Originally Posted by Brian Ratliff
It is also not helpful to use a retorical device in the midst of a discussion amongst equals. Concern about traffic and comfort during traffic cycling is not to be dismissed in a discussion amongst equals, but rather talked about in neutral terms and broken down to its components and felt out. We are having a discussion amongst equals, are we not?
I don't understand the relevance of "equals" to the appropriateness of using rhetorical devices. Perhaps you're thinking such devices are only useful in the context of someone trying to
teach someone else?
I think they're useful in any context where people are trying to communicate meaning and concepts among each other, which is exactly what's going on here. Let's not forget that concepts are maintained in our minds and go through two translation processes when attempting to convey between people. The "sender" has to translate his concept into written English, and then the "reciever" has to translate the written English into a concept in his mind. Both translation points are imperfect (few concepts can be fully and accurately conveyed in ordinary written language - this is why technical areas, like math, law, medicine, computer science, etc,. have to have their own specific technical language) and prone to error. Written English is limited. It is very difficult to accurately translate a concept undamaged from one person to another through this process. Yet this is exactly what we must do in this forum, except when we can augment what we're trying to convey with photos or video clips, which is always a great help. But "rhetorical devices" are also useful, however imperfect, in improving this never-perfect process.
If "anti-Foresterites" are accused of interpreting a retorical device literally, then the "Foresterites" are accused of using this said retorical term to dismiss legitimate topics of discussion. One begets the other: If "Foresterites" use the term in a literal fashion, as in using the term to accuse member of having this condition as a justification for dismissing their ideas out of hand, then the "anti-Foresterites" have no choice than to interpret the term literally.
The term needs to be dropped in these discussions altogether. That means everyone.
It is just as inappropriate to interpret what someone says literally rather than make a genuine effort to understand what they really mean as it is to use a rhetorical device to disingenuously dismiss a legitimate topic.
But those are reasons to not interpet literally and to not dismiss legitimate points; neither is a reason to stop using rhetorical devices altogether.