Beyond the Ordinary

Here's a documentary about stuff.
First of all, in all likelihood, this will get you dizzy.
Second, try to focus on just one thing. Life is too short anyways.
Third and last, enjoy (although I assume you already are...).



Made by Jae Gyoung Oh, Manuela Lizarralde, Eugenia Camargo


Welcome to my life.

Some Serious $H!T

Yay, Asians.

We start seeing the overlying nature of these groups, such that one of their principles is that "with numbers there are no laws." Ah, what words to live by.

And yet, despite the ultra-violence I was expecting, there has yet to be a proper hooligan, and I couldn't have phrased it better than Buford did:
"People had been loud, grotesque, disgusting, rude, uncivilized, unpleasant to look at, and in some instances, explicitly repellent - but not violent."

Never mind, here comes the violence. When beer bottles rain from the sky and strike the English fans in the head, no one does anything, except the fans themselves. No innocent bystander wants to get involved and no policeman wants to get involved.

Due to the social nature of these groups, they have, in a way, been isolated from the rest of the world in such a way that problems have to be internally solved (which isn't too hard since there is power in numbers).

In the middle of all this, again, is the narrator, who still seems to be at some sort of limbo between being an innocent journalist (hah, oxymoron) and a fervid football fan. Yes, he's in the middle of all this, but as a reader, he still seems like that-one-guy-who-happened-to-be-there. This of course, was more accentuated by his inner chanting of "I will not $H!T myself, I will not $H!T myself," when things start to get violent. There are firecrackers, eggs, and wifi routers being thrown everywhere, stuff getting lit on fire, and possible bowel activities getting warmed up right under Buford.

And still, in the middle of all this, "nobody did a thing".

Then the police. Then a goal. Then another goal. Euphoria. Disappointment. Pride. Screaming. Shove. Counter-shove.

There's just so much action, and everything seems to accelerate as the adrenaline jumps out of the book and shoves itself up my eye sockets, threatening to keep my brain cells hostage.

Wow. Soccer is some serious $H!T.

Among Them

It's apparently quite easy to become one of them if you're a journalist.

Bill Buford is asked whether he was from the Express. He's not. He's asked if he's here to write about the football supporters. He is. He's told that they're not hooligans. He says he knows. At this point, they were probably very doubtful, questioning the reason this guy could even possibly be here.

Anyways, back to the first statement. One sentence was enough for the narrator to become one of them. When asked what he was doing here, he answered that he was here to "get very, very pissed."

Enough said.
Welcome to the club.

After being admitted into the gang, the narrator starts learning of the Manchester United fanbase hierarchy, among other things.

At this point, I seriously question myself: why go through all this trouble? Aren't journalists supposed to be leading a dull life, waiting in front of Chris Brown's house to ask him why he- you know, never mind.

Don't forget the Leprechaun costume.

Why is he doing this? He's obviously not a football fan. Not yet, at least. What's his point?

Yes, this is going to help him write an article (or a book in this case), but what is the purpose? There must be something.

He wants to show.

Show what?

"Them."

Where's the Mean Guy?

Have you ever had one of those days when you were expecting to have a great day, and suddenly a bunch of football hooligans come out of nowhere, proceeding to urinate out of a bus while chanting "Fudge the Pope"? Me neither.

Bill Buford had one of those days, and surprisingly enough, he wasn't being urinated on (nor was he the Pope). As our narrator gets slowly assimilated into being a "thug", he starts to learn their ways, consequently learning how to urinate out of the window with the most optimal aim. While this doesn't actually happen, being among "them" is teaching the narrator how things work in this new community he now finds himself in. 

Despite this, I think he hasn't met the most hardcore of said fans, because so far, I haven't seen anyone get beat up and frozen into a grape-flavored popsicle for supporting Chelsea. I can safely deduce this because we've only heard stories, through other people such as Roy, about people getting savagely assaulted for picking up a stick to defend himself.

