what he says, But that he personally (Kevin) does not consider Rush a
good authority in a reasonable discussion.
Dana
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:23:28 -0700 (PDT), Sam Morris
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Kevin Graeme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 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]
