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.

edward bernays developed a number of techniques for manipulating public opinion through propaganda. some of the key techniques he used include:

emotional appeals: bernays believed that people are more likely to be influenced by emotional appeals than by rational arguments. he used techniques such as fear-mongering and creating a sense of urgency to appeal to people's emotions and motivate them to take action.

creating social pressure: bernays believed that people are more likely to conform to the opinions and actions of their peers. he used techniques such as creating "grassroots" movements and using celebrities as spokespeople to create a sense of social pressure and make people feel like they are part of a larger group.

creating false needs: bernays believed that by creating new needs and desires, people could be induced to buy more goods. he helped to create the idea of "planned obsolescence" in which products are designed to have a limited lifespan so that they would have to be replaced more often.

creating a sense of authority: bernays believed that people are more likely to be influenced by those who appear to be experts or authorities. he used techniques such as citing "scientific studies" and using "expert" testimonials to create a sense of authority and make people more likely to accept his message.

using symbols and slogans: bernays believed that symbols and slogans could be used to create powerful associations in people's minds. he used techniques such as creating powerful slogans and symbols to associate a product or idea with positive emotions and values.

creating a sense of mystery: bernays believed that creating a sense of mystery around a product or idea could make people more curious and interested in it. he used techniques such as creating exclusive events and hiding information to create a sense of mystery and intrigue.

in summary, edward bernays developed a number of techniques for manipulating public opinion through propaganda, including emotional appeals, creating social pressure, creating false needs, creating a sense of authority, using symbols and slogans, and creating a sense of mystery.

tilting at windmills refers to the act of fighting against imaginary or illusory problems or adversaries, or of engaging in futile or quixotic endeavors. the phrase comes from the novel don quixote, in which the main character, don quixote, is depicted as tilting at windmills, which he believes to be giants, in a series of futile and quixotic attempts to right wrongs and defend the honor of his lady love.

here is an example of tilting at windmills:

imagine that you are trying to solve a problem, but you are approaching it in the wrong way or using the wrong tools. you might be tilting at windmills if you persist in trying to solve the problem despite the fact that your efforts are not making any progress or are unlikely to succeed.

another example of tilting at windmills might be someone who is trying to fight against an imaginary or illusory problem or adversary. for example, someone might be tilting at windmills if they are trying to fight against a problem that does not really exist, or if they are trying to fight against an adversary that is not really a threat.

in order to avoid tilting at windmills, it is important to be aware of the limitations and realities of the problems or challenges that you are facing, and to use appropriate and effective strategies and tools to address them. this can help to ensure that your efforts are focused and productive, rather than being wasted on futile or quixotic endeavors.

pooh-pooh is a term that refers to the act of dismissing or belittling something as being unworthy of serious consideration or attention. it can also refer to the act of expressing contempt or disdain for something.

for example, someone might pooh-pooh an idea or suggestion by saying "that's a ridiculous idea" or "that's not worth considering." this can be done in a dismissive or contemptuous tone of voice, and it conveys the idea that the person believes the idea or suggestion is not worth considering or discussing.

another example of pooh-pooh might be someone who dismisses a concern or issue as being insignificant or unimportant. for example, someone might pooh-pooh a concern about climate change by saying "it's just a natural cycle" or "it's not a big deal." this can be done in a dismissive or contemptuous tone of voice, and it conveys the idea that the person believes the concern is not worth considering or addressing.

in order to avoid pooh-poohing something, it is important to consider all ideas, concerns, and issues with an open and respectful mindset, rather than dismissing or belittling them without careful consideration. this can help to create a more open and respectful dialogue, and it can encourage people to consider a wide range of perspectives and viewpoints.

a concern troll is a type of online troll (someone who posts inflammatory or provocative content online with the intention of causing disruption or distress) who pretends to be concerned about a particular issue or community, while secretly working to undermine or disrupt it. concern trolls often use fake accounts or anonymous profiles to hide their true identity and motivations, and they may present themselves as allies or supporters of the issue or community they are targeting.

concern trolls often use fake or misleading arguments, or they may present distorted or incomplete information in order to mislead or deceive their audience. they may also engage in inflammatory or disruptive behavior, such as posting inflammatory or offensive content, starting arguments, or engaging in personal attacks.

here is an example of a concern troll:

imagine that you are part of an online community that is discussing issues related to climate change. a concern troll might join the community and pretend to be concerned about climate change, while secretly working to undermine the discussion or sow discord among the members. they might do this by posting false or misleading information about climate change, or by starting arguments or engaging in personal attacks against other members of the community.

another example of a concern troll might be someone who pretends to be a supporter of a particular political party, while secretly working to undermine the party or its candidates. they might do this by posting false or misleading information about the party or its candidates, or by starting arguments or engaging in personal attacks against other members of the party or its supporters.

in order to identify and protect against concern trolls, it is important to be aware of their tactics and to be cautious of anyone who seems to be trying to disrupt or undermine a particular issue or community. it is also important to verify the accuracy and reliability of information before sharing it, and to be respectful and civil in online discussions and debates.

