I found the concept of terministic screens presented by Burke to be a very interesting one. The idea that the way we construct an argument and the word choices we make affect our interpretations. We see examples of this constantly.

Whenever we see two people arguing over the same subject they will choose the terms that they will use very carefully. One example that springs to mind is the debate over abortion. Both sides have terminology that they use. For instance, Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life. Each couches there ideas in positive terms, the things that they support.  Arguments such as these, especially those over controversial issues, will often dance around a more serious issue. They will use words that will distance themselves from the bare truth of the matter. In the above example, those who support abortion do not state that they are Pro-Killing-Unborn-Children, just as those who do not support abortion will not say that they are Pro-Denying-Women-There-Right-To-Choose. If they were to do so, rather then using the terms that they currently use, then there would be quite a bit more outrage from both sides.

As this is the case they avoid referring to what it is that they believe by using semantics. As Burke describes the metaphysicians who “often introduces the term “God” not outright, as with the Bible, but by beginning with a term that ambiguously contains such implications…” (p 46) Rather then coming out and stating a belief, they use ambiguous language to avoid the heart of the matter.

Another, example of this sort of tactic can be seen with politicians. In the debate over the use of  torture to coerce information out of prisoners the government routinely referred to these acts as “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Once again by avoiding the use of a word with a poor connotation they tried to sidestep the issue at hand.