In talking about rhetoric, Aristotle seems to paint a picture of a very vulnerable audience. In saying things like, “Their minds draw the false conclusion that you are to be trusted. They take your story to be true whether it is or not.” He emphasized how emotion plays an incredibly strong role in successful rhetoric. It reminded me of our discussion last Thursday when we talked about those commercials that successfully persuade people to pick up the phone and pay “less than $1 a day to save a hungry child.” It made me think about those awful Humane Society commercials that I can’t stand to watch because they make me feel so guilty and sad. I don’t know if it’s true or not, if those animals were all filmed in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina or the earthquake in Haiti, or if they were filmed over a period of time in a variety of places. Since my emotions take over, it doesn’t matter where the filming took place or when, I believe that there are animals all over the country that look as sick and sad as the dogs on t.v. I feel bad for not doing anything and contemplate making a donation and getting my “free” t-shirt, but instead I change the channel and avoid the problem until the commercial comes on again.

According to Aristotle, successful rhetoric is about deception and manipulation. Maybe that’s why so many scams which prey on elderly people are so successful, especially those who live alone. Without anyone to rationalize with them, oftentimes they get roped in. The appeal of large sums of money, the conversation they get on the other end of the phone after a long day spent without any human interaction, the hope they get of helping someone else, all interfere with their ability to make a logical decision; their emotions get the better of them.  The rhetoric designed to persuade them is successful because, as Aristotle points out, it sparks a certain emotion, which allows the “rhetorician” to deceive and manipulate.

All of the readings for this week emphasized the power of rhetoric. It provides a great ability to control. As seen in the reading by Cicero it is, “a practically useful weapon with which you can secure your own safety, attack the enemies of the state, or avenge yourself when provoked by them” (13). In Spider-Man Peter Parker says, “With great power comes great responsibility,” while I doubt he was thinking about rhetoric when these words were uttered, I couldn’t help but think of the quote while reading this week. At what point does rhetoric become more of a weapon than persuasion? Where are the boundaries that keep it fenced in? What prevents a rhetorician from using torture or language to manipulate an audience to get something which is detrimental to them and beneficial to him? Is it moral to use what an audience doesn’t know against them so that persuasion is successful? How can we deal with this “dark side” of rhetoric?