Before ending this post, I got to think: when the author says "among the thugs", is he implying that he is among them, but not actually one of them?

Juan-Hundred Women

First, I'll apologize for the pun in the title. Sorry.

Before proceeding with more thuggery, I would like to mention Don Juan, a play by Moliere that I saw yesterday.

There will be spoilers, by the way. If you wish not to see some details of the play, you might wish to go to Youtube and watch some teenagers jump onto treadmills and get launched into a one-way ticket to getting a couple million views.

There's a man, and as it is with any movie or play, the man is into some hardcore stuff. In this case, Don Juan, the protagonist, basically goes around seducing girls of all age, beauty, and sex (?). Despite being wealthy and stuff, he spends all his time hitting on girls, leaving them as soon as he gets tired of them. I suppose he REALLY wants that one game achievement, although I'm not sure if it's worth it for only ten gamer points.

Or going to hell.

There are constant connections to religion in the play, and it is most obvious at the end, when Don Juan is dragged to hell by none other than a holy statue thing after having ruined many relationships. It seems the world is a better place after Don Juan is taken to the deep abyss of death and the lack of video games, except for Don Juan's servant Sganarelle, who laments his inability to acquire coffee anymore.

Whether or not the play was originally meant to be closer to a comedy than a preachy religious vending machine, the one that I saw was closer to a comedy, and I liked it. There was one scene in which Sganarelle threw a baby in the air (I won't explain the context), and my friend almost choked on his abundant supply of Pringles and ice tea (otherwise known as extreme sugar water). However, I think that because of this lightheartedness and funniness throughout the play, the grim ending seemed rather abrupt, which left me in a very slight sense of "just like that?"

Nevertheless, it was one of those things that made me laugh that day (don't underestimate that statement, as we live in a world where texting LOL apparently translates into "Lack Of Laughter"), and I am grateful. It even made me think of joining the theater stuff, if only to be part of such laughter-inducing productions. In conclusion, that was "Juan good play".

Whether I'd go around doing what Don Juan did is still undecided.

Thugs and Balls

I thought I was reading In Cold Blood. I'm not.
I'm reading Among the Thugs instead.
But you don't care.

The beginning talks about how the narrator came to realize how extreme sports fans can become, wrecking trains and throwing banana peels in front of convenience stores. He also realizes that this is quite frequent, basically happening every Saturday.

I knew this was true to a certain extent because of those scenes of Eurotrip or something, but I certainly thought that it was a major exaggeration. Maybe it wasn't too far-fetched of a portrayal from actual Manchester United fans going to bars and chugging down a couple (and by that, I mean an ass-tonne) drinks (and by that, I mean some cups of tea), proceeding to wreak havoc across the streets.

Now, football (or mostly any other sport for that matter) isn't really my thing, but this book seems interesting. For one, it has violence, and honestly, who'd decline some violence, especially when you don't actually take part in it?

The title suggests that maybe, just maybe, the narrator will join these sports "thugs" or something. Heck, there's even a picture of a very high looking guy with a smoke jutting out of his mouth on the front cover. Some of the words on the back cover describe the book as "unnerving", "pungent", "grotesque, horrifying, repellent and gorgeous". They even compare the book to Clockwork Orange, so we can already sort of tell what kind of stuff is going to go down.

Shown in picture: Clockwork Orange.

Now imagine the same with a football and a cup of tea.

Plus, it's British.
I'm looking forward to read some more.

Scotty doesn't know.

The Elephant's Demise

Remember how we mentioned Gandhi and Churchill during the last posts?
Well, what a better way to conclude than with a story about elephants.

Have you ever had that moment when you just had to shoot an elephant?
Me neither. But George Orwell did. Well his character did. In "Shooting an Elephant".
Here's the basic story: the narrator goes to Burma, where he kills an elephant. Yay. He says he killed the elephant merely to "not look like a fool" in front of the natives, who were excited to see what the narrator would do to the escaped rogue elephant.

