The Rhetoric of Philosophy Now's Forum

[Wizard22]

Having said that, I do admit that some people and what they readily admit to believe, can be bewildering and difficult to believe that people would believe in some lowest degrees of absurdity or depravity. But I give them the benefit of the doubt. If a person is serious, which is difficult to gauge in only-textual environments (like books, or this forum), then they should be heard where it concerns philosophy.

[Iwannaplato]

No, seriously.

To be honest, throughout my philosophy endeavors, I find that attacking one's "seriousness", clowning, "you're confused" as some of the most effective rhetorical torts. Because they are not only very subtle Ad Hom attacks, but they entirely debase the conversation toward the Accuser. Somebody is not taking the topic, or a point, 'seriously'. Essentially it renders dialogue pointless to continue, because it admits that "good faith" is no longer in play. It's a different attack then directly questioning Motive. It questions physical and mental maturity.

To me, it reveals most about the Accuser than the thread creator, but it still remains as the most pernicious and underhanded forms of rhetoric, subversive.

Let me just see if I understand the three examples:
'Seriously' is the accusation that the other person can't possibly be being serious. IOW instead of pointing out flaws in the argument, we state/imply via question that this cannot possibly be the work of someone being serious, when in fact we know that they are serious, but use this as a way to demote the other person and/or their work without actually making any points about it.

Is that fair?

I think that would come under appeal to incredulity, which is number 16. But it is such specific and interesting case, I will give it or include it in a new number.

I am not sure what you mean by clowning. Do you mean when someone accuses someone else of clowning?

'You're confused' I recognize. There is a poster in a number of forums who used to respond with 'Go deeper', sometimes as the only response. He has a number of copycats - undertandibly given his rhetorical skills. We could call this summing up the other person's state of mind or post without actually dealing with it in any analytical way at all.

I will start adding to the list. But if you think I've missed the boat, I will edit my additions.

30) Respond with a negative evaluation of the other person or their posts. Do not justify this. Some example: 'Seriously' 'LOL' 'Really' 'Go deeper' 'You are confused'. It is similar to 16, appeal to incredulity. Instead of wasting time dealing with any points the other person made, you go directly to the heart of the issue. No need to explain or demonstrate. These are great opening lines, but the great rhetoricians often use these as stand alone responses. This shifts all the work, where it belongs, to the less skilled.

[Iwannaplato]

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.

27) Abuse terms that already exist by meaning something completely new by them. And make up plenty of your own silly terms. For example, instead of saying "Free Will", say "Andy Dufresne Syndrome", because you once saw a movie that sorta reminds you of this idea a little bit.

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!!??

29) Do not concern yourself with best arguments and rebuttals: dominate and get responses: Frustrating people - for example by not quite responding to them while quoting them - irritating them - see many of the above numbers - and putting all the burden on them, does several things: 1) you'll notice they do a lot of explaining while you don't; 2) you'll notice that they get upset, which means you are winning 3) some will stop communicating with you - this allows you to a) claim victory and b) take the high ground of never ignoring anyone - I mean, why ignore why you can frustrate, irritate and shift the burden to them? 29 is the strategy of the true geniuses.

30) Respond with a negative evaluation of the other person or their posts. Do not justify this. Some example: 'Seriously' 'LOL' 'Really' 'Go deeper' 'You are confused'. It is similar to 16, appeal to incredulity. Instead of wasting time dealing with any points the other person made, you go directly to the heart of the issue. No need to explain or demonstrate. These are great opening lines, but the great rhetoricians often use these as stand alone responses. This shifts all the work, where it belongs, to the less skilled. 26 is similar, but 26 is usually used before a longer posting, where one repeats one's position without responding to specific points made. 30 is more stand alone or as part of playing to the gallery.

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

[Agent Smith]

The man approached the counter ... it wasn't the racks on which the books and magazine were arranged that should've been photographed and framed and hung on the wall, it wasn't the yellow rubber duck with the missing eye that should've been gift-wrapped, it wasn't the deer that then crashed through the door and ran, panic-stricken, around the office, it was the radio, the radio was on.

Yes, yes. There's no need to rub it in via praxis. Some rhetoricians have skills that go way beyond my ability to analyze.

[Wizard22]

That's fair.

I don't know if it needs another category, but credulity is especially damaging and harmful to conversations, more so than most attacks I've encountered.

[Iwannaplato]

[Agent Smith]

This is a chicken.

What?! I thought that was a chicken!

Yes, this and that, both are chicken.

But they ...

Tut tut! Both are chicken.

[Iwannaplato]

Having said that, I do admit that some people and what they readily admit to believe, can be bewildering and difficult to believe that people would believe in some lowest degrees of absurdity or depravity. But I give them the benefit of the doubt. If a person is serious, which is difficult to gauge in only-textual environments (like books, or this forum), then they should be heard where it concerns philosophy.

I don't think we should take 'Seriously?' literally. IOW I think the rhetorician knows that the person is serious, but uses the rhetorical device to undermine the other person and their post(s). The reason this device is so effective is that it contains an insult, but, especially when posed as a question, doesn't look like an insult. Further how does someone respond:
No, I mean what I am saying, I think it's a rational position.
A person responding like that has pretty much assumed they are responsible for defending themselves against an accusation that has not been justified. IOW they've lost a lot of ground from the start.

[phyllo]

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.

If we have free-will, then the 'click' is unnecessary and does nothing.

If we don't have free-will , then the 'click' does nothing and serves no purpose because free-will cannot be snapped into existence.

Gee, I never thought of that.

So you thought of it but you keep doing it.

You keep doing it even after people tell you that it's irritating and adds nothing to the discussion.

What does that say about you?

You enjoy annoying people?

[Iwannaplato]

If we have free-will, then the 'click' is unnecessary and does nothing.

If we don't have free-will , then the 'click' does nothing and serves no purpose because free-will cannot be snapped into existence.

Gee, I never thought of that.

So you thought of it but you keep doing it.

You keep doing it even after people tell you that it's irritating and adds nothing to the discussion.

What does that say about you?

You enjoy annoying people?

Please, Phyllo. I understand you want to give praise for certain rhetorical devices and those who use them. But let's use thread mainly for cataloguing these devices. Praise for specific uses can happen in the threads where they are brandished.

[Age]

I'm seeking out clarity, age. You're not delivering on your promise, Age.

You SOUGHT OUT CLARITY on WHY I SEPARATED the words 'trying to' and the word 'win' into separate quotes, ONLY.

I INFORMED you that the reason IS BECAUSE of WHY I USE 'single quotation marks'. (Which, by the way, I have EXPLAINED here a few times, ALREADY, NOT that I expect ANY one to have seen 'it', NOR to have even remembered the reason.)

NOW, if ANY one was Truly INTERESTED in WHY I, ACTUALLY, USE 'single quotation marks', then they would, OBVIOUSLY, JUST ASK me, 'Why?'

But you haven't given any clarity.

What do you mean by, I have NOT given ANY clarity, AT ALL?

I, OBVIOUSLY, gave you SOME clarity when I SAID and WROTE,
BECAUSE of the VERY REASON WHY I USE single quote marks.

You've just said you're using them in a way I'm not used to.

No I NEVER.

What I ACTUALLY SAID and WROTE was,
I MIGHT NOT be USING 'them' in the way 'you' or "others" MIGHT BE USED TO. (AS WELL AS OTHER 'things'.)

Can you SEE the 'might' word above here, 'it' was USED TWICE? I also capitalized 'that word' so that 'it' was EMPHASIZED, so as to be MORE EASILY SEEN and NOTICED.

You haven't said HOW you're using them.

NO one has, YET, ASKED me A QUESTION regarding HOW.

You asked me A QUESTION about WHY I USED quotations marks, separately, in regards to three words, ONLY. SPECIFICALLY you asked me, WHY did you separate 'trying to' and 'win' into seperate quotes?

Also, I HAVE, by the way, ALREADY SHOWN WHY I USE quotations marks, NOT that I am expecting you to have SEEN that explanation, ALREADY. But anyway 'this why's is VERY DIFFERENT from the one that you were seeking here.

That's not an answer. That hasn't produced clarity.

What is 'it' that you want CLARITY in regards to, EXACTLY?

I suggest you become MORE CLEARER, THOROUGH, and SPECIFIC in 'your' thinking AND wanting here

[Flannel Jesus]

I suggest you become MORE CLEARER, THOROUGH, and SPECIFIC in 'your' thinking AND wanting here

Mate, if you don't understand how answering the question "why did you do that?" with "because I do things differently from how you expect" isn't a useful answer, you really ought to stop offering people clarity.

You said we'd get clarity if we ask, so I put that to the test and it turned out to be false. If we ask, we do not get clarity, only riddles.

[phyllo]

Please, Phyllo. I understand you want to give praise for certain rhetorical devices and those who use them. But let's use thread mainly for cataloguing these devices. Praise for specific uses can happen in the threads where they are brandished.

Sorry. I reread the list but I didn't see this :

Repeat a word or phrase, like "click" or "note to others" which adds nothing to the discussion but is intended to be annoying over the long term.

[Flannel Jesus]

Please, Phyllo. I understand you want to give praise for certain rhetorical devices and those who use them. But let's use thread mainly for cataloguing these devices. Praise for specific uses can happen in the threads where they are brandished.

Sorry. I reread the list but I didn't see this :

Repeat a word or phrase, like "click" or "note to others" which adds nothing to the discussion but is intended to be annoying over the long term.

I tried to add "communications that are not meant to be understood" to the list, apparently it didn't make the cut

[Age]

I suggest you become MORE CLEARER, THOROUGH, and SPECIFIC in 'your' thinking AND wanting here

Mate, if you don't understand how answering the question "why did you do that?" with "because I do things differently from how you expect" isn't a useful answer, you really ought to stop offering people clarity.

LOL ANOTHER example of COMPLETE and UTTER MISUNDERSTANDING.

THE 'answer' you READ and GOT is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I SAID NOR WROTE.

You said we'd get clarity if we ask, so I put that to the test and it turned out to be false.

ACTUALLY what you are SAYING and CLAIMING here is False.

If we ask, we do not get clarity, only riddles.

You ASKED, WHY did you separate 'trying to' and 'win' into separate quotes?

I ANSWERED, BECAUSE of the VERY REASON WHY I USE single quote marks.

Now, EITHER you ALREADY KNOW WHY I USE single quotation marks, or you DO NOT.

If you DO NOT, AND you were REALLY INTERESTED, THEN you would ASK A QUESTION LIKE, WHY do you USE single quotation marks?

Which, the ANSWER, by the way IS VERY DIFFERENT to the ANSWER to your ORIGINAL QUESTION here.

But, if you have NO REAL INTEREST, then you WILL just DEFLECT, like you HAVE BEEN here.