Use of Language to Manipulate and Deceive

Lying: Deceit in Language

Tools, such as hammers, have no inherent intent to deceive or malign. Only in the hands of its users do morals come into play. Lying is relative and in some instances the best of choices. Introspection accompanied with reasoning skills will help those receiving language signals to properly classify, and then act upon or ignore, these relations. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relative use of language, and specifically the relationship to its use and intentional miscommunication or deception.

I will develop this argument using the suggested written materials in order to point out how every argument can be interpreted with doubt and the intended consequence of deceit. I will also explore the idea of manipulation through deceptive language and the characteristics of such actions. It is my opinion that manipulation is a self-inflicted process that relies on an individual's decision to rely more on the experiences and tales of someone else as opposed to one's own take on an issue: " masses would not have been conquered, however, if they had known how to challenge and to question, how to make distinctions between propaganda and reasonable argument." (Sylvar) This two way argument is circular in nature but still provides a helpful approach to navigating large and complex fields of information and chatter.

Orwell, in his article, highlighted many fine arguments about the English language and its problematic system of revealing itself. However, most would agree that communication is predominately non-verbal making his argument too picky and not embracing a finer point of enlightenment. Knowing and accepting his critique on the language, however will no doubt serve to help those wishing to find truth and eliminate contradiction within this realm of language. Only when this information is coupled with the reason acquired through experience may students begin to learn and assimilate what is important when communicative methods are being employed.

Logical fallacies are the student's best friend in determining what is useful and what is tailored for perhaps a different audience. Religion may fail under logical analysis, but to the devout follower of any scripture or written word (science included) these felicitous arguments hold specific meaning. More importantly, religion and dramatized wordings work better in most cases than boring matter of fact rhetorical presentation. Cross' essay laid out many important logical fallacies to prevent the misinterpretation of corporate and advertising lingo. These fallacies transcend markets and shopping however, and in my opinion represent excellent tools to analyze everything.

Upon completing this exercise in finding fallacies, the student will soon realize that every argument has a logical gap somewhere within its reasoning. This very essay is riddled with them, however using reasoning and common sense; one may decipher this deceptive practice with relative ease. Being comfortable in a world of illusion may be daunting, but practice makes perfect. Debunking every written argument should be the goal of every educated man or woman today. The ability to peacefully hold two polar opposing statements as truth is an accomplishment in and of itself that requires discipline, faith and the knowhow of spotting these fallacies.

Schrank's essay seems bitter and resentful. Picking on advertisers as the main proponents of misinformation does not appear to be fair. Lying and deceiving people in the name of capitalism and competing for dollars should be expected. Buyer beware, experience is you best instrument for gauging what is useful or not to yourself. Reliance on authority is the biggest fallacy of them all and should be avoided whenever possible. Today's educational systems seem to rely on much authority to convey some truth. This is further proof that one's own education should be examined in a personal manner and comparative understanding contains many shortfalls in utility.