As I was reading Ramus for this week, I felt a little bit like I do when I get e-mail messages from friends and I can’t hear their tone of voice. Those messages that say things like, “I can’t believe you wore that to the party,” or “Do you have a bun in the oven yet?” Messages in which tone of voice can completely change the meaning. Since I couldn’t hear Ramus’ voice, I didn’t give him the benefit of the doubt. I didn’t think that what he was saying was meant as a joke, or as friendly teasing. I didn’t think there were underlying messages that I couldn’t interpret. To me, he was blatantly attacking Quintilian, and while I didn’t love what Quintilian had to say, I still felt bad for the guy, and didn’t agree with Ramus.

Ramus’ interesting rhetorical tactics weren’t effective for me. When Ramus said things like, “Stupid” in reference to Quintilian’s ideas or, “I wouldn’t want to be like Quintilian, even if I could,” and “This man was sadly lacking in the knowledge of dialectic,” I wasn’t impressed; I was annoyed. Since I couldn’t hear Ramus, there’s a small part of me that wonders if maybe the way he said things wasn’t in the condescending tone I imagined, but there’s no way of ever knowing.

I also found his methods to be distracting. I wasn’t even paying attention to his argument because I was too caught up in his juvenile stabs at the opposition. He seemed to be bullying Quintilian, to be putting him down so that Ramus could bring himself up. It reminded of the mud-slinging tactics political campaign commercials are made of. They don’t make me want to vote for the candidate; they just make me dislike the candidate. In my opinion, the attack approach lacks originality. If there wasn’t any sort of opposition to slander, what would candidates base their campaigns on? Is it really moral to stand up in front of people and tell them what you believe, while putting down someone else in the process?

I don’t think that speeches like Ramus’ are the type that are given with a goal to persuade, but with the goal to get the people who already agree riled up, or of getting those who are leaning in that direction, to move all the way. It’s the type of argument that is based on people not knowing anything about the counter side.

A guy once stopped by my house to try and sell me a home security system. In his pitch, he made sure to emphasize the positives of his system, while simultaneously inserting little pokes against the competition. Since I didn’t know anything about home security systems, I thought his system sounded pretty impressive. I didn’t buy it, because I didn’t need one, but my ignorance made me interested. Is convincing someone based on ignorance a true means of persuasion? Isn’t presenting someone with both sides, without bias, the fair way to win? Is persuasion through preying on weaknesses as rewarding as persuading through the presentation of facts? Is a speaker who insults his opponent, a skilled rhetorician, or a rhetorician in bully’s clothing?