(12-28-2021, 03:49 PM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]Despite fifteenth's statement that he is not normal, his argumentation often constitutes a classic representation of the "Everyman" rhetorical device. Leading one to think that Every Man is saying what he is saying.
Wow, that's interesting. I had no idea that I do that! I guess I'll have to read up on this rhetorical device and decide whether or not I should drop it, wield it more sparingly, or something else that I haven't thought of.
I actually really like the idea of the scholarly dialogue genre that you wrote about once upon a time, but doubt that I live up to that.
(12-28-2021, 04:11 PM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]Despite fifteenth's statement that he is not normal, his argumentation often constitutes a classic representation of the "Everyman" rhetorical device. Leading one to think that Every Man is saying what he is saying.
Wow, that's interesting. I had no idea that I do that! I guess I'll have to read up on this rhetorical device and decide whether or not I should drop it, wield it more sparingly, or something else that I haven't thought of.
I actually really like the idea of the scholarly dialogue genre that you wrote about once upon a time, but doubt that I live up to that.
Well, this seems to have produced a little merriment.
There are whole books on the subject, but to make a long story short, one might think of Everyman as a human character. He does not present himself as an expert or power figure. He comes across as an ordinary, humble inquirer in search of truth. He has an appealing personality that listeners find easy to identify with. He presents his conclusions as the suggested fruits of his truth-seeking inquiry, and listeners may be influenced to be receptive to his points of view by his non-threatening approach, his general likeability, and his "learner" persona. Ideally, the listeners don't even realize they have been persuaded, but come to believe that the conclusions were their own ideas.
I am not presenting this as a bad thing. Rhetorical devices, as you know, are just means of persuasion, and are neutral in a vacuum.
As far as the scholarly dialogue, it's not all that hoity-toity. It is distinguished from advocacy in the sense that, rather than having a discussion for the purpose of winning an argument, it is conducted for the purpose of collecting various points of view and sources of information in hopes of bringing all participants closer to the truth. As such, it fits in well with the Everyman device. Lawyers looking for an accurate state of affairs or learning an opponent's case tend to be into it, along with academics. A lot of sports fans aren't, somewhat to my surprise.
Well, I'm sure you already knew all this, but in hopes of demonstrating the "ordinariness" of these down-to-earth concepts, I have further explicated. If you still want to poke fun, I'm actually okay with that, lol.
(12-28-2021, 05:25 PM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]Well, this seems to have produced a little merriment.
There are whole books on the subject, but to make a long story short, one might think of Everyman as a human character. He does not present himself as an expert or power figure. He comes across as an ordinary, humble inquirer in search of truth. He has an appealing personality that listeners find easy to identify with. He presents his conclusions as the suggested fruits of his truth-seeking inquiry, and listeners may be influenced to be receptive to his points of view by his non-threatening approach, his general likeability, and his "learner" persona. Ideally, the listeners don't even realize they have been persuaded, but come to believe that the conclusions were their own ideas.
I am not presenting this as a bad thing. Rhetorical devices, as you know, are just means of persuasion, and are neutral in a vacuum.
As far as the scholarly dialogue, it's not all that hoity-toity. It is distinguished from advocacy in the sense that, rather than having a discussion for the purpose of winning an argument, it is conducted for the purpose of collecting various points of view and sources of information in hopes of bringing all participants closer to the truth. As such, it fits in well with the Everyman device. Lawyers looking for an accurate state of affairs or learning an opponent's case tend to be into it, along with academics. A lot of sports fans aren't, somewhat to my surprise.
Well, I'm sure you already knew all this, but in hopes of demonstrating the "ordinariness" of these down-to-earth concepts, I have further explicated. If you still want to poke fun, I'm actually okay with that, lol.
Oh, mavsluvr, my "poking fun" really was just having fun, not poking. It sure wasn't meant to be at your expense, and if it was, my bad!!
I actually hadn't thought through "everyman" as a rhetorical device. I got a communications minnor, my first time in school, in the early 90's, but I don't remember any good discussion on rhetoric. I probably would have enjoyed literature as a minor more than my communications classes. Anyway, after your comment, I spent some of my time where I'm supposed to working asking Google about "everyman" and "rhetorical devices". It reminded me that I've read Everyman. And it also lead me to some content similar to what you shared above. Thanks for sharing!! It's kind that you suggest that I come accross like that, but typically, whatever style I employ is just "how I talk or think".
Regarding "scholarly dialogue", I love the idea of a self correcting community that grows in knowledge and wisdom together via good, honest, detaiiled, unselfish communication. The scientific method and the peer review process have served humanity well! I'm not a scientist, or anthing more than an amature scholar, but I sure do appreciate peer reviewed content made accessible to us lay folk, especially in the genres of natrual science and Biblical studies.
An aside, there is a fun forum that I visit called Peaceful Science where I watch scientists and non-scientists argue with each other. It's located here:
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/. The discussion breaks down into all of the wrong ways to discuss things on which the internet majors on at times. But sometimes, you get a glimpse of some really smart people discussing things that might approach good scholarly dialogue.
