Yeah, it's fucky, and fallacious, but that's rhetoric. It's the art of effective persuasion, which is basically code for deception. Turns out, one of the most effective ways to persuade and deceive people is to pull at their heartstrings. No one ever said rhetoric had to be honest or fair.

First of all, writing is not limited to formal arguments where pathetic writing is less effective

But that's what he's talking about--integrating pathos into academic writing, which you admit is "less" effective (I would say it's entirely ineffective).

According to what? He said he's in a college writing class, probably doing all sorts of essays and styles of writing.

Today, the professor spent a good part of the lecture talking about how we could find ways to integrate Pathos-based (emotional) rhetoric into academic writing.

Academic writing as opposed to creative writing.

unless you consider film analysis or other hobbyist activities "academic"--i certainly don't

Even if he is participating in a formal debate, pathos is still a necessary component of an argument.

No. It's only necessary to be able to identify when an emotional argument is being made--so that you can avoid them.

Academic writing includes essays, journals, theses, and many other forms of writing.

None of which should have pathos encouraged.

You're essentially trash binning a third of classical rhetorical. I know you don't understand how to use pathos, but don't mislead the OP into thinking it doesn't have value.

I understand pathos better than anybody on this forum (especially you). It has no place in academic writing.

You're one of the most ineffective and ignorant arguers on this forum. Don't kid yourself.

I don't think I said a single thing about my arguing skills--just that I understand the (antiquated) rhetorical triangle better than you do, which is obvious. You don't have to be an effective "arguer" to understand the triangle and its applications--of which pathos has none in any rational setting. Maybe you could get away with it in a film analysis, or perhaps some kind of treatise on the value of art, but it has absolutely no function in a setting where logos and ethos would be far more effective. Using pathos in an academic setting is disingenuous. You're taking the intelligence of your audience for granted. That's not effective argumentation.

I mean, it's effective in the sense that there's always going to be fucking idiots who will hoot and holler if you force them to remember 9/11 or Ronald Reagan's presidency. But hinging on the stupidity of your audience is something I will never consider honest. If you've ever been swayed by an emotional appeal, I say you're a moron.

why is logic put at a higher pedistel than emotion?
the two concepts go hand in hand in the very end

At least you have THIS guy on your side, Turkey. Feel good about that?

Quote from: Verbatim on November 02, 2016, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on November 02, 2016, 03:42:07 PM

why is logic put at a higher pedistel than emotion?
the two concepts go hand in hand in the very end

At least you have THIS guy on your side, Turkey. Feel good about that?

He's right though.

Emotionless writing of any kind comes off as soulless, disinteresting and far less likely to persuade your reader to your stance/argument/belief.

Yes, if you're a moron. Which is my point. I never denied that pathos is persuasive--just that you're an idiot if you're swayed by it. It's a mode where you insult your audience's intelligence. So no, he's not right. I'm right.

Yeah, it's fucky, and fallacious, but that's rhetoric. It's the art of effective persuasion, which is basically code for deception. Turns out, one of the most effective ways to persuade and deceive people is to pull at their heartstrings. No one ever said rhetoric had to be honest or fair.

In all my debating and english classes, emotional appeals were among the first types of arguments taught in persuasive writing. The effect will vary from person to person in a genuine argument (namely because people tend to get angry and personally insult you the moment they feel they're at a disadvantage) but I never really gave it a second thought in trying to get better marks.

Pathos is good for the blackmailer, the brown-noser, the religious nut, the lawyer, the salesman, the politician, the journalist, the storyteller, the artist, and the liar--there's basically nothing else.

While I agree with Verbatim in principle, in practice, emotionless writing ends up being less effective.  So pragmatically, I feel it is a bullet one has to bite if they intend to end up a successful writer.

Quote from: Verbatim on November 02, 2016, 03:43:00 PM

Quote from: DisturbedMind883 on November 02, 2016, 03:42:07 PM

why is logic put at a higher pedistel than emotion?
the two concepts go hand in hand in the very end

At least you have THIS guy on your side, Turkey. Feel good about that?

He's right though.

Emotionless writing of any kind comes off as soulless, disinteresting and far less likely to persuade your reader to your stance/argument/belief.

Why would emotion matter when it comes to writing scientific journals? You're stating facts at that point

why do you all box yourselves into this slave mentality of fact and evidence.
it's honesly a horrible way to view the world. there is a time and place but it can't be displayed in every facet. it gets to the point where your're faking a stoic emotional response in an attempt to disassociate yourself from human nature, which is really telling in the long run.

You really think you know what you're talking about, huh?

As long as you're mature and have effective emotional control, most all your decisions and arguments should be based in emotion. It's the most honest, true form of communication