Lazere's terms within the Corbett/Eberly article:
To start, Lazere's definition of a primary certitude is reminiscent of the forensics team example from the Corbett/Eberly writing. When relying too much on personal opinion, a point can be muddled and not deliver on a subject wholeheartedly. Both of their articles make a case that there are aspects of rhetoric that harm the proper examination of a subject. Both of these articles believe reasoned responses are the benefactor to a developed argument and biases are the disruption. Both articles also reference diversions of reasoning, like straw man and false dilemma. Lazere's introduction to the Rogerian Argument is a concept Corbett and Eberly would support also, considering it is an unbiased attempt to understand an opponent while influencing and improving a response to the opponent. Bouie's article, "White People are Fine with Laws that Harm Blacks" may come on strong with a scare tactic esque title, the content very much relates to the idea of an unbiased reasoned response. Bouie is making a case that from the point of view of the people's opinion he is trying to influence, the use of statistics isnt working, in fact its counterproductive. Without diverting the actual content of the article, Bouie introduces a change he would like to see in his own field, but the research he showcases is also used as a tool to convince the audience to make change, not just those already trying to make change.
Comparing today and past "citizen criticism":
McDonald's article "I Agree, But..." goes hand and hand with the ideals introduced by Lazere and Corbett and Eberly. Specifically the section of McDonald's piece where he talks about the importance of discussion and understanding the opponents' counterpoints, the commonality of accepting an opponent's ideals to build on a more reasoned response can be inferred from both of today's pieces.
No comments:
Post a Comment