On the Wix site I am proposing that Direct to Consumer advertisement of prescription pharmaceuticals is resulting in unnecessarily medicating people, for conditions that may stem only from the ideology presented to them via advertisements on media formats we are surrounded by daily. And that this practice of flooding the public with medications known to have adverse side effects and many known for having habit forming behaviors may actually be creating more issues than it is controlling.
Monthly Archives: March 2014
RA2: A Cyber War of Rhetors Armed With Prose
Contained within the Wikipedia talk page on the subject of “Obesity,” I ran into what I perceived to be one of the most perplexing and thought provoking rhetorical arguments that I’ve had the privilege of randomly stumbling upon. The argument did not center around the stereotypical “fat” arguments. Instead this heated and highly contested debate centered on how obesity is classified and defined. My goal is to evaluate how rhetoric is used and try to determine if in fact anyone of if not all of the editors have a sound and logical argument for their stance.
In this particular argument a lack of substantiating references linked to reliable sources (which is considered essential on Wikipedia to provide validity) for the assertions made by one of the authors was the catalyst for debate. All of the players involved in this cyber arena of battle engaged one another with both ethos and logos. But during several heated exchanges editors lost control of their pathos; and began directly challenging one another’s knowledge bases as well as some juvenile minded name calling. Ultimately at the end of the day, logos proved to be the weapon that won the war.
The topic at the center of this debate is Obesity: What actually is it? Are we correct in assuming that our “understanding” of how it is defined and classified is actually the best understanding? This eight day battle of rhetors was based on subjective thoughts and personal schematics; that really begged the question about what the descriptive terminology of obesity actually does and does not entail.
I have a strong suspicion that if I were to randomly question persons to define obesity (or describe what they perceive obesity to be), I would more than likely get an assortment of ideologies that are derived from a person’s collection of subjective concepts. For most people in our society the word is a “tag or label” that carries a negative denotation. This word often brings specific things to mind— epidemic— discrimination— prejudice— and a thousand other disparaging stereotypes. Typically it is these negative associations that have a tendency to evoke argumentative confrontations; but not in this instance.
So let’s briefly assess our rhetors three viewpoints. The first contention is that obesity may be viewed as, and classified as, a cosmetic condition. So can we assume that it is simply an issue of being uncomfortable in one’s skin? Is it a sense of feeling less than perfect when observing one’s self in the mirror? A state of anger someone experiences when they have exceeded another waist size in jeans? Cosmetic by definition is — “used or done in order to improve a person’s appearance: done in order to make something look better: not important or meaningful” (“Cosmetic,” n.d., expression 1, 2, 3). Cosmetic classification would make obesity purely subjective to the beholder! One must ask if we can logically justify calling obesity a cosmetic issue?
The second contention is that obesity is a disease process. That in and of itself causes physiological changes as well as impacts a person’s mental health; and has an overall impact on a person’s functional level or ability? Disease by definition is — “an illness that affects a person, animal, or plant: a condition that prevents the body or mind from working normally: a problem that a person, group, organization, or society has and cannot stop” (“Disease,” n.d., expression 1, 2). By calling obesity a disease insinuates that excessive adipose in and of itself is an A) illness and B) something we can NOT control, and C) possesses its own distinct signs and symptoms. Again we must ask if this definition alone is justifiable.
And the third contention is that obesity is more of a multifaceted collection of risk factors; and that these factors, either alone or in conjunction, are probable to have detrimental effects on health. Risk factor by definition is — “something that increases risk and susceptibility; especially: something that makes a person more likely to get a particular disease or condition” (“Risk factor,” n.d., expression 1, 2). If obesity can be labeled as a risk factor, then it cannot inherently be an illness or disease process. Again are we able to use logic and justify a definition within the scope of risk factor terminology?
As you can see, there is a great deal of cognitive real-estate left open for philosophical debate within these three concepts.
When analyzing this argument we must remain conscious of Wikipedia’s policy of anonymity , and theory of collective collaboration for the advancement of knowledge. Whilst editors may choose to list their credentials or expertise, keep in mind that just because someone has posted a profile does not in fact guarantee that it is truthful! Reader Beware… Also contained within Wikipedia’s rules are very simple concepts of civility that are required for effective communication to occur. The concepts are straight forward and easily understood; for example don’t be a dick and don’t bite the new comer are rules that enable moderators to control and keep cyber peace and order. Throughout the heated thread numerous referrals were made regarding personal attacks; that were meant to question the intelligence or integrity of others and weaken their arguments.
This disagreement originated when the user alteripse placed a comment conveying his feelings on the talk page of the user Anastrophe; who has an implicit WARNING posted on his talk page. The WARNING (seen exactly as follows) “leaving messages on my talk page is generally non-constructive” (“Removal of material,” 2007, para. 2). To me this warning would suggest that he doesn’t respond well to criticisms — and that one would almost have to assume a less than positive response will be delivered swiftly.
