Political Crossfire Forums

[Suheil]

Feslin wrote: Suheil wrote: callous wrote: There are people from all ends of the political spectrum who either choose to, or fall victim of, emotional rhetoric. On the Right, you have anti-abortion activists posting pictures of aborted fetuses. Visually powerful, but factually meaningless. On the left, you have animal rights groups forcing people to look at the damage done to animals by chemical testing facilities. Or posting pictures of clubbed baby seals. Again, visually poignant, but devoid of situational content, and therefore solely meant to arouse the ire of a voter regardless of how much that voter knows about the situation.

Do you consider yourself vulnerable to emotional rhetoric? Do you use it to influence others and/or win debates that you can no otherwise verbally reason to a logical conclusion?

This is a reflective question for every mile marker on the political horizon line.

The case against the US is accumulative, they lied, they went to an illegal war without assessing consequences, they spinned the war to gain the electorate advantage and when all became in the squeeze they justified the presence, saving America face a pretext to save Iraq and Iraqis. All are hard facts, the death of 655, 000 are contested but are hard facts. Death is an emotional subject, when it is supported by hard facts of a war spinning out of control, of people suffering for no reason other than another American stupidity, and a tenacious effort to save America from another folly.

A “war crime” is minted in stone by a picture, Halabja was minted in stone, Falluja was lost in the details within the spin of fighting “terrorists” by a subjective definition and intent to hide what is ugly in war.

Great way to hijack a thread!

A "war crime" is supported by a picture; a picture does not make a war crime.

[Mr. Sunshine]

Emotional rhetoric is just a tool of communication for an audience that does not question the authority of the speaker, unless it is sincere. :lol:

[greeneye]

callous wrote: There are people from all ends of the political spectrum who either choose to, or fall victim of, emotional rhetoric. On the Right, you have anti-abortion activists posting pictures of aborted fetuses. Visually powerful, but factually meaningless.

Well not too meaningless because it's saving lives. A picture [in video format] of live fetus/babies, with moving fingers and toes and a beating heart moving around in the womb of mothers shown to women who choose to see it who were planning to abort has saved many babies from being aborted.

A picture is worth a thousand words (logical and/or reasonable words) and advertisers and the media know it.

[indieinmich]

Can I vote twice?
I am effected emotionally by emotional rhetoric.Its hard not to be.But I do realize that you cant make choices based solely on emotion.I certainly do try to see past the bull to the facts of a matter though.But I also cant stand it when people try to influence my decisions using this sort of manipulation.

[callous]

greeneye wrote: callous wrote: There are people from all ends of the political spectrum who either choose to, or fall victim of, emotional rhetoric. On the Right, you have anti-abortion activists posting pictures of aborted fetuses. Visually powerful, but factually meaningless.

Well not too meaningless because it's saving lives. A picture [in video format] of live fetus/babies, with moving fingers and toes and a beating heart moving around in the womb of mothers shown to women who choose to see it who were planning to abort has saved many babies from being aborted.

A picture is worth a thousand words (logical and/or reasonable words) and advertisers and the media know it.

This thread really doesn't need a plug for the limitation of womens rights. This is a bipartisan look at how images offer fake political educations through baseless opinions.

Go to the abortion forum and spew that bulls**t, not here.

[NAB]

Good topic.

I believe it's been said, but a well written point always effects me much more than any attached image or video. At least when someone writes a point that's their own I feel like I'm getting a look into their psyche, rather than them relying on someone else's work to make their point. It's more personal and poignant in my opinion, and will make me more willing to understand their point of view.

[EugenicHegemony]

bla bla wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: bla bla wrote: Pictures have a role, they always will.
Using images out of context, or simply for dramatic effect, is just a tactic. I've done it when showing empirical evidence of the use of white phosphorous. It Never phased jingoists at all.

Remember well that statement you made above, because I'm sure we'll be seeing lots of visual nonsense of 9-11 when it comes time for elections.

WTF are you talking about? Get a tutor.

[callous]

indieinmich wrote: Can I vote twice?
I am effected emotionally by emotional rhetoric.Its hard not to be.But I do realize that you cant make choices based solely on emotion.I certainly do try to see past the bull to the facts of a matter though.But I also cant stand it when people try to influence my decisions using this sort of manipulation.

Thats a good response, I didn't know how to make the poll a multiple choice although I've seen a few of them.

I too can be initially fired up by something I see, and then sheepish and irritated later on when I discover how I've been manipulated. Its part of being human.

What I don't have any respect for is the tendancy to get pissed off because of a picture, and then not give any effort towards understanding the backround issue(s).

[callous]

bla bla wrote: Pictures have a role, they always will.
Using images out of context, or simply for dramatic effect, is just a tactic.

Problem is, its a tactic that works extremely well on people who don't have the will power to decide things for themselves.

[cool_chick]

Weighs zero

[bla bla]

callous wrote: bla bla wrote: Pictures have a role, they always will.
Using images out of context, or simply for dramatic effect, is just a tactic.

Problem is, its a tactic that works extremely well on people who don't have the will power to decide things for themselves.

I agree.

[bla bla]

EugenicHegemony wrote: bla bla wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: bla bla wrote: Pictures have a role, they always will.
Using images out of context, or simply for dramatic effect, is just a tactic. I've done it when showing empirical evidence of the use of white phosphorous. It Never phased jingoists at all.

Remember well that statement you made above, because I'm sure we'll be seeing lots of visual nonsense of 9-11 when it comes time for elections.

WTF are you talking about? Get a tutor.

No tutor is going to explain why I need to defend other people coopting
9/11 images for political purposes.

[Lumina]

None of the poll options fit my views. I'm not fooled by emotional rhetoric, nor do I have a strong dislike for those who employ it. Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. The images of Hussein's genocide of the Kurds have stayed with me ever since. And there's a difference between pathos and bathos and also between legitimate use of pathos and its use merely to manipulate and exploit.

[callous]

Lumina wrote: None of the poll options fit my views. I'm not fooled by emotional rhetoric, nor do I have a strong dislike for those who employ it. Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. The images of Hussein's genocide of the Kurds have stayed with me ever since. And there's a difference between pathos and bathos and also between legitimate use of pathos and its use merely to manipulate and exploit.

So you believe photos of dead bodies makes you justified in deciding what exactly happened?

[EugenicHegemony]

bla bla wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: bla bla wrote: EugenicHegemony wrote: bla bla wrote: Pictures have a role, they always will.
Using images out of context, or simply for dramatic effect, is just a tactic. I've done it when showing empirical evidence of the use of white phosphorous. It Never phased jingoists at all.

Remember well that statement you made above, because I'm sure we'll be seeing lots of visual nonsense of 9-11 when it comes time for elections.

WTF are you talking about? Get a tutor.

No tutor is going to explain why I need to defend other people coopting
9/11 images for political purposes. Why'd you ask "WTF are you talking about" then?

[Lumina]

callous wrote: Lumina wrote: None of the poll options fit my views. I'm not fooled by emotional rhetoric, nor do I have a strong dislike for those who employ it. Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. The images of Hussein's genocide of the Kurds have stayed with me ever since. And there's a difference between pathos and bathos and also between legitimate use of pathos and its use merely to manipulate and exploit.

So you believe photos of dead bodies makes you justified in deciding what exactly happened?

In the case of what Hussein did to the Kurds, the photos of the dead parents with their dead children in their arms doesn't need textual translation.

[callous]

Lumina wrote: callous wrote: Lumina wrote: None of the poll options fit my views. I'm not fooled by emotional rhetoric, nor do I have a strong dislike for those who employ it. Sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. The images of Hussein's genocide of the Kurds have stayed with me ever since. And there's a difference between pathos and bathos and also between legitimate use of pathos and its use merely to manipulate and exploit.

So you believe photos of dead bodies makes you justified in deciding what exactly happened?

In the case of what Hussein did to the Kurds, the photos of the dead parents with their dead children in their arms doesn't need textual translation.

And you can say for certain exactly what happened because of viewing the photo?

See, you took the time to type "dead parents with their dead children in their arms" because the concept of the isolated visual hit you like a ton of bricks.

How can you say for certain that reality has anything to do with what the image conjures in your mind?

[anselfir]

I see emotional rhetoric merely as statements from the particular speaker, although I will not discount any empirical evidence being presented.

[callous]

anselfir wrote: I see emotional rhetoric merely as statements from the particular speaker, although I will not discount any empirical evidence being presented.

Meaning you isolate an individuals statements and don't assume any of what they say is real until you see evidence backing it up?