The Rhetoric of Philosophy Now's Forum

[Flannel Jesus]

You choose the conflicting good. You choose the context.

Every thread is the context.

I wonder where your "click" silliness fits into this list. What do you think iwaanaplato? Is it already on the list? Should it be added? What sort of category does "click" belong to?

[Iwannaplato]

You choose the conflicting good. You choose the context.

Every thread is the context.

I wonder where your "click" silliness fits into this list. What do you think iwaanaplato? Is it already on the list? Should it be added? What sort of category does "click" belong to?

His repeated clicks were annoying but I realized I was more or less hearing the sound. Like those clickers some people use to train their dogs. IOW a near random association from my life experiences. So, I asked him about it. He responded, which was good, but I didn't really understand what it meant still and asked for clarification. I don't think I ever got a response. It is CERTAINLY a worthy rhetorical tool. I'd just have to understand it better to make the rule. We don't want people merely copying Iambiguous' click.

If you can make a general tip for the list, with click, as an example, I'd happily add it to the list.

[Flannel Jesus]

You choose the conflicting good. You choose the context.

Every thread is the context.

I wonder where your "click" silliness fits into this list. What do you think iwaanaplato? Is it already on the list? Should it be added? What sort of category does "click" belong to?

His repeated clicks were annoying but I realized I was more or less hearing the sound. Like those clickers some people use to train their dogs. IOW a near random association from my life experiences. So, I asked him about it. He responded, which was good, but I didn't really understand what it meant still and asked for clarification. I don't think I ever got a response. It is CERTAINLY a worthy rhetorical tool. I'd just have to understand it better to make the rule. We don't want people merely copying Iambiguous' click.

If you can make a general tip for the list, with click, as an example, I'd happily add it to the list.

It is a tool of condescension, I believe. It doesn't mean anything in its own right, it is meant as a signal to whoever he's responding to, "I think of you like a dog and I've noted your idiocy". It's funny, for how word-inefficient he can be, "click" is probably one of the most meaning-dense things anybody could say!

[Flannel Jesus]

I might put in in the category of "communications deliberately meant to NOT be understood", which I generally consider antithetical to philosophy and to language itself.

(I actually think a lot of what he writes, he writes with the intent to not be understood. The either/or world? What are you talking about?)

Anyway, "communications deliberately meant to NOT be understood" I think fits on the list

[henry quirk]

Rephrase your opponent's position in such a way said paraphrase, at first glance, appears to mirror your opponent's position, but actually doesn't. This opens up gotcha! opportunities down thread.

-----

This may be a subset of #18...

Stick to your script. Cut & paste is your friend. Your middle name is Verbatim.

[Flannel Jesus]

Rephrase your opponent's position in such a way said paraphrase, at first glance, appears to mirror your opponent's position, but actually doesn't. This opens up gotcha! opportunities down thread.

This seems like something that can be done by accident, in good faith. We can't read each others minds after all.

Not that that necessarily means it doesn't belong on the list. But a lot of the list is more deliberately bad faith in nature

[Iwannaplato]

I might put in in the category of "communications deliberately meant to NOT be understood", which I generally consider antithetical to philosophy and to language itself.

Well, I don't know, yet....
Here was his first response to me...

Well, the best I can explain it [even to myself], is it revolves around the paradox of me believing in determinism and yet still sustaining exchanges with others here as though I do have free will.

It's like me saying, "okay, I don't know whether my brain compels me to type these words and then post them but -- click -- I'll assume that I do have free will and 'somehow' opted to.

So, it seems to mean something like 'I am marking this point in the conversations where I move forward as if I have free will [whatever that means] even though I don't believe in free will, though I also don't rule it out.

So, while it comes off as negative about the other poster, I see it more as a private language situation. Like Benjamin Buttons or Stooges or serious philosophers. All things he likely has explained somewhere, but there is an 'encountering a unique dialect' aspect to reading the posts.

IOW I think it associates quickly to negative things, but he doesn't intend it the way it might seem.

I am not sure yet, I can make a rule, though I appreciate your efforts. Without it having some kind of dominance/evasion role, it really doesn't rise to the artistic level of the OP list.

[Iwannaplato]

Rephrase your opponent's position in such a way said paraphrase, at first glance, appears to mirror your opponent's position, but actually doesn't. This opens up gotcha! opportunities down thread.

-----

This may be a subset of #18...

Stick to your script. Cut & paste is your friend. Your middle name is Verbatim.

I actually noticed your exchange with Iambiguous in another thread - was that the one where the new guy came and Iambiguous started talking about objectivists and then you in particular?

