"Tell me about it..."

"This team, every year, they recruit these guys... and, and uh they don't know the entire college is basically built on... tobacco."

Recent conversation from Glee.

4/28/2010 8:53:50 PM

I hate Illinois Nazis

4/28/2010 8:56:06 PM

DUKE, RAOUL

4/28/2010 8:57:01 PM

this belongs in Sports Chat (not to be confused with Sports Talk)

make it happen qfred

4/28/2010 8:57:46 PM

what is this Glee nonsense everyone is talking about?

4/28/2010 9:24:14 PM

for whatever reason, I don't mind the Nazis much (the original Nazis, that is...I don't like Neo-Nazis one bit)

ditto Hitler

I guess this makes me a bad person, but whatevs

4/28/2010 11:47:47 PM

Netstorm

Quote :

"Sex : M"

Quote :

"Glee"

4/28/2010 11:59:52 PM

i think i saw this gay group in my newsfeed on facebook

4/29/2010 12:04:52 AM

^^^ you don't mind hitler?

4/29/2010 12:17:11 AM

4/29/2010 12:20:05 AM

^^ He killed Jews and Gays. What's not to like? I admire such power.

4/29/2010 12:24:44 AM

^^^ nah, I really don't...I know I should, but I can't bring myself to do so

he was an extraordinary man, of the sort that only comes once in a century or so

I mean, purely by his own gifts, he rose from complete obscurity to dictator of a defeated nation...and then he transformed that defeated nation into the most powerful in Europe

and he was perhaps the greatest orator that ever walked the Earth

I dunno, I can't help admiring his gifts

4/29/2010 12:28:18 AM

^ He was..... WAIT FOR IT....
















































A FUCKING MIRACLE!!! (GO FUCK YOURSELF, MIRACLE BOY)

4/29/2010 12:29:56 AM

lol saab

4/29/2010 12:31:11 AM

dude, you sure are hostile...I really don't understand it

and the funny thing is, I don't think you're trolling...I think you really are angry, and you really were pissed off by that thread

lighten up, dude...I didn't say a damn thing against you

4/29/2010 12:31:52 AM

You gonna let me elastrate you or what miracle slut?

4/29/2010 12:35:03 AM

I bet you regard penis pics as miracles

4/29/2010 12:48:49 AM

I'm waiting for a response miracle slut.

4/29/2010 12:50:06 AM

can someone explain what is going on in that pic to me? esp in the small box. ball removal? or what.

4/29/2010 12:51:02 AM

Yes, it's called elastration. You use this tool:



to put a band around the scrotum. It cuts off all blood flow and the testicles and scrotum are completely dead within 12 hours. Then you can cut them off without any pain. The first 6-12 hours happen to be "excruciating", as most people put it, though.

I keep trying to find someone who will let me elastrate them son.


You can also use this thing called a burdizzo. It's a bit more crude.



It crushes the tubes that supply blood to the testicles and they die inside the scrotum. The body then re-absorbs them. This method leaves you with a scrotum and no balls though. It is pretty much impossible to do to yourself though, so you need a friend to do it for you and it's also excruciating and if done improperly it can be dangerous.

4/29/2010 12:52:42 AM

you could elastrate yourself, but then you couldn't go calling people "son" anymore

4/29/2010 12:54:14 AM

You keep avoiding the question like the miracle bitch you are. Being a miracle slut, you think they'll magically re-appear if you pray hard enough, so I don't see the problem.

4/29/2010 12:56:35 AM

SaabTurbo is all about touching people's junk these days.

4/29/2010 12:56:58 AM

no, I'm not going to let you elastrate me, you nutless son of a motherless whore

4/29/2010 12:57:47 AM

why would you want to remove your balls? just a question. i don't mean you...i mean generally why would SOMEONE want to remove their balls? is it the process that gets them off or the end result?

4/29/2010 12:58:24 AM

Quote :

"SaabTurbo is all about touching people's junk these days."

Oh, naw son, I'm not going to touch it son. I'm just going to cut it off after it's dead son.

Quote :

"why would you want to remove your balls? just a question. i don't mean you...i mean generally why would SOMEONE want to remove their balls? is it the process that gets them off or the end result?"