(12-28-2021, 05:58 PM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not a scientist, or anthing more than an amature scholar
![[Image: 200.gif]](https://media3.giphy.com/media/AFYfA31DZoiug31eky/200.gif)
I'm really not a scientist!! And I'm not a professional scholar!!!!! LOL. I thnk I'm just very conscious of not wanting to represent myself as an expert in areas where I'm not an expert, which happens to include MOST TOPICS!!
(12-28-2021, 06:06 PM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]
I'm really not a scientist!! And I'm not a professional scholar!!!!! LOL. I thnk I'm just very conscious of not wanting to represent myself as an expert in areas where I'm not an expert, which happens to include MOST TOPICS!!
We get it. You're just a li'l ol' amature who doesn't even have a spell-checker.
Wait is the season cancelled, cause I get....
![[Image: luka-doncic-mavs.gif]](https://c.tenor.com/TpohkBff8UoAAAAM/luka-doncic-mavs.gif)
...vibes from the thread direction.
(12-28-2021, 06:21 PM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]We get it. You're just a li'l ol' amature who doesn't even have a spell-checker.
(12-28-2021, 06:23 PM)DallasMaverick Wrote: [ -> ]Amateur.
Ugh! I have to start typing in Word and then pasting my stuff over to this stone age editor! LOL
![[Image: facepalm.gif]](https://c.tenor.com/ibwfTRYbgocAAAAM/facepalm.gif)
(12-28-2021, 06:29 PM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]Ugh! I have to start typing in Word and then pasting my stuff over to this stone age editor! LOL
Actually, it's not that hard to just remember how to spell "amateur."
I don't like to be pedantic, but man, this is the third time in a couple of days on the same word. Really? SMH.
I know, you just fell out of the cradle, and all like that.
I am not smart enough to follow a deep intellectual conversation like this. Somebody please explain how we ended up with this beautiful derailment.
(12-28-2021, 06:43 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]I am not smart enough to follow a deep intellectual conversation like this. Somebody please explain how we ended up with this beautiful derailment.
I think the Cliff's Notes version is: @"fifteenth" is a scientist.
(12-28-2021, 06:43 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]I am not smart enough to follow a deep intellectual conversation like this. Somebody please explain how we ended up with this beautiful derailment.
LOL, sorry, I think I may have inadvertently hijacked my own thread.
Carry on with the basketball talk, by all means!
(12-28-2021, 06:40 PM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, it's not that hard to just remember how to spell "amateur."
I don't like to be pedantic, but man, this is the third time in a couple of days on the same word. Really? SMH.
I know, you just fell out of the cradle, and all like that.
The problem is manifold. I don't spell good anyweigh. My typing is always trying to catch up with my thinking. I'm often typing, and thinking, "be quick and get back to work", or pushing small buttons with big thumbs on a screen, which in recent years, should be read with my reading glasses on. As you can see, my excuses are various and sundry.
This site would suck if there was no thread derailments at all ..
(12-28-2021, 06:40 PM)mavsluvr Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, it's not that hard to just remember how to spell "amateur."
I don't like to be pedantic, but man, this is the third time in a couple of days on the same word. Really? SMH.
I know, you just fell out of the cradle, and all like that.
Spelling stuffs is actually really hard!!!!!!!!
(12-28-2021, 06:43 PM)dirkfansince1998 Wrote: [ -> ]I am not smart enough to follow a deep intellectual conversation like this. Somebody please explain how we ended up with this beautiful derailment.
First, that's got to be the title of something...a book, the name of this forum...something.
Second, I could be wrong, but I think you're our resident scientist, are you not? You and @"Jannemann2", who I wish would post more! Truy, you have a dizzying intelect.
![[Image: fafc705e-c57d-4ed7-9b10-5adcee7b380d_text.gif]](https://y.yarn.co/fafc705e-c57d-4ed7-9b10-5adcee7b380d_text.gif)
(12-28-2021, 06:45 PM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]The problem is manifold. I don't spell good anyweigh. My typing is always trying to catch up with my thinking. I'm often typing, and thinking, "be quick and get back to work", or pushing small buttons with big thumbs on a screen, which in recent years, should be read with my reading glasses on. As you can see, my excuses are various and sundry.
This is a known issue with lightning-fast thinkers.
Personally, I don't hold it against you. I don't know how other people feel.
(12-28-2021, 06:56 PM)fifteenth Wrote: [ -> ]First, that's got to be the title of something...a book, the name of this forum...something.
Second, I could be wrong, but I think you're our resident scientist, are you not? You and @"Jannemann2", who I wish would post more! Truy, you have a dizzying intelect.
I wouldn´t call a practitioner a scientist because of a few low level papers that include my name. More of a one-track nerd with a small field of expertise. And a lot of hot takes in others.
I think the average day of a clinical physician is more boring than most would assume.
If I remember it correctly @"Jannemann2" is working in an institute for climate science. That sounds interesting.
In the last 8 games (since Luka's injury), the Mavs' offensive rating has skyrocketed up to 115.5; 3rd best in the NBA during that span. The defensive rating is remarkably the same pre/post injury, which sits at 109.