RHETORIC AND STEREOTYPES

Rhetoric and Stereotypes

Rhetoric and Stereotypes

Introduction

Stereotypes can be deliberate or unintentional generalization, an assignment of a positive or negative attribute or attributes to any group of people. Of the five clusters in the allotment, politicians are the ones who easily stereotype each other in their quest for a vote or influence the vote. Watch CSPAN and see first hand the analogy of rhetoric and class definitions, all sorts of rhetorical devices such as a euphemism Dysphemism, slanting, and stereotypes, including false indignation, all read in the chapters that can be seen and heard in question of minutes to see the debate in Congress.

Politicians

The stereotypes of politicians rarely used independently. It is used in a series of fallacies such as "personal attack" ad hominem that the term "democrat" rarely discussed without the word "tax and spend" is attached before and after the talk that long term. Naturally, it is used to stir emotions and biased against a problem with an adequate number of appropriate events to give legitimacy to the discussion. Depending on the seriousness of the debate and the level of frustration, most of the definitions of speech, analogies, explanations and arguments, together with partners in the real indignation or in stages. From both positions, many arguments are the arguments of tradition with the same phrases and hyperbole with a maximum of dysphemia well placed. (Moore and Parker, 2007, pp.133, 507) For Ad Hominem fallacies, but these mistakes are not deliberately used to attach claims to a group bent or persons to teach the listener with a distorted and negative view of its objective , ie who opposes them. (Moore and Parker, 2007, pp.173-179)

The most prominent stereotype attributed to politicians only because of their inclination and slander is "double standard" (p.175), which is also a component of the ad hominem fallacy and inconsistency Hominem. It is an argument that we teach our children to do, because one does something wrong, well you can do to do that too. The double standard starts when a political party loses power and becomes the minority and when the power of the new majority is accused of carrying out the same underhanded tactics, as they had promised.

The arguments about "wasteful" and "politics for electoral purposes" are excellent examples of oblique, hyperbolic, rhetorical, and designed to describe an undesirable behavior of the opposition. Of course, "wasteful" and "politics for electoral purposes" can be very subjective, such a claim (p.508), as the speaker and the agenda. The same logic of the double standards applied to them-now euphemistically is minimized and with attempts to reorient the plot of a fallacy of composition (p. 53) that what they accused the opposition was right for them because their intention was fair and "good for America", therefore no unnecessary expenses. This is also an argument for the participation of nationalism, invoking the country's welfare, with the assumption that in doing so, their argument is automatically accepted.

Tattooed People

Anything that causes a person to stand outside the accepted norms of decoration that ...