SHIT IN A BISCUIT AND SELL IT AS POLITICS
if you step on a baby
a potatoeface comes to haunt
did you know they had to set the book in russia
cause saying chicago over and over would have screwed up the game
learn about "shadenfreude" and "sardonic-ism" in children's movies
bah bah black sheep
a tower of babel
who want;s that hat
a spire of caca
all this ambiquity and dissonance and bullshit must be part of their paralipsis antimetabole
all this closet communism is distracting from the satan worship
that explicit porn has the files named after the tropes these satanists keep useing through the breads
too much shit in the bread
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.[2]
Example:
"It is difficult to see how a pilot boat could be completely immune to capsizing or plunging, but pilot boat design criteria must meet the needs of the industry and pilotage authorities."
As a linguistic phenomenon found in both classic and current languages, prolepsis is described as the construction whereby the subject of a subordinate clause occurs by anticipation as an object in the main clause.[3] Although this definition is strictly technical as used in linguistics, it has also been used to describe the more general phenomenon of objects or phrases appearing earlier than intended or expected.
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.
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]
Hypophora, also referred to as anthypophora or antipophora, is a figure of speech in which the speaker poses a question and then answers the question.[1] Hypophora can consist of a single question answered in a single sentence, a single question answered in a paragraph or even a section, or a series of questions, each answered in subsequent paragraphs. Hypophora is used (1) as a transitional device, to take the discussion in a new direction, (2) a device to stimulate interest, since a reader's curiosity is stimulated by hearing a question, and (3) to suggest and answer questions the reader might not have thought of.
The word anthypophora is present in Ancient Greek[2] and is mentioned by the Roman orator Quintilian in his book Institutio Oratoria. In Institutio Oratoria, Quintilian merely identifies anthypophora as a device used to verify the truth of something, and does not mention raising a hypothetical question or objection.[3] An earlier work by the Greek rhetorician Gorgias mentions anthypophora in its current definition, that is, presenting an opposing argument and then refuting it.[2] The 16th-century English rhetorical handbook The Arte of English Poesie, reputedly by George Puttenham, gives the current definition of Anthypophora as well as numerous examples.[4]
Hypophora vs. anthypophora
In recent times, a division has arisen between the definitions of hypophora and anthypophora. The Century Dictionary identifies hypophora as the dissenting statement or question and anthypophora as the reply to the question.[5] Thus the two terms have come to embrace both elements of hypophora, as well as dealing with the whole concept.
Effect
The rhetorical effectiveness lies in allowing the speaker to answer questions the listener may have. For instance, in Paul's Epistle to the Romans, Paul is explaining Jesus and he says "Is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also" (Romans 3.29). In this manner, Paul confirms to the reader that God is god of both the Jews and Gentiles.[6]
A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man."
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.[2][3]
This technique has been used throughout history in polemical debate, particularly in arguments about highly charged emotional issues where a fiery "battle" and the defeat of an "enemy" may be more valued than critical thinking or an understanding of both sides of the issue.
Straw man tactics in the United Kingdom can be known as an Aunt Sally, after a pub game of the same name, where patrons threw sticks or battens at a post to knock off a skittle balanced on top.[4][5]
U.S. President William McKinley has shot a cannon (labeled McKinley's Letter) which has involved a "straw man" and its constructors (Carl Schurz, Oswald Garrison Villard, Richard Olney) in a great explosion. Caption: S M A S H E D !, Harper's Weekly, September 22, 1900
As a fallacy, the identification and name of straw man arguments are of relatively recent date, although Aristotle makes remarks that suggest a similar concern;[6] Douglas Walton identified "the first inclusion of it we can find in a textbook as an informal fallacy" in Stuart Chase's Guides to Straight Thinking from 1956 (p. 40).[6][7] However, Hamblin's classic text Fallacies (1970) neither mentions it as a distinct type, nor even as a historical term.[6][7]
The term's origins are unclear. The usage of the term in rhetoric suggests a human figure made of straw that is easy to knock down or destroy—such as a military training dummy, scarecrow, or effigy.[8] A common folk etymology is that it refers to men who stood outside courthouses with a straw in their shoe to signal their willingness to be a false witness.[9]
Structure
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.
This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.
For example:
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[3]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated[2]
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Exaggerating (sometimes grossly exaggerating) an opponent's argument, then attacking this exaggerated version.
In 2006, Robert Talisse and Scott Aikin expanded the application and use of the straw man fallacy beyond that of previous rhetorical scholars, arguing that the straw man fallacy can take two forms: the original form that misrepresents the opponent's position, which they call the representative form; and a new form they call the selection form.
The selection form focuses on a partial and weaker (and easier to refute) representation of the opponent's position. Then the easier refutation of this weaker position is claimed to refute the opponent's complete position. They point out the similarity of the selection form to the fallacy of hasty generalization, in which the refutation of an opposing position that is weaker than the opponent's is claimed as a refutation of all opposing arguments. Because they have found significantly increased use of the selection form in modern political argumentation, they view its identification as an important new tool for the improvement of public discourse.[14]
Aikin and Casey expanded on this model in 2010, introducing a third form. Referring to the "representative form" as the classic straw man, and the "selection form" as the weak man, a third form is called the hollow man. A hollow man argument is one that is a complete fabrication, where both the viewpoint and the opponent expressing it do not in fact exist, or at the very least the arguer has never encountered them. Such arguments frequently take the form of vague phrasing such as "some say," "someone out there thinks" or similar weasel words, or it might attribute a non-existent argument to a broad movement in general, rather than an individual or organization.[15][16]
A variation on the selection form, or "weak man" argument, that combines with an ad hominem and fallacy of composition is nut picking, a neologism coined by Kevin Drum.[17] A combination of "nut" (i.e., insane person) and "cherry picking", nut picking refers to intentionally seeking out extremely fringe, non-representative statements or individuals from members of an opposing group and parading these as evidence of that entire group's incompetence or irrationality.[15]
Cratylism as a philosophical theory reflects the teachings of the Athenian Cratylus (Ancient Greek: Κρατύλος, also transliterated as Kratylos), fl. mid to late 5th century BCE. Cratylus is more popularly known as Socrates' antagonist in Plato's dialogue.[1] Vaguely exegetical, Cratylism holds that the fluid nature of ideas, words, and communications leaves them fundamentally baseless, and possibly unable to support logic and reason. It is distinguished from linguisticity by the problematic status of style - that in a natural language, where a perfect connection is found between word and things, variations of style are no longer conceivable.[2]
Gerard Genette divided the theory into primary and secondary Cratylism. The former is said to involve a general attempt to establish a motivated link between the signifier and the signified by inventing emotional values for certain sounds while the latter admits that language has fallen and that the signifier enjoys an arbitrary relation to the signified.[3]
Cratylism reaches similar conclusions about the nature of reality and communication that Taoism and Zen Buddhism also confronted: how can a mind in flux, in a flowing world, hold on to any solid "truth" and convey it to another mind?
A fellow-Greek sophist, Gorgias, expressed an equally ironic cul de sac conclusion about the nature of human epistemological understanding:
"Nothing exists. Even if something did exist, nothing can be known about it; and even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it cannot be communicated to others. And, finally, even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood."[4]