Reddit mentions: The best rhetoric books

Yes, do it. but taking a loan is worth getting to the higher income more quickly. 20 yr old, and I only make 1k a month- working 30-40 hrs a week. Advice:(though I could stand to take some from you)

1test for credit if you can teach yourself, it's about $75 for a shot at 3-4 credits. look up which tests your school accepts. My community college accepts most, but my state school doesn't, and they transfer stuff on a class by class basis, except the state transfer program MNTC, which they take as a unit, so I'm appyling them to that.

2 re-take placement tests if you can, and do serious studying beforehand. you probably won't get credit for the stuff you bypass but it's something you don't have to take/ pay for. I understand not bothering and taking the easy classes, but then you're just wasting your education

3 plan how it will transfer try to get certifications/degrees as you progress so you end up with maybe an certification, asoociate's, and bachelor's in 4 years

apply for a crap-ton of scholarships- the more specific, the better. Go for stuff that only a few people are eligible for. At my community college that has 12.5k students, they didn't award a few of the 130-ish scholarships because not enough people applied. go for local stuff, specific to your major, race, financial situation, anything. Google scholarship search engines. Be smart about your odds and amount of time needed to apply compared to potential payoff. They are not giving it to you for charity just to you. They expect a return, just not as money. They expect you to do something useful with it for your field, community, culture,exc. Get volunteer/ leadership experience. FMSC is great for low commitment/flexible volunteering. If you're not especially rich, or your parents don't have 4 yr degrees, apply for TRIO. Worth it.

4 If you're not in school now, learn something useful if you want to move up. Anything. Coding or a foreign language are common choices- preferably something useful for your region, but if it's kinda obscure you won't be easily replaced if you find a niche- an instrument, learn to cook and shop frugal, teach yourself drafting/autocad, or just work out. Consider getting a certification that you study on your own time then test- pharmacy tech, anything in IT or medical, something in a field you enjoy. Any of these will either increase your earning potential, help you spend less, or just be happier.

5 Learn to write and research. This is critical to most jobs and all of college. Reading critically/ analyzing is a big part of this. most useful textbook i've had also, before you ever pay for a MLA formatting guide,use this free online guide

6 work on your communication with people. Some of that means just getting out and practicing, and if you act like you know what's up, people generally believe you. good and worthwhile analysis in communication is this also invest a little time and $ to make yourself look "upstanding" or just project an image that will be effective. People stereotype. It's inaccurate, and it sucks, but it happens, so use it to your advantage and stop doing it

7 buy the older editions whenever the professor is ok with it. They usually are, and they're occasionally using an older edition than what the bookstore tells you to buy. Always get the international edition if you can (same thing, different cover, maybe different pg #'s)

8 Joining campus clubs or student gov looks great on an application, and it's the easiest way to meet people with a common interest. Also networking. At least try a club or 2, there's no commitment; they're just glad you showed up

9 most schools offer free or discounted software or deals at local businesses. state colleges give you free access to software that otherwise costs thousands (photoshop, autocad, solidworks). Use it. Community college has some, ya just gotta ask a professor or the tech dept.

10* Get a planner. Use it, write your assignments from the syllabus on it. Schedule regular time to be undisturbed and get stuff done. You are paying thousands for the opportunity to learn. Do not waste it. Show up to class on time, know people in the class who will let you get notes if you skip. Only skip if you absolutely have to- calculate exactly how much you paid for that hour of instruction and see what you're wasting. Go over what they're going to talk about that day ahead of time. This isn't high school, nobody gets it all on the first time hearing it. That homework that's not being graded? understand how to do it, and do some of it. If you don't practice, you'll never finish exams on time, even if you "got it." did I mention to learn discipline and keep a schedule? It's the single most important thing here. even if you son't feel like doing it now, just start, then it gets easier. Cramming sucks, and doesn't end well

edit: if your college allows you to take anywhere from 13-18 credits for the same price (pretty common), consider taking 18 credits and not working much, if you can. it'll be cheaper

Damn. I love the dedication you have to the thread!

With communication you have noticeably different methods of speaking to another person (interpersonal), a speech (small group and organizational), and a large group (mass). I think the greatest number of people deal solely in the interpersonal category and so it becomes more important.

So, yes, I think taking time to focus on interpersonal communication gives a person time to develop their ability to listen and communicate. Communication is just as much about listening as it is speaking. You learn to hears one's thoughts, interpret them, and give your thoughts.

Logic plays into this because much of speech, especially when it is persuasive speech, requires a structure of facts. If A and B then C.

Rhetoric delves deeper into the meaning and the way that people are trying to speak to you. Good example would be the use of a tricolon: "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears." Examining that you might notice how awesome it sounds. How it pulls you in. The speaker speaks to everyone calling them a friend of his. Then he appeals to their nationality. Then he appeals to their status. He hits them at an emotional level. On top of that (and I think this is so cool), he says Friends (one syllable), Romans (two syllables), countrymen (three syllables). It just pleases the ears in every way.

Sorry, I get passionate about communication. But to answer your question more concisely, yes, I feel interpersonal communication is better for learning to communicate effectively than a public speaking course. It develops a good foundation is communication thst will benefit a public speech.

Edit: I actually posted this comment on /r/rhetoric earlier and thought maybe you could get some use from it if you were interested.

My favorite rhetoric book is Words Like Loaded Pistols by Sam Leith. He writes in such an understanble way and really pulls you in. The books begins with the basics and Aristotle and moves through speakers and pop culture references that it me quite interested.

Sam Leith actually wrote a great analysis of Barak Obama's second inaugural speech.

Oh my, big passive voice fan? Let’s see, where to start?

> There are also times when passive voice is preferred

I did say that, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s usually not preferred. It’s preferred when there is no known actor or when the main subject is not the actor.

> Non-psychologists tend to ignore the American Psychological Association’s style guide, yes.

APA is used for a lot more fields than just psychology, including scientific ones. Besides, most style guides say the same thing. AP does, and I’m pretty sure Chicago does.


>And are you seriously citing style guides to make a point about natural language? Yes, prescriptivists tend to dislike passive voice in English. How is that at all relevant?

