ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, May 01, 2016

Of enthymemes and false erudition

First, Philalethes observes that my use of rhetoric was, indeed, effective:
VD's original use of "Aztec" in the WND article was effective rhetoric, the Slate author's snarky reference to it was at least attempted rhetoric, and then VD's present response was also rhetoric, by the clever tactic of twisting the poignard out of her hand and stabbing her back with it. For me, it worked quite well, whether or not it was based on an enthymeme (about which I knew nothing until tonight).

Which is the point: either rhetoric draws blood, or it does not. Maybe for Mr. Camestros it did not, but that's all he can legitimately say about it – though his effort to destroy the rhetoric by dialectic would appear to show that he is at least aware that this device did and would draw blood in the minds of most readers. So in sum I must agree that all Mr. Camestros has accomplished here is to make a fool of himself with his attempt to speak magisterially from the high seat on a subject about which he obviously knows less than does the person at whom he is aiming his barb.
Second, I will explain how the now-banned Camestros Felapton either badly misrepresented, or simply failed to understand, Aristotle's fundamental distinction between dialectic and rhetoric, as well as the purpose of the latter. He's rather like a tactician who doesn't grasp strategy, as he seems to have a basic knowledge of the technical aspects without understanding their basic purpose or how they can be utilized:
I know what an enthymeme is, thank you, which is why I re-expressed your enthymeme as a formal syllogism with premises. I do so to highlight what your un-expressed major premise was. Put another way, what was the underlying assumption that you were appealing to in your rhetorical device.

That assumption appears to be this:
"People who are part-X are not people who are paranoid about X" Which is best described using the technical term 'bollocks'.

If your response is an 'effective' one then it is because your audience is accepting that assumption as being correct.

An enthymeme has UNSTATED premises (or conclusion). The premises and/or conclusion are suggested or implied (in the non-logical sense of 'implied'). You seem to be thinking that 'unstated' means 'logically do not exist'. That is incorrect. With an enthymeme the reader is expected to 'fill in the gaps'. This is why I asked you what your premises were so as to re-express your enthymeme as a formal syllogism.
This initially made me suspect that Felapton was simply being dishonest. The reason he wanted me to translate the rhetoric into dialectic, and complete the formal syllogism, was so he could criticize it from a logical perspective and thereby discredit it in an attempt to persuade others to believe Slate's claim that I am paranoid about Aztecs. (Which was, in itself, merely another step towards his real purpose.) He was pushing me to state the unstated because an enthymeme does not only contain unstated premises, but those premises are often incorrect from the purely logical perspective. This is why Aristotle gave this type of syllogism a different name and devoted considerable effort to defining and explaining how it worked, because otherwise it would be nothing more than an incomplete syllogism.

Consider one example provided by Wikipedia:

"Candide is a typical French novel, therefore it is vulgar."

In this case, the missing term of the syllogism is "French novels are vulgar" and might be an assumption held by an audience that would make sense of the enthymematic argument.


Now, obviously not all French novels are vulgar, so therefore, Felapton would argue that the syllogism fails logically and is incorrect. That is why he was trying to get me to state the unstated premise of my Aztec enthymeme, so that he could attack it dialectically. But as I pointed out, the syllogism was an enthymematic argument, not a logical argument, and therefore his attempt to logically disqualify it was totally irrelevant. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the book he has not read, there is zero information content in rhetoric; it is not designed to inform and persuade, but emotionally convict and persuade, because, as Aristotle correctly informs us, many people cannot be persuaded by information.

This is the point that Felapton fails to grasp, and his subsequent comment tends to indicate that it is not merely dishonesty on his part, but also a genuine failure to understand the distinction between rhetoric and dialectic that underlies his incorrect statements on the subject.
A great place for you to start to get a better understanding of the role of enthymeme in general and its relationship with logic would be Aristotle's rhetoric itself. I think you perhaps have misunderstood the distinction as somehow rhetoric (in Aristotle's sense) as being utterly divorced from logic. If so then the word you are looking for is not 'rhetoric' but 'bullshit'. Substituting the word 'bullshit' for 'rhetoric' in your response, renders it a better description for what you seem to be trying to say.

