Weblog #765

Firstly, do we need emotionally loaded words?  I assume we do, but I want to avoid any manipulation or melodrama that might not be associated with Rogerian rhetoric.  Also, Rogerian rhetoric forster’s sympathy toward the opponent’s views, right?  If so, how sympathetic must it be?  Do I need to actually prefer the opponents, or merely reach an understanding and common ground?  I’m thinking the latter.

 In Rogerian rhetoric, I’m assuming I need to reach a level of common understanding with opposing views, not merely an acknowlegement.  Also, though I need to choose a side, even if its complete nuetrality, I should not go out of my way to determine my view is superior, only that it is a justifyable solution to the problem using research and data–just like my opponent(s), correct?