AP and APA actually cite natural usage as a reason for proscribing against passive voice. The active voice is more natural in most cases and is the way we tend to talk. Therefore, using active voice is better for clarity. Clear writing is good writing.

But this isn’t a subreddit on writing. This is a sub about learning Japanese. The meme we’re commenting on is about things that are difficult for Japanese learners whose native language is English. Passive voice in Japanese is difficult for many English-speaking learners for all the reasons I mentioned. If you want to keep using it in your English writing anyway, I mean, whatever floats your boat. I do recommend picking up On Writing Well, though, and maybe also The Elements of Style. They’re excellent books that I think can explain better than I can why some of these kinds of things that seem “prescriptivist” are actually ways to make your writing clearer, more succinct, and, ultimately, more successful.

Okay, a couple of suggestions:

• Grab a copy of First Time Up used (it's like 1/5 the price of new). It's enormously useful for first-time comp teachers, and will help you feel safer and more secure up front.
  
• Ask your chair for some sample syllabi and steal from them ruthlessly. Heck, if you find a syllabus you like the look of, just replace the name and contact information with yours and use it. You have three preps to get ready for and only a couple of weeks, with no prior college teaching experience. If you try to reinvent the wheel, you're gonna drown.
  
• Make sure you have at LEAST one conference week, where you sit down and do a one-on-one with each and every student and talk about their writing. The 15 minutes you spend with each student will be the most productive 15 minutes of the semester, guaranteed. Some folks prefer draft conferences. I like midterm or second-paper conferences. Your call.
  
• Remember that these folks are Freshmen. They're very well-intentioned, eager, wonderful, delightful idiots. You'll be astonished at the basic writing mistakes they'll make, but that's because you're used to looking at your own writing. Cut them slack. They'll learn pretty quick.
  
• Only half of your job is teaching writing. The other half is teaching these folks how to Adult. Office hours can be... interesting. I've counseled people on abortions, miscarriages, being the target of a failed mass shooting, blatant racism and sexism from members of the school, and more profound loneliness and depression than I can even describe. I've had students living out of their car and off of the street. I've read personal narratives about the time a student was almost murdered twice in one day. Be ready.
  
• Get the contact information for your school's equivalent of Disability Services and introduce yourself. You will have students who need support from them.
  
• A 5/5 is a very full load. Stagger your assignments, and aim for high-density, but not high-volume, writing assignments or you'll end up grading for grammar instead of content. This is actually an observed effect in the literature; you're not going to escape it. I'm a biiiiig fan of the three-assignment semester, with a very minimal amount of submitted daily work.
  
• Stake out some time for yourself, like you did in grad school. This job can be all-consuming. Don't let it.
  
• Thank You For Smoking, the movie, is a fabulous resource. There are several scenes you can mine for entire days' worth of content.
  
• Thank You For Arguing, the book, is a great resource, cheap, and students actually read it. I use it as the main text for my Comp 2 courses.
  
• Have fun. If you let it, Comp 1 can be an enormously silly, fun, pop-culture-y romp through whatever nonsense you enjoy. I've used Avatar: the Last Airbender, Marvel movies, Terry Pratchett books, and a bunch of other stuff as resources. One of my colleagues' final Comp 1 pasper is actually a video, and she gives feedback to her students by audio recording. Do you.
  
• Most importantly of all, none of your students will ever know if you're backfilling, fillibustering, or out-and-out bullshitting. Try not to do it, but they will never, ever call you on it. Be confident in your expertise.
  
  Have fun, and hold on to your seat. The first semester is a bit of a ride.

If you truly want to improve your grammar, you first need to get passionate about grammar.

For a book that shows the fun and importance within grammar, get The Elements of Style. That slip of a book ignited my interest in understanding the hows and whys of English. Enjoy your read through it, but don't take everything they write too seriously. No one is 100% correct about every grammar issue.

Once you really want to dig into grammar, get yourself a high-quality, general purpose English handbook for writers and read it cover to cover. Personally, I got the eighth edition of the Simon & Schuster handbook (now in its tenth edition). That book provides clear explanations on all elements of English grammar. I'm sure the newer editions have improved upon my copy. Mind you, it is geared towards the college crowd, so there are added sections about citation for papers and such.

Really, what you want is a book that you can use as a solid reference and starting point for your understanding of grammar. It's important to find a source that uses clear, consistent terms, which is why I suggest getting a college textbook. Once you fully comprehend the handbook, you'll have a good foundation in all the general aspects of grammar, which you can use to compare and contrast with other rules and stylistic choices.

From there, the best way to improve is to continually analyze and discuss grammar, just like what we do on this subreddit!

Excellent list. I'd add:

Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America, where for simplification the author generally used "KGB" for the organization that started out as the Cheka and was the NKVD for a good part of what the book covers. He's an ex-counterintelligence officer, and uses analysis techniques from that field to go from the known operative Willi Münzenberg to known or likely "Willing Accomplices" his effort recruited before he was (inevitably) liquidated by Stalin (the effort was of course restarted later, but the lethal payload had already been delivered, in the US especially after the #1 goal of diplomatic recognition of the USSR was achieved early in FDR's administration).

I'd like to emphasize that anything relevant written or edited by Samuel Francis is going to be great, but you'll likely want to read some of his freely available or cheaper works before buying his $48 magnum opus Leviathan and Its Enemies. He's the guy who came up with the critical concept of anarcho-tyranny, which in classic Wikipedia fashion has been purged from his page, but they forgot to remove the redirect of that to it. (In short, it's a new version of the ancient pattern of top and bottom classes conspiring against the middle, criminals in particular are enabled to prey on us, rules and laws are enforced against us but not them and e.g. immigrants in California, native farmer Victor Davis Hansen has a lot of first hand observations about this.)

For a laser focused analysis of the current SJW phenomena and how to deal with them, you can't beat Vox Day's SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police, the genesis of which started with an unremitting out of the blue attack a decade and a half ago by some SF SJWs for really mild and unrelated to their domain badthink. He's a fighter, so it has a lot of good advice as to how to attack and counterattack them. /u/sciencemile recommends Mill's On Liberty, and per Vox Day, Mill would be relevant if for no other reason than his "defining [a] new idea of justice in a form that is still recognizable in the demands of today's SJWs" in his Utilitarianism. (On the other hand, view anything Vox Day writes about economics with extreme skepticism, and I note he's not fundamentally honest, he's quite willing to lie for tactical reasons.)

