Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: briskit who wrote (101550)	6/14/2003 12:12:27 PM
From: smolejv@gmx.net	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

>> Is there any relevance to the FAGD thread? Perhaps, in view of discussion lately about lies, deception, self-interest of those for an against the (occupation or liberation, depending on political position) of Iraq<< I can just talk for myself: moving anything to a meta level (like talking about the value of deception and self deception etc etc instead of dto in the context of say Iraq) is a worthy goal but I guess it would make us - or rather them - sound even more dissonant. In my case, I do try to read and learn. Which is quite a help in keeping one from posting (g) - si tacuisses ... regZ dj

To: briskit who wrote (101550)	6/14/2003 1:23:09 PM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 281500

>>It's taken me twenty-five years to learn that just as important as the facts, if not more important, are people's perception of those facts<< Clearly he's not a litigator - we figure that out very quickly. Anybody who has to persuade people for a living - be it salesman or politician, quickly learns it, some intuiting it from a very early age. Not me, I learned it the hard way, but Aristotle's Rhetoric would have helped. If you want to learn how to punch people's emotional buttons in order to get them to agree with you or look upon your presentation favorably, I strongly recommend Aristotle's Rhetoric. Let me set the stage. In ancient Athens, the people had to vote on pretty much everything. The People's Court, which was located in the Agora, was populated on any given day by whoever wanted to be there, which tended to be people (free Athenian male citizens, of course) who didn't need to be somewhere else working. Rich people, who had servants to do their work. Old people, who had passed their useful work life. Wastrels and ne'er-do-wells, and court junkies. On jury days, anybody who wanted to serve could serve for the pay of three obols. The typical jury consisted of 500 Athenians. Also, anybody who wanted to represent someone at court could do so, but most people represented themselves. Putting on a trial was like putting on a play. There were speeches given by both sides. No direct examination, no cross examination, no evidence per se, just argument. Endless argument. And the best arguer won. Aristotle tells you how to argue a case. If you are arguing in favor of a young man, argue that he is of tender years and needs direction. If you argue in favor of an old man, argue that he is venerable and has put in long years of honorable service. If you argue in favor of a rich man, argue that he is a pillar of the community. If you argue in favor of a poor man, argue that he is poor but honest and hard working. Human nature hasn't changed in all these hundreds of years. Emotions matter.