>>2734570

>>2734581

Poisoning the well can take the form of an (explicit or implied) argument, and is considered by some philosophers an informal fallacy.[1]

A poisoned-well "argument" has the following form:

1. Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented by another. (e.g. "Before you listen to my opponent, may I remind you that he has been in jail")

2. Therefore, the claims made by person A will be false. [3]

A subcategory of this form is the false dilemma; an unfavorable attribute to any future opponents, in an attempt to discourage debate. (For example, "That's my stance on funding the public education system, and anyone who disagrees with me hates children.") Any person who steps forward to dispute the claim will then risk applying the tag to him or herself in the process.

A poisoned-well "argument" can also be in this form:

1. Unfavorable definitions (be it true or false) which prevent disagreement (or enforce affirmative position)

2. Any claims without first agreeing with above definitions are automatically dismissed.

the finnish made a sequel to "1984"

Et landområde like stort som Danmark svidd av, en befolkning på 60.000 sjeler tvangsevakuert, 11.000 beboelseshus, 116 skoler og 21 sykehus nedbrent, kaianlegg, broer og kraftverk ødelagt. Slik lyder fasit etter de siste krigsoperasjoner i Finnmark og Nord-Troms, da tyskerne anvendte den brente jords taktikk for å skaffe seg beskyttelse under tilbaketrekkingen. De overlot en ørken til de russiske troppene som trengte seg inn østfra. Da evakueringsorderen kom, søkte mange norske familier tilflukt i fjellet. De dannet utover den siste krigsvinteren et helt lite samfunn av gamme- og hulebeboere. Å gå ned til bygdene var fobundet med dødsfare. I de befrifdde områdene i Øst-Finnmark dukket befolkningen fort opp fra sine skjulesteder. Ødeleggelsen var ufattelig. Men de tok fatt på gjenreisingen med ekte finnmarksk utholdenhet. Målet var å komme hjem til jul, og det føltes som en stor seier å flytte fra en hule til en gjødselkjeller på egen tomt.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0214550/

A country area as large as Denmark burned off, a population of 60,000 souls forced evacuation, 11,000 residential buildings, 116 schools and 21 hospitals burned down, quays, bridges and power plants destroyed. That sounds like the last war operations in Finnmark and North Troms, when the Germans used the tactics of the burned earth to obtain protection during the withdrawal. They left a desert for the Russian troops that penetrated from the east. When the evacuation order came, many Norwegian families sought shelter in the mountains. They formed a very small community of gamme and cavemen beyond the last war winter. Going down to the villages was fooled with death. In the provinces of East Finnmark, the population quickly emerged from its hiding places. The destruction was inconceivable. But they embarked on the reunion with true Finnmarkian endurance. The goal was to come home for Christmas, and it felt like a great victory to move from a cave to a fertilizer cellar on its own plot.

>>2734676

maybe you should apply those daddy issues at something more productive

like drinking yourself to death with 100 proof schnapps in a van like yo daddy

despotism lacks great art usually

>>2734704

patton was such a closet homo

he tainted all those "cia grafts: before the walrsu josh

and frump turned on walrus decades ago

Procatalepsis, also called prolepsis or prebuttal, is a figure of speech in which the speaker raises an objection to their own argument and then immediately answers it. By doing so, they hope to strengthen their argument by dealing with possible counter-arguments before their audience can raise them.[1]

In rhetoric anticipating future responses and answering possible objections will set up one's argument for a strong defense. The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism states that there are three distinct theoretical uses of prolepsis: argumentation, literary discussion, and conjunction with narratological analyses of the order of events.[2][page needed]

In argumentation, procatalepsis is used to answer the opponent's possible objections before they can be made. In literary discussion, procatalepsis is used as a figure of speech in which a description is used before it is strictly applicable. Sayings such as "I'm a dead man" exemplify the suggestion of a state that has not yet occurred. In narratological analyses prolepsis can be used with the order of events and presentation of events in texts. This refers to the study of narrative in respect to "flash-forwards" in which a future event serves as an interruption of the present time of the text.[

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way.

The phrase parade of horribles originally referred to a literal parade of people wearing comic and grotesque costumes, rather like the Philadelphia Mummers Parade. It was a traditional feature of Fourth of July parades in parts of the United States in the 19th century, and "Horribles Parades" continue to be part of the Independence Day celebration in several New England communities.[1] A 1926 newspaper article about July the Fourth celebrations in the White Mountains of New Hampshire notes:

Old-time celebrations are to be held tomorrow at Littleton, Lancaster, Colebrook, and Conway, with all the usual features of street parades of horribles and grotesques, brass bands, decorated automobiles and vehicles, exhibitions by fire departments, basket picnics in convenient groves…[2]

Founded in 1926, the Ancient and Horribles Parade in Chepachet, Rhode Island continues this tradition.

Other rural New England towns, such as Hopkinton, Massachusetts and Mendon, Massachusetts still hold annual Horribles Parades.[3]

As a rhetorical device

A parade of horribles is also a rhetorical device whereby the speaker argues against taking a certain course of action by listing a number of extremely undesirable events which will ostensibly result from the action.[4][5] Its power lies in the emotional impact of the unpleasant predictions; however, a parade of horribles can potentially be a fallacy if one or more of the following is true:

The action doesn't actually change the likelihood of the "horribles" occurring. The "horribles" could be unlikely to occur even if the action is taken, or they could be likely to happen anyway even if the action is avoided. This is an appeal to probability, and can be viewed as a non sequitur insofar as the action has no causal relation to the "horribles".

The argument relies solely on the emotional impact of the "horribles" (an appeal to emotion).

The "horribles" are not actually bad.

The "horribles" have a low probability of occurring when compared to the high probability of good occurring.

A parade of horribles is a type of hyperbole, because it exaggerates the negative results of the action, arguing that "If we do this, ultimately all these horrible things will happen".

>>2734766

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_and_Horribles_Parade

also know as misleading vividness

Anecdotal evidence is evidence from anecdotes, i.e., evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. When compared to other types of evidence, anecdotal evidence is generally regarded as limited in value due to a number of potential weaknesses, but may be considered within the scope of scientific method as some anecdotal evidence can be both empirical and verifiable, e.g. in the use of case studies in medicine. Other anecdotal evidence, however, does not qualify as scientific evidence, because its nature prevents it from being investigated by the scientific method.

Where only one or a few anecdotes are presented, there is a larger chance that they may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.[1][2] Similarly, psychologists have found that due to cognitive bias people are more likely to remember notable or unusual examples rather than typical examples.[3] Thus, even when accurate, anecdotal evidence is not necessarily representative of a typical experience. Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is typical requires statistical evidence.[4] Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy and is sometimes referred to as the "person who" fallacy ("I know a person who…"; "I know of a case where…" etc.) which places undue weight on experiences of close peers which may not be typical. Compare with hasty generalization.

The term is sometimes used in a legal context to describe certain kinds of testimony which are uncorroborated by objective, independent evidence such as notarized documentation, photographs, audio-visual recordings, etc.

When used in advertising or promotion of a product, service, or idea, anecdotal reports are often called a testimonial, which are highly regulated[5] or banned in some[which?] jurisdictions.

The wisdom of repugnance, or the yuck factor,[1] also known informally as "appeal to disgust",[2] is the belief that an intuitive (or "deep-seated") negative response to some thing, idea, or practice should be interpreted as evidence for the intrinsically harmful or evil character of that thing. Furthermore, it refers to the notion that wisdom may manifest itself in feelings of disgust towards anything which lacks goodness or wisdom, though the feelings or the reasoning of such 'wisdom' may not be immediately explicable through reason.

procatalepsis is linked to inoculation technique

Other examples in rhetoric and argument

Procatalepsis as a rhetorical technique is also related to and used in other forms and techniques. A hypophora is described as a figure of speech in which a speaker raises a question then immediately answers it. Since these questions are often raised as possible dissenting opinions or audience objections, the hypophora can be said to be a use of procatalepsis.

The Straw Man argument, an informal fallacy in which one misrepresents an opposing argument in order to further one's own, can serve as an example of misused procatalepsis. In this fallacy, the rhetor misconstrues the words, arguments, or views of an opponent, most often on purpose, to facilitate rebuttal or create a false impression on the audience. This, in effect, creates a "straw man" against which the rhetor will then defend and strengthen his or her argument. [4]

The correct use of procatalepsis is still an effective tactic in an argument, since it allows the rhetor to answer opponents before they have a chance to raise the counterargument themselves. This "inoculation" can be subtle, but also signaled rather obviously (e.g. "Now, my opponent might argue that X. But, as you can see, Y"). The unique benefit to this more overt approach is twofold: The rhetor successfully replies to an opposing argument or audience objection, but also builds a sort of trust and authority with the audience. Then, if the opponent does in fact bring up the argument that the rhetor anticipated, the rhetor appears to be correct not only in the subject matter of the argument but in the general course of the argument itself.

>>2734801

Inoculation

Procatalepsis is linked to the rhetorical term inoculation. The Encyclopedia of Communication Theory describes this rhetorical technique in relation to its medical definition: introducing small doses of viruses to the body in order to build up immunization.[5][page needed] In rhetoric, the small dose of the threat parallels to the awareness of the opposing argument that is used to build up one's argument by defense in prolepsis. William McGuire proposed the Inoculation Theory in 1964 to challenge attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that make an argument more resistant when exposed to counter views in weakened, small doses. Persuasion research in the 1950s found that providing two sides of an issue created a greater resistance to later arguments.[5] This is closely related to the rhetorical use of procatalepsis as an opposing argument to defend the intended view of the argument.

Inoculation and procatalepsis are both present in certain courtroom situations, as described in the Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. An attorney may set up their defense by disclaiming the negative views or classifications of the accused as untrue: "The prosecutor will call Ms. Jones evil, a bad mother, and a poor member of society, but these labels are not true. I will prove to you their inaccuracy." When the prosecutor asserts an attack on Ms. Jones' character, the jury is already prepared and expecting to hear it and they may question or even discount these accusations. The goal is not to overwhelm the audience members with anticipation or the opposing view of the argument, but rather to use the inverse argument to one's advantage through strategic rhetoric.[5]

emotivism is not a technical science of physics

Emotivism is a meta-ethical view that claims that ethical sentences do not express propositions but emotional attitudes.[1][2] Hence, it is colloquially known as the hurrah/boo theory. Influenced by the growth of analytic philosophy and logical positivism in the 20th century, the theory was stated vividly by A. J. Ayer in his 1936 book Language, Truth and Logic,[3] but its development owes more to C. L. Stevenson.[4]

Emotivism can be considered a form of non-cognitivism or expressivism. It stands in opposition to other forms of non-cognitivism (such as quasi-realism and universal prescriptivism), as well as to all forms of cognitivism (including both moral realism and ethical subjectivism).

In the 1950s, emotivism appeared in a modified form in the universal prescriptivism of R. M. Hare.[5][6]