The Rhetoric of Philosophy Now's Forum

[Flannel Jesus]

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.

I wonder how iambiguous thinks of age. I wonder if biggy might be surprised to learn that he's on the "Age" spectrum...

[phyllo]

Really? You wonder what Biggus thinks??

[Flannel Jesus]

Really? You wonder what Biggus thinks??

I mean, I know what he thinks. Dasein yada yada, either/or world, click. Same things he says every time he gets a chance.

[phyllo]

Really? You wonder what Biggus thinks??

I mean, I know what he thinks. Dasein yada yada, either/or world, click. Same things he says every time he gets a chance.

I think that he is an example of an anti-philosopher.

So in terms of philosophy, he has no interesting thoughts.

[Flannel Jesus]

Really? You wonder what Biggus thinks??

I mean, I know what he thinks. Dasein yada yada, either/or world, click. Same things he says every time he gets a chance.

I think that he is an example of an anti-philosopher.

So in terms of philosophy, he has no interesting thoughts.

I'd go a bit easier on him. He has two or three interesting thoughts, it's just that they've lost their interest because they're all he says, over and over and over. He had a few interesting thoughts perhaps years ago, and hasn't moved past them.

[phyllo]

I mean, I know what he thinks. Dasein yada yada, either/or world, click. Same things he says every time he gets a chance.

I think that he is an example of an anti-philosopher.

So in terms of philosophy, he has no interesting thoughts.

I'd go a bit easier on him. He has two or three interesting thoughts, it's just that they've lost their interest because they're all he says, over and over and over. He had a few interesting thoughts perhaps years ago, and hasn't moved past them.

Consider this :

Philosophical arguments for the existence of god(s)? He's not interested in anything except a miracle from a god.

Philosophical arguments for free-will or determinism? He wants some neuroscientists to settle it.

He has literally said several times that he is not interested in philosophical arguments or analysis.

He thinks philosophy is basically useless.

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe it is useless, but then... Why talk about it? Surely you can think it's useless without taking about it half as much as he does

[phyllo]

This is his entertainment.

A bunch of fish yakking on the interweb for him to snicker at and mock. Philosophy yahoos.

[Flannel Jesus]

This is his entertainment.

A bunch of fish yakking on the interweb for him to snicker at and mock. Philosophy yahoos.

Ah okay, well... we all get entertained in our own ways. There's worse things he could be entertained by.

[Iwannaplato]

Now, now gentlemen. This will only make him think this thread was intended to be about him. He may not believe me but I wasn't thinking of him in particular when I started it, however much I admire his rhetorical skills.

Any other rhetorical devices you've noticed here at PN from amongst the masters?

[phyllo]

This is his entertainment.

A bunch of fish yakking on the interweb for him to snicker at and mock. Philosophy yahoos.

Ah okay, well... we all get entertained in our own ways. There's worse things he could be entertained by.

No.

He's like a guy who doesn't like chess and thinks that chess is a stupid game, but he keeps hanging around in a chess club annoying the members.

Go to a science forum or someplace else if you think that philosophy is useless. FFS.

[Flannel Jesus]

This is his entertainment.

A bunch of fish yakking on the interweb for him to snicker at and mock. Philosophy yahoos.

Ah okay, well... we all get entertained in our own ways. There's worse things he could be entertained by.

No.

He's like a guy who doesn't like chess and thinks that chess is a stupid game, but he keeps hanging around in a chess club annoying the members.

Go to a science forum or someplace else if you think that philosophy is useless. FFS.

I don't think I buy the story that he doesn't like philosophy. The dude reads more philosophy than I do

[phyllo]

I don't think I buy the story that he doesn't like philosophy.

When has he said anything positive about it?

The dude reads more philosophy than I do

Reads now or read 40 years ago?

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think I buy the story that he doesn't like philosophy.

When has he said anything positive about it?

The dude reads more philosophy than I do

Reads now or read 40 years ago?

Apparently now. Every day he makes multiple posts talking to himself about something he's apparently actively reading. Usually something by Daniel Dennet about free will - and usually just to dismiss everything with snide remarks, but still

[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.