I knew about arguing logically versus arguing emotionally before reading this, but I thought it was amazing that a seven year old could win an argument with his father who was a master at rhetoric. I would never think that someone could out argue a master at rhetoric using purely instinct.
I didn't realize that a seven year old that was so good at arguing that he didn't even cry to get his way. Like most kids they do try crying to get their way, because most parents are a sucker when their kid is crying.
I still think that adults tend to cut children slightly a bit more slack at times when it comes to stuff like the example shown in the book as to not make the child cry, or scream, or get mad and start fighting.
Hahah he just got beat in an argument by his 7 year old son! This shows that you dont really have to try to argue sometimes when your thinking about it you lose,his son just wanted to wear shorts but wasnt budging. I didnt really understand ethos?
I was just thinking the same thing. I think how its funny that he can lose arguements to those who know nothing about rhetoric or arguements; especially his seven-year-old son, but then maybe his son just picked up on his dads techniques.
I like that he explained logos, ethos, and pathos. I feel like I have a pretty good preexisting grasp on logos and pathos, but it will be interesting to learn more about ethos.
I didn't know any of the terms, though I grasped the idea of what logos was with logic, and what pathos was with sympathy, but I had a hard time understanding what ethos was trying to portray exactly, so I might have to do a bit of outside research in that case... if more about pathos doesn't show up in the book.
I think I'm going to need help remembering all of these terms! I love the history and quotes. As I have been reading, I have been thinking about which forms I use and maybe the ones i could start using.
There is so much information in this book... I had absolutely no idea that somebody could possibly write a whole book on a subject as seemingly simple as argument. I haven't been disappointed over what I learned yet, and lets hope it stays that why until the end. Also, I think one of the reasons he got beat by his 7 year old son is because children don't work the same way adults do, and we tend to feel sympathy for children, and let them off with warnings because we usually can't get them to do what we want them to do no matter how hard adults try.
George didn't want to wear pants but little does he know HIS DAD CAN ARGUE. George won and he didn't have to wear pants. BUT LITTLE DOES HE KNOW HIS DAD PLANNED THAT AND HE USED HIS KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE A LITTLE GIVE. It shows what this knowledge can do to a person. You can use character logic and emotion in the pants argument.
These different forms of arguments are getting so confusing in just this chapter he tried arguments by character (one most of us can recall being used on us.. even to this day) as well as arguments by logic, and emotion. So the more formal version of these arguments is logos, ethos, and pathos? Ahh, so much information to take in!
Hearing these 3 different ways to appeal to someone while arguing was quite interesting- he knew how his son was pleading his case, so to say, and his son didn't even know the techniques he was applying
When reading this chapter I realizzed that softening up your oponent in an arguement is the best way to go. So when winning your arguement your oponent wont leave feeling so down. I think I understan arguement by logic (logos) and arguement by emotion (pathos), but i have yet to understand arguement by character (ethos).
I knew about arguing logically versus arguing emotionally before reading this, but I thought it was amazing that a seven year old could win an argument with his father who was a master at rhetoric. I would never think that someone could out argue a master at rhetoric using purely instinct.
ReplyDeleteI agree, a seven year old was able to mastermind the father without crying.
DeleteThis really shows a difference in arguing through logic and emotion,but i was confused on character or (ethos)
DeleteIt kind of makes me wonder if mastering rhetoric has any major advantages. If a kid can do it without training, I think anyone could.
DeleteGeorge is 17 my friends.
DeleteWait no he was 7 at the time i realize
DeleteIt was so amusing that a seven year old was able to out wit a rhetoric master using just instinct.
DeleteI didn't realize that a seven year old that was so good at arguing that he didn't even cry to get his way. Like most kids they do try crying to get their way, because most parents are a sucker when their kid is crying.
ReplyDeleteHis son must be a natural at rhetoric! Lol
DeleteHis son probably observed his dad for those seven years and picked up on things.
DeleteI still think that adults tend to cut children slightly a bit more slack at times when it comes to stuff like the example shown in the book as to not make the child cry, or scream, or get mad and start fighting.
