[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_ZwY99womA[/media]
They can guilt trip people into donating for anything...
I came to this thread expecting something like this:
[img]http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w280/edword4/xray.jpg[/img]
[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]
You made me pick the babie.
:frown:
[QUOTE=Sams Brume;17196405]Look at this baby.
[img]http://www.ed2010.com/files/images/sad%20baby.thumbnail.jpg[/img]
[img]http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/2158911/2159086/2159087/070221_CL_HitlerEX.jpg[/img]
[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.digitalnowhere.com/misc/images/winsupport/i-have-eliminated-all-the-juice.jpg[/img]
Who do you agree with now?
I agree with Hitler Baby.
What's a visual aid?
[QUOTE=Rediscover;17200546]What's a visual aid?[/QUOTE]
:milk: - This is an example of a visual aid representing how I feel about your post, since I rated you box.
[b]visual aid[/b]
n. An instructional aid, such as a poster, scale model, or videotape, that presents information visually.
[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]
This deserves some type of medal.
[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]
That's pretty much how that movie "Zeitgeist" worked iirc
[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 would be on the man's side!
Visual aid helps me alot
As a graphic designer major, I'm going to have to say "bullshit" to the OP and be the first to hit that little disagree button.
Humans are visually oriented animals. Our best sense is our eyes, there isn't another creature on the planet that can see the level of details and the amount of colors humans can. Sure some can see higher or lower on the visual spectrum, but none can see as detailed colors and visually as we can.
To say visual aids are bad and abused is just absurd to me. If anything visual aids are by far the most effective way to make a point or make your point more interesting to any person, not just the "hurr dum dum" ones.
Your real argument should have been about how you're a person who appears to have a 100% pure psychological appeal of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion#Logos]Logos[/url] (you are better convinced through a hard fact than that of a cause/emotion), and can't understand why other people can be more convinced through psychological [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion#Pathos]Pathos[/url] (aka emotional arguments for/against something), or how a person could be persuaded with a balanced mixture of pathos/logos.
In any case, visual aids are the best way to to give a message, and to keep the audience interested in said topic. It's also the best and fastest way to teach something. People overall learn better with the help of visual cues than just looking at a bunch of text and trying to swallow it all. Not saying everyone is the same, it's just a generalization that happens to fit with most of the population, thanks to our sense of sight being as complex and deep as it is, which means it's a great supplement to how the brain works and because the brain depends on it order to learn about the world most effectively. Wither that would be learning about biology or learning about a new product on a billboard.
This is not about why visual aids are "bad", it's about how they are often used in place of, rather than to augment, rational arguements in a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
Of course visual aids are an excellent tool for getting a point across, but like all tools they can be used in malicious and fraudulent ways and that is the topic of this thread.
While we already have ways of dealing with fraudulent applications of logic and rhetoric, we often don't do the same with the application of visual aids and other means of emotional and philosophical arguement.
Its a scare tactic, and it works damn great.
Tomarrow I have to debate that nuclear power is bad in debate, but I have chosen to do a different tactic to provoke fear.... yes... fear... through emotional response= win.
well basically I wouldn't say its abused, its more of a over used generic tactic.
Clever tactic though if used correctly, and with a powerfull image.
Like to make a poster Pro-abortion, show a kid doing drugs with his parents in the back ground not caring, showing that what un-wanted kids turn into.
good fear tactic, as i said again, Not abused, just used generically too much.
[QUOTE=KorJax_alt;17203204]As a graphic designer major, I'm going to have to say "bullshit" to the OP and be the first to hit that little disagree button.
Humans are visually oriented animals. Our best sense is our eyes, there isn't another creature on the planet that can see the level of details and the amount of colors humans can. Sure some can see higher or lower on the visual spectrum, but none can see as detailed colors and visually as we can.
To say visual aids are bad and abused is just absurd to me. If anything visual aids are by far the most effective way to make a point or make your point more interesting to any person, not just the "hurr dum dum" ones.
Your real argument should have been about how you're a person who appears to have a 100% pure psychological appeal of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion#Logos]Logos[/url] (you are better convinced through a hard fact than that of a cause/emotion), and can't understand why other people can be more convinced through psychological [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modes_of_persuasion#Pathos]Pathos[/url] (aka emotional arguments for/against something), or how a person could be persuaded with a balanced mixture of pathos/logos.
In any case, visual aids are the best way to to give a message, and to keep the audience interested in said topic. It's also the best and fastest way to teach something. People overall learn better with the help of visual cues than just looking at a bunch of text and trying to swallow it all. Not saying everyone is the same, it's just a generalization that happens to fit with most of the population, thanks to our sense of sight being as complex and deep as it is, which means it's a great supplement to how the brain works and because the brain depends on it order to learn about the world most effectively. Wither that would be learning about biology or learning about a new product on a billboard.[/QUOTE]
That was what OP was saying, you just perfectly described why he dislikes them, you can abuse visual ads like that.
