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.

Pewter and Unwell

Unlike the Burn Journals, Stitches is narrated in the past tense. Despite this, there's no trouble in connecting emotionally with the author or feeling the things portrayed through the book. Why? Well, it's a graphic novel.

Continuing from last time, the author of this memoir seems to have had quite a troubled childhood. The way the narrator talks about things make everything seem normal, but from the reader's point of view, "other mothers pulled their children indoors when they saw [the narrator] coming" (57) and the other kids constantly calling the narrator a "fag" or a "queer" doesn't seem too normal.

Also having mentioned this last time, the whole coloring itself seems pretty dark. Dark in both ways. Every other human being doesn't seem to have eyes, provoking an emotionless sense in the reader. It's like as if the narrator views everyone else as emotionally lacking and maybe even crazy, it might be the other way around, the narrator being "crazy" in that he dresses up as Cinderella and imagines car crashes all the time.

This all is shown rather well in the one frame in which the narrator jumps into the blank piece of paper that he always draws in, symbolizing his somewhat a need to delve into his own imagination. (Although the imagination itself isn't too pleasant, as he's seen diving into a stomach full with cartoony dumdums.

When the narrator mentions that grandma is "crazy", his mother scolds him and tells him to never say that word again, it implies that, as I previously stated, the narrator is viewed as "crazy" to a certain extent. Rather disturbing.

All this with a kid-like narration and shades of gray.

LOL Language

There are ten types of people: those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Geeky jokes aside, there are two types of people: descriptivists and prescriptivists. In all honesty, there are many more types of people out there, but for the sake of language and simplicity, let us assume these two are the only ones that matter.


These guys are arch-rivals.
What Holmes is to Moriarty.
What Batman is to the Joker.
What Neo is to Agent Smith.
What Aristotle is to Mashy Spike Plate.

Now, which of the two is the good guy?

Before I venture further, descriptivists are people who focus on the language rules of today, those rules that are ever-so-changing, those rules that allowed 'lol' to be an actual word.

Prescriptivists, on the other hand, are the people on the opposite side of the spectrum. Language should be analyzed and comprehended the way it was back then when language was first founded. The previous statement is an overstatement, but that's the general idea.

What Mario is to Bowser.
What Captain America is to Red Skull.
What Justin Bi*coughsneezeblub* is to music.

Now, what do you think my position is?
It is quite obvious that I'm more in the descriptivist side.

I may have mentioned this a lot before, but language is changing. Even right now. Now being three seconds ago. Now being a bit more ago now. It's still changing. Well, it was changing. I guess it doesn't matter too much since it just changed again. And again.

Congratulations. Now there's another word in the dictionary, another phrase in the books, another meme on the internet, and one less "thee" or "thou" or "whenceupon have'st" in the world.

So should we completely disregard language rules?

maybe but i dont think dats a good idea rly. :)
thats defntly not wut descriptivist r trying to get to here
then wat does it mean?

Language changes. I've made that clear. The rules are constantly being made, scrapped, and changed as we go. I personally think the prescriptivists are being a bit too overly attached to the language that was, in its own days back then, still changing.

So stop stressing. Change is okay. It won't kill you.
Lol.

Tones of Turquoise

Click here for a collection of memoirs by some random teenagers!

It's classified by tone for your mental pleasure too! (And the word "tone" in the title was obviously a complete coincidence.)

Also, the picture on the left is most definitely not the cover of said collection.

I have to warn you, though: the formatting became very, very funky when I uploaded the document, so the paging or the spacing stuff would probably not match up, contrary to my best will. Look over those seemingly minor, major details and enjoy the words. Do try.