In the Logos chapter, one of the concepts discussed is the idea of rhetorical examples and historical examples and how effective they can be when used to make an argument. To prove that point, the text brings up how that if you wanted to oppose the Iraq war, you could invoke memories of what happened in the Vietnam war by demonstrating similarities the two wars might have (obviously a historical example). Once you make valid comparisons of the two you can use the sentiment that people have of the Vietnam war to agree with you on your point about the Iraq war. Click the link below and watch the video!
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/2006/11/21/hardball-vietnam-iraq-comparison/
*you have to click the video for it to play*
Did the clip do a successful job in establishing similarities through comparison of the two wars?
If it did (or didn't) why was it successful (or unsuccessful)?
What unsaid conclusions can you infer from the video?
1 comment:
awesome clip, karl. the comparison to vietnam is persuasive insomuchas david shuster points to very specific similarities between the two wars - false information, unconventional enemies, etc. still, i wonder if this comparison could backfire. that is to say, i wonder how much we remember vietnam - how much it sticks on our throats - because we LOST. could the comparison to vietnam actually persuade people that the US should attempt to "win" (whatever that means) this war at any cost?
Post a Comment