Visual AIDS
[img]http://www.nigeriamasterweb.com/5mbebe/AidsPatient2.jpg[/img]
:hurr:
The Abuse of Visual Aid
[img]http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1032/1482770002_322e0fccef.jpg?v=0[/img]
[editline]10:50PM[/editline]
Visual Aids
[img]http://www.teenaids.org/Portals/0/Images/whatIsAIDS-pic3.gif[/img]
[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'm gonna have to go with hitler on this one.
1x Agree;
Example:
When the "fact" that Russia "invaded" Georgia hit the US news, they used footage which showed the damage to Ossetia done by the Georgians. This made somewhere around 2346092378% of Americans think that the footage was indeed of Georgia. Fail. All of the news companies who did this had to release an apology for misinforming the whole nation.
[editline]11:18PM[/editline]
[i]That was most of the national news groups[/i]
[QUOTE=Lamp;17196413]hitler, tiny little babby is inferior[/QUOTE]
My dear freind, you have not noticed the babies blond hair and blue eyes !
[QUOTE=bravojr;17205355]My dear freind, you have not noticed the babies blond hair and blue eyes ![/QUOTE]
HES A FuCKING JEW
[img]http://www.wolfstoves.com/images/wolfOven.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=KD007;17205168]1x Agree;
Example:
When the "fact" that Russia "invaded" Georgia hit the US news, they used footage which showed the damage to Ossetia done by the Georgians. This made somewhere around 2346092378% of Americans think that the footage was indeed of Georgia. Fail. All of the news companies who did this had to release an apology for misinforming the whole nation.
[editline]11:18PM[/editline]
[i]That was most of the national news groups[/i][/QUOTE]
That's not really a visual aid by the standard interpretation, that's simply media bias at work done to generate interest.
I don't see why this is so terrible though, to be honest. Using visual aids to persuade people is very effective and a good way to get a complicated point across with a simple, quick and effective message. In many cases, it's not even done for that, a lot of time "visual aids" are used simply to give the audience something to think about in relation to the subject (with some bias of course), such as most ad-council advertisements.
If you don't agree with the message, then by all means don't agree with the message someone is trying to send. That doesn't mean though they are abused however, just because they aren't used for messages you don't agree with doesn't make them any more or less abused than other messages you would agree with.
Though there is a difference between a good visual aid and a bad one. This is a pretty bad one:
[img]http://archimedes.galilei.com/stlcofcc/blogimages/jesus-billboard.jpg[/img]
There's no real message, and the visual "aid" isn't really going to convince anyone to do anything, or feel much any different than what they already feel, except be annoyed that someone actually paid for that to be there.
This is how Peta gets members, by showing people some video they found of a dog being skinned alive on a chinese farm or some shit. (Terrible yes, but joining the "animal rights movement" isn't doing any good)
[QUOTE=Lamp;17196413]hitler, tiny little babby is inferior[/QUOTE]
Baby has blond hair and blue eyes, therefore he is superior to Hitler, who does not.
[QUOTE=Malumbre;17205842]Baby has blond hair and blue eyes, therefore he is superior to Hitler, who does not.[/QUOTE]
I thinK you dropped this clock
Now I'm starting to think keeping this as short and simple as possible is causing it's own problems.
This is not about visual aids being used to represent views that you don't agree with. It's about using them either being used as a substitute for a rational arguement or in a deliberate attempt to mislead people.
In the former a visual aid is being used when a side knows their arguement is in deep rhetorical trouble and simply cannot win on either a logical or philosophical basis, so they use brute force of visual aids as a substitute, knowing that they can force more impressionable people will side with them. Perhaps a good example would be those who fueled the Thimerosal controversy involving mercury in vaccines, later on as their so called "scientific evidence" started falling apart they had no little or no scientific basis for their cause but continued regardless due to paranoia, and as a result convincing numerous parents to put off vaccinations for their children and putting numerous children at risk of spreading illness. The effects of that moral panic still pesist today.
(that also went as far as it did because it came about just when the internet entered mainstream use, but that connection is best left for another thread.)
In the latter there is a genuine malicious intent in that the visual aid is being used to deliberately misinform people. This is often done for political gain and far more often than you'd think. This is where you literally have group plan to take advantage of morons. They who know people are gullible, know that they are misinforming them, and do it because they'll benefit from doing so. In the United States both the Democratic and Republican parties have done this on numerous occasions often when they are simply trying to oppose the other side and when they know their side can't really put up a more rational arguement, and it works very well.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