Knowing that we've been seeing some British and Indian stuff lately, I immediately knew that this had something to do with it, and it came to me rather easily.

The narrator is describing or portraying the nature of imperialism, especially the British one. Britain only does it to avoid looking like a fool. Basically. So the narrator symbolizes Britain. What about the elephant? It surely symbolizes countries under the imperialism. They are portrayed as beasts, and they just won't die. Or something like that.

Orwell successfully manages to shove his opinion about British imperialism into this seemingly-not-totally-innocent story about killing elephants.

I shall cut this post a bit short because I am utterly demotivated since the last time my post got deleted stuff.

Have some salad.

Black and White Lies

Winston Churchill was known as a charismatic man. He left behind many, many witty comments, showing that he has indeed, existed. Conspiracy theorists are welcome to come and challenge that; I love conspiracy theories.

Anyways, remember that I talked about Gandhi last time? Churchill was at the other end of the spectrum. For one, he didn't like curry. I'm not sure of that though, as there aren't any written records of it. Again, conspiracy theories are welcome.

I'm just going to go over a few fallacies that I see.

"If the British people are to lose their Indian Empire, they shall do so with their eyes open, and not be led blindfold into a trap."

Is it really one or the other? I don't think so. Nice try, though.

"...by the time Mr. Gandhi has arrived here to receive the surrender of our Indian Empire, the Conservative party will not be so ready to have its name taken in vain."

One, you're assuming Gandhi will surrender. Many questions much? Also, I've noticed that whenever the word "vain" is used, there's usually a fallacy involved. Usually, not much will ever be taken in vain. Deaths in the battlefield would not have been in vain just because you have to retreat. Just saying.

"You have only to read his latest declarations, and compare them with the safeguards for which we are assured the official Conservatives will fight to the end, to see how utterly impossible agreement is."

Misinterpreting the evidence? I guess. Churchill talks too much.

...and this is the part I realize that this speech is longer than your average boa constrictor, so I'll skip to the end in hopes of finding Churchill's ultimate point.

"These great issues which arise from time to time in our history are never decided by the party caucuses. They are decided by the conscience and the spirit of the mass of the British people. It is upon the simple faith and profound unerring instinct of the British people, never yet found wanting in a crisis, that we must put our trust."

Oh, right. He's British. He's always right.

These speeches always make me feel that all politicians pull lies out of their @$$3$ all the time. (I might have believed that already, but the speeches reinforce the belief.) They also seem to make everything black or white, if you catch my dig. Whether that was a real phrase or not is beyond me. I'm only one google away from the answer, but these days, one google is the equivalent of traveling around the world five times and subsequently scuba diving into the reefs in Hawaii.

But I digress.

I guess it's all lies after all.

Fallacious Gandhi

Gandhi is respected.
Gandhi is Indian.
Gandhi is respected because he is Indian.

No.

Apparently, in 1931, Gandhi gave a speech.
Now that we know about fallacies better, I'll try to expose as many fallacies as I can. Knowing me, that's going to be about three or four.

"Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules."

Hasty generalization. How do you know that applies to all people?

"It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being and thanks to the marvelous researches of Sir J. C. Bose it can now be proved that even matter is life."

Tautology and false dilemma. You're basically saying that because it is not a blind law, it is not a blind law. Moreover, you're assuming that a law is either blind or it is not. This isn't probably true, since it has been scientifically proven that laws can also be deaf or dumb.

"I may not deny the law or the law-giver because I know so little about it or Him."

Wrong ending and many questions. Maybe. One, the first part doesn't necessarily lead to the latter, and two, this implies that the law or the law-giver definitely exist. Either that or I'm just making stuff up because of a nitrogen overdose.

"...humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier."

False comparison. Don't go comparing acceptance of divine authority with acceptance of earthly rule. That's pretty much a false analogy.

"That informing power of spirit is God, and since nothing else that I see merely through the senses can or will persist, He alone is."

Uh... I'm not sure. But it's a fallacy.

