In Class: 3 Texts Tie In

How do these textes fit together?
These texts are all a bit combative. With the first text with the seminary president he starts by attacking their tactics in the ministry and how they are opening themselves up for failure. The second text of Ron Jeremy's debate validates the moral character of the people in the ministry, but seeks to cut his argument at the throat, not at the knees. Jeremy discusses the the ridiculous nature of the claims that the leader makes and does not address the situation in a passive sort of way.

How are they the same?

How are they different?
The theo. pres. goes for a different tactic in calling into question the moral character of Gross and his people. He also, in his main points does not cut directly to the point when talking about what he does not agree with. He says that Jesus wouldn't necessarily go to a sex expo, but he never says that Gross shouldn't. Most of his language is metaphorical but strong at the same time.
Jeremy's text has a lot of information that is in direct response to something previously said (as is the nature of debate) but he is also quick to respond that he agrees with a lot of what Gross says about not being available for kids and the fact that he is true to waht he preaches.

Unspoken Values and Assumptions:
Many of these arguments, especially from Gross and the Sem. Pres. talk about what Jesus would view as appropriate. The fact that this point plays such a large role in both of these agruments begs that the audience understands who they are talking about and that they attribute some sort of authority and power in the citation of the name. For those that do, it allows these specific statements to hold a lot of weight and carry meaning, but for those that don't the message could get lost. Also, the fact that participating in pornography is a "sin" is an unstated assumption in these two texts as well.

Cultural of Assertion:
The state of argument in America, as suggested by these 3 sources, relies heavily on shock value and authority. They seek to accomplish this by citing someone they each consider a relevant power in whatever argument they are trying to make. In the event that someone does not see the validity in the authority that they each cite, there is a lot of lost ground.
There is also a lot to be said on the shock value factor that each present. Each one of these interviews and debates cite something that should make any normal audience gasp. In hooking the audience's attention by this method there is an extreme emotional factor.