#also the idea of body parts having a kind of autonomy or will unto themselves

[road-kill-eater]

im a big fan of the way you draw monsters with their cocks out. like its one of those little arrows in an iron wrought gate or the long curved nose of a creature or something. if there was any kind of bottom surgery that could do that to a guy i'd do it in an instant. anyway have a nice day! :-)

i feel kind of alienated from normal human genitalia in a way. its cool to see things that transgress and obfuscate those boundaries like my own body does, i suppose. or we are just deviants for no good reason. peace ✌️

[candythemew]

𝕿𝖍𝖗𝖆𝖇𝖔𝖗𝖓𝖊

~A Skekling Headcanon~

If you’ve been following me for a while now or talking to me on discord, you’ve probably heard me use the term “Thraborne” every once and a while when I talk about skeklings or urlings. For Example:

So what does that mean specifically? Well the short answer is: "Thraborne” is a term I came up with to describe my interpretation of second gen (and beyond) Skeksis or UrRu. Since they are born, not split from an original being like their forebears were, they are technically born of Thra. Being native to the planet since they were born there. Hence the term, “Thraborne!”  ((By the way, whoever wants to use this term or use this HC for their skek/urlings is 100% allowed to do so!))

What makes a Thraborne?    A Thraborne Skeksis, or a Thraborne UrRu; is the offspring of two of the original 18, (now 16) UrSkeks that were split. As they were now given physical form, their bodies were also now able to reproduce. Athough Thra had prevented this possible infestation for countless trine. However, now that the crystal grows darker and weaker by the day, the possibility of new life seems to be creeping into Thra. What else is there to know? 1. First off, the most important part. Thraborne Skek/Urlings have no counterpart. They have a full soul and are connected to Thra itself. Just as the gelfling, podling, fizzgig or nurloc are! Although their presence is... complicated to say the least. Their very existence is something that shouldn’t have ever happened. and yet... here they are. Their birth inserting sudden a sharp note into Thra’s song. A chaotic disruption, but a part of it’s song none the less. 2. Thraborne are not limited in the same way their parents are when it comes to nature and morality. As it stands, the Skeksis and Mystics are opposing forces. One presenting a negative force, while the other positive. One aggresive and the other, passive. As their respective species are two severed parts of one whole original being, this chaos naturally makes them sway to one part of the flaws and personality of their original full form. That’s not to say that one can attempt at changing their nature such as the Heritic... But you’ll always be fighting with that natural aggression that the skeksis hold. Same goes for more active mystics like the Archer, Swimmer, or Wanderer. Although more involved with Thra’s fate, they stil stay mostly out of the way of anyone else.      Where Thraborne come into play in this is rather unique, They aren’t stuck with this limitation. Although born of splintered beings, They have a complete soul and a whole sense of self. A Thraborne regardless of species has a much broader form of the ability of choice.Their compass being much more of a grey. While enviroment is a major factor as to how one will turn out much like anyone on this world, A skekling can turn out to be one of the kindest people you have ever met. And an urling may turn out to be a power hungry warlord. Like us humans, a Thraborne has much to do and say about their own autonomy and place in the world. Should they choose to do so. 3. Thraborne are EXTREMELY rare! The fertility rates for skeksis and mystics are very poor to say the least. And to have a couple produce offspring of any kind is a miracle unto itself. Very much so for the skeksis. As there are very little of them who actually genuinely care for one another. Especially if there is nothing to gain. The desire and possibility to conceive a child with someone is also extremely low. As they view themselves as the immortal ultimatum. Perfect beings. To them, childlings are only a burden. Although there are a select few who do have the desire to be a parent. The most adamant about his desire to become a father in the little universe I made for myself, is a special little   connoisseur of the written word. You may have heard of him.📚📜 4. Thraborne can dream. Although if they tell this to their parents, they’ll just assume this is a nightmare and their childling doesn’t understand what they are. Thraborne are also much more prone to visions from Thra. As they serve a unique purpose that not even Aughra seems to know yet. 5. Speaking of Augrah. When she inevitably finds out about one of these little one’s existence, I feel like She is going to be involved. Even if it is reluctantly. In a way they’re kind of like her stepchildren. Being a part of Thra, and yet... so far removed from it. She doesn’t know how to feel about them. And their fates are uncertain. Such a thing existing is a miracle in of itself… or maybe a curse? I made a few test comics with this idea a while back when I was first expanding upon this idea.

