GOP tax scam

Post Reply New Topic

^^Point of that exercise was to demonstrate how annoying whining sounds. Also the fact that none of it is related whatsoever to the topic at hand, it's just a deflection tactic.

That's a very poor attempt at trying to disguise your bullshit trolling.

Nope, just trying to get you to answer the question from 2 pages back, I mean just think we could be on a different topic right now if you'd just answer. Are you using your purported non-bias as a rhetorical trick, or are you actually unaware of your own bias? It's very simple, it's not loaded, it's evidenced by anyone that wants to click your avatar and read back a mere 2-3 pages of comments. You're free to not answer, but I'm free to keep asking as well. And yeah, it's a question of credibility, which is not actually personal at all, it's a necessity for any speaker to be taken seriously in a public forum. If you want that credibility then answer the question and earn it.

Uh huh, from a couple of pages back:



Proof that your claims of what you're up to aren't legitimate and that you completely lack credibility. You are just maladroitly gaslighting, bullshit trolling and making a fool of yourself.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=355733&start=45

Ethos appeal: Inferring your ideas come from nonpartisan sources, thus you have no bias.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=356366&p=7727402#p7727402

Ethos appeal: direct claim of non-bias.

http://wrongplanet.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=356366

Ethos appeal: claiming you only accept evidence, thus a claim of non-bias.

viewtopic.php?f=21&t=356366&p=7731836#p7731836

Ethos appeal: claim of dispassionate logic, thus no bias.

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=352646&p=7639591#p7639591

Ethos appeal: again, inferring your own non-bias by applying bias to others: oddly enough using autism/NT as a dividing line to boot, under that logic every autistic is unbiased.

Ethos is the rhetorical concept of credibility, namely how does a rhetor (speaker, writer, anyone using rhetoric to persuade an audience) appeal to an audience through their ethical standards and trustworthiness, or authority on a subject. The list above is a list of ethos based appeals you've made towards your purported neutrality, some are sublte, some are overt. This list was a random sampling, namely I pulled your post history and typed in a random number in the address bar. Evidence was collected from 5 pages between page 64-210 of your posting history. That's 75 posts, of which 32 were political in nature, and of those 32 there are 5 examples of ethos appeals to your non-biased nature, or ~15.6%(~1/7) of all your political posts in this sample included an ethos appeal to your non-biased nature. Source pages have been linked for anyone to verify the quotes I've provided. Context was not taken into consideration because it's not a fluid argument, but raw data collection on the rate at which ethos appeals to non-bias were made.

It's there, and as I said all it takes is a little browsing work. So gaslighting, not even close, it's a 'misstatement' you seem to make quite often. I would have compiled a larger sampling but WP is exceptionally slow right now, and I don't like using a site that feels like I'm still on dial-up.

On a completely unrelated note: If you've never seen "Thank You for Smoking", I highly recommend it. It's an entertaining look at speaking, persuasion, and PR-- all closely related fields. Nick Nailor, the protagonist (or antagonist depending on viewpoint), mentions in a later part of the movie why ethos appeals are a dangerous sword to be wielding in an argument. Plus the vanilla vs chocolate argument he has with his child is classic.

Um...:

The question was answered:



Therefore this off-topic topic has already concluded. I hope you didn't put too much effort into all that verbose rambling above, because I didn't bother reading it, seeing as how the matter was already concluded.

OK, mod time - please get back to the topic at hand rather than analysing each other's failings as posters.

Common mistake: thinking your opposition in a public debate is who's important. I'm not trying to convince or persuade YOU of anything, it's everyone BUT you who is my concern. Whether you read or don't is really no concern of mine, you're merely a sounding board for my ideas, and vice versa. The evidence has been presented and the audience will make up their mind.

edit: and yes, I'm done now, as per the mod's request, until the next time I see a claim of non-bias of course...

Very interesting analysis. Economics certainly isn't my forte, but I am learning from this nonetheless.

^^Way to keep it classy.

Thanks

Professor is about the highest compliment I could think of receiving: it denotes sophistication, refined intelligence, and critical thinking. So thank you good sir!

edit: see, we CAN get along. lol.

Last edited by Aristophanes on 02 Jan 2018, 3:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You're welcome, wannabe-professor windbag.

Funny thing: I've been called 'professor' since I was 12, I'm pretty used to it by now, and I do view it as a badge of honor.

Outside of the normal flow of debate I did mention one thing: A movie called Thank You for Smoking, whether you read that or not, not sure, but I seriously recommend watching it. I can guarantee you'll be thoroughly entertained. That's on a personal level I'm saying it, not as a debater with any type of cause at this point. It's all about language, debate, and public releations and there are some hilarious arguments in there, but also some tried an true techniques. Look it up sometime. If you know who William F. Buckley is (probably the most talented conservative writer of the last half century if you don't), it was based on a book written by his son (who's non-political but also a very good writer).

Just heard Sarah Huckabee's first address of the new year and she opened up by talking about how so many American's are getting raises to their wages from the corporate tax breaks that were just handed out.. uuuh, really? Somehow I doubt that IF any major corporations are going to increase wages with their tax breaks that they did it instantaneously. The whole soundbite sounds like complete and utter bullshit saying the tax cut is working exactly as Trump intended.. corporations increasing wages. I VERY highly doubt it.