DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Hillary Clinton Calls For Regime Change In Libya

**SoftrermaBioniaSat** · 07-04-2011, 07:40 PM

Hi' Alma.

I think there has been a misunderstanding, if Phoenix really wishes it, I'll talk about it here.

We as individuals are at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding the why and reason of these international events.
[...]
Perhaps we might start this process by asking .. what do national entities drink.

I'll let the content aside, my main interest is about the form this message use to convey his message. Plus, I have actually no intent to invest in a thread that I don't see as really relevant (this being my sole opinion). Anyway...
In the past I had lessons about "manipulative discourse" and this post held so many similarities with the strategies I learned that I had the need to check if my observations had some ground, and if those strategies were used, if it was intended. This has no public interest and is quite out of subject, sorry for that.

- I noted the "we" and thought first that it was unspecified, thus creating a fictional community. But now I'm more inclined to think it refers to USPol members. Still, I was surprised to be given a behavior I didn't recognize as mine.
- The message relies on a metaphor, that countries are like human beings. It's mostly justified, I won't discuss that, but it authorizes for comparisons I find risky. For example, saying a country "needs to eat" is somewhat true, as it's citizens have a given consumption, but it forgets it's own capacity of production, and it hides all the other needs a country can have, that I won't try to specify - I don't try to say what a country is.
- At a given moment you especially use emotions : when you see and hear individuals, you don't say what you see and it's up to the reader to imply it. It asks for a cognitive treatment, and the lead you give is laugh and cry, emotions that, if I trust what I learned, jams that treatment. Basically the inference made is the result of emotions and not a more objective deduction.

Again, I do not question the content, I'm only interested in those observations as strategies I would like to check, for personal interest. Could you please, Phoenix, confirm or reject my observations ? Sorry for others to annoy you with that.

07-04-2011, 07:40 PM	#6
SoftrermaBioniaSat Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 404 Senior Member	Hi' Alma. I think there has been a misunderstanding, if Phoenix really wishes it, I'll talk about it here. We as individuals are at a disadvantage when it comes to understanding the why and reason of these international events. [...] Perhaps we might start this process by asking .. what do national entities drink. I'll let the content aside, my main interest is about the form this message use to convey his message. Plus, I have actually no intent to invest in a thread that I don't see as really relevant (this being my sole opinion). Anyway... In the past I had lessons about "manipulative discourse" and this post held so many similarities with the strategies I learned that I had the need to check if my observations had some ground, and if those strategies were used, if it was intended. This has no public interest and is quite out of subject, sorry for that. - I noted the "we" and thought first that it was unspecified, thus creating a fictional community. But now I'm more inclined to think it refers to USPol members. Still, I was surprised to be given a behavior I didn't recognize as mine. - The message relies on a metaphor, that countries are like human beings. It's mostly justified, I won't discuss that, but it authorizes for comparisons I find risky. For example, saying a country "needs to eat" is somewhat true, as it's citizens have a given consumption, but it forgets it's own capacity of production, and it hides all the other needs a country can have, that I won't try to specify - I don't try to say what a country is. - At a given moment you especially use emotions : when you see and hear individuals, you don't say what you see and it's up to the reader to imply it. It asks for a cognitive treatment, and the lead you give is laugh and cry, emotions that, if I trust what I learned, jams that treatment. Basically the inference made is the result of emotions and not a more objective deduction. Again, I do not question the content, I'm only interested in those observations as strategies I would like to check, for personal interest. Could you please, Phoenix, confirm or reject my observations ? Sorry for others to annoy you with that.
	Quote