today i am reminded how it is necessary
to examine a premise
so often the trick of arguing a point
so often the goal
is not the point
the goal is to receive an acceptance of the premise
a supposed reality that forms the foundation
but may not be true at all
“how do we stop boys from being bad? maybe they should go to church more.”
so you are then discussing if children need to go to church
based on the premise that “boys are bad.”
you just accepted a reality or truth … and that “truth” skirted all discussion.
it’s an old trick … i’m sure there is even a name for it somewhere
a kind of bait and switch
one that mr. Twit uses all the time
flim flam athletes
when the premise is wrong
you’ll get this nagging feeling
and argue against the second point even if it makes sense
and then will be in a position of opposed
which then carries forward in decisions
it’s all quite mad … yes.
rhetorical criticism is a rough sport
a tradition of persuasion and profitability
truth becomes secondary and beliefs are sculpted
but there is one way to nip in the bud
on the premise
“why…..why why why why ……..
why do you think boys are bad?”
go to the premise
because an hypothesis is not a theory
and a theory is not a fact
and a fact is not belief
manipulation is how you should sell shoes
it’s not how you should sell ideas
“rich people should learn compassion”
why … why are rich people not compassionate?
ARE they not compassionate?
what is rich?
what is wealth … in a world where
he who has the most toys when he dies, wins?
is win a goal? or is there no end
to goals and deliverance