Assuming that was meant for me.
Look at the quotes of yours I stated above. Then look at your response to my OP regarding the regulation of child pornography. Rather than debate the issues I raised, or ask for any cites, or give any cites of your own, you post a response that was, taken by me (and fairly I think) you post a smarmy answer completely discounting my opinion, without the courtesy of “debating” it. Given your previous posts, I called you a hypocrite. Got it now?
Neither Aristotle nor Cicero ever really makes a distinction between a mob form and a “high” form of rhetoric. Rhetorical distinctions are ones of technique rather than of moral character. In the De inventione, Cicero says in his very first sentence that:
There is no intrinsically good or bad rhetoric; rather, it’s all in how it’s used.
Plato, who constantly cautions against misuse of rhetoric, agrees. Those who are skilled in speaking are called deinos legein, cunning speakers. The word deinos implies a certain awesome dread, not entirely wholesome but impressive all the same. Plato says, in the Apology at 17b:
Plato, and virtually all later authors, draw the distinction between truth and sophism. Both are flip sides of rhetoric.
Socrates is also ironically full of crap, for he certainly is a cunning speaker. He uses the phrase to distinguish him from the sophists, who have sullied the reputation of rhetoric with their tricks and untruths.
As far as dealing with the crowd, Aristotle argues that in order to deliver a speech persuasively, especially a speech of a protreptic nature, the speaker must have sufficient strength of character. Aristotle says at 1356a (the following is Rhys):
So when dealing with the mob, the speaker must rely on his own good character. Furthermore, he must be able to manipulate the emotions of his listeners:
Finally, truth or apparent truth can be persuasive:
The fact that Aristotle relegated truth to the third position is telling.
Finally, at 1355b, Aristotle says it straight out:
Rhetoric is not about the search for truth, else Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero would not have all found it so potentially dangerous. Rhetoric is persuasion, in bono or in malo.
MR
I don’t claim that I perfectly follow your logic here, but it looks like you are interpreting the fact that I am arguing for the legitimacy of opinion as me arguing that… well, I’m still a little unclear on that. Why do you think I * have to* get involved in a big long debate with you? And if I don’t, how does that make me a hypocrite, exactly? Did I say anywhere that all participation in all debates means that everybody has to demand cites, come up with cites, and make a big deal out of everything? (Checking to see if I said that…. <Jeopardy music> Nope, I did not say that.
So your issue is still a mystery to me.
It seemed to me that the point you were trying to make with this thread was that people who become engaged in the threads should debate in good faith, rather than using it for sarcastic comments or immediate discounting of an opinion. After andros’s post, you declared the debate OVER. Nothing else to talk about, no issues you care to discuss, nothing to be discussed. It’s over. This after you had spent time posting a thread which bemoaned the instant mockery of opinion in the Great Debates. If you still don’t get what I’m trying to say, I’d be happy to break it down even further for you.
Why do you think, given this thread, you would want to show up and declare a debate over with the THIRD post? I don’t care if you join the debate or not, but at least have the common courtesy not to show up, immediately declare a contrary opionion moot, and drive off.
My point exactly.
Man, that was classic Scylla!
First off, you paint your portrait of a straight-ahead, chin-jutting no nonsense kind of guy who is willing to “risk being honest”. Risk what, exactly?
You then go on to suggest that you were entirely in the right because my post “which while fun is simply sarcastic play with nothing of debatable material or substance to be discussed seriously.”
Is this the same guy who went on and on with his Long John Silver schtick? Please point out to me the “debateable material” and “substance” therein.
Followed by another warning that you’re going to be “ruthlessly honest”. Which, by what follows, means: you were entirely in the right, and only someone petulant, childish and easily offended could take umbrage, and besides you have never attacked me personally.
But your all warmed up now, and in full swing. You then point out my punning on your moniker “silly-ass” as offensive and then go on to say you thought nothing of it. So, you figure to have your cake, eat it too, and mine as well?
