Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
Maybe you should keep reading, and then do a little research, instead of just reading one sentence and declaring yourself smarter than anyone else.Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations. As a subject of formal study and a productive civic practice, rhetoric has played a central role in the Western tradition. Its best known definition comes from Aristotle, who considers it a counterpart of both logic and politics, and calls it "the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion." Rhetorics typically provide heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations, such as Aristotle's three persuasive audience appeals, logos, pathos, and ethos. The five canons of rhetoric, which trace the traditional tasks in designing a persuasive speech, were first codified in classical Rome, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Along with grammar and logic (or dialectic see Martianus Capella), rhetoric is one of the three ancient arts of discourse.Rhetoric is nothing more than how you say something. It is all about bypassing the brain and appealing to the emotions, You do this through exaggeration and hyperbole, not dry facts. Your attempt to argue that rhetoric is more about what people say than how they say it demonstrates your complete misunderstanding of the word. If you don't believe me look up pathos and ethos in Wiki.
From ancient Greece to the late 19th century, it was a central part of Western education, filling the need to train public speakers and writers to move audiences to action with arguments. The word is derived from the Greek ??t?????? (rhetorikós), "oratorical", from ??t?? (rh?tor), "public speaker", related to ??µa (rhêma), "that which is said or spoken, word, saying", and ultimately derived from the verb ???? (loqui), "to speak, say".
Are we really going to have an argument about fucking "rhetoric" now? You are a little child. Must I put you in your place? I will repeat, which the above only verifies: Rhetoric is not synonymous with hyperbole and exaggeration. One may use hyperbole and exaggeration as part of a rhetorical style, but in no way is part of the definition of rhetoric. therefore, they are categorically distinct. You are committing a categorical error in lumping these things together. Rhetoric is simply the description of the art to persuade or convince, and in no way necessitates the use of hyperbole or exaggeration.
To reiterate: Hyperbole and Exaggeration are nowhere contained in the definition of rhetoric. Merely, they are tools for rhetoricians. As such, they are categorically distinct, and can not be synonymous, as far as usage goes. So, try asking your question again, and maybe I can answer it, and we can get past this discussion.
It really seems like your end goal is to try to frustrate threads as much as possible.
Yeah, hes among our more tedious rightist ideologues.
What is wrong with being an ideologue?