how might a person distinguish between the prejudicial and non prejudicial use of rhetorical devices? Provide an example of each
Please see the dozens of answers we've posted for this question.
http://www.jiskha.com/search/index.cgi?query=prejudicial+and+non+prejudicial+use+of+rhetorical+devices
Distinguishing between the prejudicial and non-prejudicial use of rhetorical devices involves examining the intent and effect of the language employed. Here's how you can approach this:
1. Understand the concept of prejudice: Prejudice refers to preconceived opinions or attitudes, often based on stereotypes, that can lead to unfair judgments or treatment of individuals or groups.
2. Identify the intent of the rhetoric: Consider whether the rhetorical device is being used to manipulate opinions, reinforce stereotypes, or incite bias against a particular person or group (prejudicial intent) or if it is being utilized to enhance communication, engage the audience, or support a fair and inclusive discourse (non-prejudicial intent).
3. Evaluate the effect on the audience: Assess the impact of the rhetorical device on the audience. Does it enhance understanding, encourage critical thinking, and promote empathy (non-prejudicial effect), or does it foster discrimination, reinforce bias, and generate negative attitudes (prejudicial effect)?
Examples:
1. Prejudicial use of rhetorical device (ad hominem): Ad hominem is a type of logical fallacy where an argument attacks a person instead of addressing the argument itself. An example could be, "You shouldn't trust John's opinion on this matter because he is from that country, and their people are known to be untrustworthy." Here, the speaker undermines the credibility of John based on nationality, which perpetuates stereotypes and prejudices.
2. Non-prejudicial use of rhetorical device (metaphor): Metaphor is a figure of speech that compares two unrelated concepts to enhance understanding or create vivid imagery. For example, "The new policy is a double-edged sword, cutting down on expenses but also limiting our freedom." Here, the metaphor helps the audience grasp the idea that the policy has both positive and negative aspects, without invoking prejudice or bias.
Remember, the key is to critically analyze the intent and effect of the rhetorical device, considering whether it perpetuates prejudice or supports a fair and inclusive discourse.