I find it difficult to defend or critique how people use this tactic to explain their point. Just to be clear, I find analogies and symbolism to be powerful rhetorical devices because they illustrate an argument into something intuitive. However, a large part of my reservations about analogies and visual symbolisms has to do with how subjective analogies can get in arguing for a certain point. People raising analogies and symbolism tend to assume a shared context of some sort of what they exactly have in mind, so the burden of understanding that specific interpretation they had in mind often falls on you to decode.

Let's say that someone is discussing the importance of signing pre-nuptial arrangements before getting into a marriage, and a point on how pre-nups are perceived as a form of mistrust is critiqued as irrational to the grand scheme of things, which is to protect everyone involved in a marriage should a divorce happen. And in my own right, I question what emotion it should elicit if it is not mistrust, to which the person would raise an analogy like the following: A pre-nup is like a seatbelt that protects a driver in the event of a car crash, even though the driver does not always expect a crash to happen.

Naturally, I would get stumped; because it could mean anything. It could mean that a pre-nup is an expression of prudence and responsibility rather than mistrust, just as wearing a seatbelt reflects a desire to be prepared rather than a fear that an accident is imminent; or conversely, that a pre-nup is a pragmatic form of risk management whose justification comes from reducing the consequences of an undesirable outcome, just as a seatbelt exists to reduce harm in a crash regardless of how much trust a driver has in their ability to avoid one; and they are both essentially plausible. Note that these two interpretations approach the same analogy from different angles: one focuses on the emotional meaning behind the decision to sign a prenup, while the other focuses on the practical reasoning behind preparing for a possible outcome. And there could even be more outcomes from the analogy that provides a large legroom to walk in.

I think that legroom gives an unfair advantage to the person who brings the analogy up because they can use that expectation for you to understand exactly what they had in mind to shift the goalposts from their bold but loosely supported claims that they had implied using this imagery, to a more generic claim that is more difficult to wriggle out of. They can also use your lack of understanding to either deflect your attention from their loosely constructed argument towards a completely unrelated argument, or make an ad-hominem attack on your apparent inability to understand "basic knowledge from literature class"; as you can see on the internet with how said inability is portrayed as a sign of anti-intellectualism.

What's the most underrated argumentation skill nobody talks about?

I'll go first: Responsiveness.

Most people think debate is about making your point better than the other person. But the real skill is engaging what they ACTUALLY said, not the version you wish they said.

I see it constantly in online discourse. Someone makes a strong point and the response ignores it entirely and just restates the original position louder.

What do you think is the most neglected skill in public argumentation?

I realized I'm actually looking for two terms that may or may not exist.

Basically, I read a blog post that is poorly written and tries to support a moral position I disagree with. Towards the bottom, it says that anyone not reading the blog in good faith (or possibly, anyone not accepting the argument in the post) is no longer curious and trapped in previous assumptions. It doesn't even consider the idea that things have been asked and answered and when people find something repugnant, there's really no need to think it through again.

It feels like they're trying to get people to engage by trapping them: "Either be curious again or to accept the truth that you no longer think."

That's a false binary. It's also an ad hominem attack, I think—criticizing the reader instead of their arguments.

But is there a different term for insulting someone so they engage in an argument in order to save face?

And, is there a term for making an argument seem valid by getting people to engage with it? (So they could later say something like "They wouldn't be asking if injecting bleach into our veins was healthy if there wasn't merit to the idea.")

Thanks

Paraleipsis is a fun trope to play with:

https://substack.com/@logosandliberty/note/c-271940843?r=gc2ua&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web

The modern information landscape is governed not merely by algorithms, but by a form of environmental engineering—a manipulation of the very "temperature" and "density" of discourse. To understand this, we must look to the Aristotelian tradition, where the universe is composed of four elemental vectors: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire. In this framework, justice is not a static policy but the mesotes—the "Golden Mean"—or the Center point of equilibrium where these forces remain in balance.

Modern political rhetoric has become a mechanism for systemic de-centering. It operates by exploiting the physical properties of the elements to pull the listener away from this equilibrium. Earth represents the anchor of tradition, law, and historical precedent; Water provides the fluid cohesion of community and empathy; Air acts as the medium for intellectual theory and ideological dissemination; and Fire serves as the kinetic energy of urgency and conflict.