To get a taste of it, he's written a short SJW_Attack_Survival_Guide PDF that's [currently being discussed on KiA]
(https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/6gx2tl/in_light_of_recent_events_sjw_attack_survival/).

If you want to fight and are not equally adept at rhetoric as well as dialectic and know when to use each, he highly recommend's Aristotle's On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse (that seems to be the best English translation, but I've not read it yet, for better or worse my upbringing made me good at both).

Martin van Creveld's recent Equality: The Impossible Quest ought to be very important as well, but I've not read anything by him.

If you're really brave, check out The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, although I only sampled that before starting with the two previous books in his trilogy, in the middle of the third now.

Strictly the first isn't punctuated correctly or it's just wrong - it's two separate clauses and should be written as:

"I want to know: how does the wheel work?"

or

"I want to know; how does the wheel work?"

It really doesn't work otherwise, as written. Especially not without the "?"

The second is more natural English in a declarative way. It is two clauses as well but doesn't require any additional punctuation.

"I want to know how the wheel works."

"works" by itself is perfectly sufficient alone as the verb for the clause. "does work" is redundant - either it is the "work" (function) or its not with just "work".

At best, "does" is sort of an emphatic or particle, with or without the (semi)colon. But like most emphatic/particle words, you have to be careful with how you use them (think "doch" in German). A better choice of emphatic would be:

"I want to know how the wheel really works."

which might be spoken:

"I want to know how the wheel really works."

The reason this sounds better is that "really" is an adverb modifying "works" while "does" is a helping verb for "works" which changes the meaning and structure to something different and interrogative.

If you want to really grok this kind of thing, the two best sources are Strunk and White's Elements of Style (PDF!), and Warriner's English Grammar and Composition. The latter sort of reminds me of a typical programming language book in some ways - nitty-gritty with syntax definitions - they call it "sentence diagramming" but it's really just a alternate visual form of syntax BNF.

Had both of these in high school. Everyone kept both in their book bag all the time. You'd be marked off on grammar on anything written in any class. Very helpful as reference "bibles" for writing English. Yes, my high school was somewhat intense (by US standards, anyway).

A major term you'd probably be really interested in reading more about is autopoiesis (also understood as "self-styling"). Rhetorical Deliver and Visual Rhetoric would also help you. Finally, Material Rhetoric will help you understand how clothing (among tons of other materials) can be constructed and used rhetorically.

Understanding Rhetoric is a really simple straightforward book that will give you the basics. There are SO many books on the subject though. Google Scholar is your best friend here. Just search the keywords and then read the abstracts and conclusion of the articles you think sound interesting. Once you really find an article that appeals to you, look at their works cited/bibliography and then read those books. That is how you read like an academic.

This is way larger than you realize. Performance is a huuuuuge part of rhetoric. What have you read so far? What are you really interested in investigating? What kind of agenda are you pursuing?

I teach Rhet. to Freshman so if you give me a little bit more I can probably help you out.

Good Luck. Let me know if I can help you further.

Edit: These online scholarly journals will also keep you up to date on the most recent/contemporary rhetorical research:

Harlot

Kairos

Enculturation

I did not attend a religious private school (although my brother now does, after I checked that they taught evolution (accurately) and didn't try to convert him constantly), but every year from 7th-12th iirc, this book, Crafting Expository Argument, was a mandatory item. They just required one edition of any kind because it was/is a great help to creating solid essays for middle and highschool as well as a great basis for AP tests and college basics.

The author, Michael Degen, also teaches at Jesuit, a catholic high school in the area. From what I've heard, he's openly gay and they take no issue with that. Plenty of religious schools are great institutions with better than average teachers.

My Senior English teacher recommended us to read/skim through "How to Read Literature like a Professor" during the summer before classes start as to get "basic" understanding of literature and/or scholarly journals. I personally didn't read it as the English classes I've registered for were more seminar-lecture based, where the professor talked about everything we're supposed to know about what we've read and gauged our understanding through class discussions. However, I found the book to be helpful as a reference guide when I didn't know how to read/digest specific texts. (I remember seeing a PDF file of the book, but I'm not sure where it is at the moment.)

​

I think skimming the book and reading random articles (whether it be the NYT or Teen Vogue) can help you build your reading comprehension and thinking skills. Also, talk to your professors during office hours! There were moments where I didn't know what to make of the reading and went to office hours to talk about the confusion/concern I had about what I've read.

​

As for writing, my professors from my English and Writing classes recommended me to utilize the writing services (though that's when college starts). My Writing professor also made us read "They Say, I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing," which offered different perspectives on how we should look at academic writing. However, the price doesn't justify the content that's provided in the book. There's also "The Elements of Style," where my friends, professors, and relatives all swear that it's the holy grail for writing (I have never used it, but I guess it doesn't hurt to read/skim through the book).

​

If your school offers writing seminars/first-year writing course, then I suggest on taking those courses first before taking English classes since it may help you on conveying your thoughts/shaping your arguments for your audience. Also, as I said earlier, your professor (or TA) is going to be your best source as they can give you advice on where to improve. Hopefully, this answers your question!

> How do I improve my writing (both critical and creative)?

Read more, write more. In your case, I think you probably want to focus less on creative writing and more on technical and business writing, which are very different beasts.

> What books should I look at to help me do this?

The Elements of Style is a good start. You might also get some use out of Understanding Rhetoric

> When trying to interpret and "look into" a text how do I do that very well?

You need to consider the text on several levels: What is the text telling you? How is the text telling you that? What does the author want you to take away from the text? Is there a subtext (i.e. an implicit message in the text that is not spelled out) or any symbolism in the text?

> What would you say is the greatest misconception about the process of creative writing?

That there is one process. Creative writing is as varied as the number of creative writers there are out there, and not every technique and approach will work for you. From the sound of it, just in terms of a college application essay and a desire to enter the business world, you don't really need to focus on creative writing - you want to focus on rhetoric, persuasive writing, and technical communication.

> Detailed description of embryology in Quran

Now here is an actual example of that would be considered scientific foreknowledge if supportable - a candidate for an actual prophetic miracle.

