Any Philosophy Majors in the House?
A real question for those familiar with rhetorical theory and the use of logical fallacies (formal and informal) as a rhetorical tactic.
My presumption is that most of us use logical fallacies fairly regularly. But our use is not a tactical decision or intentional. It actually represents faulty logic or intellectual laziness.
But, have there been studies done on whether there's a threshold someone can cross where the persistent use of logical fallacies indicates an intentional rhetorical tactic?
posted by P-Dog @ 9:52 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
You're not getting enough sleep, Pal
dude, what else am I supposed to ponder at 4am with a crying baby?
How you're team is going to beat the crap out of darth!!At every race next year.
It's being played out as we speak, look no further than the GOP
well, you know Bush is a good example of my question. He regularly employees ad hominem attacks, straw men argument, the fallacy of composition and syllogy. But, I could never figure out if it was intentional or if he was articulating his own illogical thought process.
Practically speaking it doesn't matter. But there has to be a study somehwere that sugggests whether it is possible to be that deceptive unintentionally.
I agree with Old as Dirt, but for the record I think you give W too much credit if you think he has a clue or can articulate at all; as to being unintentionally deceptive he would need be uncomprehensively perceptive.
http;//politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm
Older than Old as Dirt
Opps add colon instead of semi-colon after http (so it looks like http;// )
Opps, change to http: rather than http;
dont give into liberal rhetoric. they just use big words to make them sound smarter than those who speak their mind and do it directly. Oh, and dont give into his demands. Steve chewed on my earpieces, can I get a new pair for free?
Think Rove not Bush and you got your example
Liberal rhetoric?! What a load of crap, especially from Gregg Harring-bone. For the last 6 years we've been enduring daily rhetoric and it has been anything but liberal. And speaking of rhetoric, the whole played "liberal rhetoric" shtick is nothing but a load of GOP, neo-conic, uninformed dooky that financially frustrated conservatives burp up because they can’t find the balls to explain why the far-from-liberal administration is spending more money than any other US administration, ever. So here is a piece of rhetoric to stuff in your pie hole; The wayward, ineffective war in Iraq has now lasted longer the period between the Pearl Harbor attack and the Japanese surrender on VJ day. In other words, the US won a world war in less time that we’ve been mired in high-priced, miss-guided, minor-war in the middle east.
Post a Comment
<< Home