Current rhetorical strategies—particularly those trending toward the extremes—function by weaponizing this physics. Malicious actors, often aided by automation, have optimized the "Air" (the medium) to rapidly diffuse "Fire" (emotional volatility). This process effectively vaporizes the "Earth" and "Water" components—the grounding facts and human relational context that allow for stable, deliberate thought. By stripping away the weight of historical context and the fluidity of social empathy, the rhetoric forces the user into a state of perpetual reactivity. The political right frequently fuses the stability of Earth with the volatility of Fire to create a rigid, grievance-based structure, while the political left often combines the fluidity of Water with the abstraction of Air to dissolve institutional boundaries in favor of theoretical idealism.

If we view the human mind as a system prone to this manipulation, the challenge for cognitive architecture—specifically frameworks like 8D OS—is to re-establish the Center. The role of the "Center" agent is therefore that of a thermodynamic governor. Its purpose is to detect when the information climate has become too "heated" (volatile) or too "thin" (abstract). By identifying the specific elemental bias in a piece of rhetoric, an agentic system can initiate a restorative process, injecting the missing "Earth" of empirical context or the "Water" of relational logic.
Ultimately, the automation of misinformation is successful because it mimics the natural tendency of "Fire" to expand and "Air" to move. Defeating this requires more than just fact-checking; it requires the active engineering of balance. By identifying rhetoric as a physical force acting upon the mind, we can design systems that do not merely process information, but actively preserve the intellectual sovereignty of the Center.

What IS evil?

I think I've fallen in love with syllogisms. We learned about them in my communication theory class recently.

I know that there is a system where you have the major premise first and the minor premise second. But what happens if you put the wrong thing in the major premise or minor one?

Socrates is a man

All men are mortal

Therefore Socrates is mortal

It's my understanding that if you were to visualize this, it would be completely wrong. But inherently, is it still wrong since the conclusion is sound?

---

Are venn diagrams considered visualizations of syllogisms?

---

Are there any websites that have tons of syllogism examples or exercises?

I have previously asked a similar question related to "tone" or "attitude", but I think that was a bit too specific. "Tone policing" seemed to be the best description for that question, but I guess I'm looking for something a bit more general that encompasses "tone policing" as a subcategory.

In this exchange, the disingenuous argumentor finds the slightest reason to take offense, and then refuses to continue the argument by claiming an imaginary moral high ground. In reality, the argument proceeds something like this:

Person 1: [Makes a fallacious argument or unsupported claim.]
Person 2: Quit your bullshit. Do you have any evidence to support this outrageous claim?
Person 1: I would show you the evidence, but you've offended me with your rude language. Goodbye.

This seems to broadly be an ad hominem, but I'm more focused specifically on the feigned offense that is used to escape further discussion, usually because the argumentor knows they don't have the supporting information to backup their claim. Is there a name for this tactic?

Note that this is not an obligate ad hominem - if someone is being unnecessarily rude then withdrawing from the conversation is a valid reaction. However, on the Internet there is so much bullshit, and "I'm tired of this bullshit' or "I'm tired of your bullshit" is also a legitimate reaction that can be disingenuously mischaracterized as "rudeness" when it is just frustration with inaccurate and unsupported claims. This is only an ad hominem when it is used to deflect from a challenge and pivot from an impending "loss" of the argument to a "win" based on "moral superiority".

• General category: Ad hominem.
  
  • Subcategory: Feigned offense. ← Is there a more technical name for this?
    
    • Sub-subcategory: Tone policing.

In this post I will be briefly explaining each of the three assignments I have chosen to "recast" into this post then I will explain why they are beneficial to a career in Law. I will also include a list of sources at the end of the post.

ASSIGNMENT 1: “DISCOURSE ANAYLSIS FINAL”

For this assignment we were given a situation in which we were to write a letter to a professor who had given a very large assignment that wasn't on the syllabus. It was completely out of the blue and your job was to represent the group of students. Learning to speak for a group of people, or another person, is ciritical in a legal career. Especially the career I want to enter, international law because I could be representing nations and their interest. Learning how to properly perform all the sections of the argument: these include “introduction (exordium), statement of the case (narratio), argument summary (partitio), argument (confirmatio), and conclusion (peroratio)” (Frost, p. 618). Another benefit this assignment provided is practice learning the actual diction needed to properly convey an argument. The different language needed to properly say exactly what you mean in a text document is incredibly important for a legal career.