Al-Mu'minun 23:14 Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.

So the bones came before the covering flash. Interesting. And not supported by contemporary medical knowledge.

Without going into the scientific miracle of where the sperm are produced (i.e., The Qur'an states sperm is made/stored in the small of the back near the kidneys - and not the testicles), as I do not care to argue the mental gymnastics required to apologize this "Truth" of the Qur'an, the embryonic development of the bone first followed by flesh is completely falsified. Again, in order to spare myself the crapfest of apologetics to justify this "Prophecy" I will ask the question - Did this information concerning embryonic growth already exist prior to the claimed revelation via the Book of the Mother, via the messenger Angel Gabriel (Jibra'il), via some form of supernatural to natural communication to the Prophet Muhammad, via spoken voice to various followers of the Prophet, from various followers spoken to scribes years/decades after the death of Muhammad?

Why look at that, Aristotle, in the 4th century BCE described embryonic development (Aristotle, De Generatione Animalium, Book II, 739b20-739b30, as per Jonathan Barnes \(ed.\), The Complete Works of Aristotle, \(Princeton, 1985\), Vol 1, p. 1148.), and his treatise also contains the same erroneous idea that the embryo developed from a formless mass.

Damn, when the Prophet plagiarizes already "known" information, he still got it wrong by plagiarizing that was incorrect.

The post-hoc interpretation of Qur'anic ayat/verses using highly selective imaginative interpretations of the meaning of the various words to claim support for a scientific miracle represents highly flawed apologetics.

It is interesting that the claim of miracle of the prophecies of "scientific miracles" or "scientific foreknowledge" in the Qur'an are all post hoc interpretations to their discovery by mere mortal humans. It would be more convincing if the scientific knowledge was identifiable as usable knowledge prior to human knowledge based development or confirmation of this knowledge - rather than a post hoc interpretation of a verse/narrative such that this knowledge is only, somehow, found after it already becomes known.

Look at these claimed Qur'an miracles and the date that there were recognized and the claims made - the overwhelming majority were made after science laid the foundation for interpretation. Rephrased - All of the claims of scientific miracles are made in hindsight (post hoc) - all are made following the advancement of knowledge from other sources and the verbiage within the Qur'an is then interpreted to show that this knowledge was, somehow, there all along. As a source of scientific knowledge, then, at best, the Qur'an has little worth.

If you wish to demonstrate that there is value in the scientific knowledge claimed to be within the Qur'an, please present a scientific postulation/hypothesis/theory derived from a verse, or from verses, from the Qur'an that was developed prior to the development of this knowledge from other sources. Or make prediction(s) of future scientific knowledge based upon the Qur'an and develop a method of inquiry based on this claimed scientific knowledge and gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning and experimentation and show that this predicted scientific knowledge to be true to a high level of reliability and confidence. I am willing to wait a lifetime for a beforehand/foresight version of scientific knowledge from the Qur'an to be demonstrated in any meaningful way. Otherwise, post hoc interpretations holds no credibility of the Qur'an as a source of scientific claims/foreknowledge.

Finally, let us not overlook the numerous scientific errors, with or without claims of prophecy/scientific foreknowledge, that are present in the Qur'an:

