Week Review

After the readings this week, I definitely know the difference between rhetoric and an argument. I was always aware the was a fine line between the two, but now I know that rhetoric is the secret behind debate, which settles an argument to a common ground.

I'm still not sure what discourse community is and how it's applicable to the textual perspective.

A document in the workplace

In order to capture the "moment of continuous process of communication" in one document, a professional writer needs to know how to be able to write from a social perspective. In order to do this effectively, the writer should know how to "view written texts as communicative chains." This means to fully understand the relationships between the different positions of people on a job with the written work they perform and how to portray this information all to the same audience. Using the bank supervisor example from Faigley's text, a writer needs to understand the bank supervisor's job, the tasks of his staff, and how communications within the two are understood. With understanding all that is involved in a work environment, including the jobs, tasks and assignments required of each individual, the writer should be able to record a document that is eligible and understandable to anyone that needs to know this information.

rhetoric

Rhetoric is a conversation/discussion presenting both sides (or more) of a topic. It is understanding your opponent's viewpoint and then stating your own and possibly coming to an agreement, settlement or commonplace of some sort. Rhetoric is not ignoring your opponent's view and only re-stating yours multiple times in hopes that they will finally see the light. It's more of an act of persuasion. If you want things to go your way rhetoric will help convince the other side that your side is better or that there is a better middle ground where you both can enjoy. Rhetoric is the key of debating, however, recently, debating is putting down the opponent and telling them they are completely wrong and only your way is right. Debate is more thatrical in teh sense that there are scripted texts and they know what the answers will generally be.

ARCS, pp. 29-30, Activities 2 and 4

#2
The first example that came to mind of an argument-that's-not-really-argument are the recent campaign ads for John McCain. The ones that attack Obama for being a "socialite" or trying to be a "celebrity". There are also ads that put down the ideas/resolutions Obama has for global warming and energy conservation. These ads come across as childish and dumb because McCain invades your television for an entire 30 seconds, immaturely bashing Obama instead of providing the audience with insight of his own plans and ideas. The ads would be more convincing and effective if McCain would state (1) what his opponent plans to do if president, (2) explain why they would be ineffective, and (3) entail his propositions of what he plans to do with our country. Many people I know who were John McCain supporters have recently expressed their annoyance with these ads and are now considering to vote for Obama. If McCain paid attention to the American society, he would know that we are obsessed with celebrities therefore, glorifying Obama as one has pretty much sold some votes!
Another example, are the talk shows that host debatable topics, like The View and Oprah. Similar to what the book was referencing with the show Crossfire, these shows are more interested in relaying their own opinions on a debatable matter, such as politics or international relations, than they are having a rhetoric conversation with their guests. They would rather hear the applause from their studio audience than their guest's professional opinion on the matter. Even the men on Sports Center don't have anything meaningful to argue about, yet they still debate over every play, team, and player that they can--in a shouting matter of course. The entire show is multiple men shouting over one another at the same time.


#4
I've changed my mind on many things from politics to what kind of soda I drink. With commercial products, I'm easily influenced. I remember the day I switched from Coke to Pepsi. It was when I saw the Britney Spears commercial for the first time. I was a huge fan and the commercial rocked in every way possible, so I was sold. Commercial products will sell me whether it's using a celebrity, a catchy song, a funny commercial or exciting packaging. However, with larger issues, like global warming, voting, and health hazards I think I need to be a little scared. People wont stop smoking or eating trans fats unless a public scare, like incurable health hazards were surfaced. For something to be persuaded on a community it needs to be close to home; it needs to appeal to their interest. Most people want to live a long, healthy life so by publicizing the issue, like writing warnings on labels, publishing articles about losing weight the healthy way in magazines, or even having a beloved actor die of something common, like lung cancer, in a movie will raise awareness and hit close to home with the commonness of the public. In the book, the article about Stacey Lee-Dobek is a perfect example of how publicizing awareness for a global disaster in a movie affected a community member so much that she went and did something about it.
Unfortunately, the only reason I can think of some one being persuade into becoming a racist is if they are brainwashed by some one even more feeble-minded than they are. In this day and age it's pure ignorance to literally hate some one for their race.

Why did Jack Selzer want to study the composing processes of an engineer?
To find out how engineers go about writing their information; how they plan, manage and write their information. Students being taught how to write "technically" were not being educated in the correct way for fields such as engineering.

What did you find interesting about his answers to this question? How did Selzer convince you he was correct?
Nelson does little revising and his secretary only makes minor corrections when she proof-reads it. He spends the majority of his time "inventing" to cater to his audience's needs. He also reuses documents and all of his documents had stylist rules.