During my talk for a group from a faith-based organisation I do what I always do: I claim that LOGOS (fact and logic) is the only legitimate way to persuade other people. It may be true that ETHOS (the sender’s trustworthiness) can help us assess the credibility of the source, but people making rational decisions should try to steer away from PATHOS.
While saying this, I note that the group leader squirms in her seat. It is apparent that she doesn’t agree. I choose to not go further down this path and continue talking about the five Ws or something. Yet, I am a bit fascinated that I am apparently visiting a place where rationalism may be questioned. In my life as a communicator, this is really rare.