What is Rhetoric?

Riddick

I clap to no man
I've given you some pretty clear examples of things that don't constitute persuasive speech (or writing) and you've done nothing to refute what I wrote.
I don't think you have. So some people got gains, on the communications course, so what, did they achieve clear or OT? So some of Hubbard's policies tell you how to run a business, so what, many other people do too,

The bottom line is nobody went clear, OT, or returned from past life. In the end it is all rhetoric to persuade one to go up the bridge.
 

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
I don't think you have. So some people got gains, on the communications course, so what, did they achieve clear or OT?

Achieving Clear or OT isn't the purpose of a communications course. Some people felt the course improved their ability to communicate.
How is that rhetoric?

It IS designed to persuade people that Scientology works. It's like cheese in the mousetrap. But it's not rhetoric.



So some of Hubbard's policies tell you how to run a business, so what, many other people do too,
If the purpose of written communication is to instruct you on how to run a business how is that rhetoric?




The bottom line is nobody went clear, OT, or returned from past life. In the end it is all rhetoric to persuade one to go up the bridge.
Are you saying that the validity of a claim, or the lack thereof, is what determines whether or not something is rhetoric?
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
In my eyes, which I fell for, was the emeter was a logos, logical appeal, that scientology worked.
.
I don't care if you agree with me, you just don't see it yet.
.

I've given you some pretty clear examples of things that don't constitute persuasive speech (or writing) and you've done nothing to refute what I wrote.
.

This is becoming an unseemly dispute. As such I have taken the liberty of recruiting a celebrity arbitrator to help us all make an optimum, analytical, high-toned and ethical decision about rhetoric and logos:


Originally Posted by Tom Cruise
So whatdya say, are we going to clean this MU up?
Let me start by addressing Type4_PTS directly,
thetan-to-thetan.
Type 4—you just don't see it yet!
I know the history of Scn logos, you don't!



Everyone needs to just open their eyes and obnose!
Because in Scientology there are literally
hundreds of logos!


.
 
Last edited:

guanoloco

As-Wased
The whole thing about rhetoric is that it's not philosophy. Philosophy was the pursuit of truth and rhetoric was just about persuasion - often in the opposite direction of truth.

Socrates didn't like it.

End of story.

Now it's time for me to Harold bot up this post with a cut and paste about black girls in spelling bees.

 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
...
@TheSneakster

I suggest that you start your own topic thread about why you are an indie scientologist. The conversation might be interesting.
.
.
Yes, that would be interesting!

It's been attempted often on ESMB discussion threads, but I can only recall one (1) time over the past dozen years where an Indie Scientologist was able to engage in a productive dialogue without it devolving into acrimonious disconnection, where the Indie blows the conversation in a huff.

That one time (on the old ESMB) the as-yet unnamed Indie actually answered questions without Hubbard's "never defend, always attack!" mandate. They simply and honestly responded that all one could really say about auditing was that (despite all the Grade Chart's claims of newfound abilities, states and superpowers) it could result in the PC "feeling good about" something. Admitting to that temporary "feeling" (as the only legitimately claimed benefit of Hubbard's "advanced technology") was so refreshing and honest that the conversational thread concluded without any histrionics, slammed exit doors or covertly slain pets.

It seems that the problem with trying to discuss Scientology with Scientologists is that virtually all Scientologists try to maintain their core belief that the subject is scientific or technological or fact based---rather than just a blind (religious) belief. Perhaps the reason they can never accept that is because (like all religious and/or cult devotees) they really "feel good about" the belief that it's not just a belief.

Hubbard overcompensated for his fictional "bridge to Clear/OT" by overloading the subject of Scientology with clever marketing gimmicks to prove that his "miraculous discoveries" were really scientific and/or technological in nature. Then, making it exponentially worse, he saddled Scientologists with yet another debilitating handicap—ordering Scientologists to "disseminate" and convince everyone on earth to join. Thus when Scientologists jump into a conversation, they very quickly discover that people ask for a demonstration or proof of their "tech".

It's got to be a very alarming moment for a Scientologist/Indie to realize that they cannot demonstrate anything of the kind, which is when they cognite that clay, paper clips and used batteries will be of no use whatsoever to escape from that very embarrassing predicament.