What ensued was a short spat that amounted to the cyber equivalent of an aimless — adolescent minded — school yard — name calling dispute, over personal semantics between these two. This back and forth pathos jousting, over what boiled down to ego and subjectivity, accomplished absolutely nothing to bolster understanding. But it was very successful at igniting an inflammatory environment that was incapable of hosting rational debate. Finally, after far too much pointless—and anger invoking banter, Anastrophe offered an apology to both alteripse and jfdwolff (the original contributor to the article) for his cyber tantrum. Now that jfdwolff was involved (essentially as a mediator between the disputing parties initially) a debate about the topic on hand involving elements of logos and ethos could begin.
At the heart of this debate is an interesting problem, being that all parties may be considered correct within different contexts. A huge hiccup in this debate is that terminology is subject to change when the American Medical Association (AMA) puts their heads together and hypothesizes a better understanding of a specific medical issue; therefore creating and deeming a need for change. Until June of 2013 a popular consensus aloft in the healthcare world was that obesity could be considered a condition. A condition that was suspect to the interpretation of a physician as to whether it should be classified a cosmetic issue or a clinical issue. In June of 2013, the AMA officially made it a clinical issue by defining obesity as a disease (“Obesity”, 2013).
jfdwollf made the original assertion that obesity is a cosmetic issue (which is what the whole argument boils down to, or so you would be lead to believe) and allows Anastrophe an opportunity to refute his stance when he poses the question to him, “My assertion ‘obesity itself is mainly a cosmetic concern’ is blatantly obvious. What pray, are the symptoms of 1,000’s of people who are obese? I’m aware that obesity is classed as an ‘illness’, but in reality it is just as easily regarded as a risk factor.”(“Removal of material,” 2007, para. 9). There is an inherent issue present within this question and statement; he makes his point as well as acknowledges the other two points. And he then states that it could be just as easy to consider obesity risk factors as a cosmetic issue.
While jfdwolff acknowledges the other stances, he is “technically” correct in his stance on a cosmetic classification. He holds fast to the fact that without inherent signs and symptoms, obesity is merely a cosmetic issue. However even though he holds fast to his theory he is not remiss to the physiological consequences that can be incurred from obesity, and provides supportive links. His then acknowledges that while cosmetic issue obesity carries with it a set of undeniable of risk factors.
Anastrophe’s counter argument is that by implying obesity is merely to be considered a set of potential risk factors, or that it is nothing more than a cosmetic issue, is totally inappropriate. And also, that a statement that seems to disregard the consequences of chronic obesity carries with it the potential to provide detrimentally misleading information to the thread. But he also concedes to jfdwolff’s point of rational that obesity can be many things to many different people that lie outside the constraints of “disease”. He provides sample examples of what obesity may be to different people along the likes of, “for some it is cosmoses, for others it is utilitarian (‘I can’t tie my shoes anymore’), for others it is bullying due to appearance, for others – there is no concern at all” (“Removal of material,” 2007, para. 15). His point or conclusion from this exchange is that while obesity may be a cosmetic concern, it also carries its own verifiable risks. More over his point is that the phrasing should be changed to read as, “obesity is not in itself a disease” (“Removal of material,” 2007, para. 15).
Found within the mix of off-the-cuff cheap shots thrown back and forth lies a structured prose of simplistic and logical elegance. It is through this underlying (almost hidden) exchange of views, thoughts, and individual subjectivity that spawns an agreeable, as well as justifiable, middle ground. Admittedly, I had to read the thread to its end (where the primary contestants revealed misconceptions incurred by one another through out), and had to back-track rereading the article (several times) to come to fruition of where the editors argumentative starting and ending points actually were!
In the end jfdwolff makes a claim to Anastrophe that suggests he has managed to misinterpret jfdwolff’s message on obesity “only” being of cosmetic concern. This suggestion is minimally supported with jfd’s statement that he never actually said obesity was NOT a disease! While he may have never, in so many words, actually said obesity is not a disease; his context and tone used in support of his cosmetic stance would strongly suggest that he did not consider obesity to be anything more than cosmoses. Even though both persons bickered to the very end it was revealed that they both actually shared the same view point! In the end, the result was thousands of characters of text, carefully chosen and very intricate wording of thoughts, and over a weeks’ worth of time invested by both parties was — “Anyway, I have now removed the few words that caused so much discussion. I’m going to move on if you don’t mind” (“Removal of material,” 2007, para. 20).
To be honest, I am at odds as to whether I find this post/argument/ debate/ or whatever one would choose to term it as, to be sad… ironic…. or a complete waste of time…? I feel that both editors used their prose and rhetorical skills to do nothing more than create and sustain a pissing match. Once you are able to separate the — I guess you could say — “intentional” use of pathos (through less than reputable rhetorical tactics the likes of name calling, ad hominem, derogatory tone, and a few more) you finally begin to see this argument was not actually about what was said. But rather this whole debacle was about was not said, but was misinterpreted by another reader in a sea of confusion.
References
Obesity: Diseases and conditions. (2013). Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/obesity/basics/definition/con-20014834
Removal of unsourced material. (2007, August 29). In Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Obesity/Archive_5
knownolimitz 