    A constant quote that rang through my head while making this was: “Aughra cares for all the creatures of Thra. Even the foolish ones!” 6. If worst should come to worse and one of the Thraborne is to pass away... They don’t crumble to ash or peacefully fade away. They’ll leave a corpse. As they are a part of Thra, they’ll return to Thra when they die. Leaving behind a cold body and shattered dreams. 7. The Average lifespan for a Thraborne of any kind is about 1,500 to as long as 3,000 years old! That just about sums up the basics! If you have anymore questions, delving more into Skekling or Urling biology and characteristics, or perhaps some darker headcanons, please send me an ask and let me know! Hope you have a wonderful day, and thank you so much for reading this the whole way through!

[currents420420]

People have proposed various methods for understanding society and how people interact with each other from a scientific standpoint, from dialectical materialism, to memetics, to analysis of incentive structures, even to viewing social groups as a kind of superorganism, with each individual as a body in a cell.

And I thought- what if you were to take those models and jam them together into some kind of big social theory frankenstien?

We might use the work of B.F. Skinner as a jumping off point- known for his eponymous “Skinner Box,” a simple box which administered rewards or punishment in response to certain actions- pushing a lever, or moving to a particular part of the box. Even fruit flies, in a simple Skinner Box which heated up when they moved to one side of the box, soon changed their behavior in response to incentives, avoiding that side of the box.

Social interactions can be a bit like a Skinner Box- our actions are either rewarded or penalized by those around us, through everything from subtle expressions of approval or disapproval to more overt forms, and soon our actions shift in response to this.

How our actions are incentivized or disincentivized depends on the memes the people around us carry- memes not in the lolcat or spongebob sense, but in the older sense of the term, an element of a culture or system of behavior passed from one individual to another. How the people around us will respond to our actions is shaped by the moral beliefs, political beliefs, religious beliefs, etc. of people around us- these collections of memes, or memeplexes, often contain a list of dos and don’ts, and people carrying these memes will incentivize or disincentivize our actions according to these scripts.

Sometimes people create their own value systems, but usually people just pick up the value systems they’re immersed in by their community through osmosis, or join communities because they find their value system appealing- but all value system memeplexes were created by someone at some point, to serve someone’s interest- perhaps the interest of the community as a whole, or perhaps a specific group or individual.

A group of people sharing a value system act in tandem as a massive incentive system, affecting the behavior of everyone they contact, in ways from subtle to overt- to graph out what that looks like, let’s draw a rough diagram inspired by a real life example, like say the turf wars between the far left and the far right in surrounding the neopagan scene- this is a good illustrative example to show how three different memeplexes, some compatible and some incompatible, might interact.

Let’s represent these with color dots, and say the blue dots are right-wingers and the pink dots are left-wingers, and the orange/yellow ones neopagans.

And then from there, draw arrows to indicate the influence that people have over each other- with the size of the arrow indicating the degree of influence one person has on the other, with the color of the arrow representing which value system is guiding how they incentivize or disincentivize behavior.

This is very simplified rendition, of course- a perfectly accurate one would be excessively cluttered- but this works as a lose rendition of how communities interact. People with shared beliefs cluster together, and influence each other and the people they’re socially adjacent to according to those shared beliefs.

From this angle, social groups which coalesce around memplexes like this appear as almost a kind of collective organism, with each person being a cell in the body of some kind of massive behemoth- the memeplex serving as it’s genetic- or memetic- code, and the incentives serving as it’s nervous system.

Now, a lot of analysis which has used this sort of metaphor has framed it as strictly negative, but I don’t think that’s useful- these sorts of social organisms form any time you have multiple people together who have even vaguely shared beliefs about right and wrong, and I don’t think it’s meaningfully possible or desirable to prevent people from congregating around shared moral beliefs. We’re all cells in the bodies of vast superorganisms, we’re all conduits for forces far larger than ourselves, and that’s okay!

For lack of a better term, lets call these collective organism “currents,” building off of the sense of the term meaning “particular ideas, opinions or feelings being present in a group of people.”

But also referencing it’s more common usage as referring to a current of water - something a person can get caught in the flow of. Or an electrical current, coursing through anything which can become a conduit for it.

