Infomercials Unmasked

Its Sunday morning and you wake up at six a.m for whatever reason and made the mistake of turning on the T.V. Prepare to face the consequences. The commercial above comes on and since there is nothing else on, you are immediately entangled by the images of firm behinds and happy people. First you are apathetic toward the pajama pants but as the commercial goes on you start thinking: "Hey maybe these aren't so bad!". When thoughts about how you can wear these on your next trip to the grocery store and be comfortable as you put the groceries away creep in, stop. Just stop and really think.

You should first notice the disconnection in this seemingly perfect commercial. The persuader is saying that you can use pajama pants for the situations presented and be happy about it. What about what you want? Do you really want to wear some tacky looking pants out in public while your children are near by? You might be comfortable but the commercial fails to show that you really cant wear these state of the art pants for everything.

Then there is the state of character of that feminine voice from the heavens that is just too happy. No one sounds that happy when they talk about pajamas and jeans. Here, this woman is temporarily that virtuous being that is teaching us all there is to know about pajama jeans and how they benefit you. There is a choice being presented and she cares about you picking these pajama jeans over just regular sweat pants, which lets face it, are better than all the pajama jeans in the world. Last, there is the mean. Are pajama jeans too extreme or not extreme enough for you? The situations being given make it seems simple but if you really sit down and think: would you even wear these out in public and risk someone feeling the texture and ratting you out?


I do give props to them in their phronesis or practical wisdom. This persuader makes it clear that these pants fit all sizes. By doing this, the advice is matched with the particular circumstance and might make pajama pants a little bit more appealing to you. Right after this, the comparable experience is put into play. In this commercial its the different situations in which you could wear your pajama pants, that could ultimately make you picture yourself going through that experience.

All in all, I don't believe anyone would get a sudden urge to buy these pajama pants after they really analyze the situation. Its all a sham to get your money and make the world tackier. So know what to look for and oppose a tackier world!

Those Old Shows

Logical fallacies are put into a different category than the rest. Heinrichs does this on purpose in Thank You For Arguing, by explaining it in chapter fifteen. The name of the fallacy discussed is the fallacy of power which is the fallacy that assumes that the person in charge is always right. With this fallacy Heinrichs explains that "there are no right or wrong decisions in an argument , there is only likely and unlikely. (pg 157)".

So if there is no right or wrong, could an argument go on forever? It is important to note that one should never block the argument. An argument wants to reach a conclusion, a satisfactory conclusion that leaves both sides knowing they gave it their rhetorical all. Whenever an argument is "blocked" it is called a foul. I think of this foul like the foul ball in baseball. The pitcher and the batter are both ready, each with their own set of skills ready to show it off to the world. The pitcher and the batter can both commit fouls if you think about it. the pitcher can manipulate the ball so that the batter can't hit it, therefore ending the "argument" or baseball play. The batter can hit a foul ball and that can also put an end to the bas argument (see what I did there?).

The golden rule learned in this chapter is: Never argue the inarguable. All parts of the argument must remain on task and using real persuasion. To do this, no fouls must be done. Still, even the author admits that in the rhetoric world, there are very little rules. The success of the argument depends on those taking part in it.

Discussing the fouls that can be commented, humiliation is one of them. Humiliation is a foul because all it seeks is to gain the upper hand or just ridicule the victim. Does not really go with playing fair. Within humiliation there is innuendo. Remember all those old T.V shows we watched when we were little? Well, whether they were Disney or Nickelodeon, some of them had sue funky innuendos. We didn't catch on to most of them because we aren't the geniuses we are today. For example in the Flinstones there is a perverted joke that I would have never gotten when I was six and glued to my T.V watching the characters. This right here is a pretty um interesting innuendo.

Tyra, Paco, and Logos

Chapter thirteen of Thank You For Arguing, brings the reader back to logos. There are different ways to use logos to make your argument stronger and appeal more to the audience. The author says that by being comfortable with the logic you are going to employ in your argument, and not afraid of letting the audience into it. In a sense you are Tyra Banks when in comes to logic, not scared of completely making a complete fool of yourself because your logic is powerful and others embrace it.

