I'll keep this short.
Visual aids with strong emotional impact are becoming the guarenteed way to get less rational people to your side and possibly rescue an otherwise unsound arguement from deep rhetorical trouble.
It's really sad when such a large number of people are so irrational that the emotional impact of an image will win over any reason or rational thought.
The abuse of visual aids as a substitute for actual arguements can be seen as one of the reasons the abortion debate has gone on for so long. The debate over abortion has degenerated to little more than a contest of images (look at these poor dead fetuses!) and who can win over the greater number of impressionable people, and it has gotten nowhere.
Many other debates about topics that can provoke a strong emotional response are affected by the abuse of visual aids as well, often by people who know that they are taking advantage of less rational masses and winning them over for all the wrong reasons to rescue their arguements from deep rhetorical trouble.
What do you think?
Look at this baby.
[img]http://www.ed2010.com/files/images/sad%20baby.thumbnail.jpg[/img]
He believes that Visual Aid helps saves lives.
Now look at this man.
[img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg[/img]
He wants to remove Visual Aids.
Who would you rather side with?
im thinking burger king, but if anyone says KFC and wants to drive all the way over, im in to
[QUOTE=Sams Brume;17196405]Look at this baby.
[img]http://www.ed2010.com/files/images/sad%20baby.thumbnail.jpg[/img]
He believes that Visual Aid helps saves lives.
Now look at this man.
[img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg[/img]
He wants to remove Visual Aids.
Who would you rather side with?[/QUOTE]
hitler, tiny little babby is inferior
[QUOTE=Sams Brume;17196405][img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg[/img]
He wants to remove Visual Aids.
Who would you rather side with?[/QUOTE]
The man with the awesome stache. But not as awesome as Stalin's.
hahaha someone was protesting abortion outside the high school today
[QUOTE=Sams Brume;17196405]Look at this baby.
[img]http://www.ed2010.com/files/images/sad%20baby.thumbnail.jpg[/img]
He believes that Visual Aid helps saves lives.
Now look at this man.
[img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg[/img]
He wants to remove Visual Aids.
Who would you rather side with?[/QUOTE]
I'd strange both
Ever been to 4chan?
I'm sorry what's this thread about, what's visual aid.
This isn't visual aid, it's more like propaganda or shock advertisement.
I've never seen a Godwin's Law pulled into a thread so fast.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17196457]This isn't visual aid, it's more like propaganda or shock advertisement.[/QUOTE]
Well I could expand it to cover that broader scale, but last time I tried something that people simply refuse to read.
I'm going to stick with keeping this at a smaller scale, and by that I mean individual discussions and debates, so I don't have to keep correcting people over and over because they don't read. Hence, "I'll keep this short".
Wow, thread derailed before it even left the station.
there's been a concerning fusion between information and entertainment in the news industry (ie John King's magic screen).
It's just a stupid way to win an argument.
you are forgetting about blind people.
[QUOTE=K00n!;17196411]im thinking burger king, but if anyone says KFC and wants to drive all the way over, im in to[/QUOTE]
im more of a bk fan
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;17196593]Wow, thread derailed before it even left the station.[/QUOTE]
There never was a station IMO.
OP is just trying to act smart.
*insert picture of something funny here*
Actually what OP says is true. Do you think half as many people would donate to the "save african children" charities if there wasn't video of hungry children in poor conditions? Let's not forget the audio aid too. Throw some emotional music in and bam, you just won over x amount of people.
[QUOTE=Sams Brume;17196405]Look at this baby.
[img]http://www.ed2010.com/files/images/sad%20baby.thumbnail.jpg[/img]
He believes that Visual Aid helps saves lives.
Now look at this man.
[img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg[/img]
He wants to remove Visual Aids.
Who would you rather side with?[/QUOTE]:godwin:
[QUOTE=TurtlePower;17198236]Actually what OP says is true. Do you think half as many people would donate to the "save african children" charities if there wasn't video of hungry children in poor conditions? Let's not forget the audio aid too. Throw some emotional music in and bam, you just won over x amount of people.[/QUOTE]
On the other hand, is an emotional appeal for charity wrong? Now, using emotional appeal to help sway people over on factual matters or to deliberately misinform people for profit or gain is a different kettle of fish....
[QUOTE=Camundongo;17198384]On the other hand, is an emotional appeal for charity wrong? Now, using emotional appeal to help sway people over on factual matters or to deliberately misinform people for profit or gain is a different kettle of fish....[/QUOTE]
Yes it is wrong, it's trying to make you pay money "simply because you are being a bad person by not helping people."
Forced Altruism is both wrong and, frankly, diverging from what Altruism is meant to really be.
[QUOTE=Sams Brume;17196405]Look at this baby.
[img]http://www.ed2010.com/files/images/sad%20baby.thumbnail.jpg[/img]
He believes that Visual Aid helps saves lives.
Now look at this man.
[img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg[/img]
He wants to remove Visual Aids.
Who would you rather side with?[/QUOTE]
The baby because hitler is dead
[QUOTE=Camundongo;17198384]On the other hand, is an emotional appeal for charity wrong?[/QUOTE]
Yes. They're effectively guilt tripping people into giving their money.
[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;17198439]Yes it is wrong, it's trying to make you pay money "simply because you are being a bad person by not helping people."
Forced Altruism is both wrong and, frankly, diverging from what Altruism is meant to really be.[/QUOTE]
True. I suppose your view would depend on how much the end justifies the means (which can be badly, badly abused). To be honest, I would expect the people who do donate money as a result of the adverts are already altruistic anyway, and would see the charity as another way to provide aid to someone. Or to make themselves feel less self-centred or better about themselves. If you aren't altruistic by nature, then giving away money to feel better about yourself (which probably consists of a large part of altruism) isn't going to be high on your priorities.
[QUOTE]Actually what OP says is true. Do you think half as many people would donate to the "save african children" charities if there wasn't video of hungry children in poor conditions? Let's not forget the audio aid too. Throw some emotional music in and bam, you just won over x amount of people. [/QUOTE]
Indeed.
Like any tool it can be used with good intentions.
However, the fact that this works so well indicates an exploitable weakness in how people form opinions and make decisions.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;17198384]On the other hand, is an emotional appeal for charity wrong? [b]Now, using emotional appeal to help sway people over on factual matters or to deliberately misinform people for profit or gain is a different kettle of fish....[/b][/QUOTE]
Exactly.
The problem is when people use emotional appeal to win an arguement when they know they can't win with logic or reason.
[QUOTE=TurtlePower;17198516]Yes. They're effectively guilt tripping people into giving their money.[/QUOTE]
But if it helps out the world...
[QUOTE=:smug:;17199315]But if it helps out the world...[/QUOTE]
It doesn't.
[QUOTE=:smug:;17199315]But if it helps out the world...[/QUOTE]
But if it helps out the world and they are doing it dishonestly then...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
