Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 12:52:58 GMT -5
Most people have heard the word "rhetoric" but sometimes it's fun to stop and think about what it actually is. Rhetoric is just the art of constructing an argument, and rhetorical devices are just the different techniques used to make your argument stick. We usually think of rhetoric in terms of politics but really it is used all the time -- even right here on little old Adamtopia. Of course, not all arguments are created equal. When you have a weak argument, but you still want to defend it -- that is, you don't want to concede that you lost the argument -- there are certain rhetorical devices you can fall back on. One of these devices is called moving the goalposts. An example might be an argument about whether a given person would be a good frontman for the rock band Queen. You might start with the position that a given person -- say, Adam Lambert -- should be a brilliant interpreter of the music of Queen. Until he proves that, he is not a suitable frontman. So now suppose Adam Lambert performs with Queen many times and proves he is indeed a brilliant interpreter of the music. Then you might move the goalposts and say that just being a brilliant interpreter is not enough. Now, in order to be a suitable frontman for Queen, a given person has to be able to work as a creative collaborator with Brian and Roger, challenging them to do new work and acting as more or less an equal to them. I believe such an argument was advanced here several weeks ago. So now suppose such a possibility was advanced in an press conference, however casually. Suppose it was suggested that Adam Lambert might indeed work creatively with Queen at some point. This might seem awkward, but not if you move the goalposts. Now, you might argue, that would be all very well, but all it would really prove was that the collaborator was, well ... a bit of a loser. Someone who could stand toe-to-toe with Brian and Roger, perhaps, but until achieving a rip-roaring commercial hit on his own, lacking nonetheless. Rhetorical devices are really pretty interesting to think about. Sometimes they really make you wonder about arguments and the people who make them. Thank you so much for this post!!! Thanks for teaching me something new, and for writing intelligently about something I have noticed happen over and over again. ( It was driving me crazy, but I wasn't able to identify the problem, or talk intelligently about it). I would LOVE if you wrote more about other rhetorical devices. For example, when people say things that are only partially true and 'sell' them as complete truths, and you can't argue that what they say is untrue because it probably isn't, it just isn't the complete truth and feels inaccurate, it paints a false picture? You know what I mean? What a mess of a sentence, sorry:))) Thanks grandduchess and aleks. It is fun to have some other fans of rhetoric in the house. aleks, the rhetorical device you mention is known variously as half-truth, lie by omission, or suppressed evidence. When employing this device, everything you say is true. You simply fail to mention bothersome facts that do not support your views. This makes your beliefs appear to be well-grounded, and lead those who do not know all the omitted facts to believe in your conclusion. In reality, the omitted facts might make a huge difference. Their inclusion might expose your entire argument as false. Devices closely related to the half-truth are known as sly suggestions, fear mongering, and patronizing attitudes. For example, a line like "He might want a music career" would be a sly suggestion. After all, it's true, isn't it? Yet look how it might put someone on the defensive. Your opponents will probably go running off after the hare, making this a very effective way to distract from the weakness of the actual position being argued. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 12:54:03 GMT -5
While writing my long ass post, I see that Q3 has said pretty much the same thing. Also, I am currently trying to figure out if I now fall into juniemoon's, "Rhetorical devices are really pretty interesting to think about. Sometimes they really make you wonder about arguments and the people who make them." category and if I should go straight over to her house and apologize. Bring brownies if you do. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 13:01:08 GMT -5
While writing my long ass post, I see that Q3 has said pretty much the same thing. Also, I am currently trying to figure out if I now fall into juniemoon's, "Rhetorical devices are really pretty interesting to think about. Sometimes they really make you wonder about arguments and the people who make them." category and if I should go straight over to her house and apologize. nah not with that post, ok you are both my favorites! Alex too! Now I have a question. Anyone willing to do a comparison of sound/feel of The Forum and the Joint? I am trying to decide if the Forum is worth driving an additional 1000 miles or so for that concert. The I15 on the 4th of July could be and prob will be murder and mayhem, so do I see Adam in Vegas and skip LA or is the experience of him at the Forum worth it. I lucked out and got a good ticket at the Joint for the first night and I want the floor the second to compare the difference. Never did GA. Do I need combat boots? |
|
|
|
Post by LindaG23 on Mar 9, 2014 13:02:05 GMT -5
While writing my long ass post, I see that Q3 has said pretty much the same thing. Also, I am currently trying to figure out if I now fall into juniemoon's, "Rhetorical devices are really pretty interesting to think about. Sometimes they really make you wonder about arguments and the people who make them." category and if I should go straight over to her house and apologize. Bring brownies if you do.  Hmmm, wait .... with or without pecans? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 13:04:30 GMT -5
Bring brownies if you do. Hmmm, wait .... with or without pecans? pecans.  |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 13:05:56 GMT -5
Speaking of finances, I've been meaning to ask how is this tour going to be financed? Is it all Brian&Roger, or is Adam also going to contribute? First I thought that it would be financed solely by Brian and Roger, but since that rumour that it was Adam who had invited them, I wondered if the dating rules applied, so the one who invited for dinner&movies gets to pay?  ) |
|
kat111
Member
Posts: 143
Location:
|
Post by kat111 on Mar 9, 2014 13:12:04 GMT -5
Regarding the Rolling Stone cover possibility. - Shosh said there would be a magazine cover when the time was right. Huge possibility this could be Rolling Stone magazine cover with the Queen and Adam tour. So excited to get tickets tomorrow for Winnipeg. Was prepared to go to Vancouver but then saw Winnipeg listed. Second day of tour, first day of summer. Fantastic!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 13:14:27 GMT -5
