal or left-liberal) appears to cover more sides of the matter than the others I have read did, and concludes that the US response should also consider more long-term supportive aid, in addition to the current support given.
Another article by The Nation challenges the anti-support of Haiti notion, and concludes that under circumstances where so much "death and destruction" has come, not helping shouldn't be considered for any reason.
The Pueblo Chieftain has an article involving Puebloans helping out.
From what I read, the Earthquake in Haiti has caused a lot of damage and injury; more than commonly occurs in tragic events such as earthquakes or hurricanes. Supportive effort debates question the emotions and good will of others. There is also debate on whether or not giving support would cause more harm than good (i.e., support leading to less funds to support more people elsewhere in other ways). This incident has been all over the news, yet other catastrophes, at times, get little to no attention. This catastrophe, occuring in a country of poverty, does not appear to draw on any gains coming from supporting them, making it appear to be a good thing. It is argued that the support going to the country will end up in the hands of the privileged and not reach those who need it most. The exaggerated remarks by Limbaugh appear to have deeper-rooted notions at play than heard or read about on the surface. Of course, it also could be the case that making such remarks led to radio show hosts losing their jobs, like when Don Imus attempted to plead his case after losing his job for saying something (I am not sure if this is similar, but I did not really hear anything about underlying issues involved in the surface of this remark that lost him his job.). I do believe that certain natural disasters occurred in the Phillippines, not too long ago, and received little to no media attention. In a struggling economy, like the one we currently live in, where it is difficult to even pay ones own bills, I don't think 'not' looking toward the future of attempting to take care of oneself via giving money or other support one really does not have should be considered (nor even give up ones attempts at trying to live in ways that make them happy...like giving up a much needed vacation.) However, if capable of helping, then it does appear that Haiti is a place one can give it, where it is greatly needed, and has the potential of being given in ways that relate to the aid actually reaching the places it really needs to go.
Chapter 4: Rhetorical Activity #3 (part 2 of 3)
I got a ticket for running a red light. I had my picture taken by a camera and was mailed a ticket. I was at work and showed the ticket to someone I worked with, and a few others were there and discussed the issue. I brought up the notion that maybe I could argue it in court, saying that the pain caused by my tooth cause me to have delayed reaction. One person in the group, whose name I do not know, said that if my tooth pain was causing delayed reaction then I shouldn’t have been driving. I asked, “then how am I suppose to get to the dentist.” The person said, “have someone else drive you.”
Issues involved driving with impaired ability to respond, the lack of time to respond in the first place given that the light stayed yellow for such a short period, the weather conditions could have made the situation worse if I had attempted to stop, the fact that they don’t teach you how long lights stay yellow on different mph roads, the fact that I was going five mph over the speed limit in poor conditions (along with the notion that even under good conditions and going the speed limit, if you hit the light turning yellow at just the right time, it is a difficult determination to make), the fact that only one angle of the camera was presented (the view of my going, but not the view of my approaching), and that other factors were not (could not) capable of being taken into consideration (i.e., what certain things on the ticket meant and the lack in the amount of time present to make such determinations, as well as other factors relevant to what an officer can determine about a situation that a camera cannot).
I believe the person I had the rhetorical discussion with, involving driving with slightly delayed reaction and driving somewhere to prevent this delayed reaction, took more of a conservative commonplace. Beliefs of this person suggested that having someone else drive me was a easy thing to come by. Openness to persuasion of this person didn’t appear to be possible, but perhaps for reasons more relevant to my stance than theirs.
Issues involved driving with impaired ability to respond, the lack of time to respond in the first place given that the light stayed yellow for such a short period, the weather conditions could have made the situation worse if I had attempted to stop, the fact that they don’t teach you how long lights stay yellow on different mph roads, the fact that I was going five mph over the speed limit in poor conditions (along with the notion that even under good conditions and going the speed limit, if you hit the light turning yellow at just the right time, it is a difficult determination to make), the fact that only one angle of the camera was presented (the view of my going, but not the view of my approaching), and that other factors were not (could not) capable of being taken into consideration (i.e., what certain things on the ticket meant and the lack in the amount of time present to make such determinations, as well as other factors relevant to what an officer can determine about a situation that a camera cannot).
I believe the person I had the rhetorical discussion with, involving driving with slightly delayed reaction and driving somewhere to prevent this delayed reaction, took more of a conservative commonplace. Beliefs of this person suggested that having someone else drive me was a easy thing to come by. Openness to persuasion of this person didn’t appear to be possible, but perhaps for reasons more relevant to my stance than theirs.
Chapter 4: Rhetorical Activity #1 (part 1 of 3)
I assume, in this blog, that my assumptions on what Hirsh and Zinn are trying to suggest and how they related to which direction their views go, will suggests whose description I find more accurate more-so than I can say for myself.
Hirsh discusses the vaguely defined morals of Americans, where Zinn discusses the impact of the influences on Americans. Hirsh uses “our” to discuss views in ways that appear introverted in individualistic perceptions. He uses “we” in a way that suggest collective outlook extraverted onto others. “American culture” is used to represent an externalized view on the traditional views that are not effectively supportive to the way things really are; perhaps suggesting that one externalize the notion that ‘they’ are a certain way, while ‘we’ should shun such notion via the appearance of ‘us’ being practical, ingenuous, inventive, and dependent-minded. Finally, he refers to the “myths” fostered by “American culture” as “it.” And, “it” (the beliefs of history external to our collective beliefs) welcomes punishment for ones beliefs in ways that it should not.
