In the opening paragraphs Rauch establishes himself as a reasonable person by first saying that “I am not a racist and that this is not an article favoring racism or any other particular prejudice”, he also gave a fair deal of examples of prejudice. He later enforces this persona by stating how he is in support of gay marriage, and rejects the views of both his family and god alike. The importance of persona in an ethical argument is to build a bridge of trust to the audience, showing that you are not in support of what you are writing a perceived negative ethical argument.

2. What Rauch means by “intellectual pluralism” is the notion that any ideology should be allowed to exist, whether or not it is harmful. The closest he comes to giving a definition is stating “Pluralism creates room to challenge orthodoxy, think imaginatively, experiment boldly. Brilliance and bigotry are empower in the same stroke.” He also gives says in intellectual pluralism “we kill our mistakes rather than each other.” He uses examples to imply a definition by stating over and over again that the eradication of said ideas is not the choice that should be made. …show more content…
One of the main counterarguments to Rauch’s position is why should prejudice exist when it can and will harm certain groups or individuals? Throughout the writing Rauch brings up the argument of banning offensive words, and how universities, schools, criminal law, and the workplace have all undergone major change due to purists. Rauch is effective in refuting such counterarguments against intellectual pluralism by stating that although they have well intentions in protecting minorities from prejudice, it is not needed as minorities are far more effective at defending themselves. Also that this censoring of offensive material only further negates positive change in