Well, this question is what originally intrigued me enough to read into this stuff. There are numerous reasons for doing it, but:

Quote :

"Most voluntary castrations fall into two categories. The first is those who are castrated as a result of a sexual fantasy, who find the idea arousing, and who plan on continuing to engage in sexual activity post-castration. The second are those who desire castration to put an end to that side of themselves, and plan to remain celibate after their testicles have been removed. "

4/29/2010 12:58:44 AM

See edit son!

4/29/2010 1:01:58 AM

Quote :

"^^^ nah, I really don't...I know I should, but I can't bring myself to do so he was an extraordinary man, of the sort that only comes once in a century or so I mean, purely by his own gifts, he rose from complete obscurity to dictator of a defeated nation...and then he transformed that defeated nation into the most powerful in Europe and he was perhaps the greatest orator that ever walked the Earth I dunno, I can't help admiring his gifts"

This is what edgy kids told themselves in high school.

The simple fact is that you're completely wrong.

4/29/2010 1:32:14 AM

While we're on the subject of UNC terrorists...

5/4/2010 12:55:18 AM

Goddamn this thread almost made me puke

5/4/2010 1:04:57 AM

thought I'd let this argument die

but if you want to elaborate on "You're completely wrong," feel free

fairly sure I'm right on all counts...I know my Hitler

5/4/2010 1:24:52 AM

Leaving out the genocide entirely:

Hitler was an idiot, he was too ambitious and never should have attacked russia before subduing Britain. He was also way too into useless and expensive superweapons that would never see the light of day.

5/4/2010 2:46:18 AM

He also wasn't that great of an orator, at all. People who know absolutely nothing about rhetoric often make this claim, citing that "lots of people really liked him".

5/4/2010 2:59:26 AM

for breakfast i had a packet of splenda

5/4/2010 7:48:05 AM

I never said he was a military genius, or that he possessed an ounce of military talent

I said

Quote :

"purely by his own gifts, he rose from complete obscurity to dictator of a defeated nation...and then he transformed that defeated nation into the most powerful in Europe"

which is true. On this basis, I call him extraordinary, notwithstanding the fact that he was a colossal failure as a commander-in-chief.

regarding his oratory, on what basis do you claim that he wasn't that great of an orator? I've never read anything about Hitler's oratory other than that it was absolutely phenomenal. And I mean, that was the foundation of how he built up the Nazi party; winning new converts with his speeches. Yes, "lots of people really liked him," but if lots of people really like your oratory, then you're a good orator, man.

5/4/2010 12:21:42 PM

Netstorm: you've said

Quote :

"This is what edgy kids told themselves in high school. The simple fact is that you're completely wrong."

and

Quote :

"He also wasn't that great of an orator, at all. People who know absolutely nothing about rhetoric often make this claim, citing that "lots of people really liked him"."

and then declined to elaborate on either of these points.

Please do so...what you've basically said so far is "You're wrong. That's what stupid people think."

5/4/2010 2:37:10 PM

Nothing in my 394.1 days on TWW has ever suggested to me that arguing with you was a good idea. I didn't even know until like last month that you weren't just a troll.

So no, I'd rather make unsubstantiated claims backed up only by my latent ethos established on the forums.


EDIT: I can justify my stance from these two statements you have made.

Quote :

"Yes, "lots of people really liked him," but if lots of people really like your oratory, then you're a good orator, man."

This because it's absolutely wrong, it demonstrates a plebeian understanding of rhetoric and language, even in the realm of politics, which is already skewed enough.

Quote :

"I've never read anything about Hitler's oratory other than that it was absolutely phenomenal. "

In other words, you're not very well read, because it is by absolutely no means a decided argument.

[Edited on May 4, 2010 at 7:29 PM. Reason : yea]

5/4/2010 7:27:16 PM

Quote :

"This because it's absolutely wrong, it demonstrates a plebeian understanding of rhetoric and language, even in the realm of politics, which is already skewed enough."

I don't know if you're referring to Hitler's oratory or my understanding thereof, but either way...

If there is one artform in which it is permissible to be plebeian and vulgar, it is oratory. The goal of oratory is to appeal to the crowd, i.e. the masses. And I don't know how in the world you can maintain that Hitler wasn't fantastically good at appealing to the masses through his speeches...which, by definition, makes him a superb orator.

Quote :

"In other words, you're not very well read, because it is by absolutely no means a decided argument."

