<p>
[quote]
Ok, I haven't checked this in a while, so here goes: The standard usage of the word 'rhetoric', particularly in this context, is 'persuasive language'.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What is your source?</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you're going to go down the 'abstract connotations' road, then I'm going to choose the fifth option you gave ("Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous"), because from my point of view, that's the one that seems to suit the situation best.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I do not care about your opinion; if it is predicated on an analytic or quantitative framework, then I am all ears. Otherwise, your comments are about as good as the vulgar remarks that have been advanced against me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As to abstruse: it is you who said your argument is abstruse, not me. Ergo, you yourself are admitting that it is confusing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am admitting that it is difficult to understand, and those who are not up to the task, like you, will fall under the class of individuals who suffer from this dilemma.</p>
<p>By the way, I thought we were communicating in English? </p>
<p>
[quote]
From this there are thus only two possible conclusions: that you deliberately obfuscated your argument, or that you are incapable of writing in a coherent manner (and are gracious enough to acknowledge the fact).
[/quote]
Wow, the idiocy continues. I shall copy and paste my previous response about coherentness:
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If you cannot understand the above, then odds are you do not know the implications of the term 'coherent'</p>
<p>You seem to extol the virtues of coherentism, yet you do not follow it. You commit the fallacy of the false dilemma. You fail to advance the possibility that my style of writing or the ideas I espouse are simply beyond you. I am not trying to be arrogant; I deliberately employed an abstract philosophical argument to demonstrate the complexity of any blanket statements regarding shifts in liberal ideological tendencies. Usually, comprehending such material requires years of research and training in analytic philosophy. Since you do not even use 'coherent' correctly, it is lucid that you lack the desideratum for understanding what I write. Morever, when I am inundated with compliments from my professors regarding my writing style and ideas, it is difficult me to heed the advice of someone I barely know, and someone who obviously has nothing but a smattering of the point I am advancing.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I concluded that you deliberately obfuscated your argument. I would speculate as to the reason for this, but since I doubt any of them will work to your advantage, I'll take the high road and leave it at that.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>More linguistic sleight-of-hand; 'take the high road'? You commit a false dichotomy and you rendered your conclusion from it. You deliberately employed a faulty argument for the purpose of lambasting me, and then you compliment your divine inclination toward maturity. This would not be so absurd if your arguments were not self-referentially incoherent.</p>
<p>Before accusing me of being incoherent, learn how to render coherent statements and propositions of your own. From your manner of writing, it is abundantly clear that your knowledge of logic is scant. Respond in a couple years once you have acquired the requisite skills.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm curious as to what you meant when you used 'euphemism'. According to the OED (I looked it up just for you, just to make sure I wasn't mistaken), it means to use a more favourable or less offensive word instead of a harsher or more offensive (but more accurate) one. I don't detect a euphemism in "obfuscating your argument to the point of incomprehension...";
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The remark was in regard to your implicit denial that you are simply inept at comprehending the argument I am postulating. This was obscured by the your accusatory writing style, as if I were the only possible person who could be held accountable for your inability to comprehend. The euphemisms placed you on a cushion, and it overshadowed the illicit logical connections you were covertly making against me.</p>