 Most social phenomenon can be described in these terms- groups of people acting in tandem to incentivize and disincentivize behavior according to a memetic script- from political movements, to religions, to cults, to ethical philosophies, to governments, even to corporations and artistic movements- all of these can essentially be thought of as different varieties of currents.

And there can also be currents within currents- for example all corporations are sub-currents of the super-current of capitalism, which is the prevailing hegemonic economic current.

The incentives used by currents include everything from material incentives/money, to expressions of approval or disapproval from peers, to legal punitive measures like imprisonment- even our internal feelings of guilt and pride are ultimately based on the value systems we’ve picked up through social interaction, and thus are just another form of incentive that currents use.

Morality, rather than being some unchanging concrete law encoded into the universe, is a function of this social phenomenon- people generate memetic scripts about which actions to incentivize and which to dis-incentivize, and the effect of this incentive structure will be to varying degrees beneficial, or detrimental, or beneficial to one group at the expense of another. Morality isn’t like the laws of physics as much as it’s like a form of technology, which must always be continually updated and improved to be more beneficial to more people.

We could also roughly sort currents according to the categories of Economic and Ideological- or in Marxist terms, Base and Superstructure.

These both overlap and have a reciprocal relationship, of course, but there is a definite divide between currents which incentivize mostly through material economic means, like corporations- let’s call these Base currents- and currents which incentivize behavior through more subtle ideological and social means, such as political ideologies and religions- let’s call these Superstructure Currents

Often there will be superstructure currents which emerge out of base currents, or base currents which emerge out of superstructure currents- consider the mission statement of the ethos of a company as a superstructure current emerging out of a base current, or a boycott organized by political group as a base current emerging out of a superstructure current- or the food program run by the black panthers as a base current emanating from a superstructure current, which could have, had there been a successful revolution, evolved into a more larger and more complex base current- a socialist economy.

Our choices are so heavily shaped by the incentive structures of the social currents we interact with that insofar as we have any kind of autonomy as individuals, this is expressed more by what currents we choose to interact with or act as a conduit for than it is by what we choose to do within a given current.

While usually currents operate simply through people following the incentive structure while acting in their own self-interest, once an individual has fully absorbed the value system of a current, they will act according to that value system even beyond the point of self interest- whether this is a good or bad thing depends on the merit of the value system of that current- on how beneficial it is as a piece of moral social technology.

To give a few examples to illustrate this:

A: Two people in the desert come across water. Instead of splitting it evenly, the stronger of the two simply kills the other, and takes all the water for themselves. (Also in this hypothetical they feel no guilt and won’t ever be intervened on by society, which is a bit of a stretch, sure, but I need an example to illustrate how selfishness plays out in the absence of any kind of incentive system.)

B: Someone donates money, but the primary reason they did so was because they knew they would receive social approval for doing so, and benefit in the form of social approval outweighed the cost to themselves.

C: Someone knowingly gives their life to save the lives of several other people. In this case there isn’t even the hypothetical chance that they did it purely for selfish approval-seeking reasons, since the cost was their own life, and whatever social approval they may gain, they will never experience it. This is, nonetheless, still a function of currents- it’s just that they have internalized the value system to the point where they adhere to it not just as a means to the end of gaining social approval (or avoiding social disapproval and punishment), but as an ends unto itself, and will adhere to it even at extreme personal cost.

D: Some incel creep, stewing in forums which treat Elliot Rodger and Alek Minassian as heroes, goes on his own similar spree killing, ending the spree by taking his own life. This person also will never receive any social reward from their cohorts for their actions, due to being dead, but had internalized the value system of the incel ideology to the point where they will act on it even at extreme personal cost.

So you can see that while example C and example D are both acting selflessly, example C is morally commendable, while example D morally repugnant- and while both example A and example B are acting selfishly, and example A is just as repugnant as example D, example B is only somewhat less commendable than example C- point is, acting selflessly does not inherently make you better than someone acting selfishly if the moral framework of the current you are selflessly adhering to is itself a malignant framework. (And this isn’t a static thing either, since a current which was once benign can become malignant).

So selfishness is, overall, Not Great, but the picture is a little more nuanced than “selfishness=bad, selflessness=good”

In practice, currents tend to have a certain anatomy- already in this image here we can see the different currents portrayed have a clusters within them, as well as a noticeable edge- let’s outline those to bring them into clearer focus.

