Propaganda, people hear the term frequently but what does it mean? One possible definition of propaganda is a method of persuasion used by an individual or entity to bolster a certain viewpoint about a particular topic. Uses of propaganda include: distract, dismiss, or humor an audience so they do not examine other ideas and argue against the dominant viewpoint. We see propaganda in our daily lives, ranging from news articles to everyday conversations with each form of propaganda appealing to one or more of the three modes of persuasion: Logos, ethos, and pathos. Logos, logic and reason, is best exemplified by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. In the text, Jefferson uses logic and reason to deduce why the colonists had to
…show more content…
Carr’s sarcasm and hyperbole highlight how the commission is handing out money to people who do not deserve it. Despite distinct differences between the two texts, Jefferson and Carr both employ strategies such as name-calling, plain-folks appeal, and two-extremes fallacy to establish their credibility, ethos, but Jefferson relies more on a logical appeal in order to convince the colonists and King George of why the colonies are separating from England while Carr has an emotional appeal by insulting the specific people making the law-suits and the willingness of MCAD to hand out money to the supposed …show more content…
them argument, with Jefferson suggesting a government should be either a democracy by the people or a monarchy while Carr argues the ED lawsuits are out of control and the MCAD is bent on stop discrimination. Jefferson in his pre-amble makes assumptions about the role of government such as how a government must be considerate to its constituents and will be replaced if given sufficient cause but also reveals how he detests strong centralized governments. He reveals his hatred in his diatribe, “He has refused his assent to laws”(301) with more he has statements. These “he has” statements provide the other extreme of centralized government, which seeks to regulate and enforce. Jefferson leaves no room for a grey area in the liberty vs security debate by suggesting that a nation can override personal liberty if there is “clear and present danger” (Schneck v US 1919). Carr’s extremes are best highlighted when he mentions, “People sue for sleeping problems, emotional anxiety…”. He goes on a tirade about how widespread the fraud is, highlighting how bad Carr thinks the MCAD is. The extreme Carr implicitly proposes is to stop awarding people money for ED cases without regard to if people actually have ED or not. The MCAD, however, is committed to fighting discrimination, which is clearly seen in their “prescriptions”, “’the kind of stereotypic thinking
Carr’s sarcasm and hyperbole highlight how the commission is handing out money to people who do not deserve it. Despite distinct differences between the two texts, Jefferson and Carr both employ strategies such as name-calling, plain-folks appeal, and two-extremes fallacy to establish their credibility, ethos, but Jefferson relies more on a logical appeal in order to convince the colonists and King George of why the colonies are separating from England while Carr has an emotional appeal by insulting the specific people making the law-suits and the willingness of MCAD to hand out money to the supposed …show more content…
them argument, with Jefferson suggesting a government should be either a democracy by the people or a monarchy while Carr argues the ED lawsuits are out of control and the MCAD is bent on stop discrimination. Jefferson in his pre-amble makes assumptions about the role of government such as how a government must be considerate to its constituents and will be replaced if given sufficient cause but also reveals how he detests strong centralized governments. He reveals his hatred in his diatribe, “He has refused his assent to laws”(301) with more he has statements. These “he has” statements provide the other extreme of centralized government, which seeks to regulate and enforce. Jefferson leaves no room for a grey area in the liberty vs security debate by suggesting that a nation can override personal liberty if there is “clear and present danger” (Schneck v US 1919). Carr’s extremes are best highlighted when he mentions, “People sue for sleeping problems, emotional anxiety…”. He goes on a tirade about how widespread the fraud is, highlighting how bad Carr thinks the MCAD is. The extreme Carr implicitly proposes is to stop awarding people money for ED cases without regard to if people actually have ED or not. The MCAD, however, is committed to fighting discrimination, which is clearly seen in their “prescriptions”, “’the kind of stereotypic thinking