I am not agreeing with the movie made by Bill Maher, however, I feel as if I feel and share some of his thoughts toward religion. I am not agreeing with Maher’s movie because I think those thoughts and ideas he is expressing, is the kind of attitude that landed me in this situation of second guessing my religion in the first place. Now I believe Bill’s video is offensive, but, I wouldn’t say he meant to make it as offensive to some people as it came off to be. Bill was just making this documentary about something on how he felt on religion, and how his views on religion joined his feelings.

      I was raised going to church every Sunday, and still no matter how much I learned, had my own ideas on religion and whether or not to believe what I had been taught. I prayed for things as a kid and for some reason God never seemed to answer my prayers. Now, maybe I was praying for the wrong things, or perhaps praying was not working. I started down this path that praying does not work, so why pray? Well, I have some experiences of my own that lead me to my own beliefs on faith and religion. Like Bill Maher’s experiences that lead him from faith, my experiences did just the opposite. My personal experiences lead me toward faith.

      My two main experiences are this; two separate drinking and driving accidents by myself with zero DWI’s or any trouble with the law, besides an alcohol violation from TCU police. I have wrecked two cars while intoxicated, both of which I am not proud of, and I am only twenty-two years old. These two crashes I have been involved in showed me that it was impossible for me to believe that God does not exist. The first wreck I was wearing no seatbelt and survived unscathed. My second wreck I was wearing a seatbelt, and fortunately was unharmed again. It took me two bad accidents to see and feel my faith. I believe like Bill has his ideas, it takes everyone a big sign to unravel their religious ideas and thoughts.

  I believe that Seth MacFarlane is an effective Rhetorician. Seth MacFarlane is an american animator, writer, producer, actor, singer, voice actor and director best known for creating the animated sitcom Family Guy, for which he also voices many of the characters.

      He currently owns his own production company, “fuzzy door productions.” You are most likely to encounter his rhetorics on television. He does a lot of voice acting therefore must display his personality and character through his character’s voices I believe. He uses his rhetorical appeals on the television. He stars in his own produced show Family Guy, and through much of his made up scenes displays his appeals through those.

       I think his contribution as a rhetorician has effected my life in a negative manor. His show is a very graphic show leading much to the learning of violence, sex, and even drugs. In his show he uses all 3 so calmly that I believe he is sending a negative rhetorical appeal to anyone who views his show. Now it may sound like he is not an effective rhetorician, but he most certainly is. If he can give me enough trash to write this blog about him he is a very effective rhetorician I believe.

      Just I think most of his appeals, meant to be funny are actually harmful in that they engrave this image of sex or a drug or of violence in one’s head and then you therefore unintentionally become an audience member of his appeal. If you can remember something he shows, discusses, etc. then you are a member of his audience whether you like it or not. He has work on a number of other shows, but the reason I chose Family Guy is because most of the audience who reads this knows what show I am talking about whether he/she has seen it before.

      My parents have never watched one episode of Family Guy, but can still talk about his provocative manor he uses in his show. Now for someone to know what your show is about without even seeing it, is a very clear portrayal of whether or not you are good at rhetorically appealing to an audience.

      Green defines gender as insisting your own right to express your own gender, to modify your body and shape your identity; it’s an inalienable right to know your true religion. He claims that humanity and people’s right to be treated equal should be just in morality and culture.  He also says “there is no direct connection between transsexualism per se and sexism or gender stereotypes.”

      Green feels the need to redefine gender because he wants people to not necessarily take his side and believe what he believes, but, wants people to simply be open minded to the subject and not be so quick to judge a Trans gender person. He feels strongly that when people have the mindset of either or male or a female they should have the equal right to believe and practice what feels natural to them. He wants equality in humans as a whole including Trans gendered people.

      Green is trying to target not Trans gendered individuals but individuals who are closed minded and quick to judge those who are not “straight.” He wants people who think poorly of this type of people to read his book and get a better understanding of what Trans gendered people really feel. They cant help the fact they think they way they do and Green is trying to show in his book that giving a chance to those who are not “normal” is a valid, righteous thing to do.

      Green is going for this audience not to try and change their thoughts of their own gender but to change their view on people who feel this way as a Trans gendered person. It is simply a stigma given to Trans genders and green wants people to be better informed and understand the true meaning of who a Trans gendered person is.

      I have always believed that the body you are born in to is the type of person you are supposed to be. I am not saying it is a sin to be a trans gendered person I just cant relate and therefore don’t truly understand, however, I do have an open mind and can be persuaded if the media presented is valuable to me as a person.

Interior designer= source: students on campus + individuals descriptions. An interior designer works with a client to come to an agreement of what the client wants and how the designer can make the inside of a building appeal to its users, family, etc.

Interior design= source: friends, family, and aquaintences. The act of creating the interior of a building to be aestetically pleasing to the eye. Decorating and blending of the inside of a building to match the architecture and appeal to the buildings users/owners.

Interior Design= The design and coordination of the decorative elements of the interior of a house, apartment, office, or other structural space, including color schemes, fittings, furnishings, and sometimes architectural features.

        I believe the main audience is for Americans who worry about all these things he raps about. He sings that kids now days will turn on the television and see all these arguments from fundamentalists and parents are blowing things out of proportion. He states that even holidays are in threat now since 9/11. I believe that I am in the target audience. This video has you thinking about all the things he mentions and makes me ask myself those questions, pondering if they are real now or what. He has me thinking about shoes and bombs that have been in shoes with what he talks about. He just gives me a feeling of confusion like are all these current events and measures taken new because 9/11 or are they something that was bound to happen anyways.