However, Aristotle did not advance the notion of rhetoric as BS or sophistry but as an art of persuasion but persuasion towards TRUTH by rational means.

"It is clear, then, that rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion. Persuasion is clearly a sort of demonstration, since we are most fully persuaded when we consider a thing to have been demonstrated.

The orator’s demonstration is an enthymeme, and this is, in general, the most effective of the modes of persuasion. The enthymeme is a sort of syllogism, and the consideration of syllogisms of all kinds, without distinction, is the business of dialectic, either of dialectic as a whole or of one of its branches. It follows plainly, therefore, that he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is produced will also be best skilled in the enthymeme, when he has further learnt what its subject-matter is and in what respects it differs from the syllogism of strict logic."
What Felapton clearly fails to understand here is that the fact a highly skilled dialectician will also be skilled in the use of rhetoric only means that the best and most effective rhetoric is constructed in a similar manner and is in line with the truth. It absolutely does not mean that the use of enthymematic arguments that are not in line with the truth are not rhetoric, for the obvious reason that there would be no difference between a syllogism presented for dialectical purposes and an enthymeme presented for rhetorical purposes. But the two related concepts are intrinsically different and we know why. Consider Aristotle's additional observations:
  • Persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question. 
  • The duty of rhetoric is to deal with such matters as we deliberate upon without arts or systems to guide us, in the hearing of persons who cannot take in at a glance a complicated argument, or follow a long chain of reasoning.
  • It is evident, therefore, that the propositions forming the basis of enthymemes, though some of them may be "necessary," will most of them be only usually true.
  • We must be able to employ persuasion, just as strict reasoning can be employed, on opposite sides of a question, not in order that we may in practice employ it in both ways (for we must not make people believe what is wrong), but in order that we may see clearly what the facts are, and that, if another man argues unfairly, we on our part may be able to confute him. No other of the arts draws opposite conclusions: dialectic and rhetoric alone do this. Both these arts draw opposite conclusions impartially. Nevertheless, the underlying facts do not lend themselves equally well to the contrary views. No; things that are true and things that are better are, by their nature, practically always easier to prove and easier to believe in.
In other words, Felapton has confused Aristotle's admonition to use rhetoric in the service of the truth with Aristotle's definitions of what rhetoric is as well as with his instructions on how to use rhetoric effectively. In fact, Aristotle makes it clear that both dialectic and rhetoric can be used impartially on either side of an argument, although it is much easier to identify the deceptive use of dialectic due to its reliance on complete syllogisms and strict logic than it is the deceptive use of rhetoric due to its incomplete structure and its reliance on apparent truths that are accepted by the audience.

What Felapton calls "bollocks" and "bullshit" is nothing more than what Aristotle calls "apparent truth". But, as we have seen, rhetoric can rely upon these apparent truths just as readily as upon actual truths. And in this particular application, my rhetoric, even structurally reliant as it is upon apparent truth rather than actual truth, is more persuasive, and therefore more effective, than Slate's rhetoric, in part for the obvious reason that it is absolutely true.

Labels: ,

53 Comments:

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 01, 2016 8:54 AM  

Thanks, this exchange has been very informative.

Reading the last sentence and the use of the word "paranoid" I realized he went back to the Left's seemingly fav tactic of the mental health issue. By now could that be used against him and his fellow screwballs? Third Law?

Blogger Salt May 01, 2016 8:56 AM  

If you're paranoid about Aztecs then God help you when you look in the mirror.

Blogger VD May 01, 2016 9:00 AM  

No, I don't think so. You always have to keep in mind that much of what works for them will not work for you. Simple turnaround of terms does not work, a refined utilization of the same tactics does.

