pinions of buddy don: aint nuthin changed in 2,500 years

las nites ugly display of base, misleadin n outrite lyin rhetorick at the rnc n the fack that nobidy seems to keer bout what lie is tole, just whuther it heps thar side, has me so deepressd i wood druther not rite.

i used to thank that thay wuz such a thang as progress, that after we had dun larnt that tiz a fallacy to thank repeatin a lie makes it true, that tiz a fallacy to attack a persun n thank yer attackin the argument that person is makin, that to put up a false view of yer opponent sos ye kin tear down the verr straw man ye created is rong, that tiz a fallacy to reduce everthang to two choices in a worl whar thays minny excluded by that kind of fallacy -- i used to thank we larnt frum such miss takes. i even thought dint nobidy wonta use hitlers teckneeks, such as the big lie, but i wuz rong. all that matters is whuther it heps yer side. lack i sed, i thought we larnt sumthin frum such miss takes n dint wonta repeat em. i thought we aimed fer sumthin higher n more honest.

but we dont. seems lack the sophists won out over plato n aristotle n all them nuanced flossofers. heres a lil more bout them sophists:

The most popular career of a Greek of ability at the time was politics; hence the sophists largely concentrated on teaching rhetoric. The aims of the young politicians whom they trained were to persuade the multitude of whatever they wished them to believe. The search for truth was not top priority. Consequently the sophists undertook to provide a stock of arguments on any subject, or to prove any position. They boasted of their ability to make the worse appear the better reason, to prove that black is white. Some, like Gorgias, asserted that it was not necessary to have any knowledge of a subject to give satisfactory replies as regards it. Thus, Gorgias ostentatiously answered any question on any subject instantly and without consideration. To attain these ends mere quibbling, and the scoring of verbal points were employed. In this way, the sophists tried to entangle, entrap, and confuse their opponents, and even, if this were not possible, to beat them down by mere violence and noise. They sought also to dazzle by means of strange or flowery metaphors, by unusual figures of speech, by epigrams and paradoxes, and in general by being clever and smart, rather than earnest and truthful.

looks to me lack them publican speech riters has been studyin up on thar sophistry.