Emotions in Rhetoric, Our Friend or Our Foe?

http://oddpad.com/exclusive-check-out-this-official-limited-edition-inside-out-screenprint/

      

If you are anything like me, when you think of emotions, you instantly think of Disney's Inside Out. That movie portrayed emotions in a way we have never imagined, as characters. These embodiments of emotions behaved similarly to commentators in The Atlantic and people who enjoy debating the ethics of embryonic stem cell research.

     I believe emotion should be used in civil discourse, as a way to connect with your audience on a personal level, alongside the facts. For instance, when something like the 'prank' at Old Dominion, it can have an emotional impact on everyone. The facts show the signs that Sigma Nu created had an effect on the community. Some people were shocked, while others were not even moved by their signs. However, the comments showed a different perspective. Everyone in the comments section of The Atlantic used pathos to guilt the reader into believing two sides. On one side, this as the norm in today's "rape culture", and on the other this is a crime that should result in the imprisonment of a fraternity. Although people who comment enjoy interjecting their opinions, it did not take away from the main message.
     In my controversial article, there is debate whether or not embryonic stem cells are the cure for all disease, or is considered the murder of innocent lives. Science is beginning to use facts to prove this research is beneficial to humanity. On the other hand, it is also considered one of the most unethical because it ties into other controversies including abortion, genetic modification, and human testing. In this field, emotions have steamrolled the logos, leading to many misconceptions about stem cell research. However, with enough logos and pathos, as well as new breakthroughs in medicine, I am confident that the science will come out on top.

Embryonic Stem Cells: Murder or the Ultimate Cure?

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/how-scientific-progress-is-changing-the-stem-cell-debate

This article from Pacific Standard Magazine discusses the recent breakthroughs in medicine involving embryonic stem cells. I found this article interesting, as it highlights the importance of utilizing embryonic stem cells to cure 'incurable' diseases. This article also discusses innovations in the discipline of cell biology, which could help end this controversy.

Leave your comments below....

http://goingconcern.com/post/aicpa-taking-your-comments-cpa-exam-now

     Nowadays, everyone wants their opinion to be heard. Some people go to their friends on twitter or Facebook to share their opinion, like me. I enjoy using social media to share stories I find interesting or extremely funny. This leads to people leaving their opinions under my article, in the form of comments.
     Most comments I read on an article I have shared fall in line with my beliefs. For instance, I recently posted a satirical article about Donald Trump's campaign from The Onion. All the comments highlighted the fact this article was satirical, and poked fun at people who seem to support candidates, without listening to what they are actually saying.
     Unlike my outlet of social media, comments on public websites are much more vicious and evil-spirited. For example, the comments section on this article from The Atlantic. People voicing their opinion here were using lots of ethos, but not backing it up with factual evidence. It was more of a reaction to what happened in Old Dominion, and arguments whether this was considered 'news'. All of these comments were aimed at any reader, but were not credible. They were not attempting to prove anything, rather they were trying to get under each other's skin. One reasonable person under the pseudonym 'Blogvader' made a point that would discredit the article, "Fratboys acting stupid isn't newsworthy or shocking". Most commentators were speaking from their hearts, and could not be trusted. They could not provide any facts and therefore did not have a leg up on this article. 

How Controversial is Our Rhetoric?

     The way we present ourselves in public is important. You don't want to be the kid who can't match their clothes, or doesn't understand where to bike around campus. Those same rules apply to rhetorical situations. If you are asked how to describe yourself to an employer, you wouldn't describe yourself as a 'foxy mama' or a 'sugar daddy', rather you would be mature and cautious about how you respond. ADVICE: Don't describe yourself as that in general, people just laugh at you.
     On Monday, we were asked to create three lists of five words to place ourselves in three different situations. This was the first time I had dissected any rhetorical situations. The first situation was to describe yourself to an employer, the second situation was to describe yourself to a date, and the third situation was to describe yourself to a roommate. As a group, we found it easy to distinguish between the three situations. Words like "clean" and "friendly" gave away the roommate situation. On the other hand, words like "sexy" and "suave" gave the date away right away. Finally, words like "adaptable" and "responsible" fit the typical mold for an employer.
     In the past, I have used rhetorical skills to persuade others there was no correlation. Over the summer, I worked in a research lab. We were looking at stroke patients and preventing falls, something that happens way to often. My job was to look for a correlation between MRI scans and fall values. After diligently looking through the data, I found nothing. However, I had to truly convince a room full of people that there was no correlation. Just stating to a group of research scientists "Oh I can't find a correlation, so all that work is useless" is never acceptable. I had to use rhetoric like "inconclusive", "nonexistent", and "insignificant" to properly persuade this group. In the end, I was successful in being the bearer of bad news.