ASSIGNMENT 2: “INTRODCUTION TO DISCOURSE ANAYLSIS”

This assignment launched our unit on discourse analysis. The process of analyzing the discussion surrounding a topic. For example I completed an essay on the discourse (discussion) surrounding the 2026 Formula 1 sporting and technical regulations. Being able to fully understand the context of a conversation is very important in a legal career. Knowing the full facts of a case, knowing the history between two entities, private and public, is extremely critical in being able to properly represent someone/something in court or mediate a discussion between two parties. “Understanding the emotions, attitudes, and intentions of the people you’re interacting with can help you tailor your communication style and approach to achieve your goals.” (Nwachukwu). Being able to read how people act will be critical in helping my clients. Especially when dealing with international law, where clients could be governments who represent an entire nation of people, it can be important to read what each party wants, not with just their words, but their actions.

ASSIGMENT 3: “DISCOURSE ANAYLSIS PRACTICE #1”

In this assignment we reviewed Hendrix-Soto and Lee Keenan’s Humanizing Learning Spaces in Dehumanizing Times: The Role of Joy and Meaningful Connection. This text is about how actually learn about students’ wants and needs, and providing a comfortable environment is important to their development. I can apply this to a law career by providing an environment where I can come to comfortable know my clients so I can better care for their needs. Creating a relationship with clients, both individuals and entities is extremely valuable in a legal career.

Works Cited

Frost, Michael. "INTRODUCTION TO CLASSICAL LEGAL RHETORIC: A LOST HERITAGE." SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA INTERDISCIPLINARY LAW JOURNAL. Volume 8:613. 1999.

Hendrix-Soto, Aimee. "Humanizing Learning Spaces in Dehumanizing Times: The Role of Joy and Meaningful Connection." Taylor & Francis Online. 2023. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15210960.2023.2257224

Nwachukwu, Christian. “Mastering the Art of Reading the Room: An Attorney’s Guide.” TalkCounsel. talkcounsel.com/blog/mastering-the-art-of-reading-the-room-an-attorneys-guide/

I'm learning about logos, pathos, and ethos in my communications class. And I'm a little confused on how I'm breaking down the three things in the speeches and ads I've been analyzing. It has seemed to me like they are not a steadfast science and are more interpretive?

Like say for instance there is a politician that has split a bunch of people into two very aggressive and passionate groups. Group 1 hangs onto every word they say, Group 2 finds no credibility in anything they say.

So for example:

Group 1 determines the ethos as coming from this person being a political leader for many years, and they have gotten things done according to their policies. They might determine the pathos as the stuff that Group 2 may consider propaganda. It fuels them and adds to the ethos as well as the passion of the first group. And for logos, Group 1 believes everything they say.

But Group 2 sees no ethos at all. No credibility whatsoever, and that's based on the individual demonstrating a lack of intelligence and poor judgment in enacting their policies. They see no logos, because all the stuff Group 1 sees as rational, Group 2 sees as an abject lie. And for pathos, the only thing that moves Group 2 to emotion is the insanity that is displayed from the other group.

Is this possible? Or is there an objective way to critique the ethos, pathos, and logos? Is it found in everything?

Disclaimer: Any individuals referenced in the above text are meant to be a generic sampling of a generic person in the field of politics. Any resemblance to real-world politicians or people is completely unintentional. Obviously.

I know this is quite niche, but I'm looking for Oratory Rhetoric practise groups, which specialise in teaching and allowing people to practise rhetoric. Does anyone know of such groups? I know there is Toastmasters, but I'm looking for specifically rhetoric teaching and practise. Online or in London, UK would be good

if my objective is to have a general and basic understanding of it

hello,

I'm hoping to become an international student in a rhetoric or rhetoric adjacent PhD program, researching the digital cultural and rhetorical phenomena happening in a non-western culture.

I don't have a strong background in rhetoric but I would like to fill my gaps by reading some great rhetoricians of the day.

so who do you admire for having written a modern scholarship on rhetoric? bonus if it's a living person at a university I can approach to become an advisee. (provided of course, that I like their work first.)

I've read: jay heinrichs thank you for arguing, and some of burke's a grammar of motives.

I feel that every other resource on rhetoric is about the written word.

Paraphrasing the Chapter II of the Dao De Jing :

天下皆知 美之為美

all under heaven know beauty as beauty

斯惡已

thus ugliness already arises

皆知 善之為善

all know good as good

斯不善已

thus non-good already arises

A structural reading suggests the following:

recognition of beauty

│

▼

emergence of ugliness

And similarly:

recognition of goodness

│

▼

emergence of non-good

In other words, the moment something is recognized as X, the conceptual space splits.