When we do this, we can see an amoeba-like shape taking form- inner nuclei, and an outer membrane. Similar to how genetic code instructs cells on how to organize into an organism, this is how memetic codes instruct individuals on how to organize into collective superorganisms. And when the two memeplexes are more compatible, the superorganisms will overlap as they absorb each other, and when they memeplexes are less compatible, they’ll form more distinct boundaries, and attempt to siphon people away from each other, acting more directly in competition.

Currents have a tendency to try to place parts of the memeplex which are more appealing to outsiders on the outside membrane, and to place parts which are more alienating to outsiders near the nuclei- Scientologists don’t tell people about all the Xenu stuff right off the bat, you feel me? This especially applies when attempting to siphon people away from a competing current.

The Mormons actually have a term to describe this strategy- “Milk Before Meat”- the idea being that you must first expose potential converts to the Spiritual Milk- the more appealing parts of the memeplex- before exposing them to the Spiritual Meat- the more alienating parts of the memeplex.

In addition, incentive structures are usually more severe, and the rules more strict, the deeper you go- this similarly helps to ease the process by which someone is absorbed into a current.

In some of those nuclei clusters we can see noticeable power hierarchies, particularly the ones on the top and bottom right, which are clearly centered around specific individuals or groups who the rest of the cluster is subordinate to. To tie this more firmly into the real world, if the pink and blue represent the political left and the right in this model, then the nuclei-like clusters would be both informal and formal groups of political activists or discussion groups, with some of the more formally organized political groups having overt hierarchies and chains of command.

These kinds of power imbalances within a current can have a detrimental effect upon it, resulting in a kind of social decay.

People with power shifts their value system in such a way that it better serves their own needs- here I’m representing that shift with the shift from blue to teal-ish in the upper right corner- and this has a ripple effect on the cluster surrounding them,

shifting it so that it better serves the interests of themselves and their cohorts, often at the expense of everyone else.

So while the popular narrative holds that we need hierarchy to maintain social order, in actuality hierarchy is in many ways harmful to the social order- the powerful have every motivation to shift the rules in their favor, change the currents incentive structures such that it acts to their benefit and exploits the people lower in the hierarchy, not to mention when there is a clear divide between the people who make or enforce social rules, and everyone else, the people who make or enforce social rules have little reason to follow them- cops, and Ted Kennedy, can get away with murder.

Of course, a lot of the times the social rules were already in their favor to begin with- hence why they had more influence in the first place. In either case, whether baked in from the beginning or a function of societal rot as the powerful entrench their power, the end result is the same: the prevailing ideas and values are the values of the ruling class, and the interests of the ruling class disguised as the universal interest of all.

Luckily, hegemonic power attempting to entrench itself isn’t the only way a currents value system can shift, and there are other forces which act to counteract the entrenchment of the ruling class- put a pin in that, because we’re going to come back to that in a minute.

There’s also another kind of cluster within the currents in this chart, and that’s clusters of people who have become dissatisfied with the status quo of the social norms of the current they’re within - lets highlight those in grey.

These pockets of dissatisfaction generally emerge in response to legitimate grievances with real problems in the value system of the status quo (though they can also occasionally be founded on illegitimate grievances, like a formerly privileged class losing their privilege). Often these problems in the value system are tied into the kind of exploitative hierarchies I mentioned earlier - however, problems can exist within the value system of a current without them necessarily being to any exploitative classes benefit- sometimes the source of the problem is that the rules have been written- or re-written- to benefit one group at the expense of the rest, but occasionally there are problems in the value system of a current which are caused by simple human error, and aren’t to anyone’s benefit.

On one hand, these pockets of dissatisfaction can act as a point from which a competing current can attempt to siphon away individuals, in the form of people from the competing current reaching out to the people in the pocket and making the case that they would be happier if they were to leave their current for the competitor- in this framework it can almost be represented as one current extending a pseudopod into the other current to draw in people from it:

For example consider a group like redneck revolt, which reaches out to people in right-wing leaning rural areas and recruits them into the left, or conversely the Jesus movement, a right-wing movement which recruited hippies into reactionary evangelical Christianity- unlike a redneck revolt, which is pretty overt in what it’s goals are, the jesus movement was more deceptive, framing itself as a left-leaning progressive brand of Christianity when in actuality it’s most prominent figures were  staunchly reactionary- just look at the Jesus movement associated cult the Children of God, which marketed itself to hippies and presented itself as progressive to outsiders, when secretly it’s was preaching racist, homophobic, and antiemetic screeds to the people living on the cult commune. An especially deceptive version of the milk before meat strategy comes into play here, in this case being used as a strategy to siphon people away from the left while concealing that intention, presenting a progressive face to suck in hippies and then indoctrinating them with far-right ideology once they’ve been ensnared. So while the strategy of one current extending a pseudopod into another to siphon away members may be pretty universal, it can either be done in ways which are more honest about the intentions, like Redneck Revolt, or it can be more underhanded and dishonest like the Jesus movement was.

