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.