I analyzed an argument proposed by a website specializing in assisting those who have suffered Childhood trauma. In this article the author, David Hosier MSc a psychologist and published author specializing in the effects of childhood trauma on adults, proposes the argument that childhood fame is a form of abuse that many children are wrongly subjected to. He tackles the moral issues involved with the legal working of children for entertainment purposes. This article aims to argue that children should not be worked or pushed by parents. The reasoning it offers for the immorality of this action is that it creates negative effects on the growth of said child and can harm them up until adulthood.
The first claim of Hosier makes…show more content… However, throughout the majority of this article (had we not known the authors credentials) the authors claims seem to be speculation based on a few anecdotal cases analyzed by Hosier. However, since we do know that the author is not only a practicing psychologist and a published author the audience is far more likely to believe Hosier’s opinions because of his expertise on the topic. So, we can fulfil the “ethos” side of Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle.
As for warrant associated with this argument. The argument is lacking in one key factor which happens to be the evidence to prove the argument. This argument offers the claim that child acting may be immoral and the reasoning behind that claim is that many parents will possibly abuse their children by manipulating them. This abuse will then lead to many more conflicts in the child’s life. However, this article fails to offer any statistics to prove this argument besides a few examples of childhood stars gone mad. So, I conclude that this author fails to present his argument with…show more content… He states that this is due to the added stress on the child which can stunt their development. He proceeds to claims that the mental issues associated can lead to children forming eating disorders or depression which harms the child mentally and physically. The point of this argument is for the audience to concede that subjecting children to fame harms them physically thus making it immoral.
This argument is based on many examples of well-known former childhood stars and is almost entirely anecdotal. This method of argument appeals to the audience’s emotional side or “Pathos” side of the rhetorical triangle. This is an expected emotional appeal for this company that is dedicated to childhood trauma recovery the natural human reaction is an empathetic one. Children are typically supposed to be care free and lighthearted so when the audience hears of children harming themselves due to fame the typical response is to agree that childhood fame is a negative
