“There are many causes I would die for. There is not a single one I would kill for” (Gandhi). Nonviolent resistance is an idea and way of living that has been believed by many for centuries. Nonviolent resistance is a form of attack that cuts just as deep as any other resistance. Cesar Chavez makes a persuasive argument for nonviolent resistance in a published article, using two main rhetorical devices: Ethos and Pathos. With the expert wielding of such highly persuasive weapons, Chavez uses ethos and logos to twist the hearts of the readers and then ring them out, making them feel emotionally responsible to act, and then in turn convincing them the only way to act is through nonviolent resistance.
Chavez uses ethos, or moral appeals, to get into the hearts of the readers, twisty…show more content… Halfway through his article Chavez begins to use “we” and “us” to connect to the readers - making them much more susceptible to rhetorical devices, such as ethos. as one way to make the readers more vulnerable to moral attacks. When the intended. Coupled with the use of “we” and “us” is the powerful moral arguments used While speaking about the grave consequences of nonviolent resistance, Chavez uses ethos to convince his readers expertly, saying, “We are also convinced that nonviolence is more powerful than violence. Nonviolence supports you if you have a just and moral cause. Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is of crucial importance to win any contest. If we resort to violence then one of two
