Jeffrey Luk's Blog

One of the increasing trends that we see is the denial of inherent human rights at all, whether they are an extension of progressive rhetoric domestically or of international concerns. Some such as Christian Far Right nationalists may deny human rights, but affirm natural rights. They may do so for a number of reasons, especially as progressive begin to increasingly associate human rights with social issues like abortion rights, LGBTQ+ rights, women's rights, some of which are incompatible with the conservative position. So, when a progressive is arguing using the basis of human rights as an assumed axiom, the conservative will simply deny them out of spite.  How then, should we advocate for human rights as a reasonable conservative? The more agreeable idea is human dignity. Human dignity, or the inherent value of human life that demands respect, is not only associated with the religious idea of intrinsic transcendent worth, but also recognizable in all cultures, regardless of back...

Aristotle's rhetoric is divided into three general categories: logos, pathos, and ethos. Is this sort of debate rhetoric outdated? Should we still strive to excel in all three categories?  The paradox of rhetoric is that in trying to convince an opponent, we have to appeal to all three rhetorical devices. However, in doing so, we open ourselves up to criticism. For example, an appeal to authority might be futile -- "just because you have the credentials doesn't mean you're right". In fact, your opponent, who has just pointed out your appeal to ethos, might use it against you in order to label you as untrustworthy and crooked depending on the lens through which they view your credentialing.  However, only appealing to logos might also have its issues. One might come off as blunt -- and even rude. In fact, one could argue that logos alone does more to insult than convince. For example, take the catchphrase "facts don't care about your feelings". Wherea...