Show me some reputable sources claiming that Hitler wasn't a fabulous orator.

5/4/2010 7:40:50 PM

Quote :

" If there is one artform in which it is permissible to be plebeian and vulgar, it is oratory. The goal of oratory is to appeal to the crowd, i.e. the masses. And I don't know how in the world you can maintain that Hitler wasn't fantastically good at appealing to the masses through his speeches...which, by definition, makes him a superb orator."

Look, dude, I'm a Rhetoric major, I don't give a shit if the grad student that taught your public speaking class couldn't be bothered to explain to you the principles of rhetoric and the classical understanding of language as an art. I said I wasn't going to argue with you because you've already shown in your statements that you don't know anything about rhetorical tradition or oratory practice, otherwise you wouldn't make such heavy-handed statements about the "extraordinary" nature of Hitler, or how oration is "vulgar". I said Hitler wasn't that great of an orator and he isn't, as classified by the requirements laid out by Aristotle when he invented the subject. You think that simply having an effect on your audience makes you a "great orator", but that's an uneducated understanding of rhetoric and language. If you knew any of the principles of oration, you'd know that it has been tediously written that rhetoric that goes against the ideals of koinen (the happiness of man) and embraces hedone (non-rhetoric, Hitler's most widely used tactic, one that he shares with terrorist pathology) is no longer considered oration, it is simply language. The simple fact is that you cannot refer to a man who speaks without the embrace of human kindness as an orator, because the very basis of rhetoric and oration forbid it. I don't care if you don't think that's what should qualify someone as a great orator, because these are the facts.


And if that alone wasn't a reason to say you're wrong and uneducated on the subject, let me continue in this argument I told you I wasn't going to make (because it wasn't worth my time).

Aristotle also discusses why a good orator never responds to an opponents enthymeme, or a statement made without given or proven basis--an argument that works off of assumption and does not offer evidence to justify this assumption. An opponent who argues with enthymeme often asks, rather, for the orator to prove his claim isn't right. For example:

Quote :

"and he was perhaps the greatest orator that ever walked the Earth"

Quote :

" Show me some reputable sources claiming that Hitler wasn't a fabulous orator."

Simply saying that you haven't read anything to the contrary isn't proof. You've made a claim, it's your job to prove it, not your opponent's to prove it wrong. You're a math major, for christssakes, haven't you taken even basic Logic? Rhetoric and Logic are like best friends. Guess what, the same principles of Logic apply in Rhetoric.



As far as the actual context of Hitler's speech, any first-year language student can tell you why he's not even close to the greatest orator in history. He used his words to his own cause, but that doesn't mean he used them to their greatest purpose--he just knew how people worked, who was dumb, who would listen to his empty promises and rhetorical fallacies. The only two speeches he ever made that are of relevance to people studying language are famous because they are the best preserved examples of widely-used rhetorical fallacy. Every argument he ever made broke the basic parameters of rhetoric and oration. Hitler wasn't a good orator or rhetor, he was a good con-man and politician. They aren't mutually exclusive. Rhetor and Orator is a title given to people who fit very specific parameters... and he didn't make the cut. Uneducated people don't know what really constitutes effective language--they think that historical events like this are more significant than they really are. The simple fact in the academic community is that Hitler isn't one of the greatest orators who ever lived, he's our constant reminder what a person who doesn't follow the principles of rhetoric can cause, he's a reminder that politicians are not always rhetors, and rhetors are never dictators.





I mean fucking christ, look before you leap. Call him a great politician if you want to, a domineering leader, but he wasn't one of the greatest orators in history. His words accomplished terrible and powerful things, but they weren't the words of an orator.

Also, take a fucking rhetoric class if you want to argue with me about historical tradition.

5/5/2010 1:31:10 AM

e-tuffness itt

5/5/2010 1:35:49 AM

I told him I wasn't going to argue with him, and he couldn't take that answer.

I need a crash course in not feeding the trolls.

5/5/2010 1:39:00 AM

I'm not going to say Hitler was the greatest at anything, but you're using semantics that nobody excerpt rhetoric majors care about.

Orator is commonly defined as a public speaker, nobody cares about aristotle and his moral rules of oration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orator#Modern_orators

I don't care whether wiki is accurate for the ancient greek definition of orator.

