The article persuades the audience of the any problems and violations of human rights this law entails by using aggressive language and emotional comparisons. This particular article was posted In the Los Angles Times on February 14th. Because of the regency of the editorial, it becomes very comparable to the newly supported rights of homosexuals in the United States. The many new laws passed for gay marriage and the abolishment of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law allows for a wide audience and a very persuasive case.
The medium, however, does not bring a large audience. Newspapers are very rarely bought today due to the many other invention mediums of Information. The article Is available online, but unless It Is searched for specifically, It Is not readily available. Mark Procurators, the Los Angles Times foreign editor, may have contributed a large part in producing this article. In the fourteen years he has worked for The Times, he has produced many life-changing articles. He Joined the editorial board in January of 2013.
He adds many deferent perspectives on global issues. With degrees in political science and philosophy, Procurators has earned his credibility not only room his peers but also from his audience. In the article about this new law in Nigeria, the editorial staff gives many credible examples tying hard facts to a strong opinion. Using current events, such as the Russian Olympics, allows the readers to have confidence in their abilities as writers to voice the many reasons why their belief stands strong.
The editors link an opinion of why the law is outrageously wrong with the high number of people with AIDS in Africa when saying, “In a country with the world’s third-largest number of people living with HIVE or AIDS, the law could put errors obstacles in the way of health groups doing outreach programs providing education on HIVE prevention. ” Facts, such as this one, provides the audience with assurance of the authors’ credibility. HIVE AIDS is a tragic progressive disease that kills many. Using statistics of how the country of Nigeria has the world’s third largest number of people living with AIDS adds an emotional side to the article.
When reading how the law severely prohibits someone sick from getting the assistance they need, or prevention groups from educating, there Is a sense of anger and sadness for those suffering. Human rights Is another passionate subject for many. Any law striping humans of their basic rights to live and make decisions freely brings an uproar. Even as a non-supporter of gay rights in the united States, the reader becomes tempestuous with the idea of arresting someone for ten years or, as of the bill in Uganda that wasn’t enacted, sentencing the death penalty. The purpose of striking these emotions Is to give African countries.
The article also gives the idea of creating tolerant and accepting societies as a virtue every country must achieve. Though it is not the main purpose, those who disapprove of gay rights may take a second look at why they feel that way when comparing from right and wrong. The obvious belief Los Angles Times portrays is the complete injustice done by taking away basic human rights. Using quotes from a U. N. High Commissioner, someone highly respected, gives an allusion of a moral high ground to those who share the same value of human rights. Violating “basic, universal human rights” is frowned upon.
The viewpoint the editors were trying to voice is that religious or political beliefs should not cause one to stray from this unspoken agreement of fair and Just treatment to other human beings. This appears in the hostile wording they used to pass Judgment on those they believe to have bad moral Judgment. Implication words such as “propaganda”, instead of information, outline the major misunderstandings countries have that allow them to euthanize others who are different. One comment, described the senselessness of Russian laws restricting anyone from giving information about homosexuality to minors.
The assumption of, “as if gay meant being a predator”, questioned the misguided thought process that became such a law. Offensive and aggressive, the article uses accusations such as claiming, “conservative evangelical Christians who lost ground with their anti-gay gospel”, are redirecting their efforts somewhere more supported, such as Africa. Ultimately, the article did well in serving it’s purpose. The way it was written used rhetoric to form ideas and opinions, for some readers, in order to take action in reading supportive and tolerant communities.
Ironically, using an offensive and volatile tone can effectively persuade someone to be more peaceful and accepting. It may have offended many who are outside of the mindset of understanding these beliefs, but that may have been intentional. The easiest rhetorical device able to be outlined would be pathos as the authors show such passion for the values of human rights and respect for others who are different. The editors instill such passion and virtuous thinking in the reader, which makes for a very compelling case.