For example, if they call you racist, and you say "no, you're the real racist", that will reliably fail. But if they call you racist, and you call them pedophile, that will usually work, particularly if it is somehow relevant.

Notice that Sandifer was trying the failed approach. Pedophile doesn't stick to us because we like grown women. And they like us. It sticks to them like superglue because so many of them are fat and creepy, regardless of what their actual inclinations might be.

Moreover, his attempt to defang the rhetoric, like Neil Gaiman's - he used the term "creepy racist" - indicates that this particular rhetoric is very effective against them. Because they are creepy and they do harbor and celebrate pedophiles.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 01, 2016 9:21 AM  

I see your point, it is the most logical and productive path for the vast majority of the time.

I myself have been able thru out my life act like an interrogator, like the Columbo character from the same name TV show. It works for me, because I find most people underestimate me by a long shot and vastly over estimate themselves. IMO it also works because the vast majority of the clown left has at most a sentence or two of rhetoric on any topic or issue and literally that is it, beyond that a void, or in Sandifer's case a dark evil spot that decent humans would want to avoid knowing about.

Anonymous Quartermaster May 01, 2016 9:24 AM  

Which of Aristotles writings are being referred to in this post? I need to find it and read it.

Blogger VD May 01, 2016 9:25 AM  

Rhetoric.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 01, 2016 9:30 AM  

One last thing, the term "racist" will be flipped upon its users some time in the future, and not in a reverse typically facile way it is used now as a rhetorical device but more like evidence in a criminal trial.

Anonymous Dave Gerrold's Cabana Boy May 01, 2016 9:40 AM  

I admit that I was disappointed by Camestros' performance here. I had thought from reading some of his posts that he was a poseur and a logic martinet, but also marginally competent.

After seeing the hapless squid-ink he left, my impression is that he is merely a verbose cargo-cultist of an armchair logician.

Blogger VD May 01, 2016 9:44 AM  

I admit that I was disappointed by Camestros' performance here. I had thought from reading some of his posts that he was a poseur and a logic martinet, but also marginally competent.

I thought so too at first, but it gradually became clear that he simply doesn't understand what rhetoric is or how it relates to dialectic. Typical midwit.

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros May 01, 2016 9:44 AM  

Salt wrote:If you're paranoid about Aztecs then God help you when you look in the mirror.

See, to well-adusted people, the very idea is ridiculous.

But the idea that one can hate one's own race, gender, sexuality, and cultural heritage is NOT ridiculous to straight white male Leftists. That's their life.

However, using such rhetoric does rub it in that Vox is a traitor to their narrative, so it can be effective on that level.

Blogger Dexter May 01, 2016 9:47 AM  

"what you seem to be trying to say"

Gamma tell.

Blogger Dexter May 01, 2016 9:49 AM  

"Which is best described using the technical term 'bollocks'."

Is he actually a Brit or just another fag who likes to use Britishisms?

Anonymous Man of the Atom May 01, 2016 9:57 AM  

Aristotle's Rhetoric, free and courtesy of the University of Adelaide, Australia.

Anonymous JB May 01, 2016 10:02 AM  

Examining the history of the novel in close detail, one cannot escape coming to the conclusion that it is, in its very essence, "vulgar", in every sense of the word.

Anonymous Dave Gerrold's Cabana Boy May 01, 2016 10:02 AM  

it gradually became clear that he simply doesn't understand what rhetoric is

The clincher was his citation of Aristotle, which pointedly did not say what Camestros was claiming. At least make the attempt at finding a supportive quote. Weak.



Anonymous VFM #6306 May 01, 2016 10:57 AM  

When it comes to an approach to Rhetoric, it is far better to be stupid than marginally intelligent.

In my amateur study of about 50 college-level readers of Rhetoric, the typical C student scored higher on his ability to summarize rhetoric than most typical B and A students.

The only student who summarized it in writing better than those of low relative intelligence was the "natural" type, who, with a close read and some guidance grasped the critical nuances that mean the difference between knowledge and ignorance.

