The Rhetoric of Philosophy Now's Forum

[Iwannaplato]

And of course, unintentional examples of PN rhetoric are welcome also.

[Skepdick]

But that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of 'philosophy', itself. Well to me anyway.

Q.E.D

What does 'Q.E.D' here MEAN, EXACTLY?

Does 'it' MEAN some 'thing' like you have PROVED some 'thing' here to be true, and thus also 'won' some 'thing' here, as well?

If yes, then is this an EXACT REPRESENTATION of what 'philosophy' is and/or that 'you' are being a "philosopher" here, in the way that you SEE what what the words 'philosophy' and 'philosophers' MEAN?

'I', by the way, NEVER 'won' ANY 'thing' here, as all I REALLY did here was just express A VIEW that 'I' have.

But, THEN AGAIN, we will WAIT to SEE what 'Q.E.D' ACTUALLY MEANS, to you, BEFORE we can Truly proceed here ANY further.

What do you mean here exactly by 'What does 'Q.E.D' here MEAN, EXACTLY? ' ?

[Age]

22) Take up too much space with either unnecessary quoting of images, unique formatting or empty space. This creates extra noise in the thread and less signal.

23) Treat any topic as an invitation to bring up one of your pet peeve issues. Do not be a respecter of topics.

I will keep updating the list in posts and in the OP. Suggestions may be welcomed.

24) Do NOT REALIZE just how often you are DOING what you ACCUSE "others" of DOING.

25) Create a topic about ALL of your OWN so-called 'pet peeves'.

26) KEEP ACTING like you are somehow SUPERIOR to "others".

27) Absolutely REFUSE to have DISCUSSIONS WITH "others" AGAIN BECAUSE you BELIEVE have some sort of SUPERIORITY here.

I will keep updating and/or adding to the list, IF I feel so inclined to.

[Age]

And of course, unintentional examples of PN rhetoric are welcome also.

VERY True, as this one is PROVING VERY True.

This one here being the one WHO also likes to talk ABOUT "others", but NOT necessarily WITH 'them'.

As ALSO PROVED True in this very thread and topic created.

[Wizard22]

Before

[Wizard22]

LOL

[Iwannaplato]

Before

Excellent!

24) Post such that it is unclear what you are responding to and even how you are responding to it.

[Flannel Jesus]

This one here being the one WHO also likes to talk ABOUT "others", but NOT necessarily WITH 'them'.

This is actually a good one. I admit I'm guilty of this, but credit where credit is due to Age, this is a good one. I'm not too proud to recognize some of my own failings (but much like every person, I'm too stupid to recognize all of them)

[Age]

Before

Done.

[Iwannaplato]

This one here being the one WHO also likes to talk ABOUT "others", but NOT necessarily WITH 'them'.

This is actually a good one. I admit I'm guilty of this, but credit where credit is due to Age, this is a good one. I'm not too proud to recognize some of my own failings (but much like every person, I'm too stupid to recognize all of them)

Adding it to the list. As I said in the OP, we've all done at least some of these. But to be really skilled and fit in well here, these flourishes must be central to one's approach. You still ave work to do, FJ

[Iwannaplato]

26) Never simply say 'I disagree,' and then go on to explain why. Always demote the other person, label their thinking or be stunned by their ignorance and express this directly. For ex. you are weak thinker, 'Go deeper' or 'Such ingnorance!' Preferably a number of these in a row. Many people will do this on occasion when especially frustrated. An artist regularly reacts this way, especially in long disagreements. If you are missing opportunities, you'll never be a PN stylist. Whatever follows your put down need not be well thought out or on topic.

[iambiguous]

Here are some rhetorical techniques that are very persuasive, if sometimes only self-persuasive. Do make these the core of your posting here, if you don't already do this. We've all done at least some of these at some point, if only implicitly. But when it is a central part of your rhetorical style, you've joined the pantheon.

1) Always say that you have demonstrated, proven or shown that X is true or Y is false. Even if all you have done is state or assert. Your assertions are proofs.

2) Don't respond to points made; restate in a new paraphrase what you've already asserted. Avoid justification of beliefs. See number 1.

3) Don't respond to points made; demand that the other person prove the opposite of your position.

4) Add links. Don't worry if they do what you claim. Don't bother reading them carefully. Later accuse the other person of having no evidence because they don't use links.

5) If cornered in any way, or just as a preemptive strike, insult your discussion partner. This may lead to an exchange of insults and any weaknesses in your position will be forgotten in the fray.

6) Don't respond to points made; accuse the other person of not having solved a related or unrelated issue.