Now we come to your “grand gesture”, as you would have it. I must have missed that. Looked to me like you got called out and clobbered. So the magnanimity of that is rather lost on me. But, nonetheless, you are worried that another such noble gesture will be lost, casting pearls before swine, and all that.
But soft! We get to the nitty-gritty. Since I am such a sensitive Percy Dovetonsils kind of guy, you apologise for hurting my feelings.
Geez, Scylla, how can I put this? You didn’t hurt my feelings, you insulted me and pissed me off. And then claim that it wasn’t your intention. Man, don’t pee on my shoes and tell me its raining. When you tell someone that thier words are “verbal diarrhea” you know that you are insulting them, no other interpretation is possible.
Then you actually do say “…I apologize…” Afterwhich, a bit more backpedalling lest anyone misunderstand where the real fault lies.
But enough: apology accepted with the grace and sincerity with which it was delivered. Such as it were.
Without making any comment at all on the value of the idea expressed in this quote, I regret to inform you that you did not understand my point at all, which was stunningly simple: opinion belongs in a debate. Without it, there is no debate. Fini. End of point.
Now, moving along to your actual grievance…
**
Well, I came into the thread quite girded for battle, since as a pornographer I am very aware of this matter and I have been thinking about starting the debate myself. But andros had done a truly efficient job of cutting the legs right out from under it, leaving me pretty much speechless, and I admired the way he did it, which is why I said what I said. (Despite much bitching and moaning by others to the contrary, I have never agreed that there was anything wrong with voicing one’s approval and admiration for the posts of another. )
What I said was true as far as I was concerned, but was also left as a sort of challenge to anyone who wanted to come along and show me differently.
As we now know, what I was doing in this thread had absolutely nothing to do with what I was doing in that one.
Then may I suggest that a more effective and accurate way to have made that point would have been to say (in * that * thread) simply: “I dislike drive-by posting, that was a drive by post! Damn you all to hell!” instead of laboring to draw some relationship between my post in your thread and my issue in this one.
I certainly didn’t intend to offend you. May I suggest that you not take it so to heart, it certainly wasn’t meant in any way personally.
stoid
[sub]I’d be all hissified about the charge of “hypocrite”, but the next thing you know you’ll be dipping my pigtails in your inkwell…[/sub]
Abso-freakin’-lutely. But it’s always disguised as a search for truth, aint it?
[sub]Speaking of disguises…
Stoid, you should just give up your defense of “mangles.” Despite our best efforts to hide its true nature, our stalwart opponents have discerned that the very word wears a black hat, eats cute little puppies and pushes little old ladies down stairwells. Woe unto us; we are found out, and all is lost![/sub]
and blah blah blah…
Just say apology not accepted, stick it up your arse, and move on.
Jesus.
Glad to oblige!
Apology not accepted, stick it up your arse.
Better?
Of course you went right for the easy one. What a surprise. Oh, how very droll of you, sir.
Still. Much better.
**
That you would ridicule it, of course. Seems it was a well founded fear.
No thanks. There was some. I was doing it for a reason, but much of it was “verbal diarrhea.” What’s your point. Diarrhea’s no big deal. As they say, “shit happens.”
Yup, that’s about it.
Since you’re so kind as to lay them on the table for me. Sure. I like cake.
I am curious though if in your moral system the same rules apply to both of us. You seem to be pretty set on an apology for diarrhea, but apparently feel no need to reciprocate the gesture for your direct ad hominem. Why is this?
That thought did cross my mind. That’s why I said it.
Isn’t get pissed off a feeling or at least the reaction to a feeling? I don’t see the difference.
I’m going to take some serious issue with this. If you wish to call me a liar I’m going to insist that you back it up or withdraw the statement.