This should not be surprising: Aristotle himself predicts that will be the outcome upon reading. Let he who has ears...

Blogger Edward Isaacs May 01, 2016 11:19 AM  

A dialectic post, then?

I think that rhetoric must have informational content.

First, the essential distinction between rhetoric and dialectic seems to be the intention of the speaker, what the speaker designs it to do. However, the intention of the speaker is a real but purely subjective thing. Objectively - or at least intersubjectively - rhetoric must (usually) take the form of certain statements, and these statements do have information content, otherwise they would not be statements at all.

I can imagine a counterexample to what I am saying, that rhetoric must be in the form of statements: I imagine a video that makes no statements but simply shows video and sound clips of, say, Donald Trump rallies juxtaposed with clips from Nazi Germany. However, I think that pictures, too, at least when they represent reality, have informational content.

If there were truly a contentless form of rhetoric, I think it would have to look something like, say, a 30-minute video of static fuzz that somehow caused in ordinary people a feeling of revulsion or affection towards some specific thing. Or electrodes stimulating the brains of Christians to turn them into atheists. But would anyone call that "rhetoric"?

Second, people are persuaded of a belief when their will acquiesces to that belief. But the will cannot consider anything that is not first presented to the intellect. Besides which, of course, beliefs are intellectual. If rhetoric operated on a purely emotional level with no informational content whatsoever, it would not create beliefs, but feelings. In that case, perhaps an inexplicable fear of spiders could be created through rhetoric. But, by itself at least, it could not create the belief that you are more likely to die from a spider bite than from a drunk driver. And since rhetoric does try to persuade people of beliefs, at least those beliefs must contain informational content.

Third, if rhetoric had no information content, then you could not speak of rhetoric being "in line with the truth" or "deceptive". Or, if I am wrong, how can one feeling without informational content have any more consistent a relationship to the truth than another?

I concede that certain feelings, if they are more natural than others (say, heterosexual attraction as opposed to sodomitic attraction), could in a certain sense be called more true, in the sense that they would be more true to human nature and thus more conducive to leading a man toward the good life and virtue. But if gay conversion therapy counts as a practical instance of rhetoric in use, then it seems to me that in the final analysis the virtuous use of rhetoric must ultimately always be therapeutic in nature. Is that the case?

Blogger VD May 01, 2016 11:31 AM  


I think that rhetoric must have informational content.


The train is fine.

Anonymous Philalethes May 01, 2016 11:59 AM  

Well, I must say I am honored to be quoted, but also a little puzzled, as last time I looked this comment was still missing from the thread where I'd posted it. As has happened several times before, I posted the comment, it appeared, then after a page refresh it was gone. Unlike previous times, I didn't repost it, having learned that if I just waited a while, it would probably reappear. (A previous thread eventually – 12 hours later? – ended up with three copies of a comment as I kept trying to get it to stick.) As best I can figure out, there seems to be an "unofficial" size limitation (the official one is 4096 characters, and it was definitely below that) beyond which Blogger chokes on a comment and puts it aside for later consideration. Though other long comments do not seem to suffer this treatment, while some shorter ones do. A mystery.

In this case, when I checked again maybe 12 hours later, the comment was still missing, so I figured it was gone for good – which left my next comment (which was shorter, and didn't go missing) somewhat orphaned, as it was intended as a PS to the first. Now I see it has been restored – in the order it was posted, even – which is nice, though I doubt anybody other than VD has seen it. And I guess Camestros will never see it, which is too bad as it was addressed primarily to em. Otoh, e doesn't seem to be very good at learning, anyway (despite deriving es online persona from two of the numerous defined types of syllogisms, as I discovered when I went looking).

As I also wrote in the comment, I found the whole discussion enlightening, including the comment by John Wright, which for some reason he deleted shortly after posting it. If anybody would like to read the whole comment (which is considerably longer than the quoted portion), including more background on why I found VD's rhetorical use of the word "Aztec" both valid and effective (not to mention clever), as well as the history of the Aztec/Mexica people, the "Aztlán" claim (which is of importance to me as a native life-long resident of the claimed territory), and the Mexican flag waved by "protesters" in California that evening, it can be seen here. The follow-up comment is two below, #83.

