TNL Coach Released - Mistrial Declared

[Skarp]

Skarp-Pure rhetoric!

What, specifically, was pure rhetoric?

[anonlooker]

Skarp-Pure rhetoric!

What, specifically, was pure rhetoric?

I don't know Skarp, I think you should take that as a compliment, given the definition of the word (thanks to Merriam-Webster).

And if he didn't mean it as a compliment, then I guess he doesn't know what he's talking about!

Main Entry:
rhet·o·ric Listen to the pronunciation of rhetoric
Pronunciation:
\ˈre-tə-rik\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English rethorik, from Anglo-French rethorique, from Latin rhetorica, from Greek rhētorikē, literally, art of oratory, from feminine of rhētorikos of an orator, from rhētōr orator, rhetorician, from eirein to say, speak — more at word
Date:
14th century

1: the art of speaking or writing effectively: as a: the study of principles and rules of composition formulated by critics of ancient times b: the study of writing or speaking as a means of communication or persuasion 2 a: skill in the effective use of speech b: a type or mode of language or speech; also : insincere or grandiloquent language3: verbal communication : discourse
L

[Demonboy]

Or.......

"In contraposition to scientific debates, rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics), which are all properly called commonplaces as they help establish a commonality of understanding between the orator or rhetor and his/her audience"

[SoftballSucka]

He's not innocent, maybe not 100% guilty but definitely not innocent and he is guilty of the worst judgement of anybody on earth.....Should've never been in that position....HIS FAULT


WELL SAID!!!!

[Ace]

How should I set up my defence to slop a slapper, and protect my second baseman?

[anonlooker]

Or.......

"In contraposition to scientific debates, rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics), which are all properly called commonplaces as they help establish a commonality of understanding between the orator or rhetor and his/her audience"

It can be argued that scientific debate and rhetorical argument are one and the same thing.

By it's nature, scientific debate is a challenge to demonstrable or tested truths, and will conclude with one side or the other shown to be fallible and / or transient.

In other words, what is demonstrable and true today is frequently found tomorrow to be a load of crap!

This holds true across all fields of study, and hence knowledge (truth) constantly evolves in science, medicine, management, slap defense theory , and jurisprudence.

In that vein, and back on topic, I'd still like to hear from anyone privy to the trial proceedings on how it's possible that 4 people were convinced of Facione's guilt. Are we to believe, as you seem to suggest, there was no damaging evidence at all?

[hotwheels]

How should I set up my defence to slop a slapper, and protect my second baseman?

[anonlooker]

How should I set up my defence to slop a slapper, and protect my second baseman?

I suggest you slop the slapper with a few mojitos!

If that doesn't work, tell your 2b to erase her text messages, then move her over to 3rd!

[Skarp]

Or.......

"In contraposition to scientific debates, rhetorical arguments, as in politics or even justice, do not make use of demonstrable or tested truths, but resort to fallible opinions, popular perceptions, transient beliefs, chosen evidence or evidence at hand (like statistics), which are all properly called commonplaces as they help establish a commonality of understanding between the orator or rhetor and his/her audience"

Rhetoric, as used by Getagrip55 and defined by DB, is roughly synonymous with sophistry--the effective use of fallacious argument for the purpose of deceit. Making something appear to be true when you know that it really isn't (or at least have no sound basis for believing that it is).

I never do that.

[Skarp]

This holds true across all fields of study, and hence knowledge (truth) constantly evolves in science, medicine, management, slap defense theory , and jurisprudence.

Is that why the liberal icons in science (Rachel Carson, Paul Ehrlich, et. al) are never held to account--and in fact are still revered--when their pseudo-scientific theories (which incidentally have resulted in the death and impoverishment of countless millions) turn out to be poorly conceived, inadequately tested, and demonstrably false?

And why the peddlers of "rehabilitative" theories of punishment still hold immense sway despite the torrent of violent crime that the adoption of those theories unleashed on our streets?

And why the current crop of enviro scare mongers and profiteers will never have to answer for the nonsense they are spewing now?

Or maybe it's just that knowledge doesn't evolve so much after all.