"And is this power benevolent or malevolent?"

False dilemma. Does it have to be one or the other?

"Sense perceptions can be and often are false and deceptive, however real they may appear to us. "

Generalization?

"To reject this evidence is to deny oneself."

Misinterpreting the evidence?

"I confess that I have no argument to convince through reason."

Okay.

"All that I can advise is not to attempt the impossible."

I'm sleepy, and thus, the previous statement is weird. That's the last sentence of the speech, and it ends the thing in a cliche-ish note. Yay.

The cake was there to distract you.
That is all for now.

Derp Derp

Warning: the first part of this post is not that much about argument as it is about vampires. If you wish to see something argumenty or nonvampirical, skip until you see a beautiful picture with "DERP" written on it.




Before I start the regular blog post, I shall tell of an anecdote.
Here I was, doing nothing illegal, minding my own business, and I was utterly bewildered. Here's a screenshot. Can you spot what's wrong?

WHAT DO YOU MEAN "derp" IS NOT A WORD.
No, but really. I was trying to upload a comment, and I was consequently told to prove that I was not a robot. What better way to do that than to tell me to write down the two words, where one is a picture and the other isn't a word?

Thus, I simply put "derp" as my first word and clicked on the "submit" button. Surprise, surprise. Apparently, the sole fact that I managed to click the button proved that I was, indeed, not a robot, because the comment is up and healthy in that blog at this very moment. I'm still not over how "derp" is not a word.

How am I supposed to describe the following without derp:

To any fans of sparkling fairies out there, I am truly sorry. If you give me your email in the comments, I would be happy to send you a picture of a potato to remind you of the potato in the image. What potato? I'm a dinosaur.

Back to nonpotatical stuff.
I may have mentioned this in a previous blog post, but there are some things you should know if you want to major in ethos in the university of your choice.

Disinterest: Seem disinterested in personal gains. You want them to think that you care for the other people, mostly.

Virtue: Aggressive but not independent, creative but not crazy, risk-taking but not too much... Make the audience feel safe.

Practical wisdom: Show that you're the smartest boy in town, either by faking an old Asian accent or by being Asian.

Since my brain can't take it anymore, I'll call it a day here.
Here's a fallacy:

Double-Edged Fallacies

Ah, the beautiful fallacies: the double-ended swords that could either behead your opponent or accidentally poke your nose out if you're not careful.

Anyways, there are many arguments that do not make sense, simply because they are fallacies. Fallacies are like ducks: they're purple and overly stubborn to change. See what I mean? Of course you don't.

"Eat all your vegetables, honey. Kids are starving in Australia," she said.
What's wrong with this sentence, aside from the fact that Australia could refer to both the country or the continent? Well, one doesn't necessary relate to another, considering that eating your vegetables won't help the starving kids in Australia.

I can see how this became a standard table argument, but seriously, don't deny the fact that the logic is faulty. You have no idea how many times I have tried and failed to convince my mother that I do not need to eat that last piece of whatever. I've realized over time that logic, in fact, does not prevail. Instead, I have to go about talking about how my tummy hurts (pathos) or simply mutilating the last piece of whatever into being inedible. Note that the latter must be done while mother is not watching, unless you want to be mutilated.

Here's another thing that you might hear sometimes: "Well, we can't quit now; we came this far, didn't we?" What's wrong about this one, other than the fact that gambling by itself is pretty wrong? Again, one doesn't really support the other. We came this far. We can quit or not. The "coming this far" doesn't have much to do with the choice itself. I'm sure you'd want to get the poker money back from that smugly grinning rectal-valve with indoor sunglasses, but admit it. Whatever you're convincing yourself of in your mind is a fallacy, and you're not getting that money back.

Might as well hand him all your money.

Fallacies are dangerous. This kind of stuff is everywhere. Yes, you could use it to convince your mom that hedgehogs make for great pets, but the same argument could be used against you by a substance dealing friend suggesting flashlight batteries.