Tyra Banks is not the best example for this but its more a personification of the situation. When she tells the upcoming models in Americas Next Top Model  how they should do things, she goes all out. Why? her logos lies in years of experience in the modeling world and the fact that she knows what she is doing. So what happens next? Tyra shows the models (and national television) how her logos applies to the situation. If the question was about hair flipping, Tyra doesn't just hair flip, she hair swats to prove her point. 

Logos is about having confidence in what you know and not being intimidated by the audience. With deductive logic you apply a general idea to something more specific. this logic is connected with enthymemes. An enthymeme puts a commonplace and a conclusion together. Almost all the ads we are exposed to have this kind of logic because it supports a choice. For example lets take my favorite commercial One Million by Paco Rabanne. Basically the premise or commonplace is that everyone wants something they don't have and want it fast. Then the more specific case is that by wearing this cologne you can achieve anything you want by snapping your fingers. 

The next logos strategy is inductive logic. This is the opposite to deductive logic. You go from the specific and apply it to the general. Here you are not basing your argument on an already existing belief but you are creating one. This kind of logic comes with three kinds of examples you can use to  make your inductive logic stronger: fact, comparison, or story. Saying facts just means you say common things that highlight your point to the audience. if you are talking about how badly you want new shoes, you talk about how they help your knees, are aerodynamic, and can help you get a date. You don't say random facts about the contents in a Maruchan cup. Then comes comparison which is kind of like facts but saying a pro and a con and how that con makes you better. The last example is a story, whether it is fiction, non fit ion, a joke, or something from the media, you can use it in inductive logic. 

Please Don´t Kill Me For Referencing Bad Literature

I am about to give an annoying example. In Twilight there is a character that controls how the people around him feel. Why do I mention this guy? In chapter nine of thank you for arguing, the main idea is pathos and how important it is to have a sympathetic feeling between the speaker and the audience.

With the power of pathos, the judgment of the audience can be affected. Aristotle believed that emotion came from beliefs and combined the emotional with the rational together.

The author then continues that emotion actually comes from experience and expectation. If we go back to Jasper, his mood controlling abilities were usually more useful when the characters were going through a hectic experience. His ability of controlling the mood eased his audience.

The key is to give the audience the sensation of an experience so you can arouse more emotion.

The best way to do this is by telling a story. Make the story detailed and vivid so that the audience "will think it could happen again." ( Pg 81) Details can be powerful when you want to make someone feel a certain way. This week for example, I've been trying to get my parents to feel bad about making me take the Saber courses. Each day I tell them every detail about how I sit in a chair being taught by some really boring people and describing ever single homework that I have to get done.

Its important not to let your emotions take over, though. Gradually use pathos in your argument and really keep it in check at the beginning when you are just exposing your points. You could use humor since it is a good way to give credit to your ethos and makes for a good way to tap into your audiences emotions. Aside from humor, patriotism, emulation, and anger are also great ways to work your pathos. 

Act Out That Rhetoric

Acting is essential in anyone attempting to give a good speech. Acting has to do with the whole idea of seeming vs being, since you seem to be something but really you are just acting. The character you personify when you give a speech is who you think will appeal more to the audience. Selflessness and likability are combined in the third ethos asset. This asset is full of tricks that need a little bit of acting from the speakers part. The tricks discussed in this chapter have to be believable to the audience therefore the one using them, has to be crafty on how they go about getting the listeners to agree.

 The first role in this ethos "play" is the interested uninterested. You have to "sound as if you reached your opinion only after confronting overwhelming evidence." (Pg 73) to fully assume this role, you must seem completely unattributed by what you do want. That way it will be in what you are saying and seem more appealing to the listener. Along with this role, you must act as if what you want doesn't benefit you. It pains you to be saying it. Remember Lizzie Mcguiere's little brother? He was a master at this technique as you can see in this video in minute four. 

 The next role you must assume is to make it seem like you are not assuming a role. In the eyes of the audience you are who is giving the speech. The book calls this dubitatio. When you assume this role, you use your acting skills to "seem to be in doubt about what to say" (pg 75). Ease into your character rather than starting strong from the beginning. Just always keep in mind to be in character so that your audience doesn't notice the real seeming vs being complex that hides behind every speech.  

 An actor could go a long way in this business  They would achieve fame fortune and power by acting a role. Ethos is all about seeming versus being. Makes me think of the governator and how his acting chops got him there...

LMFAO Knows Their Rhetoric

LMFAO talks about working out and rocking a sexy body. If you think about it, they are trying to persuade us of this fact. They pose situations in which they highlight their um attributes so that the audience begins to believe it. Did you honestly think they were good looking before you knew why? LMFAO played us. They wanted the world to know they were sexy and they have achieved it. Dany Glover used to be sexy right? When did fully exposing the reasons you are good looking become so open and believable to some?

LMFAO must have used techniques from this book to brainwash us. In their song, LMFAO don't base the topic around why its good for them to be sexy and know it, but rather why it is a privilege for the audience to know it. By singing the "argument on what's good for the audience" (pg 98) they make us believe that they really are a gift to the world. Not to mention the never ending repeat of "look at that body" and "I work out". By using this technique of babbling what they really are doing is creating a commonplace. This is the jumping of point of their argument since when have we not stopped and stared at someone or know what it is to work out. By creating these situations, the listener relates to what LMFAO is saying. Can anyone oppose exercising  without seeming lazy? No! Here is where the common place label comes in and makes anyone who doesn't agree seem like an outsider.

This song has connotations. Some of them not appropriate for a school assigment blog. The song doesn't accept the terms used in every day life and changes them. When they sing the wiggle part, it could have been shake it. They added their own term to make it more appealing and in favor of the popularity of their song. Also, "Wiggle wiggle" could be that group called The Wiggles. LMFAO uses its own redefinition for wiggle to mean epic movement of the hips. 

LMFAO are also clear users of framing techniques. Their choice of words are common place words that let anyone relate and favors the catchyness of their song. They offer different contexts in which the audience can find themselves so that it is in its broadest context. Next thing you know, this song is sounding more appealing at the gym or the beach. By using future tense in some parts of the song, they highlight that no matter what situation or problem, their sexyness will get them through it so that the audience doesn't panic.

*very exagerated blog post to explain rhetoric. Some thoughts written not according to what the author truly believes.

Do The Hamlet

The audience is always right. For all intents and purposes this is an important idea if you are trying to persuade someone. In chapter six of Thank You For Arguing, ethos is explained more in depth. The chapter discusses the importance of seeming a certain way towards your audience. The goal is to convince the audience of something whether its approving your plan or voting for you, so play the part the audience expects you to play.

In a sense this chapter reminds me of Hamlet because the whole dilemma of that play was seeming versus being. No one is saying you have to pretend to be crazy or be crazy to capture your audience. Each group has its own set of values. If you uphold or seem to uphold that groups values, you got it in the bag. The book describes someone who upholds the values of a group as "rhetorically virtuous" (pg 57). Ideas can vary from group to group and it is important that you understand the values important to the group you are speaking to. You have to match the beliefs of your audience so that they are receptive to what you are saying and therefore, attracted to your ethos.

Ethos is also affected by bragging or letting someone else do the bragging for you. Going back to Hamlet, it is kind of like him acting crazy. Sure he could act as bizarre as he could, but it was people spreading the word of his madness that sped up the process of... more craziness in that play. The power about what others say about you is very important. You could brag and brag all you want but that might end up tinting your ethos rather than making you more appealing to your audience. Instead if, oh I don't know, someone let it slip that you once saved a sheep from a burning barn and more people started bragging for you, it would make you seem great at the mouths of others.

The last two tools discussed in this chapter are making a flaw noble and switching sides. By revealing " some defect that shows your dedication to the audiences values." (pg 63) they will be instantly attracted to whatever you are proposing. There are risks with this strategy since it could make you look like a suck up but if used the right way, it will be touching to those you want to persuade. The last strategy is the trickiest to pull off. When you realize that your side is going to lose and make a quick jump into the other team. Hamlet jumped from being sane to being insane to persuade others around him (sort of). The last strategy is more of a back up plan and should only be used in emergencies.

So whether you actually agree with the values in your audience, you have to make them think that you do. To sum it up, do the Hamlet.