DeleteHahah he just got beat in an argument by his 7 year old son! This shows that you dont really have to try to argue sometimes when your thinking about it you lose,his son just wanted to wear shorts but wasnt budging. I didnt really understand ethos?
ReplyDeleteI read the next chapter and ethos is still kind of confusing me. The next chapter is all about ethos.
DeleteI didn't entirely understand, either. I feel like logos and pathos are already kind of common knowledge, but ethos is new.
DeleteYa I thought that it was funny a seven year beat his dad in an argument too. I also agree with you Reva that he picked up on things growing up.
DeleteI am confused on Ethos as well. The others seem pretty self explanatory. I wonder how often these terms will be brought up?
DeleteGeorge is 17.
DeleteI am counting my comments for this chapter being me going to posts and correcting everyone that thinks he is 7.
Wait no nevermind i understand now
DeleteEthos is ethics- his dad says he will hurt himself by wearing shorts, but George insists that they are his own legs
DeleteI was just thinking the same thing. I think how its funny that he can lose arguements to those who know nothing about rhetoric or arguements; especially his seven-year-old son, but then maybe his son just picked up on his dads techniques.
DeleteI like that he explained logos, ethos, and pathos. I feel like I have a pretty good preexisting grasp on logos and pathos, but it will be interesting to learn more about ethos.
ReplyDeleteI really liked those terms too! I do still need a bit of help on understanding them though...
DeleteI didn't know any of the terms, though I grasped the idea of what logos was with logic, and what pathos was with sympathy, but I had a hard time understanding what ethos was trying to portray exactly, so I might have to do a bit of outside research in that case... if more about pathos doesn't show up in the book.
DeleteI accidentally made a typo where the last time I said pathos should be ethos. whoops
DeleteLike Cody I am having a hard time understanding ethos but I'm sure I will grasp it more the further we get in the book.
DeleteI also think ethos are more confussing. Pathos and logos seemed more explained. Hopefully the next chaper will go more in depth about ethos.
DeleteI think I'm going to need help remembering all of these terms! I love the history and quotes. As I have been reading, I have been thinking about which forms I use and maybe the ones i could start using.
ReplyDeleteThis book is very beneficial no matter whose reading it.. It's alot to take in but will help us all seem much more educated.
DeleteThere is so much information in this book... I had absolutely no idea that somebody could possibly write a whole book on a subject as seemingly simple as argument. I haven't been disappointed over what I learned yet, and lets hope it stays that why until the end. Also, I think one of the reasons he got beat by his 7 year old son is because children don't work the same way adults do, and we tend to feel sympathy for children, and let them off with warnings because we usually can't get them to do what we want them to do no matter how hard adults try.
ReplyDeleteGeorge didn't want to wear pants but little does he know HIS DAD CAN ARGUE. George won and he didn't have to wear pants. BUT LITTLE DOES HE KNOW HIS DAD PLANNED THAT AND HE USED HIS KNOWLEDGE TO GIVE A LITTLE GIVE. It shows what this knowledge can do to a person. You can use character logic and emotion in the pants argument.
ReplyDeleteIm glad that you understand that his dad let him "win"- even though his dad got him to at least wear snow pants
DeleteThese different forms of arguments are getting so confusing in just this chapter he tried arguments by character (one most of us can recall being used on us.. even to this day) as well as arguments by logic, and emotion. So the more formal version of these arguments is logos, ethos, and pathos? Ahh, so much information to take in!
ReplyDeleteHearing these 3 different ways to appeal to someone while arguing was quite interesting- he knew how his son was pleading his case, so to say, and his son didn't even know the techniques he was applying
ReplyDeleteWhen reading this chapter I realizzed that softening up your oponent in an arguement is the best way to go. So when winning your arguement your oponent wont leave feeling so down. I think I understan arguement by logic (logos) and arguement by emotion (pathos), but i have yet to understand arguement by character (ethos).
ReplyDelete