        I think that the rhetorician used this approach to portray his argument because of the many people today that learn things from watching videos or television. It reaches a wider range for the target audience this way because of the many people who watch music videos. The catchy way of a song or a rap is smart too, because it is so catchy and funny. The humor I believe does both clouding the argument as well as making it stronger. The humor gets in the way of making this argument sound serious because it is funny, and that the humor is making this topic more funny than serious.

        So easy a caveman can do it. Geico is trying to bring comedy to their advertisement by applying humor Geico is capturing a much wider range of audience. This commercial with all its added perks with humor is including a large audience range from customers who have never had car insurance to customers who have insurance currently. By saying it is easy and affordable Geico is generating a consumer range from beginners to advanced insurance users, because in the commercial these cavemen are throwing fits being offended by Geico’s advertisements, therefore, creating a humor to distract the viewer from the fact that they need car insurance or are paying too much for their current insurance company. Viewers watch these commercials and are pleased by the created predicament the cavemen are in and hear selected phrases like it is easy, it is cheap, and it puts this stigma that it will not let you down these cavemen used in the commercials are happy with their care. Captivating an audience of consumers that have; no car insurance, pay too much for their current, or simply are amused and begin to trust this advertising by believing what they keep telling you. I would say the audience is a broad range from around 21 to 45 years old of people who are having car insurance problems regardless of their situation.

        I believe this argument is trying to portray that car insurance is needed by everyone and if you are having trouble either; not having any or pay too much for yours that Geico can help. Everybody wants car insurance that is affordable (cheap) and easy to use (online website) so Geico is right for you. The humor appeal applied by the caveman act in the commercial helps remove the thought that you are dealing with a serious matter and relaxes the customer in making the decision to switch to Geico. Cavemen are old and history and with Geico you will never get caught with needing new insurance because you chose the one that will never fail. Geico wants you to believe that their car insurance is better than yours or is the best to own if the customer does not own any.

        If forced to choose one I would have to say the primary strategy used here in this commercial by Geico is pathos- because these cavemen who are still living are deeply offended by Geico and their chosen car insurance company is Geico, the advertisement tries to make you feel pity for the cavemen or also for yourself. If allowed I would argue that rhetorical strategy lands in all three categories. Pathos- you feel pity on cavemen or also on yourself as a consumer. Ethos- by using the advertisement with cavemen Geico is trying to sell that they are original and have been around for decades like the caveman. Logos- Geico is easy to use, and you can save a bundle of money on your car insurance if you switch to Geico. However, pathos being their main appeal I believe is used primarily to capture an audience who has feelings, or have a deep desire and need for car insurance. This pathos appeal connects to people personally, therefore, grasping another customer to make more money off of. The rhetorician is a part of this audience group if they own car insurance or have a need for it. The cavemen in this commercial are representatives of Geico, they are customers who low and behold even when being made fun of in a commercial are happy Geico customers who pride themselves in the ease of use and savings of money for choosing Geico.

Absolute Mandrin Vodka

http://www.nt.armstrong.edu/absolut.htm

I found this advertisement using google and searched new advertisements. This photograph is an advertisement promoting their brand Absolute to users. The company Absolute uses this style of advertising to grab as many possible consumers they can. They make great advertisements that are very proactive in gaining more and more clients to sell to.

The target audience is anybody who believes in this type of advertising. The advertisement works on a couple of levels. The beauty and scent of the freshly peeled mandarin is pleasing and pulls consumers in immediately. Fruit is healthy and aesthetically pleasing as is the design of the bottle. This product is one in which people would like to associate themselves. It would look good to serve this at a dinner party. The type faces send the message that while this might be a bit more expensive, it’s worth it. It tempts buyers to reach for the best, don’t they deserve the best.

The bold orange print reminds consumers that this isn’t what our father drank. No, ABSOLUT MANDARIN is now. I am most certainly in the target audience. I am 21 years old, although I do not drink this advertisement is aimed directly for people like me. I believe this advertisement uses the appeal of pathos. The scent of freshly peeled mandarin almost streams from the page at the first glance of the ad. Wouldn’t a mandarin orange taste good? When looked at closer, consumers see that this is another in a series of Absolut Vodka’s sensory ads: Absolut Citron, Melon, Vanilla and even Pear. Like the others the advertisement successfully uses a metaphor, comparing the product, the bottle of vodka, with a fruit in nature. In this case the claim is that Absolut Vodka shares some of the qualities of a mandarin orange: the perfection of a fruits in nature.  Also effective in this series is the typography used on the bottle itself. It is at once elegant and modern.

The use of the bold shade of orange with the words ABSOLUT MANDARIN is fresh and hip. The font is clean with sharp edges. Good choice to get the words to stand out. In contrast, the wording on the bottle is portrayed in formal script. It reminds customers of lettering that might be used on a formal invitation, a wedding invitation, dinner party, etc. When people dig deep into their pockets to afford the very best. It reminds them of tradition, it tells the purchaser that the company is hip while being firmly established too. This was a hit on google when all I typed in was new advertisements. This advertisement has a strong Pathos meaning behind its purpose- making money and collecting clients.