Ethos, Pathos, Logos

Blackframes.net

The Greek Philosopher Aristotle divided persuasion into three categories: Ethos; Credibility , Pathos; Emotional, Logos; Logical.  All acts of persuasion contain at least one, if not all three.  A person who produces such appeals does so to justify the light that the author wants to shed on the circumstance to the audience.  Right or Wrong. Fact laden or absent.  Deceitful or forthcoming.  None of that truly matters, for these are simply tools that are used to build the arguments that manipulate mankind.  Tools have no morality: their end product will be a reflection of the will behind them.  Joshua Holland, writer for the Smirking Chimp, attempts all three in his blog titled "5 Reason's GOP's Attack on Birth Control Screws Men."

With the title itself being logos inspired, Mr Holland delves right into his argument, offering first examples of organisms capable of asexual reproduction, to highlight the absurdity of a odd "linguistic quirk" society has about women becoming pregnant. The first paragraph is amusing and on point though after this paragraph ends is where the blog quickly devolves into more of an unsubstantiated bashing of conservative individuals then it does to actually further his argument.  He offers no real substance, other then scattered statistics, in his vain attempt to justify his "reasons." It is what is not said that undermines this whole piece. The author links to all of his statistics, yet conveniently leaves out any source to explain his denigration of character, as though anyone who reads this should take his word on the moral fiber of the individuals spoken about.  He even goes a step further then this by using blanket statements (i.e."Any red-blooded straight dude should be absolutely appalled by such a prospect" pathos), the specific to argue the general (i.e. "While there was never a more "innocent" time when people only had sex within the bounds of matrimony..." logos ), and promoting the  mindset that one member's actions is reflective of a group as a whole (i.e."that's just a cherished conservative myth" ethos).  His list of reasons can be reduced down to two, with those two being the baser humans drives to reproduce (sex) and the need for security (economic prosperity) are cornerstones on which they are built.

 While there is merit to be found in these, to present them in this way as though they are a foregone conclusion and not open for any debate is deplorable at best, and a downright mockery of any reader's intellect.   The author's ideals for society standards preaches tolerance and open-mindedness of all as long as those individuals agree with him.  Then it is ignominy for all others, and that theme is prevalent throughout ( i.e. "you should be outraged that social conservatives are trying to shame women for using birth control, and thus trying to put a crimp in your game".) The greatest tragedy is the fallacious way in which his presents the "conservatives" argument about the whole ordeal, for those whom read this may not even question the validity of any statements, since the peppering of statistics adds factual value in a paragraph and distracts the reader from questioning what they had just read.  The conservative viewpoint seems to be one of that tax money should not be spent to pay for birth-control, unless when it is deemed a medical issue, or forcing any institution or individual to cover the  expenses for someone else, hence the legislation.  The baseline argument being presented by "the right" is that of self -reliance for birth control, not the dictation of one's actions by another man's will, which the author tries to convince the readers of by taking the espousing of their community standards and construing it as an attack on every one's personal liberty. 


With that aside, a question arises of why this is now an issue.  Title X, an amendment in 1970  to the Public Health Service Act of 1944  makes available birth-control to those  "in need".  Tax money is already paying for these services, why is this not good enough? Why do certain "Liberals" feel the need to inflict their collective will on the populace?  Is it a lost concept that  ultimately with more tax money spent means increased cost for all, instead of localizing the expense to out of pocket for the people whom are not "in need"?  This may be a nothing more then a manufactured distraction, a stunt in which to capture our attention away from the real issue in which started this all, which was the Federal Government trying to force a religious institution to provide birth control. For those whom are familiar with the Sandra Fluke Ordeal with Rush Limbaugh (a great example of someone being taken out of context ), may not know these facts about her, since when one takes into perspective the motivation and character of the people involved, a different story begins to emerge. As, Emma Bull  once said "Coincidence is the word we use when we can't see the levers and pulleys."


Remember:  Big Brother is Watching