Jeb Stuart
member
Not that this thread really needs another post, but I read them all to just as a thought exercise. I ask for pardon in advance for this abbreviated, incomplete, bastardized, version of Aristotle.
Couple of points:
A lot of people don't like rhetoric. The term itself is viewed with suspicion. Rhetoric employs broad generalities such as "treat all guns as loaded". Good rhetoric has a point and illuminates a deeper truth. A demonstration of dialectic is "In order to maximize safety, when dealing with a firearm, it is best to treat that weapon as loaded until checked." The latter statement is awkward and probably easily forgettable. The underlying assumption is due to uncertainty of any gun being loaded or not, the consequence for an accidental discharge can be so horrible that it is best to maximize safety.
For better or worse, most people generalize and speak in rhetoric --e.g. bad area of town, shady character, and so on. Those who prefer dialectic are often infuriated and argue not all ___-__ are like that as if the exception is norm or against harsh rhetoric as off-putting e.g. liberal, gun-grabber, or the old timer panty-waist.
Ideally, people who employ rhetoric should often go back to view the unspoken assumptions behind them and determine whether or not they make sense. Good rhetoric illustrates an underlying reality or condition with some degree of imprecision and exaggeration but serves as a good stereotype, e.g. practice makes perfect, always be aware of one's surroundings, etc. Bad rhetoric does not provide much if any sort of truth and teaches bad lessons--e.g drag someone into the house if you shoot them, treat everyone as a potential killer, etc.
Folks that prefer dialectic or only use dialectic should not act like they are the
Gun-related sayings that need to go away
correctors of reality nor the moral arbiters of society: e.g. clip versus magazine, rifle versus long gun, not all convicted violent felons/shady people/etc. will hurt you (and the like)etc. Few people enjoy a scold, killjoy, or know-it-all whether in person or online. Exceptions are just that. By themselves they do not alter the general experiences of others--see the Colt 2000 where I am sure that at least one person "liked it" but as a general argument that not all Colt 2000's were unreliable, ugly, and a bad adaptation of Glocks, is not going to do much. Some folks may enjoy being iconoclasts but understand that most people won't really be persuaded much by it. Similarly, someone may beat down someone else in argument but that does not make that argument a "true" statement of reality.
In many cases, some using pseudo dialectic will for example argue that the AR/M1/M14/AK47/______ is the finest of all firearms or that the shotgun rules them all at short ranges, caliber wars are another, etc. They will then disguise their naked opinion with assorted facts to buttress their argument as to why. Pseudo dialectic starts with a premise and then seeks to prove it rather than entertain the thought that knowledge from others might actually change one's opinion.
The logical paradox of "who shaves the Spanish Barber?" when presented to folks lead all sorts of interesting theories backed primarily by how that person uses their life experiences to answer it. The answer to the paradox is to follow the Spanish Barber around and see--e.g. experience it yourself or next best would be talk to someone who is very experienced in such matters (e.g. RCModel). Often folks are angered when someone questions their basic assumptions and treats it as a personal attack which it generally is not.
Arguments ain't people folks and losing an argument to a better one is not a disgrace which is an example of a rhetorical argument. Using similes, metaphors, etc. should not be attacked for being rhetoric e.g. passed away rather than died, etc. The question is whether it is "good rhetoric" or "bad". A gun being "sexy" is rhetoric. As someone said above, arousal by a firearm would be considered a deviant fetish-dialectic.
We see this style of argumentation all the time in criminal trials--the prosecution marshals evidence to prove their argument that so and so is guilty while the defense often uses the same facts to argue innocence or reasonable uncertainty of the prosecution case. Both rhetoric, pseudo dialectic, and dialectic are used by skilled trial attorneys. Should we reject "good rhetoric" employed skillfully by a prosecutor to convict a truly guilty person or a defense attorney who protects the innocent?
A classic example is to argue that a person is depraved if they shoot someone over mere money---note that that "good rhetoric" has the assumption that all people view lives as more important than money which may not be true of all individuals. Should we argue it is unfair to the convicted felon to use societal moral standards to judge that individual's actions? Shouldn't we at least see the situation from the felon's point of view that they needed money, the victim refused to provide it, and so the felon shot them to obtain the needed money? Most folks would probably argue that is a "bad" use of rhetoric.
An example of a dialectic argument for the above is "that murdering someone for mere money is an element of first degree murder as society has viewed murder for money as an example of a felon's "depraved indifference" to human life." The statute is a fact, that the person robbed the other individual for money and killed them is a fact established in this trial, the statute was adopted by the people's representatives in a fair and open way as a representation of crimes that society wants enhanced punishment, fact, and so on.
As we are all locked in our heads to some degree (pardons to those who are telepaths in advance for my faulty rhetoric), to exchange ideas and knowledge, requires communication. Communication with others will be a mix of rhetoric and dialectic, fact and opinion. Different life experiences will lead to differing conclusions about what is good or bad and what is just or unjust. Different cognitive functions will lead to differences in communication patterns. Thus, the trick is to recognize rhetoric and judge it on its own terms and the same for dialectic. Then, through questioning and dialogue, we can arrive at a better understanding of "truth" or an accurate depiction of reality if that is what floats your boat.
Great Point Boom. Enjoyed reading this. I also find it interest that words can turn water into Wine.
Last edited:
I agree with you that there are better options than the AK-pattern for most applications, however, I just like how they look, feel, and sound. I also like how easy they are to field strip, their simplistic design, reliability, and their rugged mags. As an added bonus, the fact that I own one helps keep gun-grabbers awake at night 
