I feel that people seem to misunderstand the tool known as a rhetorical question, which has always frustrated me because I thought it was a cool idea.
A rhetorical question is a type of question that exists to start or contribute to a conversation. That's what it means to be rhetorical, or of rhetoric. Rhetoric means conversation, in a way. I believe it's defined to be the study, philosophy or art of talking, convincing or communicating; something like that.
So as I understand the device, when you ask a rhetorical question, you are crafting a tool to invite or further the discussion you're participating in. By asking a rhetorical question and then admonishing someone for trying to answer it as if they were stupid for doing so, you are inviting them to conversate and reason with you and then immediately punishing them for trying. One might argue, I suppose, that a rhetorical question is a tool that's helpful because it's not meant to be answered; just one part of a statement that aims to contribute meaning, thus a rhetorical question and one that shouldn't be literally answered. That's a perfectly logical way to reason the meaning of the phrase and therefore the utility of the device, but I disagree on the grounds that this answer is unhelpful, as it doesn't allow somebody else to utilize the question as a tool themselves. This diminishes it's use as a conversational tool and encourages it's use to stifle retorts to claims, as when somebody tries to answer the question, they are attempting to interpret your use of words in their own way. Should they fail to understand you and your use of the tool, you might reason that they have failed to interpret you correctly. The connotation I detect in thinking about it in this way is selfish, as it blames other people for misunderstanding the things you say.
Now, were I to be discussion this with someone, I believe at this point in our conversation I'd like to reveal that I've been communicating how I feel using rhetorical questions this whole time. In fact, the previous statement was both the position of a question and my proposed answer to it all at once. This is how I'd like to demonstrate how I approach the tool within my writing and within my conversations with other people; I like to be able to include the intended audience or conversational partner in my own thought process when it comes to understanding a concept that I'm trying to include them on my understanding of. I believe it's fair to say that many people naturally reason via answering questions that they thought to ask, and so it's natural for me to conclude that this might be the reason why someone might use these conversational tools. I'd also like to point out that, in my demonstration of this understanding of the concept, I try my best to ensure that I only offer my interpretations of the question to the audience/partner, since my goal is to find out how they come to reason with my answer as well as how they might come to their own, different answer to the same question.
When I put together a concept such as a rhetorical question, I am trying to gather the thoughts and feelings I experience in a way that I can communicate to somebody else. Toward that end, I find rhetorical devices to be quite useful. I understand rhetorical devices to be tools that we craft as communicating humans in an effort to understand one another, and I believe these rhetorical devices to be one of humanity's greatest inventions within language in enabling complex thoughts, feelings and ideas to be shared with other people.
To put some kind of meaning to my rambling, i.e. in conclusion (or otherwise tl;dr, but like academically), I find these devices fun to engage with to craft pieces of art called phrases that invite another human being to observe and even critique the very mystic essences that make up our human psyche, and it frustrates me that people would rather use them to stifle discussion than invite it.