1 Astronomy

1.1 Geocentricism

1.2 Setting and Rising Place of the Sun

1.3 Stars are Missiles Shot at Devils

1.4 Moon is Further from the Earth than the Stars

1.5 Moon Emits Light

1.6 Moon was Split in Two

1.7 Seven Planets in the Universe

1.8 Seven Heavens

1.9 Earth Created in Six Days

1.10 Earth Created before Stars

1.11 Sun is a Flat Disk

1.12 Sky is a Tent/Dome

1.13 Sky Guards the Earth

1.14 Sky is Made of Solid Material

1.15 Sky can Fall Down on People

1.16 Ignorance of the North and South Poles

2 Biology

2.1 Evolution

2.1.1 Human Creation from Clay

2.1.2 First Humans: Adam and Eve

2.1.3 Humans Created in Paradise and then Brought to Earth

2.2 Embryology

2.2.1 Sperm Originates Between the Backbone and Ribs

2.2.2 Embryo is Formed from Male and Female Fluids

2.2.3 No Mention of Female Ovum

2.2.4 Humans Created from a Clot of Blood

2.2.5 Only Allah Knows the Gender of a Fetus

2.3 All Organisms are Created in Pairs

2.4 Womb has Three Layers

2.5 Bones are Formed before Flesh

2.6 Source and Purity of Milk

3 Geology and Meteorology

3.1 The Earth is Flat

3.1.1 Facing Toward Mecca

3.1.2 Earth is Spread Out and Flat

3.1.3 Earth is Like a Couch

3.1.4 Earth is Like a Carpet

3.1.5 Earth is a Wide Plain

3.1.6 Earth is Level

3.2 Earth has Seven Atmospheric Layers

3.3 The Earth does not Rotate

3.4 Permanent Barrier between Fresh and Salt Water

3.5 Mountains Prevent Earthquakes

3.6 Mountains Cast into the Earth

3.7 Chest Contracts with Altitude

3.8 Earthquakes are a Punishment from God

3.9 Hurricanes and Blizzards are a Punishment from God

3.10 Rainwater is Pure

3.11 No Evaporation in Water Cycle

3.12 Hail Comes from Mountains in the Sky

3.13 Thunder is an Angel

4 Zoology

4.1 Bees Eat Fruit

4.2 Ants Recognize Humans and Speak with Each Other

4.3 Horses Created as Transportation

4.4 Bird Flight is a Miracle

4.5 Classification of Creatures

4.6 Only Eight Types of Cattle

4.7 Birth Defects and Imperfections

4.8 Poisonous Sea Life is Edible

4.9 Birds Fight Elephants

4.10 Sinful Animals

5 History

5.1 Wall of Iron between Two Mountains

5.2 Christians Worship Mary as Part of the Trinity

5.3 Noah's Ark holds Every Species

5.4 Pharaoh or Pharaohs

5.5 Jews call Ezra the Son of God

5.6 Supernatural Destruction of Cities

5.7 Humans can Sleep for Three Hundred Years

5.8 Humans can Live for a Thousand Years

5.9 Non-Existent Mosque in Jerusalem

6 Sociology

6.1 Fasting and Prayer Requirements at the Poles

6.2 People are Protected in Mecca

6.3 Non-Muslims are Deaf, Dumb, and Blind

6.4 All Animals Live in Communities

6.5 Requirement to Learn in Arabic

7 Myths and Legendary Tales

7.1 Humans Transformed into Apes

7.2 Tribe Trapped Behind a Wall

7.3 Supernatural Food

7.4 A Stick Transforms into a Serpent

7.5 Solomon's Army of Genies and Birds

7.6 Jonah Performs Repentance inside a Fish

7.7 Muhammad Flies on a Winged Horse to Heaven

7.8 Body Parts Speak

7.9 The Ocean Split in Half

7.10 Solomon can Control the Wind

7.11 A Dead Man Testified against his Killer

7.12 Animals Speak to Humans

7.13 Mountains and Birds can Sing Songs

8 Others

8.1 Mathematical Error in Hereditary Laws

8.2 People use the Forehead to Lie

8.3 Space Flight is Impossible

I don't think there are many "one-line slams" that wouldn't draw attention. Focus on teaching your kids critical thinking, and be a kind, loving parent. IDK the situation with your spouse, but if you can, be honest (and respectful) when your kids ask what you believe. Show them that you and spouse can have different beliefs and still love each other.

Depending on their ages, the [Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments] (https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Book-Bad-Arguments/dp/1615192255/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1541178668&sr=8-1&keywords=illustrated+book+of+bad+arguments) could be a fun way to help them recognize logical fallacies. It's not directly about the church, but that helps keep your efforts under-the-radar, and the concepts can help them in many areas of life.

Well, are you a good writer? I recommend this book quite often, but look up Rhetorical Grammar by Kolln and Gray. If you're not very good at grammar or writing in general, you're going to need a lot of practice before that book becomes useful. But what that book will teach you is how to use sentence patterns and grammar to impart extra meaning and emphasize certain features. So basically, delivery.

Any comedian can tell you that the power of a joke is all in its delivery. In writing, your delivery is how you construct the prose. Terry Pratchett is really a master of this. The greatest pun I've ever read was from him, and there was like 5 pages of setup in which I never expected the pun, but then suddenly, there it was and it was perfect.

Also, unless you're Terry Pratchett, avoid puns.

Hmmm... depends on exactly what you are looking for... (you may also want to pose this question in /r/writing).

Start with these if you're looking for fiction writing help: The 10% Solution by Ken Rand

The Elements of Fiction series (I personally liked Nancy Kress's: Beginnings, middles & ends.

Immediate Fiction I haven't read it yet, but it looks pretty good.

There are a hundreds of other books out there, and a couple that focus more specifically on style, but Elements covers the majority of the subject fairly well. This one might be a little closer to what you're wanting.

Hope this helped.

First, you will have to convince me to release my secrets.

Okay I am kidding. But a while back I wanted to get really good at winning arguments. I bought books and learned the logical fallacies. When I tried to go into debates and the person I was debating would say "I believe god because no one has proved he doesn't exist" nobody was impressed when I would respond by saying "Oh that's the negative proof fallacy" Nobody cared if it was fallacy or not, the argument satisfied their need to believe in god. Study and application of formal fallacies work better in academic situations.

This taught me one important thing. People will not give up a position until they are emotionally ready to. No amount of logic in the world can overcome an emotionally committed believer. Ask anyone who converted from theism to atheism and I bet you the first traces of their atheism came with some sort of emotional realization or question ("Why does god allow suffering to exist?"). This means if you want to convince someone, you need to have what I might call "emotional foreplay" which does not need to be strictly logical, but opens the other persons mind to your position.

Once you have the person warmed up, you can start to present logic arguments. People love to be "logically correct", it makes them feel smart. Emotional readiness makes them feel righteous, logical correctness makes them feel intelligent. But remember that during your logical presentation you should still have an eye on their emotional readiness to accept your argument. Sometimes people go back to being emotionally not ready.

Also you have to know when to give up. Sometimes there are true believers who you could never convince in any worthwhile amount of time. It is useless to try and convince in private, but public debate can be good if you have an audience. With true believers, the goal is not to convince them (you wont, and if you try you will just be frustrated) it is to publicly shame them, and by extension shame what they represent. Don't make it too blatant, or the observer will see what you are doing and chose the other person out of pity. Pretend to come off as someone willing to compromise, someone reasonable. If you can walk the fine line between "too far" and "not enough" you will get to a point where the crowd sees you making perfect arguments, but your opponent will be unconvinced and become extremely frustrated, making them lash out. At that point, you win. Be careful when you do public shaming because it makes bitter enemies.

Also be aware of context. If you use shaming privately, you are doing it wrong. The right type of debate tactic for the right situation is needed.

EDIT: If you still want to learn about logical fallacies, I recommend this book for everyday arguments.

An excellent first introduction to Aristotle is Lear's Aristotle: The Desire to Understand. An excellent introduction that goes beyond the basics is Giovanni's A History of Ancient Philosophy, Vol. 2: Plato and Aristotle.

The standard English translations of Aristotle are in two volumes of Barnes' The Complete Works of Aristotle.

The traditional order to read the key texts would be to read the first volume of the Barnes edition in order up to and including On the Soul (skipping the spurious On the Universe), then from the second volume read Nicomachean Ethics then Metaphysics.

Alternately, you could start with what seems interesting and not too daunting. Nicomachean Ethics is a good place to start. Politics, Rhetoric, and Poetics are good choices, especially if you're interested in the subject matter. If the logic bores you, you could start with the physical and psychological works in the first volume.

I would say a single book addressing the topics you are integrating would be difficult to find but either multiple books or a collection of essays and book chapters would be a good approach.

• Crowley and Hawhee's Ancient Rhetorics for Contemporary Students is an introduction and move for historical contextualization and working through the movement of the field. (Classical Rhetoric, Philosophy, and English Composition approach)
  
• Palczewski, Ice, and Fritch's Rhetoric in Civic Life provides some very basic ties to classical rhetoric and looks at the move to rhetorical criticism in contemporary rhetorical studies. (Communication Studies approach) (Link to first edition; the edition this comment is based on)
  
• Miller's The Norton Book of Composition Studies has essays that address the English and Communication Studies divide but situates rhetoric as an important study regardless of the discipline that thinks owns it.
  