But on the other hand, these pockets of dissatisfaction act as a corrective force, as people who have been harmed by the existing social norms within that current create an updated version of that value system, or an entirely new value system, in response to their material needs- here represented on the left by the red cluster within the pink current.

This creates a current within that current, which acts in opposition to it on the point of contradiction.

In the classic dialectical materialist model, the first current is the thesis, then the new current growing out of the pocket of dissatisfaction is the antithesis, they synthesize into a new status quo, which inevitably will have it’s own pockets of dissatisfaction, and the process repeats.

For example, the problems inherent in the 1960’s radical scene’s social norms around sex (which was one of the points of weakness the Jesus movement exploited) was the flashpoint for the development of feminist critiques of sex and porn, then the flaws inherent within that framework spurred sex positive feminist critiques, then the flaws within the sex positive framework spurred a new wave of sex critical feminism, and so forth, this back-and forth dialectic working to shape the social norms of the left around sex.

The pattern of “people disenfranchised by the current value system create new value system, which spurs praxis which shifts social norms to better accommodate peoples needs” is visible everywhere- revolutionary action by the oppressed against the status quo is not only a force in driving social and moral advancement- it’s the primary force, the grinding dialectical engine at the heart of history and morality.

We can see this pattern playing out in the field of LGBT rights, where homophobic and transphobic laws and social mores- which are a harmful incentive system which unnecessarily punishes benign behavior- spurred the emergence of the lgbt rights movement, as the people harmed by homophobic and transphobic social mores and laws to joined together in radical action to change them.

Or for an example on a larger scale, consider the way feudalism was supplanted by liberalism and capitalism, particularly around such flashpoints as the French revolution- so we can see that this dialectical pattern can take different forms, and while sex critical feminism and sex positive feminism both acted internally within the left, the contradiction which spurred the decline of feudalism was more severe, with the liberal enlightenment current more fully separating itself from the feudal current before overtaking it.

Similarly, at this point it’s necessary for capitalism to be supplanted by an entirely new economic current- the contradictions at play here are too severe to be resolved through a more subtle internal dialectical process.

As noted earlier, the ruling class losing it’s power and privilege due to social progress creates it’s own pocket of dissatisfaction, which creates a harmful reactionary current.

Now, I’m sure some would argue that in the back and forth between sex negativity and sex positivity, one of the two was reactionary, and emerged to retain the privilege of an oppressive class and undo progress. However I disagree- I think both sex positivity and sex negativity- and the back and forth dialectic between them- played a progressive role in improving the social norms around sex within the left.

Reactionary currents caused by an oppressive class losing their power can have a significant memetic ripple effect, outlasting the actual people who lost their power- consider the reactionary current which emanated from the aristocracy and monarchy losing their power after feudalism declined, which carried as it’s central narrative the notion that progressivism and democracy were bad, and that Jewish people, freemasons, and the Illuminati were behind them (especially in relation to the French revolution)- this narrative which continues to play a central role in reactionary movements to this day, from fascism to neoreaction- though some original flavor moldbuggian neoreactionaries attempted to swap out the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theorism for a sinister Calvinist conspiracy.

The Illuminati was a small short-lived enlightenment-era discussion group, but then some deranged pro-monarchist priest named Augustin Barruel accuses them of having caused the French revolution, and from there the telephone game of the memetic ripple effect exaggerated the Illuminati into the ultimate shadowy boogeyman in the reactionary narrative. More than anything else, the fact that the whole right-wing conspiracy theory about the Illuminati is directly traceable back to the reactionary response to the French revolution shows just how severe the memetic ripple from that reactionary current was, and how firmly caught up in it’s wake a lot of modern reactionaries are. Both fascism and neoreaction can be understood as essentially mutations of the reactionary current which emerged in response to the French revolution.

However, while reactionary currents can undo progress, nonetheless the general overall trend of history is toward improvement- the long moral arc of the universe bending toward justice.