Calm down. Be smart.
Don't eat flashlight batteries.

Logic Prevails

Sherlock and Watson were out camping.
In the middle of the night, because of a rustling sound, both of them woke up.

"Watson, are you awake?"
"Sure I am."
They both stared into the night sky.

"Watson, what can you deduce from those countless stars scattered in the sky?"

After thinking for a while, Watson answered,
"Well, I guess with all those stars, we could deduce that there's more mysteries out there than we can possibly hope to comprehend."

"But Watson, you're missing the most important point."
"What is it?"

Holmes sighed.
"...Someone stole our tent."


Although it completely escaped me why I decided to write this down, I suppose we can deduce that sometimes, the simplest logic escapes us. Also, we can assume that the British are the superior human race on the planet, thanks to their accent and the fish and chips. They also have Coldplay.

Para, para, paradigm.

par·a·digm  

n.

1. One that serves as a pattern or model.

2. A set or list of all the inflectional forms of a word or of one of its grammatical categories: the paradigm of an irregular verb.

3. A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

See the third definition. That's what we're basically using to persuade/seduce/convince an audience. Once you control the argument, just shove some logos up there and voila! You're now a dictator, controlling women, wealth, and wisdom all at once. You may ask, "But what about freedom?" Well, freedom doesn't start with a W.

This leads to a very fluid transition to the overarching theme: logic.
There are two main types of logic discussed here: deductive logic, which applies a general principle to a particular matter to reach a conclusion, or inductive logic, which is an argument by example, going from specific to general. Facts, comparison, and story can all be used in the latter to make a legit argument.

I find myself quite familiar with logos, seeing that I seem to be horrible at the rest. I should note that at one point, I managed to convince a close friend (who happened to be all sciency and stuff) that destiny existed, simply through logic. I see logic as a powerful tool, and it should help anyone in his or her pursuit for world domination.

Or you could be British.

I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore.

As Common As a Goldfish

"My goldfish is better than yours!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"Mine's better because my goldfish can rap."
"That's stupid, goldfish can't sing."

Yes. No. Yes. No.
These aren't good arguments because, well, they're not arguments. It's more like a one-way boast or even a fight, much like some "arguments" I have with my mom.

"Don't talk back to me like that!"

Well, that's how a conversation works.
I've tried countless times to employ the things I learn here to win an argument with my mother, and I've reached the conclusion that I cannot win. Maybe it's because of the "respect your elders" attitude a lot of Asians have (which apparently means "adults are always right and you're dumber than a goldfish") or maybe all mothers are like that.

But I digress.
I'm supposed to be writing something that "deals exclusively with terms" from the reading. Uh... Plan B.

To convince someone, you should start with the commonplace, and there are five terms to be defined here:

The Adventageous: The persuasion that makes the audience believe that your own choice is the advantageous one.

The Commonplace: Any belief or value that can serve as a generalized version of the public opinion.

Babbling: Stuff that the audience repeats over and over again. It's probably a commonplace.

The Commonplace Label: Making something seem commonplace, making anyone who opposes it seem like an outsider.

The Rejection: When the audience turns you down, it'll probably have a commonplace.

And this is where cliches might help. No, not the kind of horrid cliches in the 2012 movie. Speaking of which, the end is nigh.


Then, there are other terms that are important for labeling, the attaching of favorable words and connotations to people and concepts. These are the kinds of things that you'll notice a lot the next time you're watching the presidential debate. Stuff like that. Watch the debate(s) here, by the way.

Term Changing: Not accepting the term your opponent is using and using your own.

Redefinition: Attacking the opponent's terms while changing their connotations.

Definition Jujitsu: Using the opponent's terms to attack (if they favor you).

Definition Judo: Using terms that contrast with the opponent's, making them seem bad.

Honestly speaking, these are things that I haven't paid much attention to, but now that I know about it, I know that it exists everywhere.

I guess the world could do with more of such "smart" arguments rather than goldfish fights or stubborn parents.