• Eyman's Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice gives a broad history of rhetoric and transitions this history into digital humanities. (Publisher's website link that has the full text of this book)
  
• Losh, Alexander, Cannon, & Cannon's Understanding Rhetoric: A Graphic Guide to Writing provides some significant background for constructing thoughts and arguments and situating what rhetoric is and what it can be.
  
• Dickinson, Blair, and Ott's Places of Public Memory is a fantastic edited collection with essays situating monuments and memorials.
  
• In a similar line to Dickinson et al., you could look at Hariman and Lucaites's No Caption Needed text to examine visual rhetoric as well or even their more recent text The Public Image.
  
  I don't know that any one of these texts would be necessary for students to purchase but a smattering of readings from them may be worth pulling into the course. Additionally, essays from significant scholars or journals (similar to what Miller's book has) that are reasonably up-to-date would probably go further than any textbook can. Although for understanding the Greek tradition or classical rhetoric, some of the tried-and-true texts such as Crowley and Hawhee's are a good place to turn.
  
  edit: added links to make it easier for me to find these things when I return to this post.

That's a good book. It's more of a reference.

You might also consider Farnsworth , or Arthur Quinn. Less of a guidebook, but interesting nonetheless is Words Like Loaded Pistols. This may be overkill for you, but there is a very good section in the last 1/3 of this book that is very good: Classical Rhetoric. There are lots and lots more depending how much you want to get into it.

Sounds like a Fallacy of Composition: when one "infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole."

Alternatively, it can be a Hasty Generalization, if only after drawing a few marbles from a container, one were to conclude that all marbles must be like the drawn ones.

Recommended fallacy book: How to win every argument. The examples used are often quite amusing.

A word of caution: while /u/ProbableWalrus has succeeded in making your first few paragraphs more interesting, his version is still error-ridden. You'll need a solid understanding of grammar and punctuation if you want to get published.

I think Martha Kolln's Rhetorical Grammar would help you tremendously. It provides a thorough-but-accessible overview of modern phrase-structure grammar, favoring critical, rhetorical decision-making over rote memorization. If you're interested in something more advanced, Steven Pinker's The Sense of Style is also wonderful. Pinker is on the cutting edge of modern linguistics.

I'm an English teacher.

If you want to learn on your own, I promise you, following this book from front to back will give you what you want.

This used to be the "gold standard" English grammar book used in schools across the US, until companies like Pearson got into the for-profit education business.

This book goes into ALL of the grammatical rules, including subject verb agreement, number agreement, nouns, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, gerunds, when to use "whom," all of the tenses and moods of words, how to format a letter, how to properly abbreviate certain words, and so much more.

See, the thing is, repeating what I say doesn't do anything. Learning to argue will make you a much more interesting person. I strongly suggest Thank You for Arguing and This gem of a book.

The latter requires a good deal of reading comprehension to truly gain anything from it, so good luck.

Perhaps in some it is ignorance or hatred, but for many it is simply the most basic of human psychological reactions to such atrocity: denial. This is backed up with tons of logical fallacies.

I think if we approach Holocaust deniers - or other conspiratorially minded folks with compassion to help them cope with the magnitude of their internal fears, and continually redirect their impulse to utilize flawed logic, it may be a path to improving the current state of affairs.

Formal training in logic really ought to be mandatory. This is a good place to start. Kahane's book is great resource to help educate the ignorant.

It was [The Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments] (https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Book-Bad-Arguments/dp/1615192255/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1520019165&sr=8-2&keywords=illustrated+logical+fallacies). It doesn't cover every fallacy out there, but it's a great beginning. Good for teenagers and college kids, too.

Well, the gold standard is the 2 volume Oxford translation:

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-Aristotle-Vol-1/dp/069101650X

But the logical works are in a separate volume from the ethics and metaphysics.

Hackett is generally good too - this volume seems to have exactly what you're looking for:

http://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-Introductory-Readings-Hackett-Classics/dp/0872203395/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418606074&sr=1-1&keywords=hackett+aristotle

EDIT: Based on the Amazon reviews, these might be better alternatives to the Hackett edition:

http://www.amazon.com/Aristotle-Selections/dp/0915145677/ref=cm_cr_pr_sims_i

http://www.amazon.com/New-Aristotle-Reader-J-Ackrill/dp/0691020434/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1418606837&sr=1-2&keywords=ackrill+aristotle

I asked the AP language and Rhetoric teacher across the hall, this is what he suggested.

Couple of books:

Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric; Kahane and Cavendar

Everyday Use; Roskelly and Joliffe

Actually, those two are the best, really, as far as short primers go.

A nice supplemental website is BYU’s rhetoric page, Sylva Rhetoricae.

Also, for some good examples, even though it doesn't have a lot in the way of definitions, you can use American Rhetoric

Edit: Sorry, just noticed the double post :(

I'd check out Warriner's. It's a good continuing textbook style grammar book. I used the Warriner's series through middle and high school. It's a little old, but the grammar hasn't changed. You can probably find a pdf on the internet somewhere. Haven't found it on a non-torrenting site yet. Definitely worth the investment.


Amazon Link of Book I Had in Middle School

Amazon Link for the Complete Guide

Edit: More links

PDF for some overview and practice

Punctuation and Such Guide

Have you read any of the more recent books on rhetoric and debate? I am referring to books such as Thank You for Arguing and How to Win Every Argument. What do you think of such books? Do you have any texts which you would recommend?

Rhetoric- I'd pick up a copy of The Rhetorical Tradition. It's kind a textbook, in a way, but mostly it's a huge collection of primary texts from the entire history of rhetoric with some decent editorial content that helps to tie everything together. Grammar? Start with everything Chomsky has written.

I would recommend the book Sense of Structure I'm a Ph D in Comp Sci and we use it as our writing guidebook. I suffer from the same types of stress. The stress is rooted in a desire to succeed and perform at the highest level. Something you have already achieved! You have run successful experiments, forging a new path for your life. Continue to do so, in the grand scheme of life a few weeks is a mere moment.