cherry picking is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument relies on the selective use of evidence or examples in order to support a particular conclusion, while ignoring or dismissing evidence or examples that contradict or weaken the argument. this can create a misleading or distorted view of the subject being discussed, as it presents a biased or incomplete picture of the available evidence.

here is an example of an argument that relies on cherry picking:

premise: all democrats are socialists.
example: bernie sanders is a socialist and a democrat.
conclusion: all democrats are socialists.

in this argument, the premise is supported by the example of bernie sanders, who is both a socialist and a democrat. however, this example ignores the fact that there are many other democrats who are not socialists, and therefore does not provide a complete or accurate picture of the relationship between democrats and socialism. as a result, the conclusion of the argument is based on a biased or incomplete view of the evidence.

another example of cherry picking might be:

premise: vaccines are dangerous.
example: some people who have received vaccines have experienced serious side effects.
conclusion: vaccines are dangerous.

in this argument, the premise is supported by the example of some people who have experienced serious side effects after receiving vaccines. however, this example ignores the vast majority of people who have received vaccines without experiencing any serious side effects, and therefore does not provide a complete or accurate picture of the risks and benefits of vaccines. as a result, the conclusion of the argument is based on a biased or incomplete view of the evidence.

in order to avoid cherry picking, it is important to consider all of the available evidence and examples, rather than selectively choosing only those that support a particular conclusion. this can help to ensure that the argument is based on a balanced and accurate view of the evidence, rather than relying on a biased or incomplete picture of the subject being discussed.

begging the question is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument relies on a premise that has already been assumed to be true, without providing any evidence to support it. this creates a circular argument, where the conclusion is simply restated as the premise, and the argument fails to provide any real support for its conclusion.

here is an example of an argument that begs the question:

premise: the earth is flat.
conclusion: the earth is flat.

in this argument, the premise and the conclusion are the same, and there is no evidence provided to support the premise. this creates a circular argument that does not provide any real support for the conclusion.

another example of begging the question might be:

premise: god exists because the bible says so.
conclusion: god exists.

in this argument, the premise relies on the assumption that the bible is a reliable source of information, but this assumption is not proven or supported. as a result, the argument relies on a premise that has already been assumed to be true, without providing any evidence to support it.

in order to avoid begging the question, it is important to ensure that the argument is based on evidence and logical reasoning, rather than relying on assumptions or unproven premises. this can help to ensure that the argument is sound and persuasive, rather than relying on circular reasoning or unsupported assumptions.

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.

steelmanning is a critical thinking technique that involves trying to understand and present the strongest possible version of an argument or position, even if it is one that you disagree with or find flawed. the goal of steelmanning is not to defend or advocate for the argument, but rather to understand it more deeply and to better understand why someone might hold that position. this can be useful in a variety of contexts, such as when you are trying to have a productive conversation or debate with someone who holds a different perspective, when you are trying to anticipate objections to your own argument, or when you are trying to identify the underlying assumptions or values that inform someone's argument.

here are a few examples of how steelmanning might be applied in different contexts:

imagine that you are trying to have a conversation with a friend about the value of wearing masks to prevent the spread of covid-19. your friend argues that masks are unnecessary because they don't provide complete protection and can make it harder to breathe. to steelman their argument, you might try to understand why they might hold this view, even if you disagree with it. you might ask questions like: "what do you think are the main reasons that people might believe masks are unnecessary?" "what kinds of experiences or evidence might lead someone to conclude that masks don't provide enough protection?" by asking these questions, you are trying to understand the strongest version of your friend's argument, rather than simply dismissing it as misguided or wrong.
suppose that you are writing an essay in which you argue that the government should invest more in renewable energy sources. one of the objections to your argument might be that renewable energy is too expensive and that it is not feasible to rely on it as our primary source of energy. to steelman this objection, you might try to understand the underlying assumptions and values that inform it. for example, you might ask yourself: "what do people who believe that renewable energy is too expensive think are the main costs associated with it?" "what do they see as the main benefits of non-renewable energy sources, and how do they weigh those benefits against the costs?" by answering these questions, you can better understand the perspective of those who disagree with you and anticipate their objections more effectively.

imagine that you are trying to have a productive conversation with someone who holds a very different political perspective from your own. one way to approach this conversation might be to try to steelman the other person's arguments. for example, if they argue that the government should not provide social services because it is not the government's role to take care of people, you might try to understand why they might hold this view, even if you disagree with it. you might ask questions like: "what do you think are the main reasons that people might believe that the government should not provide social services?" "what kinds of experiences or evidence might lead someone to conclude that it is not the government's role to take care of people?" by asking these questions, you are trying to understand the strongest version of the other person's argument and to identify any common ground you might have, rather than simply dismissing their perspective as misguided or wrong.

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 introduces a new topic in order to distract from the original issue being discussed. for example, "yes, i know i'm late for work again, but have you seen how bad the traffic is this morning?"

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."