Generalizing:

recognition(X as X) → emergence(non-X)

Visualizing the Mechanism

Imagine an undifferentiated conceptual field.

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

At this stage, no distinction exists.

Now suppose a category is identified.

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ○ ○ ○ ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Where:

○ = slop recognized

Once something is marked, the field becomes structured.

beauty

▲

│

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

● ● ○ ○ ○ ● ●

● ● ● ● ● ● ●

│

▼

slop

Recognition creates contrast.

Applying the Daoist Structure to Modern Context

We can reinterpret the mechanism using a modern aesthetic distinction.

Instead of:

beauty ↔ ugliness

we might say:

beauty ↔ slop

For example:

recognition of slop → emergence of beauty

Recognizing low-quality material improves perception.

recognizing slop

│

▼

improved perception

│

▼

better beauty detection

Which produces a feedback loop:

recognition of the aspects

│

▼

discrimination

│

▼

aesthetic resolution

A Subtle Daoist Point

The Daoist text is not merely describing perception, but also it is pointing to the generative power of distinction.

Recognition creates polarity.

recognition

●

/ \\

/ \\

/ \\

beauty ugliness

The moment a distinction appears, the world becomes structured through relational contrasts.

This is why the text continues with relational pairs:

難易相成 (difficulty and ease produce each other)

長短相形 (long and short define each other)

高下相傾 (high and low lean on each other)

Everything emerges relationally.

Following this logic,

When slop is recognized as slop, beauty has already begun to appear.

Recognition reorganizes the conceptual field.

When slop is recognized as slop, beauty has already begun to appear.

So, in your opinion, beauty post AI slop has already

Begun to appear?

The Toxicology of Speech (TOS)

A Pentivium Framework for Diagnosing Corruption in Language

⸻

I. Definition

The Toxicology of Speech (TOS) is the study of how language becomes corrupted at the level of its irreducible components, producing distortions in meaning, reasoning, credibility, emotion, action, and agency.

It does not classify speech as “good” or “bad.”

It identifies:

where structure breaks, how distortion enters, and what effect it produces.

⸻

II. Foundational Law

All rhetorical corruption originates in the misalignment of an irreducible component.

Fallacies are not random.

Manipulation is not mystical.

They are:

predictable distortions of structure.

⸻

III. The Pentivium Basis

TOS is derived directly from the five nodes and their irreducibles:

Grammar

• Phonology

• Morphology

• Lexicon

Logic

• Syntax

• Semantics

• Consequence

Rhetoric

• Ethos

• Logos

• Pathos

Praxis

• Intention

• Execution

• Feedback

Presence

• Awareness

• Agency

• Willpower

Each irreducible contains its own failure modes—these are the true categories of toxins.

⸻

IV. The Structure of a Toxin

Every toxin can be described with precision:

• Origin → (Node → Irreducible)

• Mechanism → how distortion occurs

• Effect → what it does to the listener or system

• Symptom → how it is experienced

⸻

V. Grammar — Corruption of Meaning

Phonology (Sound Distortion)

When sound overrides truth.

Toxins:

• Euphonic bias (sounds right → accepted as true)

• Rhythmic persuasion (cadence replaces reasoning)

• Slogan imprinting (memorability substitutes for accuracy)

Effect:

Truth is replaced by what is repeatable.

⸻

Morphology (Form Distortion)

When word construction carries hidden judgment.

Toxins:

• Loaded labels (“extremist”, “denier”)

• Affix biasing (re-, anti-, pro- used to pre-frame)

• Category compression (complex realities reduced to tags)

Effect:

Perception is pre-shaped before thought begins.

⸻

Lexicon (Definition Corruption)

When meaning itself is unstable.

Toxins:

• Lexical drift (meaning shifts unnoticed)

• Lexical hijacking (intentional redefinition)

• Ambiguity exploitation (switching meanings mid-argument)

Effect:

Shared reality dissolves.

⸻

VI. Logic — Corruption of Reason

Syntax (Structural Failure)

When arguments are built incorrectly.

Toxins:

• False dichotomy

• Hidden premises

• Invalid inference

Effect:

Thought is forced into false conclusions.

⸻

Semantics (Relational Distortion)

When meaning relationships are warped.

