the fisherman of halicarnassus

aristotle's rhetoric is a theory of communication that was developed by the ancient greek philosopher aristotle. it is based on the idea that effective communication requires understanding the audience, the speaker's goals, and the context in which the communication takes place.

there are three main elements of aristotle's rhetoric:

ethos: this refers to the credibility or character of the speaker. a speaker with a strong ethos is more likely to be trusted and believed by the audience.
pathos: this refers to the emotional appeal of the argument. a speaker who can appeal to the emotions of the audience is more likely to persuade them.
logos: this refers to the logical appeal of the argument. a speaker who presents a well-reasoned, logical argument is more likely to persuade the audience.

to win an argument using aristotle's rhetoric, it is important to consider these elements and try to establish your own credibility, appeal to the emotions of the audience, and present a logical argument.

here are some examples of how to use aristotle's rhetoric to win an argument:

– establish your credibility: if you are an expert on the topic you are discussing, make sure to highlight your qualifications and experience. this will help to build your ethos and make your argument more persuasive.
– appeal to emotions: try to connect with your audience on an emotional level. this could involve sharing personal stories or using anecdotes to illustrate your point.
–use logic: make sure to present a well-reasoned, logical argument. use evidence to support your points and address any counterarguments.

by considering these elements of aristotle's rhetoric, you can craft a persuasive argument that is more likely to be effective in winning over your audience.

there are three branches - executive (president), legislative (senate and house), and judicial (supreme court).

the house has 435 districts, and you vote for one representative for your district. each state gets the number of districts based on its population compared to the country as a whole - some states only have one, and california has the most - around 50. representatives get 2-year terms.

the senate every state gets exactly 2 senators, for 100 total. population doesn't matter. senators get 6-year terms, and each state's senators are elected in different years.

when you vote for the presidency, each state has "electoral votes" equal to the total number of representatives and senators that state has. whoever gets the most votes in your state wins all of the state's electoral votes, and whoever gets the most electoral votes becomes the president. the president gets a 4-year term, and the maximum is two terms.

laws are passed as follows: the house has to pass it, then it goes to the senate. if the senate passes it, it goes to the president. if the senate doesn't pass it, it goes back to the house for changes, until there is something both houses pass.

the senate has an unusual rule called the filibuster, where one or more senators who want to block a bill being discussed can just keep talking and talking and not stop to allow a vote on the bill - it takes 60% of the senate to vote to stop a filibuster. so if you have 41% of the senate opposed to a bill, you can effectively block it - this gives the minority party a lot more power than it would normally have.

once the president gets a bill that has been approved by the house and senate, he can sign it, and it becomes law, or he can veto it, which means that it goes back to the house and senate and it fails unless they both pass it by a 2/3 vote (called "overriding a veto").

even if the house, senate, and president agree to pass a law, the supreme court can strike the law down if the law violates the constitution.

this is an argument that presents two options as the only possibilities, when in reality there may be more options available. for example, "you either support the war or you're unpatriotic."

when you reach the top of the hill, you will see bodrum.
don't assume that you will leave as you came.
others before you were the same too.
as they departed, they all left their souls behind.
image image

aunt sally is a term that refers to a straw man argument, which is a logical fallacy that involves presenting a distorted or misrepresented version of an opposing argument in order to make it easier to attack or refute. the term "aunt sally" comes from a traditional british fairground game in which players throw sticks or balls at a wooden figure, typically depicting a woman, in order to knock it down.

in the context of debating or arguing, the "aunt sally" is the simplified, distorted version of an opposing argument that is presented by one party in order to make it easier to attack or refute. this can be done in order to create the impression that the opposing argument is weaker or less valid than it actually is, or to mislead or deceive the audience by presenting a distorted version of the opposing argument.

for example, imagine that you are arguing with someone about the benefits of a vegetarian diet. they might present an "aunt sally" version of your argument by claiming that you believe that all meat is unhealthy and that everyone should become a vegetarian, which is a distortion of your actual argument. they might then attack this distorted version of your argument, saying that it is unrealistic or impractical, without addressing the actual points that you are making.