Oh, well.

More Cupcakes More Trust

One may have noticed that the existence of cupcakes in the last post was somewhat irrelevant to the actual content. So this time, I'll use a good cupcake example.

Suppose an attractive lady (or a wealthy lady) is offering you a cupcake. Regardless of the physical or monetary status of the lady, you decide to decline at first to appear gentlemanly. When she asks again, saying something in the lines of "Are you sure?" you say "Oh, if you insist," and snatch the cupcake out of the lady's hands. Then, you go on to say "I honestly didn't want to eat this cupcake as it would make me fat, but I am willing to make this sacrifice solely for you, my dear," just before voraciously consuming what used to be a piece of brown bread with icing on top.

And there, I demonstrated the tools necessary for winning someone's trust, which is apparently crucial in an argument involving cupcakes.

Three things are needed, as usual.

First, the reluctant conclusion: acting as if you reached your conclusion only because of its overwhelming rightness as shown by my "oh, if you insist" that makes several movie directors suffocate in the cheese.
Second, the personal sacrifice, making it seem like the decision helps others more than you, which I mentioned through the whole fat thing. And yes, bread does make you fat. Scott Pilgrim told me so.
Third, the Dubitatio. The what? Uhh... Whatever. It is the showing doubt of your own rhetorical skill, seeming to be an ingenuous speaker. I might not have done this in the cupcake argument, but hey, he got to eat the cupcake anyways.

I googled "cupcake eating" and this was there. It's deep and all, so yay.

So in the end, do the ends justify the means?

Just kidding. Let's not get into that. I've had enough SAT essays for a lifetime.

I believe that concludes ethos.
We should now know enough about ethos to make women undress simply by seeming trustworthy and stuff like that.

I'm sleepy and air-drunk so this post may be one of those things that are immediately  regretted the following morning.
Time will tell.
Trust me.

The Cupcake of Wisdom

The infinitely moist chocolate cupcake melts smoothly inside the mouth. It wasn't perfect, but it wasn't far away from it either. While the combination of bread and cacao dissipate in a fluid motion, the taste buds start to scream in pleasure and ecstasy. Then, just as quickly as it came, it was gone. I take another bite.

Okay. There was an attempt to make you want to eat said cupcake.
In all likelihood, you're probably scrolling down with your right hand with your left hand supporting your head, not caring about any cupcakes in any way.

Meh.

Today, I shall speak of practical wisdom.
There are three things you want to demonstrate that you are a wise person. Of course, this does not necessitate any actual wisdom, so if you are of a particular hair color, do not worry. You, too, can be "wise".

First of all, you should show off your experience. Show them that you've fought in various battles, slaying enemies one by one. Show them that you know your jazz and that you've had countless detentions, demonstrating your badassery. Show them that you've read the books before the movies went mainstream. So on and so forth.

Secondly, bend the rules accordingly, given that it doesn't intervene with the audience's virtues and values and all the stuff that matters. Be street smart. Stuff like that, yadda, yadda.

Finally, avoid extremes (or as the author of this fine book says, "seem to take the middle course"). This one should be obvious.

Let us think of a hypothetical situation (which, seemingly, one of the presidential candidates do not seem to feel a fondness for). If someone asked me whether I was a good student, I would go on to show all the AP's I'm taking while simultaneously showing that I bend the rules by constantly touching things that say "do not touch" on them.

Then I'd go on to say I'm not really that smart nor as stupid as certain people with certain hair color. Yep, that demonstrates my wisdom. Definitely.

Okay, but seriously, if done correctly, it would be amazing.
Oh, and before it's too late, the "certain hair color" I mentioned was a dark vermilion with polka dotted viridian dots and inconspicuous violet striped (with a touch of dirty orange). Before it's too late, if anyone does have such hair, I'm sorry.

Anyways, follow those rules, and you will, indeed, appear smart.
Then, maybe, you'd get the cupcake... given that it is not a lie.

