Login

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

March 29, 2024, 05:44:00 pm

Author Topic: [2016 LA Club] Week 3  (Read 8904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Anonymous

  • Guest
Re: [2016 LA Club] Week 3
« Reply #15 on: December 29, 2016, 08:11:15 pm »
0
Written before looking at the comments.

In two letters to the editor, Robert Pallister and Victor Bivell both adopts a mocking tone targeted to disparage upon individuals opposing the new legislation of lockout laws. By use of anecdotal contrast, Pallister juxtaposes conventional “pubs and clubs” to that of “the distant past” to illustrate the alleged success can still occur with early closure. This argument is substantiated with rhetoric questioning implying that “these establishments can turn a profit closing at 1am”. This enforces a sense of equivocality in the reader, allowing them to question the music industry’s justification for contravention of the “lockout” legislation. Pallister mocks these establishments, suggesting that the flaws of the legislation is rather entwined in “bad management”, scapegoating the music industry to position readers to antagonise them, therefore bolstering Pallister’s opinion. Similarly, Bivell satirically mocks opposing individuals who perceive the laws as “nanny state”. The repetitive use of “nanny state” connotatively compares the state to a “nanny”, which therefore evokes a sense of frailness and incapability. Hence the readers are positioned to belittle the government; however, this rhetoric is used in a satirical sense to reiterate that the same government is responsible for major public services. In addition, these beneficial services are funded “by people who don’t go to kings Cross”, thus shifting the audience to perceive opposing individuals to be ungrateful and rash. As such, readers are invited to ridicule them and adopt a stance aligned with Bivell’s.