In my view and experience, this is what makes Scientologists/Indies go nutty. They are ordered & obligated to engage others in conversation to CONVINCE EVERYONE that Hubbard's tech works. Yet at the same time they are not allowed to converse. They are only allowed to give lectures, briefings and r-factors.

And, occasionally, to attempt to find others' ruins and announce with thundering certitude and finality that "Scientology can handle that!"

It would be so much simpler to talk to Scientologists if they actually had attained the Grade 0 EP--and had "the ability to talk to anybody about any subject". Absent that, Scientologists are not talking to you, they're handling you.

.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.

Here's another reason why Scientologists/Indies are not able to have a normal conversation about Scientology.

Because they believe that they can have a "big win", wherein they "cognite" that you (the ex-Scientologist) are an SP. But you cannot have a "big win" or "cognite" that they are in a cult. LOL.

That's one of the rules of talking to Scientologists. You are never allowed to "invalidate" their wins, but they can use Hubbard's tech to ruthlessly invalidate your wins—by comparing you to Adolph Hitler simply because you disagreed with them.

It sounds unimaginably absurd, but if you think about it, the above is not an exaggeration*.


.

* The genocidal murderer Hitler was an "SP". You are also an "SP" if you say or think that Scientology doesn't produce Clears and OTs and/or if you try to warn people about said "scientific" fraud. (see HCO POLICY "The antisocial personality, the anti-Scientologist")

.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Achieving Clear or OT isn't the purpose of a communications course. Some people felt the course improved their ability to communicate.
How is that rhetoric?

It IS designed to persuade people that Scientology works. It's like cheese in the mousetrap. But it's not rhetoric.





If the purpose of written communication is to instruct you on how to run a business how is that rhetoric?






Are you saying that the validity of a claim, or the lack thereof, is what determines whether or not something is rhetoric?
you should read this:

 

Riddick

I clap to no man
you should read this:

"Persuasion or persuasion arts is an umbrella term of influence. Persuasion can attempt to influence a person's beliefs, attitudes, intentions, motivations, or behaviors.[1]
Propaganda is a form of persuasion used to persuade a large audience using for the purposes of the individual or group producing the propaganda.[2]:7 Coercion is a form of persuasion that influences people's actions with threats, in certain situations it can be hard to distinguish coercion from persuasion.[3]:37 Systematic persuasion is the process through which attitudes or beliefs are leveraged by appeals to logic and reason. Heuristic persuasion on the other hand is the process through which attitudes or beliefs are leveraged by appeals to habit or emotion.[4]
Persuasion is studied in many disciplines. Rhetoric is the study of modes of persuasion in speech and writing, and is often taught as a classical subject.[5]:46 Psychology looks at persuasion through the lens of individual behaviour[6] and neuroscience studies the brain activity associated with this behaviour.[7] History and political sciences are interested in the role of propaganda in shaping historical events.[8] In business, persuasion is a process aimed at changing a person's (or a group's) attitude or behaviour toward some event, idea, object, or other person(s), by using written, spoken words or visual tools to convey information, feelings, or reasoning, or a combination thereof.[9] Persuasion is also an often used tool in the pursuit of personal gain, such as election campaigning, giving a sales pitch,[10] or in trial advocacy. Persuasion can also be interpreted as using one's personal or positional resources to change people."

If you really read that, you'll get it how all of dianetics and scientology is really an umbrella of rhetoric. The umbrella was going clear and then OT, but yet nobody has, so it's all rhetoric, when you think about it.

The first umbrella was dianetics, the modern science of mental health, the second was scientology, an applied religions philosophy. Both have failed, as there are no clears or OT's, nor has anybody who has died being involved with dianetics or scientology returned from dead, not even Hubbard.

You can debate with me, and that's fine, but I'm stick'in to what I am trying to point out. Whether you see it or not depends on you. and if you don't, that's ok.
 
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
@TheSneakster

I suggest that you start your own topic thread about why you are an indie scientologist.
The conversation might be interesting.
Actually, that’s not a bad idea, though the thread doesn’t have to be exactly that.

