Response to Juli’s “Fair Treatment of Skateboarders”

             I absolutely love this post and agree with the argument.  It immediately caught my attention both in the book and on the blog because I am in a town that has absolutely no desire to promote the safety or fair treatment of cyclists.  The sidewalks are narrow, destroyed, or in most cases, imaginary.  It seems every day in the news a rider or skateboarder is hit by a car or truck and is sent to an area hospital with life-threatening injuries.  I ride in a town that is the same size as Norman but lacks the Oklahoma City metropolitan feel.  I visit Norman and Broken Arrow just outside of Tulsa regularly to cycle.  I do this only to suffer bent wheels, broken pedals, and several scrapes and bruises as I enjoy a ride with my family and friends.  I haven’t been hit by a car yet but I have had some scary moments.

            I support the fair treatment of anyone or any group who, in these economic times, promotes and practices safe fitness and family recreation.  Langley’s argument for fair treatment of skateboarders works here at home, in Broken Arrow, and in Norman the same.  It is a shame that with all the recent focus on obesity, diabetes, and heart disease an argument hasn’t surfaced and gained traction in suburban America to mandate that the infrastructure be changed to support a healthy lifestyle through cycling, skateboarding, or roller-blading.  My hat is tipped to Juli for highlighting of the need for change in her community and associating that need with an argument from the course book (Ramage 141-43).

           

Work Cited

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean and June Johnson. Writing Arguments:  A Rhetoric with Readings.  8^th Edition.  New York:  Longman, 2010. Print.

Kairos

             The concept of kairos, or suggestion that arguments should be made at “an opportune time,” is best described in the text of chapter six as “sensing the opportune [argument] time through psychological attentiveness to situation and meaning.” The practice of kairos, as I understand it, is best done through timing and paying particular attention to the news and events surrounding and shaping the details of the argument.  The chapter sets the tone of understanding by noting that “kairos concerns a whole range of questions connected to the timing, fitness, appropriateness and proportions of a message within an evolving rhetorical context (Ramage 116-19).”

            Recently I did some rather rigorous research to find a new laptop.  I concluded this research with a budget in mind, a very specific set of required features listed, and a short list of only two brands targeted.  As I reflect upon the situation that I found while shopping and eventually purchasing the laptop that I am currently using at home, I remember some interesting argument details and moments of kairos and the lack thereof.  The salesperson at the first store keyed in on and found the unit that met or exceeded my required specifications and laid out price point but did this at a very inopportune time.  This poor timing became obvious to him when I laid out the internet prices from the store website for the models that he had discussed and I then highlighted the significant lower prices online.  Upon leaving that store frustrated and empty-handed I visited another store where I found a salesperson I will refer to as Mr. Kairos.  He didn’t push, pull, or drag me anywhere but rather gathered information from me and steered me to a unit that specifically met my needs.  This happened to be the same unit that was targeted at the first store. When asked about price he offered the best that he could do and asked if I had searched online for the same model at the competitor’s sites.  I admitted that I did online shop and found this model elsewhere for the same price that he offered but with a small added bonus.  He, just-in-time, informed me that the company with the same price and small added bonus has decided to quit business due to financial woes but hasn’t yet offered this information to the public.  He then offered a similar added bonus and proof of the competitor’s bad news that I had requested.  He also made it clear that I could probably wait and find the unit cheaper at the competitor’s store but may not have access to support or warranty with it.  The timing of his argument sold me.

            I admit this is a rather clouded representation of kairos in argument mainly because I am a poor story-teller.  In my mind the kairos in arguments is obvious.  With internet, technology, and time-stamping on nearly everything around, timing is available and is critical.  Rebuttal and challenge in argument is definitely driven on kairos because news and timing is so widely accessible around the world today.  Kairos is important and definitely adds the extra dimension in the rhetorical triangle that stresses timing.  Timing in writing brings forward importance to the audience and therefore kairos equals importance.   

           

           

           

Work Cited

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean and June Johnson. Writing Arguments:  A Rhetoric with Readings.  8^th Edition.  New York:  Longman, 2010. Print.

Response to the Unit Two Reading Assignment

             In unit two I felt that the reading assignment contained the essential elements that are held within a rhetorical argument.  Throughout the course I have used this reading, specifically chapters four and five, as a guide.  As the course has gone on I have definitely received a greater understanding of rhetoric as a whole.  I do not yet, however, feel satisfied with my ability to analyze visual arguments such as signs, posters, or rhetorical cartoons and come away with an understanding of the writer’s argument.  With this in mind I decided to revisit chapter four’s section on examining visual evidence and framing evidence to get a better understanding and perhaps some clarification on my shortcomings. 

            Visual evidence and visual arguments, as described in chapter four, are subject to the specific “values and beliefs” of the writer and the audience.  These values and beliefs are built from the writer’s and audiences’ life experiences or, by the chapter’s description, the “particulars of our existence.”  The chapter then puts this collected value and belief set to a term; “angle of vision.” This “angle of vision” is then likened to “perspective, bias, a lens, or filter.”  I can relate to the “angle of vision” metaphors of filter and lens because I have a good understanding of photography. I understand that when you point an unfiltered camera lens at the sun the representative image is white, blown out, and distorted.  The same lens with a good light filter will produce a stunning image that portrays the sun as a cool-blue idol-like subject that can do no harm but wields infinite power.  The use of this kind of mindset and the understanding of the chapters’ examples helps me to grasp visual arguments and visual evidence better than ever (Ramage 94-97).  