You're confusing a strawman with a non-sequitur. Start here: http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Contemporary-Rhetoric-Reason-Everyday/dp/0495804118

Now you're beating the strawman. I never said that we should be okay with inherited or unearned wealth (in fact I explicitly argued against it, especially arena subsidies). Nor did I argue against a progressive tax regime or taxes on wealth, especially capital. What I did argue is that professional sports, especially players, create wealth by making a product that scales. One that people all over the world are willing to pay for without coercion. Unless you're arguing that we should somehow pick winners and losers and maximum profit (sort of like how the salary cap works today) then you haven't really said anything.

The onus is on to prove your point. You made an assertion (that large disparities are bad) and you've yet to back any of that up.

Don't know how old your kids are. Maybe try these?

• [Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments] (https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Book-Bad-Arguments/dp/1615192255/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1504731008&sr=8-1&keywords=illustrated+book+of+bad+arguments) to help them recognize faulty reasoning.
  
  
• [Science Mom video] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPvo7DkrFjo). This episode is actually about the color of blood (which is actually interesting on its own), but it does a great job explaining confirmation bias in a way kids can understand.

The Elements of Style by Strunk and White is a classic. It's useful for rote memorization of grammar rules and fundaments. Once you've got a decent grasp of those rules, pick up Williams and Bizup's Style, which is better for practical use.

Edit: Silly me — I didn't actually address your request, OP. You probably want a book on sentence diagramming. I haven't read any, but you might check out the top results on Amazon.

Smart to wait until you moved out and become independent!

As far as a good way to explain it, check out this book. It explains it in plain language with illustrations.

Classics. I just picked up this book, but I've been reading through a lot of the resources from /r/rhetoric.

Not only do I love me some classical learnin', my goal is to rhetoric to help my standup, and my standup to help my rhetoric.

An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments by Ali Almossawi, Alejandro Giraldo (Hardcover) becuase it's frickin hilarious and the art is awesome xD

https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Works-Aristotle-Vol-1/dp/069101650X

EDIT: Google is enjoying enforcing copyright restrictions, but said reference looks like it begins here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Jzd7Uh5Zco0C&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=arcadia

We're reading it in my senior seminar (ENGL 418 Argumentation). It does a fantastic job of relating current issues such as abortion, gun control, social media (Sarah Palin tweets to Barack Obama in previous elections or speeches in congress), television, etc., to core principles of ancient rhetoric such as stasis theory, etc.

It's really great, because it is generally easy to read and really helps you create your own heuristics. Another good book, but more difficult and more over the history of rhetoric is rhetorical traditions. It's not necessarily hard to read, but is very information dense. http://www.amazon.com/The-Rhetorical-Tradition-Readings-Classical/dp/0312148399

Rhetoric is an entire genre of literature on the subject. I'm not up on the best contemporary introductions to rhetoric, which I'm sure there are many of good quality, but both literally and figuratively, Aristotle wrote the book on it.

Intuitively, practice is the key.

I don't know shit but here are some resources you might be interested in:
Online Berkeley Rhetoric 10 course:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978535

Book:
http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Every-Argument-Abuse/dp/0826498949

Read, read, then write a bunch. Write with a plan, but without too much regard to grammar. Then, when you revise, follow Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace... helped a bunch for me.

I read Language in Thought and Action a very long time ago, when I was doing my studies.

Instead of suggesting specific authors, I recommend "The Rhetorical Tradition" by Bizzell and Herzberg as a very solid overview of the themes/theories/big names in the history of Rhetoric. http://www.amazon.com/The-Rhetorical-Tradition-Readings-Classical/dp/0312148399/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331674353&sr=1-1

The book that immediately comes to mind is How to Win Every Argument by Madsen Pirie. It's quite witty and really covers all of the fallacies well. The title is a bit cliche but that's how you sell books I guess. It's solid content

My other books are unfortunately in storage right now so I can't go to the shelf, but if I get a chance I will update this post with the titles, I need to review some of them anyway..

http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Rhetorics-Contemporary-Students-Edition/dp/0205175481

Preemptive thanks for the gold!

I noticed you use the appeal to hypocrisy also known as Tu quoque. Very smart move yet stupid move, in the future I would recommend not using it. I will recommend you a book called "An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments"

This book is written in a way an elementary student will understand it, hopefully it will help you with your critical thinking skills.

English Grammar for Students of Latin

Warriner's English Grammar and Composition, complete course. Stephen King recommends this in his On Writing. This is the one I have been self-teaching from. It has served me well.

I got asked to teach Sunday school in early December when the lady running it was on vacation...... I couldn't help myself and did a lesson on logic. Used this book http://www.amazon.com/An-Illustrated-Book-Bad-Arguments/dp/1615192255. Had 8 13 year olds going home talking about logical fallacies.... I was removed from the class before the next service.... Grin.

I think this book is one of the better catalogs of fallacies. It is just a big catalog. It is extensive and it is written to be accessible. Students like it.

Of course, there is no shortage of resources out there. I do think this is a valuable one.

This is a wonderful book on writing. Find an older edition for cheap or get it online. It goes in depth into exactly what differentiates good prose from bad. The section on grammar clarifies what a lot of other classic style books (Strunk & White) get wrong.

Also check out Sense of Style by Steven Pinker for a recent scientific approach to writing. He has a few lectures on it online if you want something more podcast-y.

Lol I tried to summarize modern markets and how tech giants are formed. I don't reply for you, but anyone who wants to develop their understanding of it. If it's beyond something you choose to understand, no problemo homie, it ain't for everyone. You do you.

If you want to hear my life story, you're gonna have to at least buy me dinner at a truck stop and let me draw you naked.

This is also one that might interest you.

When my brother moved out, he gave me An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments by Ali Almossawi. It’s a really interesting short book of the different kinds of logical fallacies and false argument strategies. It’s a really cool book that’s perfect for a coffee table with all of these plus more.

This book doesn't include any of Aristotle's works - it's a companion piece that contains essays about Aristotle. If you want Aristotle's works, there is a Complete Works of Aristotle in two volumes.

http://www.amazon.com/EPZ-How-Win-Every-Argument/dp/0826498949
That's all you need baby.

Style by Joseph Williams changed how I write. I don't stick to it strictly, but I keep the rules in mind thoroughly.