Blogger Matthew and the Heaving Bosoms of Liberty May 01, 2016 12:30 PM  

Blogger spams you a lot, Philalethes; no idea why. I check the spam folder a few times a day to release the good comments.

Blogger CM May 01, 2016 12:35 PM  

I think that rhetoric must have informational content.

It does. But you are completely missing the point.

Rhetoric does not stand up to logical scrutiny and isn't intended to because emotion and logic run on 2 completely different tracks.

Anonymous Philalethes May 01, 2016 12:47 PM  

@20 Matthew: Thanks for the info, and for releasing my comment while somebody might still see it. Is there a list of "spam" rules somewhere I could consult, to try to figure out why I seem to fall afoul thereof?

Blogger Dave May 01, 2016 12:55 PM  

My gawd, Philalethes, VD will never again mention one of your posts. Do you recognize the term pithy? Blogger is doing you a favor.

Blogger Kristophr May 01, 2016 1:10 PM  

> However, using such rhetoric does rub it in that Vox is a traitor to
> their narrative, so it can be effective on that level.

SJWs are creepy AND racists. No one is as racist as a leftard confronting a non-white conservative.

Blogger Kristophr May 01, 2016 1:11 PM  

That was rhetoric and good dialectic by the way. Both an appeal to emotion AND demonstrable fact.

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2016 1:42 PM  

@17-You're absolutely right. If rhetoric had "zero information content" why would there be such a phrase as "empty rhetoric?" Unless that were only used to describe ineffective rhetoric, but it isn't. Informationless rhetoric is nigh impossible. Even empty rhetoric has it.

Blogger tublecane May 01, 2016 1:51 PM  

@21-"It does. But you are completely missing the point."

Is he missing the point of the claim that "there is zero information content in rhetoric?" Because that's simply false. I don't care if it was an irrelevant falsehood, marshalled in the interest of proving a larger point. Nor do I care if focusing on it reveals me as autistic, which truly is the weakest of the shafts in Vox's rhetorical quiver.

It only weakens your case to fail to accurately describe rhetoric in a post complaining about someone else's failure to grasp the true meaning of rhetoric.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 01, 2016 2:18 PM  

@19 Philalethes

If you divide man into spirit-mind-body; then each of the arenas of conflict are rhetoric-dialectic-boot to the head.

Rhetoric works on the emotions (spirit) and therefore, needs no intelligible (mind) content. Trying to keep everything well defined and formal bogs down the emotional flow.

This is also related to the various generations of warfare:
2G - steel on target - attacks the body's ability to fight
3G - maneuver warfare - attacks the mind's decision making
4G - terrorism - attacks the spirit's will to fight

Blogger VD May 01, 2016 2:20 PM  

Is he missing the point of the claim that "there is zero information content in rhetoric?" Because that's simply false. I don't care if it was an irrelevant falsehood, marshalled in the interest of proving a larger point. Nor do I care if focusing on it reveals me as autistic, which truly is the weakest of the shafts in Vox's rhetorical quiver.

Thank you, spergatron. Sperg on!

It only weakens your case to fail to accurately describe rhetoric in a post complaining about someone else's failure to grasp the true meaning of rhetoric.

It doesn't weaken the case at all. You clearly don't understand the point, and your sperging out about words is totally irrelevant. The problem that most people have is accepting that rhetoric is not logically meaningful. You're having it right now, that's why you're sperging out about the meaning of zero content.

I have learned, through experience, that the only way to hammer the concept of not meeting rhetoric with dialectic is to exaggerate the lack of logic, reason, and information in rhetoric. Your reaction is a perfect example of the problem.

Blogger Akulkis May 01, 2016 2:44 PM  

"Camestros Felapton" ???