The Power of Ethos

According to this beautiful book about persuation and seduction, you would want or need three things to successfully employ an argument by character, or ethos.

One.
You want the audience to be receptive, or ready to absorb the information you're about to say. If the audience is throwing a variegated number of vegetables towards your general direction, it might be an indicator that either the audience isn't receptive, or a hated teenage singer is right behind you.

Two.
You want the audience to be attentive. If they aren't willing to listen closely to what you'll say, chances are that they would rather play Indignant Birds on their "smartphones" rather than listen to what you have to say about deficit reduction or the new Indignant Birds game (in space!).


Three.
Most importantly, you want the audience to like and trust you. If they don't like you, they'll probably disagree on whatever it is you're stating, whether it be "I favor reducing unemployment" or "two plus two is ten in base four". If they don't trust you, about the same might go on to happen.

I can't agree more with what this guy (which, in this case, is Cicero) is saying. If we look back at the supposed charismatic people back in the old days such as president Abraham Lincoln giving his Gettysburg Address and whatnot, we usually hear all of the previous stuff. People were there, people were willing to listen, and people really liked Lincoln (mostly due to his amazing beard). Although I'm not sure whether the following story is true, I read a story about how a little girl suggested Abraham Lincoln to grow a beard, as it made him look more manly. This manliness, which was quite needed considering his bony body and the contrast he had with his opponent's bulky physique, apparently helped allow Lincoln win the presidency. Now I know. It was all ethos at work.

Bow down before my fancy beard!

Sometimes, you may have the perfect argument that makes so much logical sense. However, if it involves insulting the other person's lack of brain cells, it may not actually convince the other person of anything (in which case the perfect argument would not be perfect at all). Looking back, logos might be the cold and direct way to go, while the other arguments may be more touching. Or something like that.

The power of ethos.

Argument: Elephant VS Donkey

Presidents, presidents, whom we have picked to be,
presidents, presidents, let's see,
throughout America's history,
who's made it into the presidency?

If U.S. History taught me anything, it was that. It's a song, by the way.

Just right now was the presidential debate. What a coincidence, considering that we were studying the art of arguing!

I'm usually not that much a fan of watching candidates argue with each other, but I did anyway. What did I realize? That was pretty interesting.

Continuing the semi-newly acquired knowledge from the previous post, we can see all the logos, ethos, and pathos in their arguments.

There was logos in the form of stating facts.
There was ethos in the form of addressing the violence in other countries.
There was pathos in the form of children without a roof over their heads.
Stuff like that.

Now, less stuff from previous book stuff and more direct thought process from my brain:

Wow.
They continually seem to be attacking each other, challenging each other's previous statements and arguments, accusing each other for their previous "wrong and reckless policies", and other general stuff. Both candidates continually wanted to speak over the other, seeming to take the offensive side rather than the agreement side. Blame took a great part of this debate, and that perhaps made it fun.

Also, among all this, they both managed to smile at a single moment.

Moreover, I just have no idea how they can keep talking nonstop like that for longer than five minutes. Oh, well. I guess I'm not meant to be a president.

I think I can live with that.

Rhetorical Terminator

Argument is a marvelous thing.
Here are two sentences that are pretty much the same... but very different.
"You're compassionate, but not exactly the brightest."
"You're not the brightest, but you're compassionate."

They said the same thing, but what's the difference?
The second sentence left the better for later, leaving the lasting impression as a positive one. One could say one or the other depending on the situation, and that would make all the difference.

I decided to talk about that because I'm supposed to write about the rhetorical Terminator: logos, ethos, and pathos. I've used these in my past posts assuming that people knew what they meant. If you're new or if you have the mental memory capacity of a cross between a goldfish and a cookbook, I'll explain.

Logos is the argument by logic.
Ethos is the argument by character.
Pathos is the argument by emotion.
Each of these are arguments that appeal to each of those things mentioned.

