The Rhetoric of Philosophy Now's Forum

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

Now why in the world would I ask you why you're using quotes in that way, if I already knew the answer? Obviously if I'm asking, I don't know.

If I ask you "why are you doing this?" and your answer is "because of the answer to your question ", how the fuck is that gonna help me? You fucking goofball.

[Age]

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.

Now why in the world would I ask you why you're using quotes in that way, if I already knew the answer? Obviously if I'm asking, I don't know.

you are COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISUNDERSTANDING, and MISSING, THE POINT, ONCE AGAIN.

If I ask you "why are you doing this?" and your answer is "because of the answer to your question ", how the fuck is that gonna help me? You fucking goofball.

Well considering the Fact that I NEVER answered in ANYWAY like 'that', this is ALL MOOT here.

I will START AGAIN, you asked me, Why did I use quotation marks SEPARATELY in regards to three words ONLY. Now, WHY I USED quotation marks SEPARATE in regards to those three words IS for the SAME REASON I USE quotation marks for ALL of the words that I USE quotation marks for. That I used quotation marks SEPARATELY for those three words is of NO REAL SIGNIFICANCE, AT ALL.

One day you MIGHT UNDERSTAND what IS HAPPENING and OCCURRING here.

[Flannel Jesus]

I understand the point fully. The point is, you promised clarity if we ask for it, and yet I asked and all I'm getting is riddles. No clarity anywhere to be found.

[Age]

I understand the point fully. The point is, you promised clarity if we ask for it, and yet I asked and all I'm getting is riddles. No clarity anywhere to be found.

The ONLY 'thing' that you asked for here IS: Why did you separate 'trying to' and 'win' into separate quotes?

Referencing when I WROTE: Even though this 'trying to' 'win' here is exactly what these so-called "philosophers" play, or do,

WHY I separated 'trying to' and 'win' into separate quotes IS BECAUSE of the VERY REASON WHY I USE single quote marks.

Now, if you do NOT YET KNOW WHY I USE single quote marks, and that UNKNOWING TINGLES ANY sort of CURIOSITY WITHIN you, then USUALLY 'that CURIOSITY' TRIGGERS some sort of CLARIFYING QUESTION.

If you do NOT YET KNOW the ACTUAL REASON WHY I USE single quotation marks, then so be it. BUT the REASON WHY I separated 'trying to' and 'win' into separate quotes IS BECAUSE of the VERY REASON WHY I USE single quotation marks for ALL words here, which are ALL SEPARATED into separated quotes, OBVIOUSLY.

By the way, 'that point', which you CLAIM to UNDERSTAND FULLY is FURTHER PROOF that you ARE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY MISUNDERSTANDING and MISSING THE POINT that I AM MAKING here.

[Flannel Jesus]

This was an experimental run to see what kind of clarity you have on offer. I have seen what kind of clarity it is. Thank you for participating in the experiment.

[Age]

This was an experimental run to see what kind of clarity you have on offer. I have seen what kind of clarity it is. Thank you for participating in the experiment.

And THANK YOU for PROVING just how CLOSED, BLIND, and DEAF some of 'you' REALLY WERE, back in the days when this was being written.

AGAIN, you ASKED why I did some thing in regards to three words ONLY. I provided a FULL and ACTUAL Truthful ANSWER, and thus ABSOLUTE CLARITY, to 'THAT' ACTUAL QUESTION.

The REASON WHY you can NOT YET SEE CLARITY here IS FULLY UNDERSTOOD, and thus ALREADY KNOWN, by the way.

[Iwannaplato]

This was an experimental run to see what kind of clarity you have on offer. I have seen what kind of clarity it is. Thank you for participating in the experiment.

While I understand your desire to see some of the rhetorical devices in Age's unique repetoire, my goal for this thread to list categories, with enough description of each, so that the person can recognize these flourishes when encountering them. Please keep your praise and admiration for specifics to the threads where Age is applying his considerable skills to other topics.

[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.

[iambiguous]

Can you believe these guys? Who here doubts that these "transgressions" are not aimed primarily at me?

Dear Iambiguous. You certainly inspired a number of the flourishes I described. But it's actually funny that you think the list is primarily aimed at you.

