Comments on: What ______ said… http://rhetorica.net/archives/1807.html Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:01:36 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Joshua http://rhetorica.net/archives/1807.html/comment-page-1#comment-1507 Joshua Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:23:23 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=1807#comment-1507 Your job for next semester will be to show me the distinguishing characteristic of rhetoric as opposed to manipulation (obviously this is determined by my particular definition of manipulation as carrying a negative conotation). For I fail to see how manipulation (with that being motive) carries any virtue of nobility. Your job for next semester will be to show me the distinguishing characteristic of rhetoric as opposed to manipulation (obviously this is determined by my particular definition of manipulation as carrying a negative conotation). For I fail to see how manipulation (with that being motive) carries any virtue of nobility.

]]> By: acline http://rhetorica.net/archives/1807.html/comment-page-1#comment-1506 acline Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:27:25 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=1807#comment-1506 Joshua...man, you are fresh meat for my 106 class next semester :-) I understand your struggle to assert reality in this way. But if someone acts upon an untruth as reality, structures their thinking by it, then the untruth has the force of reality for them. Re: Your final question. Yes, it is VERY interesting. Joshua…man, you are fresh meat for my 106 class next semester :-)

I understand your struggle to assert reality in this way. But if someone acts upon an untruth as reality, structures their thinking by it, then the untruth has the force of reality for them.

Re: Your final question. Yes, it is VERY interesting.

]]> By: Joshua http://rhetorica.net/archives/1807.html/comment-page-1#comment-1505 Joshua Tue, 21 Oct 2003 17:35:58 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=1807#comment-1505 But if everyone in the world believes a mistruth that does not make it true. What foothold do we have on reality if the way something is presented is more "important" then the content and facts an argument represents. I understand we are somewhat talking about different issues, but there is a principle or reality I am attempting to allude to. I am in no way saying that the way something is presented should be(or more importantly, will be in a realistic sense)discounted. But is it not interesting that one can actually be, to different degrees, knowingly entertained into subjection, and defend mistruths using the shield of alluring presentation to deflect factual substance. But if everyone in the world believes a mistruth that does not make it true. What foothold do we have on reality if the way something is presented is more “important” then the content and facts an argument represents. I understand we are somewhat talking about different issues, but there is a principle or reality I am attempting to allude to. I am in no way saying that the way something is presented should be(or more importantly, will be in a realistic sense)discounted. But is it not interesting that one can actually be, to different degrees, knowingly entertained into subjection, and defend mistruths using the shield of alluring presentation to deflect factual substance.

]]> By: acline http://rhetorica.net/archives/1807.html/comment-page-1#comment-1504 acline Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:38:37 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=1807#comment-1504 IOW...a debate like the ones we see in American politics, e.g. the current Democratic debates. The candidates are neither the audience nor the intended target of persuasion. That's the LAST place you want to whip out a string of syllogisms. TV doesn't do propositional content well. Besides, Aristotle was correct (far more than he knew with the invention of TV): you can rapidly disarm a sober, logical argument with pathos or humor. IOW…a debate like the ones we see in American politics, e.g. the current Democratic debates. The candidates are neither the audience nor the intended target of persuasion.

That’s the LAST place you want to whip out a string of syllogisms. TV doesn’t do propositional content well. Besides, Aristotle was correct (far more than he knew with the invention of TV): you can rapidly disarm a sober, logical argument with pathos or humor.

]]> By: Joshua http://rhetorica.net/archives/1807.html/comment-page-1#comment-1503 Joshua Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:10:47 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=1807#comment-1503 I suppose I mean, in general, a formal debate in which you know, undoubtedly, that your opponent will in no way publically concede, ergo distinguishing the public audience as the recipients of the intended persuasion. Furthermore, targeting your efforts to be consumed in a less manipulative and possibly more objective manner. I suppose I mean, in general, a formal debate in which you know, undoubtedly, that your opponent will in no way publically concede, ergo distinguishing the public audience as the recipients of the intended persuasion. Furthermore, targeting your efforts to be consumed in a less manipulative and possibly more objective manner.

]]> By: acline http://rhetorica.net/archives/1807.html/comment-page-1#comment-1502 acline Mon, 20 Oct 2003 07:01:41 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=1807#comment-1502 Joshua...it depends upon the format and goals of the debate. Joshua…it depends upon the format and goals of the debate.

]]> By: Joshua http://rhetorica.net/archives/1807.html/comment-page-1#comment-1501 Joshua Mon, 20 Oct 2003 06:08:36 +0000 http://localhost/wpp3/?p=1807#comment-1501 Yet, in a debate, would it not be more pertinent to use the "pristine syllagism" as oppossed to the enthymeme? Yet, in a debate, would it not be more pertinent to use the “pristine syllagism” as oppossed to the enthymeme?

]]>