View Single Post
Old 12-15-2010, 09:16 AM   #31
catsittingstill
Guru
catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.catsittingstill ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
catsittingstill's Avatar
 
Posts: 643
Karma: 551634
Join Date: Dec 2007
Device: Kindle 1.0.8, iPod Touch, Kindle Keyboard
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcohen View Post
Where I went to graduate school I took a few classes in retoric or the art of argument. One of the things that we learned is to base arguments around definitions and Miriam and Webster Dictionary is generally the arbiter of defintions, in other words what ever Miriam and Webster says a word means thats what it means.

Now for this word sensorship, its the removal of materiel of any sort becuase of the fact that it is objectionable to that person.

(snip)
You might want to go in and edit that post. It's normally spelled "censorship." Note the "c" at the front. This is particularly important because "sensor" actually means something different from "censor."

Your classes in rhetoric probably included the concept of "ethical appeal" or possibly "ethos" (different classes use different terms) --the idea that your argument is bolstered by the appearance that a) you are fair, and b) you know what you are talking about.

There are plenty of reasons (dyslexia, etc) that a person might misspell a word and still know what they are talking about, but misspelling the principal word in the argument bruises your ethos. It might, for example, make a reasonable reader wonder if you actually looked the word up in the dictionary.

Word to the wise, and all that. You have a reasonable point of view to contribute to the discussion, it's a pity to see its ethical appeal damaged.
catsittingstill is offline   Reply With Quote