@TheSneakster

Hobbs, you have a talent for writing and touching people emotionally when you write straight from your heart.♥💕. When you write honestly in detail about your personal thoughts and experiences, there isn’t a sound on the forum and you communicate extremely well and everyone gets it.

When you take your time and write from the heart, when you tell others what you went through in your life in detail, you have the same magic as Glenda. I think you should do it.
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
...
You can debate with me, and that's fine, but I'm stick'in to what I am trying to point out. Whether you see it or not depends on you. and if you don't, that's ok.
.

Who are you debating? Everyone already agrees that Scientology uses rhetoric (i.e. verbal/written persuasion).

However, every time someone showcases OTHER forms of persuasion that Scientology uses, you ignore their examples and/or insult their intelligence.

That is a very UN-persuasive method you have, especially for a self-proclaimed expert on rhetorical persuasion.

.
 
Last edited:

Type4_PTS

Well-known member
you should read this:


If you really read that, you'll get it how all of dianetics and scientology is really an umbrella of rhetoric. The umbrella was going clear and then OT, but yet nobody has, so it's all rhetoric, when you think about it.

The first umbrella was dianetics, the modern science of mental health, the second was scientology, an applied religions philosophy. Both have failed, as there are no clears or OT's, nor has anybody who has died being involved with dianetics or scientology returned from dead, not even Hubbard.

You can debate with me, and that's fine, but I'm stick'in to what I am trying to point out. Whether you see it or not depends on you. and if you don't, that's ok.
I read it and I don't see how it supports your point. You seem to believe that rhetoric encompasses all forms of persuasion. I don't believe that it does and that Wikipedia article doesn't make that claim either.

HH wrote:
""...every time someone showcases OTHER forms of persuasion that Scientology uses, you ignore their examples and/or insult their intelligence.
And he's right. I asked you some questions, giving you examples, asking if you believe they're rhetoric, and you ignore those or any other questions I asked of you.

They were real questions - not rhetorical questions. :coolwink: I'm trying to understand your position and why you believe what you believe.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Snipped.

You can debate with me, and that's fine, but I'm stick'in to what I am trying to point out. Whether you see it or not depends on you. and if you don't, that's ok.


If any of this was truly "OK" (with you) you wouldn't feel the need to keep going on and on and on about it.

I doubt there is anything that any of us can say that will allow you to move on from your rhetoric crusade (many have tried, all have failed) so I'm going to accept that you have a seriously tricky issue that only you can resolve and wish you good luck with it.

:confused:
 

HelluvaHoax!

Well-known member
.
The title of this thread should have been:

"I think I know all about rhetoric and you don't,
so let me lecture you about it
"
.
LOL

The subtitle (below that banner headline) could be: "A scholar and master of rhetorical persuasion gets really annoyed when people are not persuaded"

.


 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I read it and I don't see how it supports your point. You seem to believe that rhetoric encompasses all forms of persuasion. I don't believe that it does and that Wikipedia article doesn't make that claim either.

HH wrote:


And he's right. I asked you some questions, giving you examples, asking if you believe they're rhetoric, and you ignore those or any other questions I asked of you.

They were real questions - not rhetorical questions. :coolwink: I'm trying to understand your position and why you believe what you believe.
Giving examples that are not related to dianetics and scientology is comparing different things.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
Snipped.





If any of this was truly "OK" (with you) you wouldn't feel the need to keep going on and on and on about it.

I doubt there is anything that any of us can say that will allow you to move on from your rhetoric crusade (many have tried, all have failed) so I'm going to accept that you have a seriously tricky issue that only you can resolve and wish you good luck with it.

:confused:
This is one tread of a person who thinks what hubbard used to create a cult. Weather you agree or not, whatever, you don't have to post on this tread.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
The title of this thread should have been "I think I know all about rhetoric and you don't, so let me lecture you about it"
you know I was trapped in this hubbard bullshit for a long time, I happen to think it's rhetoric.
 

Bill

Well-known member
you know I was trapped in this hubbard bullshit for a long time, I happen to think it's rhetoric.
Yes. And so you go on and on and on and on lecturing us on Rhetoric. Could you explain why you feel you must do that?
 
Top