<p>"Not everyone using abstruse rhetoric, per force, uses a thesaurus. Perhaps this is the appropriate time for you to learn new words..."</p>
<p>I doubt nobody gets what you are debating over. lol What do you do all day --- memorize grammar and Websters? Sorry, use of thesaurus words dont necessarilly make you a more effective debater. :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rhetoric is language used in such a manner as to be persuasive. I don't quite see how you expect to be persuasive if you're simultaneously (and deliberately) obfuscating your argument to the point of incomprehension...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The idiocy continues:
[quote]
n.
The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
A treatise or book discussing this art.
Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
Verbal communication; discourse.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My intended use of the term follows two lines of reasoning: the dictionary definition and an abstract connotation. Judging by your response, do not bother with the latter, for it is beyond you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I doubt nobody gets what you are debating over. lol What do you do all day --- memorize grammar and Websters? Sorry, use of thesaurus words dont necessarilly make you a more effective debater.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have never used a thesaurus. One's vocabulary usually increases by reading. I guess we know what you have not been doing...</p>
<p>I can imagine a geek behind the computer, spending 20 hours a day memorizing dictionary.com words. All you are doing are using words when they are not necessary, but you still fail to make your point coherrent. You having been making all these huge posts, and nobody still gets if you are liberal or conservative.</p>
<p>Primitivefuture, In response to your post</p>
<p>"As long as another maniac like Bush doesnt holding one of the most powerful positions in the world, everything will be fine in terms of peace, safety from terrorists, and a prosper America."</p>
<p>A quick question. How do you explain what happened with the suicide bombing of the USS Cole in 2000? The president at the time was Clinton. I don't think he was "another maniac like Bush". Terrorist acts began before Bush, and I am afraid will be around long after he is no longer president.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I can imagine a geek behind the computer, spending 20 hours a day memorizing dictionary.com words.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You mean, you can assume? What are the grounds for this assumption? That someone's vocabulary is better than yours? </p>
<p>
[quote]
All you are doing are using words when they are not necessary, but you still fail to make your point coherrent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So rhetoric has an effect on the coherency of an argument? I never knew that. We should keep it a secret, however; for we would not want the philosopers to know...</p>
<p>Facetiousness aside, word-choice has no effect on the truth-function of a statement - unless the quantifier is modified, of course. Since the truth-function of a schema is constant when the subject and predicates are replaced at will, rhetoric has no effect on the coherence of the schema itself.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You having been making all these huge posts, and nobody still gets if you are liberal or conservative.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Must I be politically affiliated to render a political argument? </p>
<p>Your responses humor me at best and, at worst, exasperate.</p>
<p>
[quote]
obfuscating your argument to the point of incomprehension...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cease using euphemisms. It is difficult for you to comprehend because it is abstruse; there is no deliberate ambiguity. If my posts exude any obscurity, it is because you do not have knowledge of the vocabulary. It is an epistemological problem on your part, not mine.</p>
<p>What you really mean to tell me is that you are not above the petty political argument; that any attempt to render substantive political discourse somehow dooms it to obscurity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
we rank dead last in terms of education amongst similar industrialized countries.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>the ironic thing about this is, despite how we do on standardized testing and the fact that we are considered to be the laziest country in the world (i.e., we consider a 40 hour work week hard work), we're still the last remaining Super Power -- I friggin love being an American.</p>
<p>Secondly... stop with the dictionary debate. It's stupid. </p>
<p>In particular:
[quote]
Cease using euphemisms. It is difficult for you to comprehend because it is abstruse; there is no deliberate ambiguity. If my posts exude any obscurity, it is because you do not have knowledge of the vocabulary. It is an epistemological problem on your part, not mine.
[/quote]
Knock it off. Not because I don't understand it, but because nobody actually talks like this. Yay for you for proving your intellect -- want a cookie? </p>
<p>Thirdly... </p>
<p>I heart Bush. The man is far from perfect (as many have already addressed, so no elaboration required), but he's our President, so try and show some respect.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Knock it off. Not because I don't understand it, but because nobody actually talks like this. Yay for you for proving your intellect -- want a cookie?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Another fallacious argument; why should I care if no one talks like this? Is that impetus for not furthering one's intellect? </p>
<p>
[quote]
I heart Bush. The man is far from perfect (as many have already addressed, so no elaboration required), but he's our President, so try and show some respect.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Respect does not equate to blind devotion. Perpetuating apathy for the love of a leader only worsens the situation. But since you are so fond of maintaning the status quo, it would be presumptious for me to suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>Did you mean "presumptuous"? Typo, maybe? I am enjoying the vocabulary repartee, but would like to get back to the political discussion if possible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Another fallacious argument; why should I care if no one talks like this? Is that impetus for not furthering one's intellect?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You don't have many friends do you? </p>
<p>
[quote]
Respect does not equate to blind devotion. Perpetuating apathy for the love of a leader only worsens the situation. But since you are so fond of maintaning the status quo, it would be presumptious for me to suggest otherwise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and by presumptious, I assume that you meant presumptuous :-P </p>
<p>And, since you relentlessly insinuate that the only way to converse is in a bombastic manner, I will comply. </p>
<p>Never did I elucidate to the allegation of respect being equivocated with blind devotion. Respect does not imply adoration or commendation. Both deliberation and altercation are both necessary and appropriate means of improvement. However, the blatant and continous impertinence is entirely indecorous. </p>
