Just because you say you are something, or have experienced it does not make you an expert. I know that I personally get frustrated with people who use this expected authority to try to make certain things go their way. The book uses the example “Well, I’m a Catholic and so I ought to know that Catholic position on abortion.” When people make statements like this, is usually makes them look ignorant.
This is not the case 100 percent of the time, however. If the pope were to say this, I would be much more willing to accept it as the truth. He has earned his authority and his word is much more believable than a 15 year old who just wants to seem intelligent. Arguments like these have to have a good amount of kairos and come from the right person to be believable. I, personally, do not put too much weight on arguments based off a person's experiences unless the person is a trustworthy source that has proven them self repeatedly.
Most of the time shallow arguments made by people that do not know what they are talking about are easily refuted. A little bit of evidence, opposite of what they are arguing usually is enough to quiet them.
5 comments:
What you might ask people who state things like that is, "Do you know what the Roman Catholic authority has to say about abortion?"
I think challenging authority most always makes those trying to assert it reevaluate their positions of power. Personally, I have a know-it-all brother who tries to literally win every argument we're in. He'll claim false ethos, and literally the only way to break his "personal" contact with the information is to look it up and prove him wrong.
I think that those who want to claim things to assert their opinions mostly just don't want to argue about them because their position is weak overall. Ask a few questions and observe their reactions next time, Hillary.
I agree with what you are saying here. Usually those who try to have shallow arguments are easily defeated because they have no credibility and they have no idea what they are talking about.
I know (and you do too actually) quite a lot of people that are followers. They choose a side based on what their religion is or what other people believe. These people are easily defeated when you argue with them because there is nothing that they can use as support.
"Because I said so" does not cut it! You pinned the issue down, good job. One must use a mixture of the three appeals to successful. Past failures has taught me this lesson well. We should all strive to use intrinsic as well as extrinsic proofs when making a claim. finding well rounded information is an optimal choice for rhetoricians.
The sad truth is that popular culture promotes irrational behavior and chaos in communication. Just look at television! It is impossible to ignore drama, a leading force that drives television content, and its role in T.V.
Emphasizing traits that ultimately destroys the art of communication is a bad idea and even dangerous. Generations are being exposed to a lot of information everyday, and it is up to them to make an opinion about the world they live in. We need to instill good quality traits to the people that come after us. Today, We are failing our responsibility to better the world around us. We continue with, like you said, "shallow arguments made by people that do not know what they are talking about".
Uh, Josh...I am Hillary...and you were commenting on Hannah's blog. Anyway,
Claiming false ethos is what I do all the time to win arguments. It is the easiest way to get people to shut up and re-evaluate who exactly they are talking to. I may know less than they know about the subject, but no one wants to offend authority.
Post a Comment