Thank you so much for this post!!! Thanks for teaching me something new, and for writing intelligently about something I have noticed happen over and over again. ( It was driving me crazy, but I wasn't able to identify the problem, or talk intelligently about it). I would LOVE if you wrote more about other rhetorical devices. For example, when people say things that are only partially true and 'sell' them as complete truths, and you can't argue that what they say is untrue because it probably isn't, it just isn't the complete truth and feels inaccurate, it paints a false picture? You know what I mean? What a mess of a sentence, sorry:))) Thanks grandduchess and aleks. It is fun to have some other fans of rhetoric in the house. aleks, the rhetorical device you mention is known variously as half-truth, lie by omission, or suppressed evidence. When employing this device, everything you say is true. You simply fail to mention bothersome facts that do not support your views. This makes your beliefs appear to be well-grounded, and lead those who do not know all the omitted facts to believe in your conclusion. In reality, the omitted facts might make a huge difference. Their inclusion might expose your entire argument as false. Devices closely related to the half-truth are known as sly suggestions, fear mongering, and patronizing attitudes. For example, a line like "He might want a music career" would be a sly suggestion. After all, it's true, isn't it? Yet look how it might put someone on the defensive. Your opponents will probably go running off after the hare, making this a very effective way to distract from the weakness of the actual position being argued. Ah, you are simply the best:))) That is the most infuriating rhetorical device! I hate it, but I think only because I can't outspeak people who use it. I need lessons:) I can pay you in lavish compliments and gratitude:))) |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 13:29:28 GMT -5
Adam Lambert @adamlambert
“@cozyloveliam: @adamlambert can u please release ur new album soon i need more songs to listen to!!!” I'm working on it! Believe me!
I believe the word Adam used about the album was "embryonic". While he uses words precisely most of the time this could mean something as simple as incomplete rather than in a rudimentary phase
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Location:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2014 13:33:55 GMT -5
Talon, a very fair analysis and exactly what I meant yesterday about opportunity cost. The opportunity cost for Brian and Roger choosing the QAL tour is indeed very small, unless they are using a large portion of their retirement to fund it which I very seriously doubt as they seem too smart for that. So the only real downside I can see for them choosing this option over just continuing along with their other current projects is perhaps if the tour doesn't do well and the Queen brand is negatively impacted. Even that wouldn't impact a new album of lost Freddie tracks because those fans like you who are wanting this would still buy regardless of the tour success. The upside of the QAL tour for them is not only financial but also life affirming. As you said, financially they probably do not need the tour. Their life styles are pretty set at this stage of their life and they have probably funded that style securely. This is a luxury that allows them to pursue their passions (animal rescue, etc.), but they wouldn't be Queen if music were not their main passion. As we age, if we are lucky, we gain wisdom, judgement, and composure: all good qualities but there are times when the excitement and thrill of our youthful passions elude us and are sorely missed. This is what I think Adam has brought to Brian and Roger and it is wonderful. They are young enough to still be able to perform as they did and old enough to appreciate the glory of it. I was in London and the joy was palpable. So for them, the opportunity cost of choosing to tour again is minimal. This is not true for Adam. He has chosen a tour with Queen and that choice involves taking two or three months out of his current timeline. What would he do in those two or three months instead: he would be working on A3 or maybe another episode of Glee (which since it is an acting part on TV is not placing his career as a recording artist on the line) or other things we do not know about. What would he gain from this: A3 would be out sooner and he would be firmly establishing himself as solely his own artist/songwriter/performer, succeed or fail, win or lose. I think this is the biggest opportunity cost for Adam, this perception that he cannot make it as a recording artist on his own. Adam has spent the last five years proving that Idol does not define him. But ultimately, that cost came with great reward so the opportunity cost was well worth it. The question now is, will touring with Queen reward him generously enough to overcome the possible perception that he cannot make it as a solo artist and any detriment that might have to his career. There is no question that he will benefit financially in the short term and what he does with that money is completely up to him. He will also likely expand his fanbase, but will it be people who will support his solo career, I don't know. The press involved with the tour will keep him in the public eye and undoubtedly be used to promote A3 which is a good thing. This has the potential for the most upside. A3 needs to be ready and if it is good, I think QAL will help it get a fair shake. As long as the tour is successful and I refuse to even consider that it won't be because the negative consequences for Adam would be so much greater than for Brian and Roger. One of the best pros for Adam is that he loves Queens music, the spectacular show, and I think has come to love the people. That kind of affirmation cannot be overly stressed. Still, the opportunity cost for choosing QAL is much greater for Adam.Unlike Brian and Roger, decisions Adam makes now will create ripples in the future that are difficult to predict and those risks will have a more measurable impact because of his long future. This is simply a business analysis and has nothing to do with my heart. I will support any decision he makes and do the small things that I can to advance his success because I believe in his future. I will buy multiple albums, go to multiple shows, click on all links that mention his name, buy merch and product until my credit cards bleed green. Selfishly, I want him around for as long as I am around because I cannot get enough of listening and watching him. Exactly!!! To pretty much everything, but especially the bolded part. By the way, now I know what opportunity cost is, and the two rhetorical devices Junie described. But in spite of googling the pics, I don't know what pecan nuts are, we don't have them around here:) |
|