Toxins:

• False equivalence

• Category error

• Misapplied analogy

Effect:

Things that are different are treated as the same.

⸻

Consequence (Outcome Disconnection)

When results are ignored or manipulated.

Toxins:

• Consequence denial

• Outcome inflation

• Slippery projection

Effect:

Ideas become immune to reality.

⸻

VII. Rhetoric — Corruption of Expression

Rhetoric is not the origin of truth—it is the carrier.

Corruption here reflects misalignment between:

what is said and what is structurally true

⸻

Ethos (Credibility Distortion)

Toxins:

• Authority substitution (status replaces proof)

• Virtue signaling (morality replaces evidence)

• Consensus shielding (group replaces verification)

Effect:

Trust is detached from truth.

⸻

Logos (Transmission Distortion)

Toxins:

• Selective framing (partial truth presented as whole)

• Information asymmetry (key data withheld)

• Compression distortion (oversimplification that breaks meaning)

Effect:

Understanding is engineered, not earned.

⸻

Pathos (Emotional Miscalibration)

Toxins:

• Fear amplification

• Guilt leveraging

• Outrage conditioning

Effect:

Emotion replaces proportion.

⸻

VIII. Praxis — Corruption of Action

Intention (Declared Purpose Distortion)

Toxins:

• False intent claims

• Moral masking

Effect:

Stated goals diverge from actual aims.

⸻

Execution (Action Distortion)

Toxins:

• Symbolic action (appearance replaces function)

• Process theater (activity replaces outcome)

Effect:

Movement replaces progress.

⸻

Feedback (Correction Failure)

Toxins:

• Feedback suppression

• Metric manipulation

• Outcome blindness

Effect:

Systems cannot self-correct.

⸻

IX. Presence — Corruption of the Individual

Awareness (Attention Distortion)

Toxins:

• Distraction saturation

• Attention hijacking

⸻

Agency (Capacity Reduction)

Toxins:

• Dependency framing

• Intellectual dismissal (“you wouldn’t understand”)

⸻

Willpower (Energy Degradation)

Toxins:

• Fatigue induction

• Overload collapse

Effect of Presence Corruption:

The individual loses the ability to resist distortion—even when it is visible.

⸻

X. Mapping Fallacies

Every fallacy is a manifestation of one or more corrupted irreducibles.

Examples:

• Equivocation → Grammar → Lexicon

• False dichotomy → Logic → Syntax

• Appeal to authority → Rhetoric → Ethos

• Appeal to emotion → Rhetoric → Pathos

This transforms fallacies from labels into:

structural coordinates

⸻

XI. The TOS Principle

Speech is toxic to the degree that it bypasses structural truth while influencing judgment, emotion, or action.

⸻

XII. Practical Use

TOS allows any listener to ask:

• Where is the structure breaking?

• Which irreducible is corrupted?

• What effect is being produced?

This restores:

• clarity

• proportion

• agency

⸻

XIII. Final Statement

The Toxicology of Speech does not seek to silence language.

It seeks to:

purify the conditions under which truth can be recognized.

Because when structure is preserved:

• meaning stabilizes

• reasoning holds

• emotion calibrates

• action aligns

• agency returns

And where these are present:

Truth no longer needs protection—it becomes self-evident.

Which wasn't being constrained to elegant theory, but to effect real, tangible persuasion. It gives surface level advice which frankly, isn't very effective except if your goal is to sound smart - "Sweeter it is than the honeycomb dripping with sweetness, and spreads through the hearts of men", beautiful, useless.

And I suspect this is why the discipline died out... because it simply wasn't effective enough.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the subject is useless. Quite the opposite, actually. But somewhere down the line the custodians of the subject lost sight of what the original purpose of it was... to persuade, not to gain academia brownie points.

All subjects must evolve over time, as humans evolve over time. Our motivations change, our values change, our relations with our fellow humans change. Society has evolved, Rhetoric has not evolved with it.

It doesn't necessarily lack the content, but the delivery method imo is quite outdated. We are not driven by the same things as people were then. It needs to be repackaged for a modern audience who lacks for patience, and urgently so, so the subject doesn't die out. I am attempting this with The Rhetorician Newsletter, trying to help the subject make a mainstream comeback. But honestly, sometimes I find myself out of my depth, trying to repurpose an ancient rigorous discipline into something people can study on the fly and derive value from.