A common obfuscation in human discourse in word choice—terms which make a statement literally true, yet with connotations unnecessary or expatiable. For example,

If you’ve lost more than ten times, you’re a failure.

This is literally true. Failing repeatedly constitutes being a failure.

But this sort of statement is fraught with another idea: that the failure to achieve a goal more than ten times implies that a person is pitiable on account of their significant proportion of losses, and that future victory on the current trajectory is extremely bleak, perhaps impossible.

This is what is typically meant by a statement which follows this pattern—but because it is literally true, merely claiming that it is false, with the intent of combating the associated ideas will likely be unfruitful.

This strongly resembles Intimations—but here we discuss the validity of value judgments, or Sentiments, while intimations are more concerned with factual information for general Interests or Morality.

Morally, if the author does not aver the associated ideas and is acquainted with the typical meaning of such a linguistic form, the action is a critical violation of intellectual freedom, since readers may come to believe something untrue as a result.

In terms of challenging the ideas with which a statement may be fraught, Three Questions will be helpful, namely the last set. These will force the author to explain a purported conflict of interests, thus educing the gap between the information the author cites and the interests. One may also explain that a particular term is connoting of ideas which are not applicable in the cause used by the original author.

POLEMIC

THE HOME OF REASON

Home

Topics

Featured

Trending

Hall of Fame

Official Posts

Account

Sign In

Subscriptions

Polemic

Pro

About

FAQ

Stats

Games

Privacy Policy

Content Policy

Terms of Service

Polemic

Phraseology

Discussion (0)

20

2

11.0K

Phraseology

POST

Recommended