5/5/2010 1:40:14 AM

^You're proving my point. People uneducated in the actual form of argument and logic don't know what they're talking about. I simply asked that you not called him the greatest orator, because he's not.

5/5/2010 1:41:59 AM

I didn't call him the greatest orator, I just said he was militarily incompetent.

My point was that people interested in a specific field always get their panties in a wad over semantics, when the other party doesn't care and it would probably be best to not worry about the semantics.

I mean, if someone said "man the death star sure has a powerful laser" I as a starwars fan could go on a rant about how the death star's main gun is actually called a SUPERLASER and has nothing to do with the focused beams of light we call lasers.

But nobody would care, so instead I just say "yeah it does"

5/5/2010 1:53:23 AM

I was using the collective you, not literally that it was your claim. Sorry.






And you're still proving my point. If he didn't care about it then he shouldn't be aruging it vehemently like he knows all about it. The fact is that he's wrong by any standards. If I made a thread about how Calculus was discovered by Charles Babbage, I shouldn't be given a slide just because I'm not a Math major. If you're wrong, you're wrong. I agree that people outside a particular field don't know or care about the real terminology, and that's what I was showing. It's why I told him that I wasn't going to argue with him in the first place.

You're right, but that doesn't mean that he is.

5/5/2010 1:58:54 AM

First of all, if you're such a rhetorical purist, then why do you feel the need to personally insult your opponent in every other sentence?

Now, you claim that Aristotle invented rhetoric and laid out criteria for what constitutes good oratory, which, presumably, were then set for all time. But dude, Aristotle said a lot of things; he said that heavier objects fall faster than light objects, and that the sky consists of 55 crystalline spheres; and his logic was basically a drag on mathematical philosophy for the next 2000 years. Aristotle was just a man. You base your definition of good oratory on the theory "I majored in rhetoric, and they taught us what Aristotle said, and what YOU say contradicts what Aristotle said, therefore you're wrong." And that's a pretty poor argument, particularly on such a vague, theoretical subject as oratory, and particularly when the man you're citing died more than 2000 years ago.

Now, you say

Quote :

"The simple fact is that you cannot refer to a man who speaks without the embrace of human kindness as an orator, because the very basis of rhetoric and oration forbid it. I don't care if you don't think that's what should qualify someone as a great orator, because these are the facts."

Frankly, you're begging the question here. You're saying "I'm right because I'm right," or at best "I'm right because a bunch of people who write treatises on rhetoric for a living have decided to require that, by definition, oratory must appeal to human kindness." But that's totally ridiculous: surely there is an art to do doing what Hitler did (speaking in a skillful manner so as to sway crowds, withou regard to what instincts he appealed to) and if it's not oratory, then what the hell is it? To the great majority of people, "oratory" means "eloquent and persuasive public speaking;" it has nothing to do with the content of one's speech, or whether one uses the "embrace of human kindness" (funny words, coming from you.)

So basically, you maintain that anybody who lies, uses empty promises, or appeals to man's baser instincts in his speeches is not a good orator, no matter how eloquent he might be or how many people he might sway with his speeches. And pardon me, but that's a stupid fucking definition. If you think it's a good definition, then this argument is going nowhere. You can, at this point, say "I'm right, you're wrong," but rest assured that I (and most anyone of common sense) would feel the same way.

Quote :

" Simply saying that you haven't read anything to the contrary isn't proof. You've made a claim, it's your job to prove it, not your opponent's to prove it wrong. "

First of all, I've read a lot that SUPPORTS my position, and nothing to the contrary. And actually, dude, you're the one making the claim that is contrary to popular understanding...the burden of proof lies on you. And the only "source" you've presented is Aristotle, who was wrong about hundreds of things, obviously had nothing to say about Hitler in particular, and in any case was not the end-all and be-all authority on anything.

Finally, you say

Quote :

"Also, take a fucking rhetoric class if you want to argue with me about historical tradition."

You think your major makes you an infallible authority on this subject; but it doesn't, man. Ever heard of Pope's Pierian spring? You really come off as a classic example of someone who took just a sip.

5/5/2010 1:06:29 PM

lol, there's such a thing as a rhetoric major? wow, something even more useless than a history major.

[Edited on May 5, 2010 at 2:12 PM. Reason : k]

5/5/2010 2:12:20 PM

HITLER TALK ITT

5/5/2010 2:17:04 PM