Zinn uses “we” as he discusses the influences of American society on our thinking/choices, how we cannot escape them, and how less trouble will come our way if we accept them (‘less trouble coming’ is supported by the externalized notion that “most people” agree with them). He says these external influences are not coming from a ‘survival of the fittest’ influence, and also are not from a free-thinking society. Instead, they come from culturally collective persuasions that lean toward a safer world to live in; one that doesn’t attempt to question authority. Finally, although traditional notions set up by society are not accepted by everyone, enough people believe in them to make them highly influential on our thoughts.
Hirsh suggests liberalism in promoting a positive view of human nature in discussion of “our” and “we”, yet does not by suggesting “American culture” appears more negatively viewed. However, septicism of authority appears relevant to this “American culture” statement, perhaps suggestive toward a liberal stand.
Zinn appears to lean against skepticism toward authority, therefore lacking suggestion of being liberal. He doesn’t appear to take any personal stand toward saying things are right or wrong for the ways they are, he is just saying that ‘they are this way.’
Zinn appears to be more supportive of tradition and authority than Hirsh, therefore being more conservative than him. Hirsh appears to believe more in equality of all citizens (liberal), where Zinn appears to highlight the importance of the influences on us more than giving discussions on equality (conservatism).
Various other issues involving ones taking a liberal or conservative stand were difficult (if not impossible) for me to find even a sense of recognition as being one way over the other. Perhaps making notes on all of these could suggest how much grey area (and/or area of unclairty) influence appears present within each person’s statement.
Page 135 says that the two dominant parties in America, Democrats and Republicans, no longer represent liberal and conservative roles. Democrats are more in the middle, and Republicans are more to the right of conservatism rather than conservatism-based. I assume that this exercise suggests two dominant views being taken into account for this comparison, and that Zinn is one while Hirsh is the other. If so, I would think that Hirsh is a Democrat (being between liberalism and conservatism), and Zinn is a Republican (being somewhere to the right of conservatism).
Page 131, just before Zinn’s description, gives us a hint in stating that his “politics are to the left of Hirsh’s.” Therefore, I cannot “justify my placement of either writer on the political spectrum.” I don’t know much about politics, and have apparently overlooked some things (and/or misinterpreted some things) suggestive to Zinn’s being more to the left of Hirsh.
Hirsh discusses the vaguely defined morals of Americans, where Zinn discusses the impact of the influences on Americans. Hirsh uses “our” to discuss views in ways that appear introverted in individualistic perceptions. He uses “we” in a way that suggest collective outlook extraverted onto others. “American culture” is used to represent an externalized view on the traditional views that are not effectively supportive to the way things really are; perhaps suggesting that one externalize the notion that ‘they’ are a certain way, while ‘we’ should shun such notion via the appearance of ‘us’ being practical, ingenuous, inventive, and dependent-minded. Finally, he refers to the “myths” fostered by “American culture” as “it.” And, “it” (the beliefs of history external to our collective beliefs) welcomes punishment for ones beliefs in ways that it should not.
Zinn uses “we” as he discusses the influences of American society on our thinking/choices, how we cannot escape them, and how less trouble will come our way if we accept them (‘less trouble coming’ is supported by the externalized notion that “most people” agree with them). He says these external influences are not coming from a ‘survival of the fittest’ influence, and also are not from a free-thinking society. Instead, they come from culturally collective persuasions that lean toward a safer world to live in; one that doesn’t attempt to question authority. Finally, although traditional notions set up by society are not accepted by everyone, enough people believe in them to make them highly influential on our thoughts.
Hirsh suggests liberalism in promoting a positive view of human nature in discussion of “our” and “we”, yet does not by suggesting “American culture” appears more negatively viewed. However, septicism of authority appears relevant to this “American culture” statement, perhaps suggestive toward a liberal stand.
Zinn appears to lean against skepticism toward authority, therefore lacking suggestion of being liberal. He doesn’t appear to take any personal stand toward saying things are right or wrong for the ways they are, he is just saying that ‘they are this way.’
Zinn appears to be more supportive of tradition and authority than Hirsh, therefore being more conservative than him. Hirsh appears to believe more in equality of all citizens (liberal), where Zinn appears to highlight the importance of the influences on us more than giving discussions on equality (conservatism).
Various other issues involving ones taking a liberal or conservative stand were difficult (if not impossible) for me to find even a sense of recognition as being one way over the other. Perhaps making notes on all of these could suggest how much grey area (and/or area of unclairty) influence appears present within each person’s statement.
Page 135 says that the two dominant parties in America, Democrats and Republicans, no longer represent liberal and conservative roles. Democrats are more in the middle, and Republicans are more to the right of conservatism rather than conservatism-based. I assume that this exercise suggests two dominant views being taken into account for this comparison, and that Zinn is one while Hirsh is the other. If so, I would think that Hirsh is a Democrat (being between liberalism and conservatism), and Zinn is a Republican (being somewhere to the right of conservatism).
Page 131, just before Zinn’s description, gives us a hint in stating that his “politics are to the left of Hirsh’s.” Therefore, I cannot “justify my placement of either writer on the political spectrum.” I don’t know much about politics, and have apparently overlooked some things (and/or misinterpreted some things) suggestive to Zinn’s being more to the left of Hirsh.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)