It isn't until number 12 that I actually thought of you. Though let's be very clear. You were not the rhetorician I was thinking of when I made number 12. And there are a few others who use that flourish also. But yes, I believe your name came up in my mind. It's possible that earlier numbers than 12 ones may apply, but I was thinking of other expert rhetoricians when writing them. Do you really think that 1-11 fit your posts? IOW you see yourself doing those things? You see yourself as doing most of the 29 or whatever number we are up to now of flourishes?

And then after 12...13 doesn't fit you, unless I missed something. 14 was culled from three people here, none of them you. And so on. Many posts have to do with things MANY people do, including people who are not master rhetoricians. I include myself in that category. Do you know how many people simply repeat their positions in a new paraphrase without actually responding to the post they are quoting? It's many people. Towards the end of the list I do praise a number of your flourishes. Many of those after 14 were definitely not inspired by you. I could of course cite specific posters, but I think this gets focused to much on ego and has a competitive air. My goal is to understand, describe and share the list of skills.

But the thread was NOT inspired by you. I'm not sure you're the most cited rhetorician. And actually I also was inspired by 'things I've often encountered' not just people here now.

I just googled 'people who think everything is about them'. Narcissists and people who are very lonely both came up as the most common options. Obviously narcissism is out of the question, but please don't take the main credit for what is actually a diverse group of experts, whatever your motivation.

I understand your pride in your rhetorical skills and you certainly are skilled.

But my aim is not to single out people for praise in this thread. My aim is to list the skills, so that 1) we recognize them and can praise them as they come up in discussions. 2) my hope is that amateurs can learn from the skilled.

Imagine if everyone was able to recognize and understand each of these rhetorical skills. Instead of being confused about what is happening when they come up, instead of getting irritated or frustrated, instead of chasing rhetoricians in the circles possible when doing this, people were able to understand EXACTLY what is going on.

This would, I hope, lead to a more pleasant and deeper learning experience. Of course, I have no idea if this will happen. Probably not. I do know that just the act of compiling the list has helped me recognize these moments of rhetorical skill and to feel calmer in the face of them. To admire them and their wielders.

If it helps anyone else, or if anyone finds the list entertaining, well that's an unlikely, but happy bonus.

Again, I understand your pride in your skills, but you are seeing yourself where others also deserve praise. We have a good number of expert rhetoricians here. Perhaps locally, wherever you live, you are, well, the big fish in a small pond. But here, in a more international setting, there are a number of strong rhetoricians. Let's not forget them in the name of well-deserved pride.

If you say so.

But I still think it would be instructive if you took all of these points down out of the clouds and noted instances of them in regard to actual posts and exchanges.

To merely "list the skills" or the lack thereof without noting specific examples of them is precisely the sort of didactic philosophy that I am the least interested in. And just because you construe a point others make one way doesn't mean that they see it in the same way. You have to give others the chance, given a particular context, to defend their own frame of mind.

And anytime you wish to do that in regard to the accusations you have leveled against me over the years, I will certainly agree to exploring this. You choose the issue and the context. And we agree right from the start to sustain a civil exchange predicated on a mutual respect for each other's intelligence.

We're not all Satyrs after all.

[iambiguous]

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.

As I noted to Flannel Jesus over at ILP...

First, of course, " no, seriously " reflects only my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective reaction to a particular post.

Then the part where I react to it given the gap that I perceive between the point I am making and their point. If the gap is deemed laughable by me then this:

But since I am hoping instead for posts that I perceive to be intelligent [even challenging], I feel the need to include this: No Seriously.

As though to say to others, "no really, don't you find it laughable too?"

Beyond this, you would have to be inside my head and understand these things a "I" do "here and now".

But since that would entail you having lived my life and, existentially, subjectively come to think and feel about such things as "I" do, a "failure to communicate" doesn't surprise me here at all.

[Flannel Jesus]

First, of course, " no, seriously " reflects only my own "rooted existentially in dasein" subjective reaction to a particular post.

Then the part where I react to it given the gap that I perceive between the point I am making and their point. If the gap is deemed laughable by me then this:

But since I am hoping instead for posts that I perceive to be intelligent [even challenging], I feel the need to include this: No Seriously.

As though to say to others, "no really, don't you find it laughable too?"

