<p>I think the value and ethos of how such a complex blend of inspiration and perspiration came together has only deteriorated overtime. Specifically, sarcasm. In rhetoric, we should go by that which governs such a form; logos, pathos and ethos. Canons such as memory, invention, delivery, style, and arrangement as well as philosophies of argument, reasoning and the linguistics of structure should all be incorporated in a statement or statements intended for the use or uses of persuasive grammar.</p>
<p>But really, the quality of sarcasm isn’t as good as it used to be.</p>
<p>It’s because it’s too pervasive. Everything today is done in jest.</p>
<p>I’m so used to sarcasm, I can almost never tell when people are being serious anymore.</p>
<p>Blend of sweat? Ugh. </p>
<p>Oh. Or was that purposeful wordplay to bring out the irony in the decreased quality of rhetoric?</p>
<p>lol…hard work. (get it?)</p>
<p>and yeah, more or less the latter.</p>
<p>Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be :/</p>
<p>Humor is down the tubes…but what do I know, I’m an avid user of sarcasm : D There is so much pointless humor in school lol</p>
<p>Do you guys think sarcasm should be “very” easy to detect …or no?</p>
<p>This thread has developed a sense of self-awareness. This thread exists.</p>
<p>-Sartre</p>
<p>Never heard of him…and i took a college philosophy course before…</p>
<p>…oops.</p>
<p>I think that it depends on the intent of the speaker. The speaker’s ultimate goal is to persuade the audience. If the speaker is enabled to do that through his or her incorporation of sardonic comments, or unrecognizable sardonic comments, then it might be beneficial for him or her to utilize them.</p>