7) Appeal to authority, and always imply that there is consensus amongst experts. Whatever you link to, the opinion expressed there is universal and objective.

8 Divide every issue into 2 possible positions: yours and the false/evil/irrational one. There are no third possible positions. You're either with us or against us.

9) Mindread. If someone does not respond to a post, say that they are afraid or have given up. If someone ignores you, say that they know they are beaten. If they are critical of a war, say they love the leader of the other side's leader. You get the idea. DO NOT justify these claims.

10) Call failure to disprove, proof of your belief. Oh, and it doesn't matter if they failed. They can even have mounted a solid argument. That has zero consequence.

11) Start new threads that are actually just continuations of current threads. Without saying it, this implies that you have the magic bullet. Treat all your posts as victories and nails in the coffin. This is an implicit trope for number 12's open one.

12) Claim victory. This can be done openly. Self-congratulate.

13) Claim you are the best philosopher - not just here at PN, but in general. Never aim low when making claims that you in particular cannot be convinced are untrue.

14) Claim that your assertions are better than other people's assertions per se: justify this via something that may seem easy to dismiss but is hard to finally contradict such as: you are from the future, you've changed your mind many times, you have no beliefs or you have a lot of files on the topic are some examples already used. Be creative in coming up with the reason your posts per se are better than other people's. The competition here is stiff.

15) Don't respond to points made; restate in a new paraphrase what you already asserted. This should be everyone's baseline rhetorical strategy. Again, this is the core of PN style.

16) Appeal to incredulity. Best done indirectly through mocking, especially with emojis. If you are ever conrnered, use a large number of moving emojis. This shows commitment and since it is not an argument, it is impossible to counter.

17) Treat the hypothetical as factual. You can even say it is hypothetical, then slide into referring to it as factual. Zero loss, much to gain.

18) REPEAT YOUR POSITION AS IF IT IS A RESPONSE: Regardless of what the other person says or points out that you ignore. Only true positions can be repeated. Commitment is truth. Your certainty should be their certainty

19) Remember anyone who dismisses you for any of the above, is showing that they fear the power of your posts. See 9 for some variations.

20) Write complicated non-responses that might somehow metaphorically relate but likely not. Unitelligibleness or inanis ultrices cannot be easily disproven or even argued with.

21) Use idiosyncratic and confusing use of capital letters and citation marks, and ask a lot of questions. Blame others for not understanding your idiosyncracies and ask many more questions. Be disappointed in their responses. Respond to any interpretation of what you said or disagreement with outrage. And ask more questions. Keep the onus on them.

22) Take up too much space with either unnecessary quoting of images, unique formatting or empty space. This creates extra noise in the thread and less signal.

23) Treat any topic as an invitation to one of your pet peeve issues. Do not be a respecter of topics.

24) Post such that it is unclear what you are responding to and even how you are responding to it.

25) Talk about another poster, but not with them.

26) Never simply say 'I disagree,' and then go on to explain why. Always demote the other person, label their thinking or be stunned by their ignorance and express this directly. For ex. 'you are weak thinker', 'Go deeper' or 'Such ingnorance!' Preferably a number of these in a row. Many people will do this on occasion when especially frustrated. An artist regularly reacts this way, especially in long disagreements. If you are missing opportunities, you'll never be a PN stylist.

(I will keep updating the list with my and your suggestions)

We'll need an actual context, of course.

A discussion and a debate about something in which people often have conflicting points of view. And, no, not just about abortion.

That way as the exchange unfolds, Iwannaplato can note specific instances of all the transgressions he mentions above.

I'm willing to have a go at it. If someone else here is as well, let's do it. Either on this thread or another.

I'll let you choose the context.

[iambiguous]

27] anything that iambiguous might post.

[Flannel Jesus]

27] anything that iambiguous might post.

Everybody shhh, he noticed the pattern

[iambiguous]

27] anything that iambiguous might post.

Everybody shhh, he noticed the pattern

Okay, now this part:

We'll need an actual context, of course.

A discussion and a debate about something in which people often have conflicting points of view. And, no, not just about abortion.

That way as the exchange unfolds, Iwannaplato can note specific instances of all the transgressions he mentions above.

I'm willing to have a go at it. If someone else here is as well, let's do it. Either on this thread or another.

I'll let you choose the context.

You choose the conflicting good. You choose the context.

Then from day to day as the exchange unfolds, Iwannaplato [and others] can pinpoint more specifically all of the philosophical misdemeanors and felonies I commit here in posting.

Let's stay on this thread. That way we'll have access to his list of offenses.