Since the "no seriously" is aimed at the audience, I would hazard a guess that most of the audience is more likely to be laughing at you than at the person you're trying to humiliate with that tripe, at least most of the time.

[iambiguous]

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?

I explained above to iwannaplato and others why I use it. On this thread and on my compatibilism thread. Though, sure, if you reject my explanation and insist that it adds nothing to the discussions then -- click -- that, in my view, given free will, becomes your own rooted existentially/subjectively in dasein reaction to it.

So, either refrain from reading my posts where "click" is likely to show up, or read them, grit your teeth and, fuming with aggravation, somehow continue to endure it.

And I might ask you...

"Do you enjoy being my Stooge? Here too?!

Only that is applicable to me existentially in turn. A frame of mind rooted in dasein that you and no doubt others reject.

That sort of thing is everywhere here though, isn't it? We react to other posters in ways that others don't react to them at all. So, as philosophers, is there a way to determine how all rational men and women ought to react to others here? Me, I don't think so.

How about you?

[Flannel Jesus]

Iambiguous: why won't anybody talk to me?

Also iambiguous: I don't care that what I'm doing adds nothing to the discussion and annoys others, I'm gonna keep doing it anyway

[iambiguous]

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.

Note to others:

Same thing.

Sometimes I use it, when, in polemicist mode, I am being deliberately provocative...or even sarcastic. Other times, however, I use it because I genuinely wish to solicit the thoughts of others. I'll read something that others post and react. But am I really understanding what the posters mean? Perhaps not. Perhaps others can offer their own interpretation, their own insights into the discussion.




Edit.

"I" believe that those like phyllo react to the "clicks" and the "notes to others" as they do not because in and of itself it annoys them, but because they just really don't like me. Period. Why? Because, in my view, they are perturbed by my "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy. What if, over time, they begin to think and to feel the same way about their own precious objectivist Self?

And what if they begin to see their own existence as essentially meaningless and purposeless? Or come to believe that death = oblivion.

Again, I certainly remember when objectivism [God and No God] began to crumble all around "me".

Well, unless, of course, I'm wrong.

[Iwannaplato]

If you say so.

Thank you. If you see yourself in the majority of numbers in the OP, you likely have greater insight into your rhetoric than I do.

But I still think it would be instructive if you took all of these points down out of the clouds and noted instances of them in regard to actual posts and exchanges.

As far as I can tell the other apprentice rhetoricians recognize these descriptions from their experiences with the masters here. IOW it suits some people's purposes. But if someone else wants to take on the task you are suggesting, they are welcome to do it, obviously. I'd prefer if it was in a separate thread. I anticipate circles.

I myself am finding it easier to recognize these devices, since I started cataloguing. If others find no use in the thread, they will wander.

To merely "list the skills" or the lack thereof without noting specific examples of them is precisely the sort of didactic philosophy that I am the least interested in.

Well, as you say to Phyllo above you can either grit your teeth and read posts you are not interested in or you can avoid the thread. I thought that was a very clear message from you to Phyllo.

And just because you construe a point others make one way doesn't mean that they see it in the same way.

Of course.

You have to give others the chance, given a particular context, to defend their own frame of mind.

I know I am a mere amateur rhetorician, but I find it odd a moral nihilist is telling me what I have to do.

And anytime you wish to do that in regard to the accusations you have leveled against me over the years, I will certainly agree to exploring this. You choose the issue and the context. And we agree right from the start to sustain a civil exchange predicated on a mutual respect for each other's intelligence.

I'll keep that in mind. Perhaps after a few more years of study of the masters of rhetoric here, I'd be able to avoid the sense that I was merely going in circles.

In all honesty, while there are significant style differences, I find myself in as much of that situation with you as I do with Age.

Perhaps, since you think one 'has to' (see above) you could start a thread to work out your differences with Age, and we could learn from that exhange how to deal with a master rhetorician such as yourself. I am sure your experience, given your skills, would not at all be like we amateurs experience with him, or with you.

We're not all Satyrs after all.

Ah, yes. I must admit he influenced my list in a few numbers, even though he's not, as far as I know, active here at PN. And while he is not up to par with a number of rhetoricians here - too much varied content - his faux bully persona-trope is quite admirable.