The old communication and argumentation teacher in me loves this article:
"Use language that implies 'greater guilt' and inspires a thought process in the listener that likely concludes with the idea that your opponent is a deceitful, guilty, low-life, capable of 'God knows what' because he is hiding all of his 'real' improprieties from public view -- at least as long as he can hide them from becoming 'new revelations'. And do it in such a way that the listeners' conclusions far exceed the implications of the currently available evidence."
Oldest tricks in the book. Probably Aristotle's book, though he no doubt looked askance...
No comments:
Post a Comment