How does this writer use rhetorical questions to critique the Occupy Movement?
In the short letter below in reference to The Occupy Movement, the writer phrases these comparisons in rhetorical questions to common decency and respect to fellow human beings that we would not turn away and refuse to help those in need. How does a rhetorical question create this?
Alternatives to protest
I RESPECT people's right to protest, but if the Occupy Melbourne inhabitants have a genuine conscience regarding social justice, there are plenty of better causes than corporate capitalism to turn their energies toward. Instead of setting up makeshift tents and creating a public eyesore, how about travelling to the Northern Territory to help build a school in an indigenous community? Or how about assisting the Salvation Army with young people at risk and living on the streets? How about offering to visit and read to lonely seniors at a local nursing home? Or is it just easier to grow dreadlocks, make cardboard slogans and frustrate regular working citizens?
This writer seems to regard the Occupy movement (at least its Australian incarnation) as misguided, and wants to argue that if the protesters had an actual sense of social justice, they would participate in causes that have a more direct impact on the lives of individuals. He or she uses rhetorical questions to suggest that perhaps the Occupy protestors are more interested in publicity, or simply going along with the crowd, than making efforts that might not win them as much notoreity. Building a school in the Northern Territory or volunteering for the Salvation Army or at nursing homes is not as hip as the Occupy Movement, but the author is suggesting that it could affect more people's lives in more tangible and constructive ways. It might be argued, in opposition to this view, that corporate greed and corruption are more fundamental issues than the author seems to think. It could also be the case that many of the protestors are more sincere than he or she thinks. In any case, by offering alternatives to protest in the form of rhetorical questions, the author hopes to discredit what the protestors are doing.