How often do we think something intelligent is going to flow from our mouths, only to find that you didn't choose your words correctly and are suddenly sounding ignorant? This seems to happen to me a lot, it sounds great in my head, but neglecting to think through my word choice, I either sound dumb or say somethign completely unintentional and offensive.
The example referencing affirmative action especially strikes home. As an opponent to racial regard in the admissions process, I often argue (or fight, which, Heinrich's would advise against) this issue. However, the "liberal" statement he used is something an uniformed liberal would say and is actually no real argument, nor is my saying fear that the greek system could be ruined, a large part in university tradition.
- Heinrich instead urges to not present a problem, but rather a reasoning.
The discussion of the slippery slope was more than amusing to me. It reminds me of our discussions of globalization and the domino effect we often end up illustrating through our cause-effect reasoning.
- If we cut eliminate sweatshops (reasonable thing), prices will rise significantly (horrible thing). Even though this may bring more jobs to the American job market, we still find this horrifying.
I actually love the classic "If I let you skip dinner, then I'll have to let the other kids skip dinner" slippery slope example. I have heard this many a times, and listening as a child it doesn't quite make sense, but it is much better than the domineering "because I said so" or "because we're your parents" response. Although it doesn't cause parents to let other kids skip dinner as they argue, it does give kids another fight to pick with a back-up clause. When arguing with one more naive, the slippery slope seems to be an effective tool.
This deadly sin seems most applicable to rhetoric. A great idea loses all greatness if expanded upon with worthless evidence, as in our midterm papers.
No comments:
Post a Comment