Don't you wish this text moved?

I was going to be all cool and actually make a video for this post, and simply post the link to it, but I ran out of time. So here's my post. Whoo.

I am a video boy. Video is my thing. It's what I do. So please excuse me if I ramble about the awesomeness of video.

We live in a visual culture. With phrases like "seeing is believing", "show me the proof", and "I don't see any difference" running rampant, I don't think I need to take the time to elaborate on the visuality of the US.

What I will talk about is why. Right now, there are ways to fool the ears. We do this all the time. Ventriloquists. Synthesizers. Celebrity Impersonators. Hearing isn't believing. I can talk about whatever I want, and you can argue with me. You might even win (although I doubt it. :P ).

Smelling and tasting isn't believing either. In the book "Fast Food Nation", Eric Schlosser describes a lab where the tastes and smells of McDonalds, Burger Queen, and all of the other restaurants are grown in test-tubes. If you're interested, check out page 124 by clicking on the link above. Heck, think about scratch-and-sniff stickers. I guess we can't ever say "the nose knows" ever again.

So, baring touch (A nobel prize to the person who can effectively and repeatedly argue through the sense of touch), all that's left to be reliable is Sight. Sight is our main source of input from the world. If we see something, we believe it. That's why special effects in movies are so exciting and attractive. Because we believe they're real. So if I were to tell you all about how PCs crash every two minutes, you might believe me. But if I were to sit you down in front of my PC and let you watch it crash every two minutes, my case would be a lot more solid. So, to answer the prompt for this post, yes, I believe that a visual argument is more persuasive than an aural argument.