Logos would be equivalent to the brain.
Ethos would be equivalent to the guts (or a mask if you're a very special person).
Pathos would be equivalent to the heart (despite being scientifically inaccurate).
All of these join to form the rhetorical terminator.

Actually, that's all I'll say for now.

I'm personally a big logos user, which occasionally doesn't serve me too well. Sometimes, I feel like mentioning some pathetic stuff, and that might help my arguments. Note that "pathetic" in this case isn't the right word for the usual arrogant d-bag that begs the protagonist for help at about three-fourths through the movie. Maybe it is, but probably not the way you're thinking. In fact, I think- you know what? Never mind.

I love you.

Thank You For Seducing

Completely unlike the previous post(s), this one will be possibly more lighthearted and less manically depressing. Let's talk about seduction.

I know some of my friends would immediately go on to think of naughty things as soon as I mentioned seduction, and it is their fault that I am now forced to think of such naughty things as well.

Try not to think of pink elephants.

Anyway, seduction.
The art of manipulating and changing others' opinions.
As naughty as this may sound, everyone reading this has probably seduced, at some point. It may have been a logical argument leading to whether it was worth it to do your homework, a horribly loud fight intended to make your mom bleed from her ears and change her mind, or a truly sensual argument with a beautiful lady about what pizza toppings to have.

Seduction.

In Thank You For Arguing, Jay Heinrichs mentions three goals for persuading, or seducing people, which are:

"Simulate your audience's emotions.
 Change its opinion.
 Get it to act." (22)

In the same way, to seduce a cop (hehe), one must first change his mood so that he would change his mind, possibly being lenient in terms of giving you a ticket. Calling the cop an inept gorilla may seem like a logical argument at the time, but chances are, the cop will get mad and send you to jail where you'll be forced to pick up soap from the bathroom floor.

But I digress.

If I were to learn all the little intricacies of argument, I might as well be the king of the crowds, the master of puppets. This book is quite didactic, and I feel smarter already. And that was only one chapter.

Oh, master. Teach me more.

Wounds Heal, Scars Don't

Due to Stitches being a graphic novel, it's quite hard to nail what anything is in terms of diction. I mean, most of it is dialogue. Maybe that leads it into being more towards the informal or even a familiar register. Either way, the author probably did so for the same reasons Brent Runyon did for the Burn Journals: maybe just to write it all down as to unburden himself, or simply to tell a story for others to sympathize with him.

Anyways, just as I was starting to wonder why the memoir is called what it is, a growth appears on the side of David's (the narrator's) neck, which horrifies him, as his older brother had once shown him pictures of unnatural growths and women's breasts. The doctor says it's nothing to worry about: a simple cyst.

Three years after the diagnosis, when David is fourteen, doctors perform two surgeries on David's neck, resulting in the loss of half of his vocal chord, after which, according to David, the only sound that he can make is "ack".

Here, in a way, David lost his language. The mom would still talk by "taking care of the dishes,"  the brother would talk through the slamming of his drum set, the dad would talk through the screeching sound of tires as he drove his car out... But David's silence, his language or lack thereof, was "no longer a matter of choice."

Then, the style and story gets very, very dynamic, very quickly.

As he realizes that the surgeries were to remove a cancerous tumor (which his parents were hiding from him), his mind drives into instability, leaving a huge scar both on his neck and his mind. He feels as if he doesn't exist, screams silently, sleeps under the table, and finds himself trapped in an imagination that resembles the destroyed rubble and debris of a temple. 

Disbelief. Despair.

The stitches themselves didn't help. David went to jail. David ran away three times. David tried to get psychiatric help. To no avail. The damage had been done.

So little words. So much impact.

All of this is so well aesthetically and emotionally orchestrated that I had no choice but to be forced onto the rollercoaster of sentiments along with David. I don't know how else to say this, but the book is captivating. All this in black and white.

This blog post was meant to be a lot more happy and optimistic.

Alas, it is not.

That's how impacting the book was.

Here's something to cheer you and me up.