Blog 7

In ARCS, ch. 7 says that "of all the ancient kinds of rhetorical proofs, the appeal to the emotions seems strangest to contemporary rhetors, and perhaps a bit shoddy as well."  The chapter continues on to discuss how emotions are important and on how pathetic proof can be very effective, but this first quote was very interesting to me as well as the examples at the end to demonstrate how important pejorative and honorific language is in establishing pathos.  I feel that pathetic proof is the most effective rhetorical device you can use.  Advertisers and the media clearly know this based on the ads and media we are exposed to every day.  While I definitely think that pathos is what drives people to agree or disagree strongly with your argument, I feel that in the ads for politicians in Washington right now are an example about how relying on only pathos can only get you so far.  I've seen ads for both Dino Rossi and Patty Murray that are entirely trash talking the other candidate and the only thing these ads do is make me want the election to be over.  I feel like the ads surrounding the initiatives also on the ballot are a much better example of a successful political ad.  For example, one ad against the privatization of liquor sales initiative shows a police officer discussing why he thinks the initiative is wrong.  First of all, a police officer is seen to the public as a (relatively) trustworthy source, and second of all the ad doesn't attack the opponent but instead just states their opinion which is much more effective than stating what the opposing party has done wrong.  I feel like Dino Rossi's ads would be much more effective if he focused on what he would do differently and not just what his opponent was doing wrong.  Ads that bring no new information to the table only rely on pathos and while I still believe pathos is essential to any successful argument, it has to be used properly in order to be effective.  These political ads are probably part of the reason appeal to pathos is sometimes viewed as shoddy because when used incorrectly it causes a red herring like effect leading the audience away from whatever the real issue was in the first place.