|
iwillserveu -> Common rhetorical tactics (4/23/2004 12:06:53 PM)
|
Since there seems to some lack of recognition of some rhetorical tactics, let me point a few out without lots of Latin terms. [:)] (I leave them out because I don’t know them. {Surprised I admit to not knowing something? If so then you swallowed a straw man hook, line, and sinker. Here is another surprise. It is my fault for not fighting back sooner. Yes, iwillserveu admits he was wrong. This is not the first time I said that. Again, if this surprised you then you believed craniuminhissphincteragain about me.})
The first one is the insult or ad hominem atteck. There are many examples on this message board. Basically the attacker can discount all of what his opponent says because he is just a (knee jerk liberal, radical conservative, supplicant, monkey boy, or whatever racial slur). A particularly insidious version of this when the same effect is gotten from a true slur. “I don’t have to listen to a card carrying ACLU member,” when addressed to an ACLU member is the same thing as repeatedly pointing out someone is a “superuser”.
Another tactic is the straw man argument. This works because most people don’t fully read other people’s posts. That sounds luike an insult, but it is not. Have you ever misread someone’s post and then went back and said, “Oh, now I get it”?
When someone comes along to interpret that post then we say, “Hmm. The original poster must’ve said that.” This is why getting the last word is so important.
The fallacy comes when the attacker “interprets” it just a hair off then attacks his interpretation. In effect he created a straw effigy then used its structural weakness to kick it down. This is putting words in somebodies mouth then then attacking one’s own words but attributing them to the opponent.
Another tactic prevalent is not answering the question. Sounds simple, but if someone comes up to you tapping their watch and holding it to their ear and says, “Do you know what time it is?” would you answer “They can fix your watch at the jewlers.”?
Perhaps you would answer 11:15. Perhaps you might ask if the person has an appointment they might be late to and if so you’ll give them a ride.
In any case the correct answer is “Yes” or “No”. Generally we are polite and answer the question not asked.
Politicians use this to their advantage. If they don’t like the question they answer a very similar one to their liking. When they do this 99.9% of the people are fooled that the politician is honestly defending a value they all hold dear.
Take this example from my local politics. The city council vote to give itself a pay raise. The question is how they could justify that in a fiscal crisis. One politician responded that we have a par-time pay for what is essential a full time job, why sometimes he works 14 hours a day for his constituents.
Before we get to any other issues (like it not being a fulltime job), he answered the question “Are you paid enough?” not the one he was asked. And the funny thing is he’ll get away with it.
Yes, one of the reasons I’ve never posted this sort of thing Is I find it too depressing because they all work.[:(]
|
|
|
|