I'm pretty sure his name is Cameltoe Fapper

Blogger Rusty Fife May 01, 2016 2:50 PM  

@28

A man's 'identity' is not just the sum of his being but also his relationships with those around him, his nation.

5G warfare - genocide - attacks a man's identity and erases it

This is the genius of Trump's campaign and nationalism. The globalists have been reshaping the world's identity into something the New Socialist Man or some such. Trump hit's on the emotions; but that is a shallow reading of what he is up to. He is IDENTIFYING with Americans in his campaign. This is why he can even screw up the emotional rhetoric and recover.

Blogger SciVo May 01, 2016 3:01 PM  

VFM #6306 wrote:The only student who summarized it in writing better than those of low relative intelligence was the "natural" type, who, with a close read and some guidance grasped the critical nuances that mean the difference between knowledge and ignorance.

I would like to take this opportunity to say, and I think I also speak for Were-Puppy and Student in Blue, that I'm very grateful to VD and Scott Adams for their lessons and examples in rhetoric.

It is always enjoyable to exercise a strength, and I also like how being surrounded by smart dialecticians strengthens my confidence that I'm using my God-given talent in service and pursuit of the truth.

Thank you all, truly.

Blogger LP9 Forever Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra S.I.G. May 01, 2016 3:05 PM  

Thank you, I'm going to marinate on this post today, meaning re-read. I have a long way to go, being a old lady its not helping. Age is not kind yet age its merciful.

Over the times where (D) dialectic and rehetieric was covered I was sit back and observe versus react, think versus emote and my geriatric panic has greatly decreased. Dialectic is a path that I have to journey that is happier and grants complete clarity where as Slate and say, SJW's and whomevers remain in rejection of the D factor, the D factor changes everything for the better.

I dont think Slate and the rhetorical siders (which typifies me as I'm often not on objective observation or dialectic side, its a struggle stateside as things here are wrong and disruptive to the mind willing to remain on thinking mode versus endless feelz and bereft rhetoric) wish to step up and think differently, they deny growth and progression, no matter our age, no matter what we think, we might be wrong and its worth re-thinking for the better, higher thinking.

I just have this opinion which isn';t correct that the rhetorical side or that area is more stressful and more hypnotic, which is a issue stateside, so Slate and others here are going to need remedial help to grasp it.

Blogger Rusty Fife May 01, 2016 3:12 PM  

@33 LP9 Forever Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra S.I.G.

I wouldn't sweat it. According to Scott Adams, rhetoric trumps dialectic anyways because we are rationalizing and not rational beings.

Also very few decisions in this world can be solved logically. I say this as an engineer...there are always two or three ways to make something work. The choice between them is usually emotional.

Blogger LP9 Forever Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra S.I.G. May 01, 2016 3:22 PM  

34 Excellent point. Yet I am called to try more to push past the distortions stateside.

Slate and those whom misunderstand Vox dont understand yet, hopefully they will.

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2016 3:41 PM  

"Is he missing the point of the claim that "there is zero information content in rhetoric?" Because that's simply false."

Wheels within wheels. Have always seen it as a matryoshka doll, where the larger will lead to a more compact version of the same; or, where the smaller the knitpick leads to an even larger version. Which, seems the whole point.

Prince's dedication was brought up the other day. I see posts like this from the host as much the same.

Blogger kh123 May 01, 2016 3:56 PM  

...Rhetoric says in several places to use real or imagined events when eulogizing or criticizing; to be for something when it looks to to our advantage or to argue against the same thing when it looks to benefit our enemies; to know the likes and bias of the audience; etc.

Hell, I may be reading it out of context, but it's right there in Cam's quote; "...he who is best able to see how and from what elements a syllogism is produced will also be best skilled in the enthymeme, when he has further learnt what its subject-matter is and in what respects it differs from the syllogism of strict logic."