I'd start here and work your way from there.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1615192255/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526416437&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=an+illustrated+book+of+bad+arguments&dpPl=1&dpID=61-3bJwurUL&ref=plSrch

This should be at your grade level. It's got pictures too!

https://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Book-Bad-Arguments/dp/1615192255

In the US.


I'm not american.

For future reference.

https://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-12th/dp/0134080416/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=joseph+williams+ten+lessons+in+clarity+and+grace&qid=1559123839&s=gateway&sprefix=Joseph+Williams+&sr=8-1

Soooooooo a Front Row Motorsports driver losing his entire ride because he was racing for the win and his move happened to fuck over your Penske driver as well as himself? I've got a book for you to read.

I would suggest you look up George Gopen's work, e.g. The Sense of Structure. Part of what his books cover is also available in The Science of Scientific Writing, an American Scientist article that's readily viewable online. I attended one of his workshops, and it did a lot for my writing. It also explained in clear terms things I'd innately recognized but always had trouble conveying to others when I proofread their work.

Despite the title referring to "scientific writing", the takeaways are applicable to any English writing. Namely, rather than focusing on the 'rules' of English, he focuses on how readers parse English sentences and paragraphs, and thus how writers should structure their ideas in order to convey the message they intend readers to receive.

Archives for the links in comments:

• By hga_another (amazon.com): http://archive.is/L1vpv
  
• By hga_another (amazon.com): http://archive.is/dXcyz
  
• By hga_another (amazon.com): http://archive.is/submit/
  
• By hga_another (amazon.com): http://archive.is/submit/
  
• By hga_another (reddit.com): http://archive.is/submit/
  
• By hga_another (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/vx0lC
  
  
• By hga_another (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/iARkh
  
• By foot_kisser (stephenhicks.org): http://archive.is/submit/
  
• By quietthomas (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/wfWC6
  
  
• By quietthomas (marxists.org): http://archive.is/t5AXr
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.1, My face is tired. ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

If you're looking to get them into general critical thinking (which would help in the long run surely), I've always held that having this book lying around can get some juice flowing.

[An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments] (http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-Book-Bad-Arguments/dp/1615192255/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1462815567&sr=8-1&keywords=illustrated+fallacies)

True, not sure the comment above me embodies that. Whataboutism is more difficult to identify since it's often easy to fall into as kneejerk reaction to any comparison, though it is very real and happens frequently.

OPs comment was just a classic no true scotsman and that needed to be pointed out.

I strongly recommend the little book of bad arguments.
An Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments https://www.amazon.com/dp/1615192255/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_e.KZBb4XGNVP2

>Not that reddit needs to be anymore hostile and argumentative. But hey, you know that saying "Some men just want to watch the world burn."?
>
>I did some magic with the google and came up with these results:
>
>- Google Books
>
>- Amazon
>
>- Free domain PDF - Thanks /u/mybalzich and /u/8bitsince86
>
>- Super Special Google Search
>
>- Review
>
>Edit: Fixed links
>
>Edit 2: You guys should check out this small and struggling independent radio station that is trying to make a difference in the evil, corrupt, and greedy mess that is the music industry by starting from the bottom up to find talent. Radio Rebel Independent Music

I started with this illustrated book of bad arguments from Amazon. http://amzn.com/1615192255

I just let them read it and give them real life examples on the way to school. My wife rolled her eyes hard and laughed the first time our son told me my goofy comment was a poorly formed argument and illogical. Kids are smart as hell, they just need to be cut loose. I also used a book called raising freethinkers for ideas.

> first, they start by reframing the discussion so that A) it looks like a moderate position (public repentance of a wrong is a good thing) is the equivalent of an extreme view (racial violence is encouraged) and B) the other party in the discussion is insincere.

First, I started by pointing out your contradictory words.

>then they introduce the Gish Gallop. The Gish Gallop takes advantage of the fact that the time/effort/difficulty of spewing bullshit is lower than the refutation of said bullshit. for more information check out wikipedia.

Then, since you're not against judgement, I asked which specific judgement you're judging, which you are unable to address except by misusing the term "gish gallop".

>It is helpful to the troll to ignore the fact that multiple things can be true at the same time (in this case, that racism is bad and that acknowledging racist thoughts/actions in ourselves can help fight it).

Then you randomly suggest two unstated things could, maybe, be true, without actually saying either is true - or what you think might be true.


>This is where the "concern" part of "concern trolling" comes in. here /u/redroguetech is saying that /u/Whatsthedealwithit11 (and others who agree) are making problems worse by not dealing with the real problem and that his(?) view is both strategically, and morally, wrong.

Then, in pointing out that you're judging PC warriors judging someone somehow makes some unstated problem somehow worse (despite that two things could be true).

>More Gish Gallop.

More random misuse of a term.

>more misrepresentation. Clearly, the issue /u/whatsthedealwithit11 was disgusted by was "shaming people for admitting to becoming a better person" but out troll twisted that into "poor Neeson"

And lastly, deflection and vague denial that you had a point to begin with.

>Now, the issue is "why would someone do this?" There are 2 answers, either A) /u/redroguetech wants to sew discord into the discourse and generally spread the idea of bad-faith arguments being the norm [lots of international soft-power to be gained by doing this on a largely American and European social media website] or B) /u/redroguetech is an alt-righter trying to show the "problems" with PC-culture and earn cool-points while "owning the libs at their own game." (yes, I know I said Russian at the start, but it could be someone furthering their goals unwittingly.)

Now, the issue is "why would someone do this"? There are two answers, either A) They really are that incapable of basic rationality, and B) They're racist and hate anyone judging people for wanting to murder black people.

The best way for the troll to have a world in which dull racist people are welcome is to make arguments that consist of blah blah whaaa bu-bu-but ad hominem word making.

EDIT: for more information about how this works check out the child's book An Illustrated Guide to Bad Arguments.

NOTE (consperacy theory rant): The russian government and alt-right media has made people so accepting of irrationality and racism to the point where people actually openly support murdering black people, and literally aren't able to see why that might be a problem. This issue is so beyond the ken of right-minded people, it's clear the best we can fight for is to delay the ultimate slide into facism and rampant genocide.