Rhetoric in Violence as Entertainment by Folisi Essay -- videogames, cr

It is shocking to believe that just because you like videogames and crime shows you are a bad person. This hold is one in which talks about people being obsess with violences. What would happen if just because you went to a story and got the the latest Grand Theft motorcar videogame people would run for the hill and accuse you of being crazy.In this artical we are given the idea that if a person liked violent video games, and crime shows, therefore the person is up to no good.In his article, Violence as Entertainment, Folisi employs a variety of rhetorical devices to divert the readers attention away from his lack of empirical evidence. The most hard-hitting of these devices is the use of multiple tones. To a lesser degree, Folisi also uses anecdotal evidence. This works directly against the fountains goals, exposing the weaknesses in his arguments.Folisi alternates between authoritative and speculative tones throughout the article. This is utilized in several different ways.Fi rst, Folisi is able to pass off many of his assumptions as event. The topic sentences of many paragraphs start with words such as we and our, projecting the authors personal thoughts and experiences out onto the rest of his audience. In this way, personal observations are subtly transformed into global assumptions. Consider for example the following excerptThe fact is, these kinds of news stories fascinate us. But why? Does life in a modern technological world breed individuals who are more criminally incited or inclined? Is it somehow more difficult for us to cope with our lives, with our basic instincts and needs, in societies which are cut off from nature? Through disconnecting and dividing us from our on-key instinctual inner nature, has modern technologi... ...ts and outcasts, maladjusted in schools and in society at large.Because he is so eager to apply rhetoric from every possible angle, Folisi incidentally provides a counterargument to everything he has said. This goes un addressed, as the author fails to recognize what he has done. As a result, the reader is left to question the article, possibly more than they would have had no argument been given at all. In all, Folisi has a strong rhetoric but his lack of practical evidence illuminates the shortcomings in his argument. Additionally, his attempt at development commiseration to emotionally engage the reader ultimately flounders and in fact works against him. To make his argument stronger, Folisi desperately needs to rethink his use of pathos and develop stronger evidence. In conclusion readers will be able to expand their thinking and ideas about why people commit crimes.