> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 09:04:23 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > --- Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Ha! Now that's funny. You do realize right, that
> > > they're whining that
> > > people discount their arguments because their
> > > arguments are one-sided
> > > and irrational?
> >
> > There you go again. Rather than debating the
> issues,
> > disqualify and discredit the voice, then, is the
> > technique.
It's from a conversation. Grammar applies more to
writing than to speaking.
> Huh? First, that sentence doesn't parse
> gramatically. But I think I
> understand what you are trying to say. Second, I
> wasn't the one that
> posted the transcript that was discussing the
> criticism of the
> technique. You did. You brought it up. I was simply
> commenting on the
> efficacy of the technique.
>
> But I'll agree with your statement that I'm
> discrediting the
> technique. And it's not just me. I'm talking not
> from a political
> perspective at all here, but from the abstract
> perspective of
> forensics (the art or study of formal debate). There
> are certain
> techniques which are accepted as counter-productive
> to meaningful
> dialog. Things like polemic arguments, straw-man
> arguments,
> non-sequitors, etc. They are extremely useful at
> persuasive speaking
> because their very intent is to obfuscate the truth
> and confuse the
> listener in order to sway their opinion. They are
> extremely useful at
> that and they are the techniques which Rush,
> O'Reilly, et al use to
> great effectiveness. And I give them credit for
> that.
>
> But when there is a discussion of the issues, and
> someone resorts to
> citing people who use these techniques, it's not
> surprising that
> people discredit them because their techniques are
> DESIGNED to avoid
> talking reasonably about the issues.
>
> I would hazard a guess that Rush isn't always wrong.
> The funny thing
> is that people who think in the polemic style are
> often unaware of the
> logical fallacies it can introduce. So they are
> honest in their
> beliefs that they are making logical arguments. The
> problem is that
> because of how people like Rush use these
> techniques, they wantonly
> interweave truth and fiction.
That just isn't the case. Again, you're assuming he's
lying and dismissing him. Be open minded and dispute
the message not the messenger.
-sm
>So the only option is
> to dismiss it all
> since the methodology itself can't support the
> conclusions.
>
> -Kevin
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