<p>Better?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Never did I elucidate to the allegation of respect being equivocated with blind devotion. Respect does not imply adoration or commendation. Both deliberation and altercation are both necessary and appropriate means of improvement. However, the blatant and continous impertinence is entirely indecorous.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and does one not pay him enough respect by referring to him as 'President Bush'? </p>
<p>
[quote]
and by presumptious, I assume that you meant presumptuous :-P
[/quote]
</p>
<p>A mere typographical error.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't have many friends do you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you not know what logic is? Do not worry, for I am not surprised that the concept fails you.</p>
<p>Edit: I applaud your attempt to sound competent, but it is in vain since you make a conscious effort to sound remotely intelligent. I do not deliberately postulate abstract and recondite arguments, it is a biproduct of my study. </p>
<p>Keep trying, however. This is amusing:)</p>
<p>Your pejorative comments, meant to offend, do not. </p>
<p>haha... arguing is fun. Especially when it's just a battle of ad hominen attacks. hahaha... </p>
<p>btw: it IS okay to write "it was a typo, my bad" instead of "a mere typographical error." Enough with the magniloquence. :-D</p>
<p>Oh yeah... </p>
<p>Go Bush.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Enough with the magniloquence. :-D
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...and bring in the colloquial! I wonder why grandiloquence and magniloquence are similar.</p>
<p>What is your focus in philosophy? It seems to be in the continental area (from reading your facebook profile); but continental philosophy is rubbish, or to reiterate what a good friend once told me:</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be honest, I think a lot of people just can't do analytic philosophy. They are intimidated by it. So they prefer the softer, more feminine aspects of continental. It's true. Analytic is more masculine. It's about triumph, refutation, rigour, analysis. Continental is all about wine-tasting and Dickens novels.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But enough philosophical indulgance. I do not wish to scare away the continental with my truth-wielding schemas.</p>
<p>Philosophy... oh how I love it, in all its forms. </p>
<p>Continental philosophy is probably the reason why the study of philosophy is no longer prestigious, but is slowly being degraded to be comparable to the likes of psychology, anthropology, and sociology. I do, as stated in the quote, enjoy the "softer, more feminine aspects of continental" for two reasons: it is easier to discuss with a non-philosophy major, but also because it is idealistic and (unfortunately) non argumentative. Its roots are neither based in facts nor logic, but rather on the wispy and altruistic thought. It's nice to think about, I'll admit, and I can understand why (according to my facebook) you, and anyone else, would view me as a continental philosopher. </p>
<p>I'm working on the balance between idealism and realism. :-D</p>
<p>However, to answer your question, I consider myself an analytic philosopher. It's where my passion lies, and I love it. I love the mastering of ideas and the discovery of truth; I love the power that true knowledge holds; that's why I chose philosophy as my major in the first place. </p>
<p>My PHL classes for the fall semester are Introduction to Logic and Theory of Knowledge. Does that sound continental to you?</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, to answer your question, I consider myself an analytic philosopher. It's where my passion lies, and I love it. I love the mastering of ideas and the discovery of truth; I love the power that true knowledge holds; that's why I chose philosophy as my major in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You will be sorely disappointed. The search for necessary truth has been a defining ambition in philosophy, and it is only until now that we suspect it is in vain. It is also known as the threat of...
...wait for it...
...keep going...
...skepticism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My PHL classes for the fall semester are Introduction to Logic and Theory of Knowledge. Does that sound continental to you?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I presumed your affinity for continental philosophy from the Emerson quote. At any rate, it is best to call you neither. Since you have not even mastered an entry-level course in logic, you cannot lay claim to analytics philosophy. </p>
<p>Moreover, 'Theory of Knowledge', or 'epistemology' is not necessarily analytic. Kant definitely falls in the continental tradition, as do his German successors. In fact, unless your course covers logical empiricism/positivism (including the works of W.V.O. Quine), I would venture to argue that it is not in the least analytic.</p>
<p>Edit: I apologize for digressing. If you would like to continue your discussion with this ruthless being, my PM box is available.</p>
<p>haha...you're an expert now, huh? I'm learning, I'm learning... I've just finished my first year. :-) I was proud that I decided on a major at the beginning of the year and stuck with it and LIKE it for that matter. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You will be sorely disappointed. The search for necessary truth has been a defining ambition in philosophy, and it is only until now that we suspect it is in vain. It is also known as the threat of...
...wait for it...
...keep going...
...skepticism.
[/quote]
I know I know... I don't need to be coached. </p>
<p>Don't be so critical. I'm a newbie. Thus far, I'm enjoying myself and have learned a lot, so no more bubble bursting.</p>
<p>And in regards to the Bush v. all other liberals debate --
I find it bothersome that Kerry gets botox. hehehe...</p>
<p>"Cease using euphemisms. It is difficult for you to comprehend because it is abstruse; there is no deliberate ambiguity. If my posts exude any obscurity, it is because you do not have knowledge of the vocabulary. It is an epistemological problem on your part, not mine."</p>
<p>There is a difference between naturally using good vocabulary and sounding like a complete moron attempting to spew some large words; unfortunately, the latter applies to you...for ex. you use "exude" horribly as generally a person exudes (literally meaning to "sweat out" from the latin "ex-out and sudare-to sweat"), not an inanimate object.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Edit: I applaud your attempt to sound competent, but it is in vain since you make a conscious effort to sound remotely intelligent. I do not deliberately postulate abstract and recondite arguments, it is a biproduct of my study.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you're a word snob nspeds :-)</p>
<p>I think Kerry would make a better President that Bush anyday. The foudation of an economy, is created by the people in the country itself. A war crushes the economy and effects all the people. I'm sure Kerry would have seen that.</p>