POLITICIANS, TATTOOED PEOPLE, FEMINISTS

Politicians, Tattooed People, Feminists

Politicians, Tattooed People, Feminists

Politicians

Stereotyping can be a premeditated or an unintentional generalization; an allotment of a contradictory or affirmative attribute or attributes to any assembly of people. It is a device utilised to convince others to a cause. Of the five groups in the assignment, politicians are unique that they will readily stereotype one another in their quest for a vote or to influence voting. Watch CSPAN and glimpse firsthand first class rhetorical analogy and delineations, all kinds of rhetorical devices such as dysphemism euphemism, slanting, stereotyping, even phony annoy, everything read in the assigned chapters can be seen and heard within minutes of watching assembly debate. The fallacies utilised are many and well-beaten.

Stereotyping from political leaders is seldom used independently. It is utilised inside a sequence of fallacies such as the "personal strike" publicity hominem where the period "Democrat" is seldom voiced without the period "tax & spend" is attached before and after that period is spoken. Naturally, it is used to stir currently biased strong feelings against an issue with an befitting number of befitting details to supply legitimacy to the argument. Depending on the gravity of the debate and grade of annoyance, the larger the rhetorical definitions, analogies, and explanations along with affiliated contentions from annoy genuine or staged. From either position, many contentions are contentions of custom using the identical apprehend sayings and hyperboles with maximum of well-placed dysphemia. (Moore & Parker, 2007,pp.133, 507) Turning to Ad Hominem fallacies; these errors are not but are used deliberately to attach slanted claims to a group or persons to inculcate into the listener a distorted and negative view of their target, namely, whoever opposes them. (Moore & Parker, 2007, pp.173-179)

The single most outstanding stereotype attributable to politicians as a result of their slanting and slandering is the "double-standard" (p.175) which is also a component of the Ad Hominem Fallacy and an Inconsistency Hominem. It is an contention we educate our children not to make; because one does certain thing wrong, it is alright for you do to do it too. The double-standard starts when one political party looses power and becomes the few and when the new most power is suspect of accomplishing the same underhanded methods as they had before committed.

Arguments about "wasteful expending" and "pork barrel government" are prime demonstrations of slanted, hyperbolic, rhetorical devices, conceived intended to describe an undesirable behavior of the opposition. Of course, "wasteful expending" and "pork barrel government" can be quite personal as a claim (p.508) counting on the speaker and the agenda. The identical logic of the double-standard directed to them is now downplayed and euphemized with endeavours at redirecting the argument to a fallacy of composition (p.53) in that what they suspect their opponents of was right for them to do because their intent was righteous and 'good for America", therefore not wasteful spending. This is furthermore an contention involving nationalism, invoking the well-being of the homeland with the assumption that by doing ...