This is going to be a boring post.
Anyways, between the two articles we've read so far on the issue of gay marriage, I thought that the second article was more effective than the first article. The first article (as seen in a semi-lengthy rant in an earlier post) really pissed me off. I mean, the guy that wrote it just seemed like the most pompous and self-righteous person to ever put a pen to paper. I have cooled my jets (LOL pun @ the jet plane metaphor) and after discussing it I realize that it probably was so infuriating for me for one major reason. That article was written by that man for his supporters, people that believed firmly that marriage should be man and woman two parent households. Being such, he used harsh language, threw around the word 'liberal' and made comparisons that come across as harsh to me, but thats because I am not a member of the audience he was writing that article to.
The second article, to me, was much more effective. Now, this also may have had to do with the fact that I was more a member of that audience than the audience of the first article, but still I think that there were some stylistic factors that contributed to that. First, there were stories. I hate to sound like a kindergartner, but seriously, the stories will stick with me-simple ravings of a questionably sane man will not.
1 comments:
I agree completely with what you said here about the two articles. I am in the same position you are as being more a part of the audience of the second one and finding that one more persuasive for that reason. I also agree with what you said about the arrogance in the first one. Yes, he was directing it at a specific audience, but he was beyond rude and way over the top. I think I would have been turned off by his arrogance regardless of where I stand on the issue.
Post a Comment