Philosphy Debate

What marvelous irony that a man who couldn't name the president of Pakistan or find Yemen or even Iraq on the world map is now considered a foreign policy expert. Someone in the administration should tell Bush the word is "nuclear" and not "nuculer."

This editorial submission, although comical, is a blatant attack on our president of the United States. In doing so the author K.D. Esslinger commits a personal attack at a rather high level. The author also starts their argument out very strong by choosing to say “marvelous irony.” In one aspect the use of the word marvelous could be seen as a dysphemism, satirically downplaying the presidents and his abilities mentally. However, in the end it has to be looked at as a slander, in that, the use of the word has the ability to manipulate the reader’s emotive force and encourage to take a certain perspective on some subject.

In order for this argument to be written to maintain validity the author would have to re write their argument in a way that their personal attack was justified. The author would need to find and state the evidence that proves the President is not capable of handling F

. . .

View the whole essay, without interruption

Martinez resiliently personifies the rhetorical devices known as appeal to anger, appeal to belief, and most importantly genetic fallacies in that every religion dismisses the other’s book’s on which their beliefs are based. Michener would have to remove all slanderous material and show proof of what act it is that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has committed to have brought forth an energy crisis in the state of California. If the proof was shown the author would kill two birds with ones stone by eliminating his use of proof surrogates and his own fallacy of begging the question. He reminds me in some ways of Saul of Tarsus (Paul) who was at one time a ferocious foe of the early Christians… Then one day on the road to Damascus he had a vision (Acts 9:4-20) and the Lord spoke to him saying, "Saul, Saul, why persecuted thou me?" From that time forward Saul had a change of heart and he became a great missionary for the church and an Apostle. Martinez was to actually provide evidence and not banter in childish ways in calling another religious group’s gospel “silly” his point could be made with much more validity.

The author also commits the rhetorical ploy of proof surrogating by bluntly stating “your dog is dangerous, I don’t care what you say. However, this letter is clearly a response to the one Mr. Dog Cut-Cher? However, by stating bluntly that her dog is dangerous, and that she doesn’t care what the woman has to say about it is very similar to poisoning the well. Anytime you take your dog outside of its yard, you expose other people to your dog and the way it might react to them.

JOHN MICHENER

Sonoma, Ca

John Michener embodies the rhetorical mechanisms, slander and proof surrogates. Since when are prices 10 times above normal considered reasonable? They were the only entity that had the authority to control wholesale prices. With issues of gun control and gun ownership in the news today the dog is immediately labeled with an unfair correlation. DOG CUT-CHER

Escondido

This article clearly uses Dysphemisms in that every time the woman in questions dog is mention, it’s referred to as a “loaded gun.

I suspect that until Andy Martin has such a vision he'll continue as Saul did to sling his stones at anyone who disagrees with his particular interpretation of the scriptures.

Approximate Word count = 1561
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)

Simply subscribe to view this paper, and 100,000 others.