Blogger SciVo May 01, 2016 5:00 PM  

VD wrote:I have learned, through experience, that the only way to hammer the concept of not meeting rhetoric with dialectic is to exaggerate the lack of logic, reason, and information in rhetoric. Your reaction is a perfect example of the problem.

Ah! I finally get it. I'm used to you using dialectic, so I've been puzzling over how rhetoric can actually be information-free. It made sense rhetorically -- the truth value of rhetoric is practically coincidental -- but I couldn't figure out how it was literally true.

Because it wasn't! It was a recursively rhetoric-about-rhetoric trap for those who still don't get not to respond to rhetoric with dialectic! Whew.

Blogger VD May 01, 2016 5:05 PM  

It was a recursively rhetoric-about-rhetoric trap for those who still don't get not to respond to rhetoric with dialectic!

Which, ironically enough, was necessary to persuade those who think they are so logical and intrinsically dialectical that the mere use of rhetoric is dishonest.

Rhetoric works on everyone. No matter how dialectical you might like to think yourself to be.

Anonymous BGKB May 01, 2016 5:15 PM  

But the idea that one can hate one's own race, gender, sexuality, and cultural heritage is NOT ridiculous to straight white male Leftists.

I know I don't want a bath house built next door, because I know the problems that will happen. I have a friend that is a race realist that lives in Baltimore because he is within walking distance to 10 bars/nightclubs, and has a place to himself big enough to house 200 illegal aliens, allowing him to be the queen of the after parties. He plans to flee to relatives when things get bad.

Anonymous vfm #0202 May 01, 2016 5:17 PM  

Technically, what is the status of all the cool kids know that all French novels are vulgar don't you want to be one of the cool kids?. They seem to be both mere decorations on the unstated assumption and the physics package for want of a better term. Is this kind of psychological deconstruction part of rhetorical analysis?

Blogger Krul May 01, 2016 5:20 PM  

This is simple dialectics

Blogger michaeloh59 May 01, 2016 6:14 PM  

When Vox in an earlier post responds to fellatiotron or whatever his name is, he refers to "the book" which fellatiotron clearly has not read. Can anyone say to which book Vox refers?

Blogger Rusty Fife May 01, 2016 6:40 PM  

michaeloh59 wrote:When Vox in an earlier post responds to fellatiotron or whatever his name is, he refers to "the book" which fellatiotron clearly has not read. Can anyone say to which book Vox refers?

SJWS Always Lie

Blogger michaeloh59 May 01, 2016 6:48 PM  

@44 muchas

Blogger Krul May 01, 2016 7:26 PM  

Rhetoric! Game and MATCH!

Anonymous Quartermaster May 01, 2016 8:15 PM  

@6
Thanx much!

Blogger Rusty Fife May 01, 2016 8:28 PM  

@45

De nada.

Anonymous Jones May 01, 2016 9:07 PM  

"Now, obviously not all French novels are vulgar ..."

Sadly this is true, but we should always prefer vulgar French novels to common French novels, because it's within the measured violence and disgust of vulgarity that we understand the necessity of overcoming that which is most common ...

Vulgarity knows when it has succeeded in getting the point across.

Blogger SteelPalm May 01, 2016 10:11 PM  

An excellent explanation and dissection. While probably not your most popular type of post, I always enjoy and look forward to more of these.

Anonymous Chucque May 01, 2016 10:59 PM  

Thank you, excellent.

Anonymous Scholar-at-Arms May 02, 2016 9:20 PM  

Camestros' contributions at John C Wright's place have convinced me that his grasp of logic is also tenuous; not in the sense that he doesn't understand how to use it, but rather that as soon as his emotional values are engaged he loses his grip on his logical acumen. He's one of only two commenters in my seven years there to be more annoying than the PhD who argued interminably that he and all others were meat robots incapable or argument.

Blogger Tom K. July 13, 2016 3:57 PM  

Taking your example further, an effective response to a BLMbot calling me a racist would be to call him a Coon and let that sink in. He may never get the connection but that's OK. I've probablymshit him up for a while.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts