Path: ultra.sonic.net!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!news.walltech.com!uunet!in3.uu.net!205.252.116.190!feed1.news.erols.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!aristos.demon.co.uk!aristos.demon.co.uk!sam From: Sam Dodsworth Newsgroups: alt.books.cs-lewis Subject: Re: Difficulties with Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 13:41:36 +0000 Organization: Annexia Free Press Distribution: world Message-ID: References: <855353650.4779@dejanews.com> <5dl4a0$9kg@chronicle.concentric.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk X-NNTP-Posting-Host: aristos.demon.co.uk MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 3.01 <7c0azr3XvpMr4dZzpifF$I+pPf> Lines: 24 In article <5dl4a0$9kg@chronicle.concentric.net>, Lisa Sorrell writes >Having recently finished a term of AP English at school in which I had >rhetorical devices shoved down my throat for 90 min a day, 18 weeks in >a row =>, I've never heard rhetoric defined as honorable or >dishonorable... just as a tool for writers to use to get their point >across. If the strategies include logical fallacies, of course that's >the writer's mistake, but also the reader's responsibility to >recognize it. > > It's true that rhetoric is just a tool, but one thing it can be used for is covering up logical fallacies. When that happens, I think it's dishonorable because the writer is setting out to make it difficult for the reader to recognize the logical fallacies. As an extreme example: if I put a landmine under my doormat, is it the visitor's responsibility to recognize it? Sam Dodsworth (sam@aristos.demon.co.uk) "I think there should be more sex and violence on television, not less. Both are powerful catalysts of social change, at a time when change is desperately needed." -J.G. Ballard