[mapontosevenths]

John Locke called rhetoric “that powerful instrument of error and deceit.” I agree.

Rhetoric is to persuasion what the greasy used car salesman is to advertising. The rhetoricians only care enough about logos to use it as a cudgel against their foes.

The folks that portray it in a positive light overlook the fact that it is ALWAYS used to persuade, by definition.

They convince themselves that this manipulation is a noble thing to do because THEIR truth is the ONE truth and that by manipulating others they serve some higher ideal. Meanwhile their opponents attempts at manipulation are still held in disdain. Humbug.

They serve mammon more often than not.

[lo_zamoyski]

Again, you're failing to distinguish between rhetoric and sophistry. If someone is doing what you describe, it's by definition not rhetoric, no matter what someone calls it.

[mapontosevenths]

Rhetoric in modernity is literally defined as persuasive speech. A nodern rhetorician does not give up when they are wrong, they think of clever new ways to persuade.

Plato and Aristotle argued they were different things in antiquity, but even then some/most of their peers disagreed.

OED literally defines it as "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques."

Figures of speech and compositional techniques do NOT bring one closer to truth, they obscure it.

That said, I appreciate that when YOU use the term it's not what you mean. I would be careful with that though. Your definition is not what it means to anyone else now outside of academia.