Now, if power imbalances are harmful, and if these sorts of dialectical processes correct power imbalances through social upheaval, the question must be asked- why do power imbalances exist in the first place?

To answer this question with a question- how do you create an incentive system without that incentive system creating a power imbalance between those it rewards and those it punishes?

It’s a difficult question, with no easy answer!

Of course, this may drive many to deem currents and incentive structures inherently evil- “We must cast off all binds that might shape our behavior, destroy all the authoritarian social mores, reject all coercive social systems, and embrace individualism fully!” they might say. They might also tell you you’re “spooked” and tell you to read Stirner.

Any time you have people in a group where some of them have shared beliefs about which actions are good or bad, these kind of social incentive systems are going to emerge- you could try to prevent people from doing anything which might in some way incentivize or dis-incentivize the actions of others, but how would you convince people not to reward or penalize the behavior of others, without in some way rewarding or penalizing their behavior yourself?

And more importantly, would we really be better off if there were no social incentive systems or consequences for action? Would we really be better off if abusers faced no social repercussions? And recall here that we’re talking not only about formal legal penalties but also decentralized social penalties like “people not liking you”- which, mind you, can be a pretty powerful social tool for shaping behavior!

So as you can see, there isn’t an “out” here, and the dream of a world without incentive structures is in actuality neither desirable nor possible. The goal shouldn’t be to abolish all social incentive structures, but rather to correct what is broken, to replace flawed incentive structures with better ones, and to improve upon the social technology of morality.

So, what is the takeaway from all of this? Essentially that both Anarchists and Marxist-Leninists are right in some ways, and the way forward is to synthesize the two modes of thought- to merge the concepts of horizontal non-hierarchical social organization from Anarchists, with a sense of duty, unity, and discipline more akin to the ideas floated by Marxists in On Authority or Combat Liberalism. Through a more complete understanding of currents and how they function, we can more effectively create a revolutionary current which can supplant the hegemonic capitalist current, driving the great dialectical engine of history and morality forward toward greater human flourishing and prosperity.

[envicorppersonhood]

Post 5: Invention and Style in Legal Arugments

1.  Read about the Dalkon Shield Case in the following source   http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1986/0115/  How are ethos and pathos used in Lord's speech? How are enthymemes and examples used?  What topoi, both common and specific, govern the invention of Lord's arguments? What stylistic qualities does Lord's speech display? Search for Robbins' Company responses to Lord's speech. They argued that the Judge exceeded the proper boundaries of judicial conduct in his speech. In this sentencing speech, we see something similar as in the Auqualina sentencing speech of Nassar. Thinking through classical rhetorical art of legal rhetoric, what are the proper boundaries of judicial conduct in sentencing speeches? Do Lord and Auqualina use a rhetorical art in keeping with classical standards of an ethical art?

2.  Draft an aims statement for your research project in this class. What do you aim to study?  Supply one link to a text that will be central to your study. Explain why this text is so important, and using what you know about classical legal rhetorical theory, offer what you think will be some key rhetorical foci for your project.

1: Lord’s Justice

I’ve built my post on a plethora of examples that I can refer back to later to understand the implication of each topoi

Ethos and Pathos:

Within his argument, Lord integrates ethos and pathos into his use of the common topoi. Within my analysis of his use of the common topoi, I plan to talk both about ethos and pathos. However, one point Lord makes stands out as a significant establishment of his own character. It is as follows;

“I suggested to the hundreds of ministers of the gospel who constitute the Minnesota Council of Churches that the accumulation of corporate wrongs is, in my mind, a manifestation of individual sin.”

Within this, he establishes that 1.) he is respected enough to give advice to hundreds of ministers and 2.) that he is in touch with some sort of spirituality. This statement of ethos also pairs well with the concept of precedent. This assertion of precedent actually gives him more credit, because it establishes a commonality within his actions as an individual and a judge. He has a set of morals that he adheres to.  Along with that, one of the most blatant appeals to pathos within his speech is his call to action to these three men. He states that they have set their standards at the bottom line, then implores them to, “[..] in the name of humanity, lift your eyes above the bottom line” (Lord’s Justice).

