Response to Haley Bury week 5 questions

Question 1:
I will refer to the definition of ad hominem in Persuasion and Reasoning, pg. 95,
where it is described as “a kind of reasoning that occurs when arguments are directed against persons rather than their ideas”. At a Republican rally, when it is implied by the crowd to “kill a candidate for being a terrorist”, it can be thought to be an emotional reaction to a provocative subject at a sensitive time during the campaign trail. We, the public, chose a candidate to believe in. Therefore, when any negative implications enter into a political arena, they can personify with both emotions and ignorance. The Republicans denounce such statements, yet present and allow certain passages to get media attention in an effort to provoke thought against the competition. Although, most negative campaign hominems are based on a thread of fact, the thought does remain that they may by used against the opponent during an emotional outburst by a person of no consequence, so as to rouse the crowd, true or false in content.
Question 2:
I agree with the statement that “some argue that increased public communication has amplified public deception, confusion, interpersonal isolation and the complexity of modern life”. We are bombarded with an astounding array of ways in which we receive our information. Newspaper, talk radio, internet, You Tube, television and a huge workforce that gathers by the water coolers for a shared discussion of many different topics are just a few ways in which communication has amplified. These arenas make our thought processing more complicated and challenging. It is hard to fully know how successful an ad campaign could become without all the modern day areas of communication. Simple word of mouth, along with minimal exposure to the public via TV, newspapers or television may not produce outstanding results when promoting the “Stop Smoking” campaign, for example. We are becoming increasingly more aware by graphic pictures and stories of the effects of smoking, along with huge ad campaigns about smoking cessations remedies. These elements of persuasion are extremely effective to the crowd to whom they are directed at. I believe that money and big business do have the upper hand. Could that be regulated? – doubtful at this time in history.
Question 3:
A person or group can gain their credibility to reach their audience by identifying factors that are co-existent with their listeners. Richard Nixon presented himself as a person on equal ground with his listening audiences. He related to them with every kind of human characteristic and nature he could use. Using his upbringing, his wife, his children and even his dog, he tried to make the American public relate to him on equal terms. If they were to punish him for acting in a suspicious monetary manner for his own gainful purpose, they would, in a sense, become equally guilty of the alleged gain of campaign monies. It was, in an odd way, a dramatic and very timely “act of contrition” on Richard’s Nixon’s part, leading to an immediate repentance and resolution from the public based on their personal connection to his “Checkers” speech. Grassroots organizations follow the phases listed in Chapter Nine to build credibility and eventual support. Thorough research of the subject matter; picking a target group that best suits the topic; sensitizing to obtain an audience; recruitment of devoted volunteers and advocate groups; activation of a plan to present to the public; good follow-up and maintenance of the campaign to attain successful results and, finally, the public referendum or vote to endorse the cause. It is as though you are building the way for a new religion by gathering facts and followers. If done well, the results are often successful.

Joe's Answer to Jeremy Millsap's question's, week 4

From: CH 5 Pg. 110 & DeLuca3.

Seattle University, as a Catholic school, does not allow the distribution of condoms on campus. Our text explains that “we make choices every day about the capacities of others to render judgments on which we depend, ranging from the less consequential to life threatening.” DeLuca’s article also mentions that staged die-ins were used tactically by organizations such as ACT UP in order to oppose the lobbying against the availability of condoms in public schools as well as drive a symbolically unveiling message home to the Catholic Church.

a. Do you think that these choices, left in the hands of the church to decide, affect the credibility of Catholicism?
I don't feel that when these decisions are left in the hands of the catholic church to decide affects the cridibality of the church. The church has had relatively the same opinions on birth control for the past hundreds of years if the were to change their view now just to comform to the current views on birth control then I think their credibality would be compromised. The issue here is not the cridibility of the church but that of who should be diciding these issues.I don't think the church should be involved in issues like these in public schools. It should be completely up to the school department if they pass out condoms in their schools. There is a time and place for the church to interviene in our lives and this is not one of them.

b. Is something happening rhetorically when these traditions are adopted as family values? Why or why not?
When families adopt these values I think it is because the family and a long lasting believe and respect for the catholic church. Rhetorically a family can view the church has a higher power that is all knowing and to question there morals is not an option. Some people feel that if they go against anything that the church says they might as well not believe in any of it so this causes families to follow the traditions of thier church and pass it on to their chilrden to make sure they do the same.

c. How does being protected from sexual knowledge/information persuade us to think or feel about our own sexual behavior, and even our bodies?
I think when we are protected from sexual knowledge and information we are forced to make our own ideas about sexual behavior, which can be a dangerous thing for adolecent teens.
When I was in middle school I went to a catholic school and I don't remember learning much about sex in the class rooms but I do remember hearing stories about sex from older class mates in the boys bathroom. I know the information I got from a twelve year old was not accurate and not the best place to learn how two people have sexual intercourse. I more so learned the curse words for body parts than anything else. Me experience has convinced me that schools has the responsibility to teach their students about sex and their bodies before they learne the wrong things fron their friends.