This is the second time that you’ve called me a liar on the basis that you claim to understand my motivations better than I do. This is an absurd claim and a stupid argument. Please note that I said “Stupid argument,” and not stupid person. If you wish you can continue to deliberately misconstrue my words and take that as a personal insult. Smart people can make stupid arguments from time to time, I certainly do.
I have little sympathy for your viewpoint elucidator, your dishing it out in droves, and yet you complain bitterly about how mean and unfair I am when I send it back at you.
Yes, I wrote the post. I know what it says. I liked it better the way I said it, but thanks for the Cliff Notes version.
Feel better?
No offense, but for the third time, can I ask that we cease with the Jerry Springer moments? There are some more interesting things going on here, and I’d rather spend my time there.
How about we play like grownups for a while?
Haven’t I seen this in a movie, or something?
SCENE: A small rise on a large field between two armies. Parties from each are gathered under white flag. We PAN and ZOOM IN to:
Envoy S: Worthy adversary, please receive this heartfelt suit for peace we bring. Hear now and consider the reasonable terms we offer. (Turns to aide.) Bring out the terms!
ZOOM OUT to see:
All parties from first army produce pistols, throwing knives and rocks and fire into the envoys from second army. As fire is promptly returned, we hear:
Envoy S: Hey now! Quit resisting our peace process!
FADE to BLACK
Mild apologies for the above. I appear to be on a tear today. I will now take my stink bombs and stirring stick and find other pots to stir…
I thought it was pretty funny.
I’m glad you agree. And all I did was roll my eyes out loud – or rather, in writing.
Well, we’re certainly in agreement that opinion is appropriate in a debate forum. As Mister Spock once said, “I’d accept that as an axiom.”
Again, I’m glad you agree in principle with the first part. But as for sitting around and talking over our interpretation of what the facts mean, you’re just dead wrong. That’s a big oversimplification, and it’s one that truly doesn’t do justice to a discipline which, when done right, really is high art.
“Facts” are just one of the great many tools I can use to try to persuade you that my rhetorical stance is correct. There are many others.
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 08:15 PM]
Scylla: Who the hell is Jerry Springer?
Further: never said liar. Don’t mean liar. You got self-esteem like Bill Gates got money. But liar, no.
And yes, indeed, lets get on with the debates! Splendid suggestion! Why don’t you get the ol’ ball rolling, post a thread about something, something you believe strongly. After all, we can’t just sit around waiting for Stoid to get the multi-pagers going all the time, she has the corruption of Western Civ. to attend to.
**
Either you are severely deprived or profoundly privileged. I’m not sure which.
Jerry Springer is the White Trash Oprah.
Did I misread where you accused me of being dishonest when I said I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings and wasn’t attacking you personally?
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 08:07 PM]
Let me make this as clear as I can.
Stoid: you are utterly wrong. Opinion does not belong in debate.
Inferences, supported by fact and drawn reasonably from fact, do belong in debate. But opinions do not.
How do I know this? Because a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied.
As I have just done. 
Well, if you insist…
“Dishonest”? What, a straight-from-the -shoulder guy like you, educated and stuff, got a degree in BS and all? No, no, its just as you say, words like “toady”, “dupe” and “verbal diarrhea” are all quite acceptable in polite discourse, if they are entirely accurate and originate from someone of adamantine personal integrity and honesty, such as yourself. After all, you are a Republican, yes? And as such, a paladin of clear-eyed candor and civitas, as recent history resoundingly demonstrates.
Perhaps you set the bar too high for a poor ol’ Texas boy, raised by rednecks.
Never said “liar”. Didn’t say “weasel”, either. You can’t look into my mind, so, just as you say, you’ll just have to take my word for it. You know, I’m beginning to see how your approach has some definite advantages. So, when I say “too stuffed to jump”…
Blacksheepsmith:
elucidator:
[Moderator Hat ON]
There shall be no sticking things up anyone’s arse in GD, thankyouverymuch. Sexually explicit flirting is for MPSIMS, you two.
[Moderator Hat OFF]