Show an example of prejudicial rhetoric?

Answer 1

A non-prejudicial use of rhetoric would be for example arguing the republican position on minimum wage increases versus the democrats position on the same subject. The republican position is that a rise in the minimum wage will be a disadvantage and burden on small business. The democrats state that it has been years since the minimum wage has risen and that low income wage earners need this rise. The truth of the matter is that there are very few jobs in the US that are paying as low as the current minimum wage.

Answer 2

Rhetoric is anytime you say something whether in response to another or not. So prejudicial rhetoric would be a biased pronouncement on your part against races or whatever. If you are a Christian truly living the life God wants for you, these have no place in your life. If they are still there, something is wrong with you spiritually. Probably not submitting to God's authority in your life. The above is an excellent example of subtle prejudicial rhetoric. Here is another perhaps less subtle approach: Prosecutor's final statement: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, prejudice is abhorrent among modern and elightened people such as you. The last thing that anyone in this courtroom wants today is for you to have in mind the documented history and common knowledge about Flingbazzians to influence your decision about the defendant, a first generation Flingbazzian. We won't even make mention of the outrageous and wildly speculative urban myths about them. Stay with the documented history of the facts that we have presented during this trial, and your common knowledge of the world as you see it before you, good people, and I know you will come to the proper conclusion." Now, as to the case at hand... Prejudicial rhetoric can be very subtle such as when one view is referred to as 'traditional' and another as 'scholarly'. The implication is that the traditional view is not scholarly and the other is. This is aimed at turning the minds of the persons reading the comment towards the more 'scholarly' view. This can apply when any kind or negative label is attached to a view one is trying to argue against and is contrasted with a more positive epithet or label attached to the view one is trying to defend.

The way to avoid this is to say 'according to one view' then 'according to another view.' This can avoid conflict as it makes no judgment on the merits of the respective views.

Alternatively persons can deliberately label their view as neutral when it is in fact an extreme view which leaves out some very important facts. This is a form of 'prejudicial rhetoric by stealth'. I recently saw this in a white racist posting on Nazi medical advances which made no mention whatsoever of Dr Mengele or the hideous nature of their experimentation. Some would not call this rhetoric at all as it is omission, but it certainly is prejudicial and its rhetoric is to highlight only the positive of something entirely hideous to try to sanitize it.

Answer 3

Is where someone states a simple fact.

Answer 4

"Are you out of your mind?"