When I saw the exchange I had the same reaction...this is a great rheortical tool and it is a common one. The trick is...it is very common to rephrase other people's positions and this can be done well. So, how do we train people to create strawmen interpretations.

Because I will tell you I think the greatests artists here are for the most part unaware of what they are doing. There's a real natural talent source in this, though I am optimistic it can also be trained.

I think the rule needs a second step....

28) Rephrase what other people have said. Deny you made any significant change. Never consider that you may have done this. You may consciously choose to make a strawman or note, through patterns of discussion partner irritation, that you already have a gift for this. Never admit to strawman behavior. Hold the line. They have the burden of proof to show that you presented a false attribution. It is their job to show it is not right, not your job to justify the changes you made. Must one truly use the quote function. I mean, seriously!!??

[Iwannaplato]

Rephrase your opponent's position in such a way said paraphrase, at first glance, appears to mirror your opponent's position, but actually doesn't. This opens up gotcha! opportunities down thread.

-----

This may be a subset of #18...

Stick to your script. Cut & paste is your friend. Your middle name is Verbatim.

I think the key, note my previous response, is the last step. They have the burden of proof that whatever paraphrase you made up is incorrect. This keeps them working and you free.

[Iwannaplato]

Rephrase your opponent's position in such a way said paraphrase, at first glance, appears to mirror your opponent's position, but actually doesn't. This opens up gotcha! opportunities down thread.

This seems like something that can be done by accident, in good faith. We can't read each others minds after all.

Not that that necessarily means it doesn't belong on the list. But a lot of the list is more deliberately bad faith in nature

I wrestled with this. My solution is that actually mistaken paraphrase is not showing real rhetorical skill. There are three components to this rhetorical flourish. See..
viewtopic.php?p=638269#p638269

[henry quirk]

Rephrase your opponent's position in such a way said paraphrase, at first glance, appears to mirror your opponent's position, but actually doesn't. This opens up gotcha! opportunities down thread.

*This seems like something that can be done by accident, in good faith. We can't read each others minds after all.

Not that that necessarily means it doesn't belong on the list. But a lot of the list is more deliberately bad faith in nature

*Sure. The particular party I have in mind, though, he does it purposefully. He takes great efforts to quote himself accurately, but rarely does so when quoting his opponent. More often he paraphrases, and always his paraphrases do not mirror his opponent's position.

[Flannel Jesus]

Yikers

[iambiguous]

You choose the conflicting good. You choose the context.

Every thread is the context.

I wonder where your "click" silliness fits into this list. What do you think iwaanaplato? Is it already on the list? Should it be added? What sort of category does "click" belong to?

Again:

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.

And I explained the "click business":

Let me explain that. "Click" in the sense I am assuming that I do have at least some measure of free will here. I am opting to conclude what I do but only because in thinking it through to the best of my ability I did not opt toward a different, conflicting conclusion.

It revolves around just how surreal a discussion of determinism can be here.

After all, here I am defending determinism while posting as though I do have the free will to defend it. Ever and always going back to this part:

All of this going back to how the matter we call the human brain was "somehow" able to acquire autonomy when non-living matter "somehow" became living matter "somehow" became conscious matter "somehow" became self-conscious matter.

Then those here who actually believe that what they believe about all of this reflects, what, the ontological truth about the human condition itself?

Then those who are compelled in turn to insist on a teleological component as well. Usually in the form of one or another God.

Meanwhile, philosophers and scientists and theologians have been grappling with this profound mystery now for thousands of years.

Either in the only possible reality in the only possible world or of their own volition.

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

[iambiguous]

You choose the conflicting good. You choose the context.

Every thread is the context.

I wonder where your "click" silliness fits into this list. What do you think iwaanaplato? Is it already on the list? Should it be added? What sort of category does "click" belong to?

His repeated clicks were annoying but I realized I was more or less hearing the sound. Like those clickers some people use to train their dogs. IOW a near random association from my life experiences. So, I asked him about it. He responded, which was good, but I didn't really understand what it meant still and asked for clarification. I don't think I ever got a response. It is CERTAINLY a worthy rhetorical tool. I'd just have to understand it better to make the rule. We don't want people merely copying Iambiguous' click.

If you can make a general tip for the list, with click, as an example, I'd happily add it to the list.

So, is this...

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.

...going to happen or not?

[Flannel Jesus]

The Flatland analogy. "Click" is like snapping my fingers and -- presto! -- we all have free will. Knowing that even this may well be an inherent manifestation of the only possible world.

So how about you do it on your own instead of writing it for everyone else? I don't need you to click in order to have a conversation. If you need it, click for yourself, no need to share it.