            Visual evidence framing goes hand-in-hand with interpreting evidence and arguments.  Chapter four describes evidence framing as “selecting evidence from a wide field of data then framing this data through rhetorical strategies that emphasize some data, minimize other data, and guide the reader’s response.”  This description sums up evidence framing very well in my opinion.  I return to the camera lens.  When choosing a visual representation of a particular subject I am very careful to keep in mind the audience.  If I apply a subject line to an image such as “Angry Sun” then I want to supply an image, or evidence, to directly support the subject matter and persuade the audience to look at the image just as I intend.  An image of the sun through a cool-blue filter won’t support the charge of “Angry Sun” and would therefore cause the audience to doubt my argument.  This instance of framing is a simple example and is set to highlight a trait or data of the evidence and also to guide the reader’s response (Ramage 98-100).

            Chapter four yields many valuable lessons that propel rhetorical thinking forward for me. Understanding visual rhetoric and visual evidence and how to frame it is a foundation stone in the house that is the rhetorical triangle.  Ethos, logos, and pathos are the binding agent that gives strength and leverage to an argument in the eyes of the reader.  In my mind it is essential to tie visual representations of a view and visual representations of evidence to an argument in order to maintain the binding agent’s strength throughout the argument. 

           

Work Cited

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean and June Johnson. Writing Arguments:  A Rhetoric with Readings.  8^th Edition.  New York:  Longman, 2010. Print.

A Response to “A Magnanimous Proposal” by James

I was rather surprised by the reaction that I immediately felt after reading “A Magnanimous Proposal” by James.  I found myself quickly and actively searching for the latest and greatest in politically driven proposal arguments to analyze while reading many times the Webster’s definition of the Rogerian argument technique.  I know that mine isn’t a typical response to a simple post assignment like this one but I am anything but typical in my response to nearly any issue regarding politics or the political scene in the United States and my new-found love for argument analysis.  That aside, I love the description and active analysis that James provides of the key components of proposal argument and their application to honing and refining the writing skills of the brilliant untrained writer.  The further I read and review James’s post it forces me to, just as in the last reading assignment, return to the textbook and review what I thought I perceived as a true and good proposal argument.

Clearly James has a better general understanding of argument that I have but I respond to that challenge by forcing myself to know and understand rhetoric and proposal arguments better than the author who simply writes well and has a linguistic capability that easily trumps my own.  James is correct in the use of the Rogerian argument technique which does provide a common denominator that is typically lacking in formal debate and I appreciate and applaud James for employing his understanding of it.  I have a lot to learn and learn a lot each and every time I read a post from a great writer.  Reading “A Magnanimous Proposal” by James motivates me to look past some of my rhetorical shortcomings and pushes me to analyze my own writing with the same scrutiny that I use when analyzing the writing of others.

The Great Proposal Argument

I have been very fortunate to follow many great leaders throughout their time in a growing business-management driven economy.  Throughout this time I have reviewed, written, proposed, and defended thousands of arguments that have shaped my view of the management process without even realizing it.  One argument stays fresh in my mind because it comes up nearly everywhere that I visit.  The proposal and argument to work an eight hour workday instead of a ten hour workday has been on the proverbial table more often than it has been off of it.  The results of the proposal and argument always remain the same.  Eight is better than ten or twelve.

The proposal to work an eight hour workday contains the root structure that embraces the rhetorical triangle and is therefore highly effective in many different situations.  The claim is always the same; “We should work eight hours each day.”  The supporting reason undoubtedly boils down to the argument presenter’s stance on the topic.  Either the presenter is a steward of the company and cites a specific productivity reason for an eight hour workday or the presenter is a steward of the family and cites a reason to have a better quality of life incentive for the employee.  The grounds to support the claim and reason are always specifically employee oriented, productivity oriented, and climate oriented to paint a picture of stress and strain that plagues productivity after the eighth hour.  The rebuttal is always a sea of stress related to the summertime heat or wintertime cold that highlights the need to work a ten or twelve hour day.  The proposal and rebuttal is always loaded with facts, figures, and images that are typically researched and weighted toward the desired outcome just as is the same with any good argument.

The argument to work an eight hour workday not only has a direct effect on my personal quality of life but also has a direct effect on the level of participation and productivity that I see and measure from shop-floor level associates every day. It cannot be said that this or any other proposal argument has a resulting outcome that works in 100% of cases.  I think that is a very important aspect to note because some factories and work-plans simply cannot be in support of an eight hour workday due to unforeseen logistical and work-condition issues.  In the end my ultimate response to the proposal for an eight hour workday remains the same everywhere I go no matter how well the argument is presented.  I see eye-to-eye with the rebuttal arguments and consider the facts just as I am expected to do with any argument.  The proposal changes slightly in every situation but my response remains the same.  I do and will always support the eight hour workday.