posted by shelly .
can someone tell me the difference between prejudial and non-prejudial use of rhetoric?
Posted by Ms. Sue on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 9:47am.
Check these sites to help you answer your question.
(Broken Link Removed)
Posted by Ms. Sue on Monday, July 10, 2006 at 6:25pm.
Check this site.
Posted by PsyDAG on Tuesday, September 5, 2006 at 7:32pm.
Although prejudice is often defined as a negative attitude, we all have prejudices (biases) toward almost everything we consider. Differences occur in terms of how extreme our bias is and how much it influences our actions - including our language. If we are aware of our biases, we can often minimize them.
I will give you some sources dealing with influencing others, but, since rhetorical devices are not in my area of expertise, I will leave it to you to relate the material to them.
This site will give you the problems with prejudicial rhetoric.
The following comes from Answer.com
First, lets look at what the word rhetoric means.
a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
a. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.
Now, lets say, I am a staunch anti bubble gum lobbyist. In my rhetoric, I preach against bubble gum arguing (1) it causes bad teeth threw excessive sugar as well as continued pull of the teeth by the gum itself. (2) it is too noisy and disruptive when chewed by teenagers. (3) it is too messy and dangerous when chewed by younger children. They swallow it, they forget to take it out of their mouths at night and it winds up in their hair and one their clothes or bed sheets.
All bubble gum should be banned! (This is an example of prejudicial rhetoric.
A non-prejudicial use of rhetoric would be for example arguing the republican position on minimum wage increases versus the democrats position on the same subject. The republican position is that a rise in the minimum wage will be a disadvantage and burden on small business. The democrats state that it has been years since the minimum wage has risen and that low income wage earners need this rise. The truth of the matter is that there are very few jobs in the US that are paying as low as the current minimum wage.
Hope that somewhat helps with your understanding of this subject.