Enthymemes:

“Under your direction, your company has in fact continued to allow women, tens of thousands of women, to wear this device a deadly depth charge in their wombs, ready to explode at any time... The only conceivable reasons you have not recalled this product are that it would hurt your balance sheet and alert women who already have been harmed that you may be liable for their injuries.” (Lord’s Justice)

He follows the argument, though does not spell out the middle of his argument—‘because these products do harm to women, they have taken you to court’. His entire tone in this section appeals to pathos, as he builds a strong argument as to why the company would hide this fact, as well as how it makes the company completely amoral.

Past Fact:

“And when the time came for these women to make their claims against your company, you attacked their characters. You inquired into their sexual practices and into the identity of their sex partners. You... ruined families and reputations and careers-in order to intimidate those who would raise their voices against you. You introduced issues that had no relationship whatsoever to the fact that you planted in the bodies of these women instruments of death, of mutilation, of disease.” (Lord’s Justice)

This statement acts as a major stop against the defense’s stasis that they presented during their case. It also marks the defense’s precedent to manipulate the facts presented in court in order to win their case.

“Another of your callous legal tactics is to force women of little means to withstand the onslaught of your well-financed, nationwide team of attorneys, and to default if they cannot keep pace. You target your worst tactics for the meek and the poor.” (Lord’s Speech)

This past fact relates completely to the fact that the women who have been majorly impacted by this device are poorer women. This past fact is troubling to Lord, due to the fact that this company will go on to manufacture more products and continue to sell them to women who are poor. This past fact feels almost like Lord dissecting the company’s precedent as well as predicting of the future fact.

Opposite:

“If one poor young man were, by some act of his-without authority or consent-to inflict such damage upon one woman, he would be jailed for a good portion of the rest of his life. And yet your company without warning to women invaded their bodies by the millions and caused them injuries by the thousands.” (Lord’s Justice)

In this, Lord positions the treatment of the wealthy against the position of the poor. Not only have the poor women not been well represented in this case, be it because they do not live in the U.S. to attend the case or that they could not receive medical treatment and passed away or that they simply could not afford the lawyers, if anyone in a similar social status as these women went about ruining people’s lives like Lord, they would be persecuted to the highest extent of the law. However that is not that the case, and it seems that it will never be the case.

Precedent:

“If this were a case in equity, I would order that your company make an effort to locate each and every woman who still wears this device and recall your product.” (Lord’s Justice) The past precedent would require something far more stringent of the company, and Lord makes it clear that he would prefer to take this route, however the times of equity are over. Thus, Lord cannot rely on the precedent, but instead he must find a new, fitting justice that matches the times.

“I did not know." "It was not me," "Look elsewhere." Time and time again, each of you has used this kind of argument in refusing to acknowledge your responsibility and in pretending to the world that the chief officers and the directors of your gigantic multinational corporation have no responsibility for the company's acts and omissions.” (Lord’s Justice) This precedent Lord observes comes completely from the past behavior of other rich individuals as they try to protect themselves from the damages that could come as they are prosecuted. He thus invalidates their claims of innocence. On top of that, as he draws more connections to the defense being guilty, he reminds the people around them of the repetitive lying the defense has done.

Meaning of a name: “You, Mr. Robins, have been heard to boast many times that the growth and prosperity of this company is a direct result of its having been in the Robins family for three generations. The stamp of the Robins family is upon it. The corporation is built in the image of the Robins mentality.” (Lord’s Justice) With this, Lord subverts Robins’ intended meaning of his name. The ‘strength’ of his name, is quickly flipped on its head to represent the true horror of what happened due to the Dakon Shield.

Definition: “You, Dr. Lunsford, as director of the company's most sensitive and important subdivision, have violated every ethical precept to which every doctor under your supervision must pledge as he gives the oath of Hippocrates and assumes the mantle of one who would help and cure and nurture unto the physical needs of the populace. You, Mr. Forrest, are a lawyer-one who, upon finding his client in trouble, should counsel and guide him along a course which will comport with the legal, moral, and ethical principles which must bind us all. You have not brought honor to your profession.” (Lord’s Justice) Within these lines of his speech, Lord outlines the two professions that both the lawyer and head of the medical part of the company and then the specific moral responsibilities that their professions require. After outlining the professions, he states that they have done disservice to their jobs. This invalidates the ethos that their jobs could have bestowed upon them in any capacity. It acts as a full stop in their narratives of power and prestige.

Did Lord’s Speech go too far?

