How can you as a critical thinker tell the difference between prejudicial and non-prejudicial rhetoric?
Previous answers to this same question:
-----------------
Posted by Ms. Sue on Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 9:47am.
Check these sites to help you answer your question.
(Broken Link Removed)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
-----------------------
Posted by Ms. Sue on Monday, July 10, 2006 at 6:25pm.
Check this site.
http://www.jessanderson.org/doc/rr_lingo.html
----------------------
http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1157494639.1157499174
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.
http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/InfluenceAntecedents.html
http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/InfluenceMorePrinciples.html
http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/InfluenceStillMore.html
http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/MeanNewsMedia.html
http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/Persuasion.html
http://www.members.cox.net/dagershaw/lol/QuestionFrame.html
----------------------
Posted by GuruBlue, on Tuesday, January 16, 2007 at 9:19am
This site will give you the problems with prejudicial rhetoric.
http://epochewiki.pbwiki.com/PburghClarkFinalProposal
The following comes from Answers.com
First, let’s look at what the word rhetoric means.
rhet•o•ric (rtr-k)
n.
1.
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.
3.
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, let’s say, I am a staunch anti-bubble gum lobbyist. In my rhetoric, I preach against bubble gum arguing (1) it causes bad teeth through 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.
•
As a critical thinker, you can tell the difference between prejudicial and non-prejudicial rhetoric by evaluating the content and language used in the rhetoric. Here are steps to help you analyze and determine if rhetoric is prejudicial or not:
1. Read or listen to the rhetoric: Start by engaging with the rhetoric itself. This could be reading an article, listening to a speech, or watching a video. Take note of the arguments and the language used.
2. Identify biases and stereotypes: Look for any biases or stereotypes present in the rhetoric. Prejudicial rhetoric often relies on generalizations, assumptions, or stereotypes about a particular group of people. Pay attention to any language or statements that could perpetuate discrimination or prejudice.
3. Evaluate the evidence and reasoning: Analyze the logical coherence and evidence presented in the rhetoric. Prejudicial rhetoric tends to rely on emotional appeals and fallacies rather than sound reasoning and evidence. Look for any logical fallacies, such as ad hominem attacks or strawman arguments.
4. Consider the intent and context: Context is important in determining whether rhetoric is prejudicial or not. Consider the intentions of the speaker or writer. Are they seeking to promote understanding and dialogue, or are they trying to incite fear or division? Also, consider the broader social and historical context in which the rhetoric is being used.
5. Seek multiple perspectives: It is essential to consider different viewpoints and perspectives to gain a more comprehensive understanding. Look for alternative sources or viewpoints that provide a counterargument to the rhetoric you are analyzing. This will help you develop a more balanced and informed judgment.
By following these steps, you can critically evaluate rhetoric and discern whether it is prejudicial or non-prejudicial. Remember to approach the analysis with an open mind and consider all available information before making a judgment.