Comment: LOL! Of course I'm using rhetoric:D

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Logic is complicated and an (see in situ)

LOL! Of course I'm using rhetoric:D

We're conversing and I have an agenda. That is, you seem intelligent and I think the world would be a better place if you understood economics.

But I'm not using any fallacies rhetorical or otherwise. IMO if you must use a fallacy to 'prove' your point you haven't done so, and you should probably study some more. Your position may be right, but only accidentally; because if you can't argue logically, you don't in fact understand your own position, so you have no way to know whether it's valid or not.

And yes of course people use rhetorical fallacies all the time. It's because they don't understand logic and are rarely faced with anyone who does. The real meaning of rhetoric is conversational logic. It's been used to mean verbal trickery but that's not the real meaning.

Valid rhetoric, like any other form of valid logic may seem to be verbal trickery to the logically defenseless.

This is why most progressives yell at you. They can't make valid arguments, so when you seem to be winning via a logical argument they think logic is a 'trick' but they have nothing else to do than yell or say you want women back in the kitchen, or go back to slavery days, or orphans to starve or whatever. You have faced these 'debates' I know.

So back to my agenda:) Austrian economics is like logic. Understanding it is only part of the fight. Because other people don't understand and you're always having to teach people.

But it's a necessary part, because if you don't understand it yourself you are arguing on their field of illogic and irrationality, merely emotional appeals and personal attacks. You won't ever win that battle because they always have stronger emotional appeals to.. appeal to:)