--- Brian <cabrian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > PS In the interest of full disclosure I support the > military and > esteem those that serve, though I have not served. > From my great- > grandfather to my grandfather to my own father there > was an unbroken > chain of service across several branches of the > armed forces and they > served this country honorably. Hewitt's position is > no more negated > by his lack of service than those that said to > abolitionists "don't > like slavery? Don't own one." Arguments don't have > genders or > colors or records of service. *I'd suggest that you read some Aristotle. The appeal of rhetorical arguments is not purely logical (i.e. made of logos only) but depends crucially on how the moral personality of the one who is making the argument is perceived (i.e. on ethos). This is of special importance in ethical arguments where reasonable people do not expect to accomplish a pure logical demonstration, but hope instead to persuade others to take a certain course of action. A person who obviously does not practice what he preaches lacks the ability to use ethical appeal and thus his arguments might be at most of trivial interest. O.K. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html