27 August 2015
Arguments vs. War
In the beginning of this article, the author quoted linguists George Lakoff and Mark Johnson when they explained the controlling metaphor for war in western culture. “It is important to see that we don’t just talk about arguments in terms of war. We actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent.” That statement is so utterly true, as a culture we thrive on picking apart someone's opinion and making them see it our way. Making them see that it is what is dubbed as “our way, or the highway” that mentality is very alive in our culture in many ways and we see it so often today. In war, the same in any battle we feed off of the person's weakness and use that as our point of attack, isn't that the same thing in arguments? From the start of this, it seemed that Jones was questioning the war metaphor in its entirety, questioning the ideology of it. Jones then goes on into why she feels the way she does about the war metaphor, and even gives examples of arguments and how they are different than how they would be if one was arguing with the same ideals as the war metaphor.
In this piece Jones uses different antidotes to prove points in this piece and seems to believe argumentation is not a form of war. It seems that she feels argumentation is really a form of opinion, and even mentions in her article “one of the rules of good argument is that the participants in an argument agree on the primary standpoint and that individuals are willing to concede if a point of view is proven wrong.” This is a very good point, today in the world of politics no one seems to understand this piece of information. Not everyone is going to agree or like everything that is said 100 percent of the time, so if one particular point is proven wrong, it is wrong and it is alright to concede your point.
This is a very good argument, it is researched and she doesn't give too much of an emotional...