The old communication and argumentation teacher in me loves this article:
"Use language that implies 'greater guilt' and inspires a thought process in the listener that likely concludes with the idea that your opponent is a deceitful, guilty, low-life, capable of 'God knows what' because he is hiding all of his 'real' improprieties from public view -- at least as long as he can hide them from becoming 'new revelations'. And do it in such a way that the listeners' conclusions far exceed the implications of the currently available evidence."
Oldest tricks in the book. Probably Aristotle's book, though he no doubt looked askance...
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder