Still can't give us examples, eh, Mr. Atherton? Still all hot air about the
deceptions of the left and not a single example. I thought Mr. Atherton was
the great data specialist, but apparently the THIRD definition of rhetoric
in one dictionary is the only one that applies to him and for him.
The definitions of "rhetoric" in the Unabridged Merriam Webster New
Universal Dictionary are:
Rhetoric:
1. the art or science of using words effectively in speaking or writing, so
as to influence or persuade; especially, now, the art or science of literary
composition, particularly in prose, including the use of figures of speech.
2. a treatise or book on this.
3. the art of oratory; the rules that govern the art of speaking with
propriety, elegance, and force, or that regulate argumentative prose
composition.
4. artificial eloquence; showiness and elaboration in language and literary
style.
5. the power of persuading or influencing, as the rhetoric of the heart or
eyes.
The University's Speech Department was once called the Department of
Rhetoric.
And we still see not a single example of the Left using right wing terms to
label its ideas or organizations.
Now, the MN Labor Federation is one example of a Republican group trying to
sound like a DFL or labor group, just as the Center for Equal Opportunity
works against equal opportunity.
This is fun, Mr. Atherton. Now, can you actually cite one single example of
the opposite of my premise?
And now, congratulations to Moore and Samuels. Let the finals begin. Not too
much labor assistance for Valdi Rozentals, apparently.
Andy Driscoll
Saint Paul
--------
I (cannot) submit the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party
of men (and women) whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in
anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction
is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
--- Thomas Jefferson (updated)
> From: "Michael Atherton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 12:44:54 -0600
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [Mpls] Labor Endorsement
>
> Andy Driscoll wrote:
>
>> Now, I'd like Mr. Atherton or anyone else to give us all some
>> definitive examples of deceptive advertising and marketing
>> through the use of misleading labels by left or progressive
>> groups as a way of persuading right-leaning people to their side.
>>
>> One. Just one example, Mr. Atherton.
>>
>> I wager, that if one example can be iterated, a dozen more
>> can be found to be just the opposite.
>
> Hedging our bets a little eh? I suppose this righteous imbalance is
> due to the fact that the Left holds the higher moral ground and has
> God on their side?
>
>> In either case, I deplore the mangling of meaning to convey
>> an opposite impression from the reality underneath, no matter
>> the political persuasion. Deception and dishonest by anyone
>> and any group is exactly the means by which clever politics
>> keep people cynical and out of participating in civic
>> activity, not the least of which is voting.
>
> I also deplore the mangling of meaning to convey an opposite
> impression. On this we agree, we disagree on who is more
> likely to distort reality. I believe that unscrupulous people
> of all political persuasions use this method, whereas you
> seem to think that its used primarily by conservatives.
>
>> So, let's have at it: let's find the outfits that claim to
>> be one thing, but are actually the opposite of what they
>> claim. It isn't just rhetoric. Rhetoric is not by definition
>> deceptive.
>
> From the American Heritage Dictionary:
>
> Rhetoric 3. A style of speaking or writing, especially the
> language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
> Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or
> intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere
> rhetoric.
>
> I suppose we could argue whether "pretentious, insincere, or
> intellectually vacuous" language is deceptive. But let's
> ignore semantics for a moment and I'll give you my favorite
> Minneapolis specific example that I believe is deceptive,
> insincere, and intellectually vacuous.
>
> I believe that the Minneapolis Public School District
> Administration is a left-wing "progressive" organization.
> On their website,
> http://www.mpls.k12.mn.us/about/referendum_class_size.shtml,
> they claim that their "Data shows that small class size
> increases achievement for students of all races." This
> is a totally bogus, deceptive, insincere, and intellectually
> vacuous statement and anyone with a decent introductory
> statistics class knows it. And they know it too.
>
> Now you can argue either that their statement is valid
> (good luck), or that the Minneapolis Public School District
> Administration is not a left-wing "progressive" organization
> (likewise good luck).
>
> Michael Atherton
> Prospect Park
>
>
> _______________________________________
>
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
> Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
_______________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
