skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Week 8, Chapter 21
I agree with Aristotle's three Rhetoric qualities that build high source in credibility. I would rather listen to a credible speaker than a non credible speaker, even if I did not agree completely with the credible speaker. The three qualities are intelligence, character, and goodwill. I think that the book was right on track when they mentioned Martin Luther King. Though I was not alive when he was, I have heard his speeches and have seen how he changed and moved his audience, which resulted with a change in history. The book says that MLK had "competence (intelligence), trustworthiness (character), and care (goodwill)" p. 283. I think there are other people in society that have those credible qualities too. Even though views are different, I can say that most Republicans think that McCain is a high source in credibility because of his military intelligence, "maverick" character (lol) and goodwill for his country. Most democrats and liberals believe that Obama has those same qualities but in different ways. Obama shows a lot of intelligence in his speaking and knowledge, healthy character and care for the people of his country. I'm sure there are many Republicans and Democrats who think that their opposing candidates are not a credible source. Just like others thought that MLK wasn't a credible source. But as long as their audience and listeners think that they have those qualities, they are considered a credible source.
1 comment:
People identify with different candidates for the reasons outlined in all three of Aristotle's proofs. People need to understand what the candidate is saying and be able to follow their reasoning--in other words, it needs to make sense (logos). Goodwill & virtuous character (ethos) aren't necessarily an issue (unless your Bush!), but people's perception of the candidate's intelligence is a big one--does this guy agree/believe with the same things I agree/believe in? And lastly, does he speech touch me emotionally? If you notice, each candidate tells their own sad/hopeful stories hoping to strike a chord with their voters (a lot of them are kind of corny--on both sides).
I don't know where this fits in, but a big voting factor is each candidates approach to solving our country's problems regarding the war and the failing economy. McCain was quoted saying "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." So, that's a no on economy. Although McCain clearly beat Obama on military experience, if take a look at his foreign policy views--he's concentrated on winning by any means--no matter how much it costs; and his plan... well, he hasn't come up with one yet.. so that's a no on foreign policy/war.
And I totally agree, McCain and his crazy (I really do mean crazy) sidekick Palin need to give the term "maverick" a rest! What the heck does that mean anyway?? =)
Post a Comment