In my opinion, the matter was already somewhat decided when the judge gave his speech. Therefore, the judge is allowed to present their own feelings on the matter. And in cases like the Nassar case and this one, power listens to power. Without truly showing the amount of wrong-doing, it’s possible to be partisan in these cases. The judges both obviously felt that there was no room for this partisan behavior and clarified their reasoning in their judgement.

2. AIMS:

In this project I aim to explore the concept of environmental protection through an exploration of the Laws of the Rights of Mother Earth. I wish to contrast this legal view of the earth with the North American and European views of the autonomy of the planet with this view held by Bolivia. The text I will be including is the legal text that sets the parameters of the rights of the planet. This is incredibly important because it gives a clear idea of how much power this law gives to the planet and give direct comparisons to the views held in N. America and Europe. I hope to focus on Past Fact, as well as the view of Possible/Impossible in this piece. Often times, saving the planet is viewed as “impossible” but Bolivia is proving that it is indeed possible.

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Projects/Indicators/motherearthbolivia.html

Bibliography: Aristotle. “Aristotle's Rhetoric.” The Internet Classics Archive | Rhetoric by Aristotle, MIT, 2009, classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html. Caplan, Harry. (Cicero) Ad C. Herrennium: De Ratione Dicendi (Rhetorica Ad Herennium): with an English Translation by Harry Caplan. Harvard University Press, 1964. Frost, Michael. Introduction to Classical Legal Rhetoric: A Lost Heritage. Routledge, 2016.

Mifsud Comments: good analysis of "inartistic ethos"--a reference to qualifications and prior success, not a proof built within the present speech, focus most on the artistic ethos, how does Lord for ethical proofs? How does he prove his good moral character as one who must be listened to for justice? Remember the common topos is past fact/future fact.  All legal argument is past fact, so that part alone is not helpful in generating rhetorical analysis and insight into arguments and their operation and effects.  What is the future fact that the judge uses as his inventional tool throughout the speech?  Perhaps instead of proceeding with analysis by frontloading the classical categories of analysis that emerge from classical rhetorical legal theory, you could focus on analyzing each argument made, perhaps sometimes each sentence, showing how each sentence invents a line of thinking or way of seeing, how each sentence/argument operates enthymematically and helps to build ethos and pathos in the speech. Be specific about pathos, too, the emotions of anger, shame, and the hope of redemption are powerful in this speech, but your analysis is a bit shy of naming them. Work to study the emotions being used as proof, how they are used, and what emotions specifically are being generated from which justice is being administered (or not, which is sometimes the case). I LOVE THIS AIM!  I'm so happy you are doing this, I have wanted a student to study this for so long, mainly because I am fascinated with how these argument get made. I do not know--so I will be so happy to learn along with you! These arguments are so unheard of, yet there are more familiar arguments about the rights of corporations that govern our civic lives together in "Western" European and U.S. American societies.  This text is a perfect for your foundational legal text. You will gather, in Foucauldian style, all the related discourses as well--media discourses, scholarly discourses, etc. to aid your rhetorical analysis of the arguments that give rise to protecting Mother Earth.

Response:

1. In Lord’s Justice I found that I made a few decent points, but also a few mistakes. I focused heavily on the different topos found in classical legal theory. That being said, the side of ethos I focused on was the more blunt statements of ethos instead of the more artful creations of it. In fact, this has been something I’ve constantly missed when understanding legal ethos. In actual speeches and other documents I usually can see the more subtle ethos. However the more I consider this issue, the more I realize that the legal blinders that are inherent to our judicial system prevent me from looking too deeply into the nuance of these arguments.   On top of that, Dr. Mifsud clarified the area in which past fact/future fact exists. Legal cases are all past fact where as the ruling and anything the judge predicts to happen falls into future fact. I think I somewhat reversed my understanding of how articulating these topos are properly explained.  On top of that, the way I chose to design my post ended up hindering my actual presentation of topos. I agree with Dr. Mifsud’s suggestion that a line by line analysis would have been more helpful to parsing apart each of the topics within the speech. I chose to read through the speech and write down the general topics I identified then work my way backwards from there. Understandably so, I missed whatever wasn’t the most obvious in the moment. I find that one of the most lacking details of this post.

2. My aims here were very succinct and to the point of what I wanted to discover, however my initial struggle to find legal support of this case. This is, in turn, what would be the downfall of this aims statement. While my plan may have been solid to begin with, it would eventually fall apart as I searched deeper.