But where is the line to be drawn?

If we accept rhetoric is omniscient, if we practice it in all areas of life, where do we draw the line?

We are constantly surrounded by rhetoric- tweets from the president, classroom lectures, and verbal pressure from a Grandmother.

Combined with it’s everlasting presence, we’ve been rhetorically trained. We have a leg up on the rest of the population who haven’t been taught to read against the grain.

These are moral and ethical implications everyone has to decide on their own. However, I’ve developed a stance I hope to stick to.

Being creative in your approach to any material or situation means that hard rules can’t always apply- subjective judgement is vital. We have to ebb and flow with what the situation requires.

• In persuading others, especially those uneducated in rhetoric, we are accountable for what comes of our persuasion.
• The ends *sometimes* justify the means

In applying our rhetorical knowledge to everything, there comes a point where utter exhaustion is inevitable. But in willfully “turning off” our rhetorical mindset, what are we allowing?

• Any rhetor must accept that they will be practicing rhetoric on an untrained audience eventually. Based off of this, I must justify that turning off the “reading against the grain” switch. Because persuasion is often a good, enlightening process, we should allow it to act upon us (when there is enough ethos to justify)
• Beyond this, there should be joy in enlightenment. The constant analysis can destroy the effects of creative rhetoric, such as an emotional song, powerful speech, or striking painting. To enjoy art and its rhetoric, we must allow this leeway.