in order to avoid committing the straw man fallacy, it is important to accurately represent the opposing argument and to engage with it on its own terms, rather than attacking a simplified or distorted version of it. this can help to ensure that the argument is fair and based on accurate information, rather than relying on misrepresentations or distortions of the opposing viewpoint.

this is an argument that asserts that a claim must be true because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. for example, "there is no evidence that aliens don't exist, so they must exist."

this is an argument that suggests that one event is the cause of another event, without sufficient evidence to support the claim. for example, "i wore my lucky socks and won the game, so the socks must have brought me luck."

this is an argument that misrepresents an opponent's position in order to make it easier to attack. for example, "those who support gun control want to take away all guns, including hunting rifles and shotguns."

this is an argument that relies on the credibility or expertise of a person or organization to support a claim, without providing any evidence to back it up. for example, "the ceo of a major pharmaceutical company says that their new drug is completely safe, so it must be true."

this is an argument that is based on insufficient evidence, resulting in a conclusion that is not supported by the available information. for example, "i met one rude person from france, so all french people must be rude."

fallacies are mistakes in reasoning or arguments that are based on incorrect or flawed logic. there are many different types of fallacies, and they can occur in written or oral arguments. it is important to be aware of fallacies in order to critically evaluate arguments and make informed decisions, and to avoid using fallacies in your own arguments.

ad hominem is a type of argument where someone attacks or criticizes the person making an argument, rather than the argument itself. this is often done in an attempt to undermine the person's credibility or character, rather than focusing on the merits of their argument.

here are some examples of ad hominem:

"you can't trust what he says about politics because he's a convicted criminal."
"she can't be right about the environment because she works for a big oil company."
"he's just saying that because he's trying to be popular."
in each of these examples, the person making the argument is attacked or criticized, rather than the argument itself being discussed. this can be a logical fallacy because it doesn't address the substance of the argument and can be used to distract from a discussion of the issue at hand.

oligarchs who stole russia's wealth with putin. as far as i know, they are all men.

john stuart mill, a 19th century philosopher and political economist, is best known for his work on the concept of liberty, particularly freedom of speech. in his essay on liberty, mill argues that individuals should be free to express their ideas and opinions without fear of censorship or punishment, as long as their speech does not harm others.

according to mill, the primary reason for protecting freedom of speech is that it allows for the exchange of ideas and the free flow of information. this, in turn, allows people to form their own opinions and make informed decisions. without the ability to freely express and explore different viewpoints, individuals would be unable to challenge and question the status quo, leading to a stagnant and intellectually stagnant society.

mill also believed that freedom of speech serves as a safeguard against the abuse of power. when people are able to openly criticize and express their opinions about those in positions of power, it helps to hold those individuals accountable and prevent them from becoming tyrannical.

however, mill recognized that there are limits to freedom of speech. he argued that the harm principle should be applied to speech, meaning that speech should not be restricted unless it causes harm to others. for example, speech that incites violence or causes direct harm to an individual's reputation should be restricted.

overall, mill's belief in the importance of freedom of speech has had a significant impact on modern ideas about individual liberty and the role of government in regulating speech. his ideas continue to be debated and discussed by philosophers and policymakers today.

masochistic epistemology is a theoretical approach to understanding knowledge and cognition that is based on the idea that individuals seek out and derive pleasure from experiences that challenge or undermine their existing beliefs and understanding of the world. this approach is named after the 19th-century writer leopold von sacher-masoch, who is known for his exploration of the psychological dynamics of submission, domination, and power in human relationships. in masochistic epistemology, the pursuit of knowledge is seen as an inherently masochistic act, in which individuals willingly subject themselves to mental discomfort, uncertainty, and self-doubt in order to gain a deeper or more nuanced understanding of the world around them. this approach emphasizes the importance of actively seeking out and engaging with information and perspectives that challenge one's existing beliefs and assumptions, as a way of testing, refining, and strengthening one's knowledge.