I'm ...

If I understood the new rhetorical tools, on chapter 8 of Thank You For Arguing, I shouldn't show how intellectual I am.  I didn't really know what to make of the chapter. I find it hard to apply all of the tools Heinrichs has given me. Some of them cancel each other. But after organizing them I concluded that you must choose one or two of the tools. You can't use them all in one discussion/argument. Although it is my favorite exercise. It seems to overwhelm the audience. I try to think about how the audience feels. Are they understanding? Tired? Confused? 

Well if I communicate with them using only two methods, little by little, they won't feel overwhelmed. 

I decided to try using only two, to restrain myself from applying all of them at once. For the sake of my audience. First I used logos which is appeal through thoughtfully, logically and comprehensively put arguments. And second I used dubitatio, I made it seem that I had just reached my conclusion from an inexistent confusion. You may be wondering when I used these two tools! Well... in this blog post. 

-That's why I chose a pretty ambiguous title. 

A found a really good video that summarizes Ethos Logos and Pathos for those that are still lost. It differs from Heinrichs' ideas of Ethos and Pathos, but it is still very accurate. A good 4 minute synthesis of the three rhetorical terms. Plus the guy has a really tranquil voice that serves the purpose of calmly explaining. 

Bloody Virtue

Yesterday I was in the play rehearsal. My character is an old angry mother, with a very old husband. My husband is a narcoleptic, which means he falls asleep all the time. At one point I am supposed to wake him. In the creative spur of the rehearsal we tried to choreograph my husband slapping me. He hit me with his elbow and I got a nose bleed. Now, it wouldn't have been decorous of me to start crying. My audience expected me to be a grown up about it. The hit didn't hurt so I was able to play my role easily.

You do what you need to do at the moment. When you manage to act as you are expected to you learn to read your audience. That change one makes when it is needed can be seen as an attempt to act decorously. Every situation in life has a different character to be filled with. You develop a personality, but that is a collection of multiple yous.

Decorum helps us fit in. We play by the virtue of the others or we make them act by our virtue.

Virtue can also be called values. Heinrich's explains, social acceptance of the word values over virtue came because men didn't want to be called virtuous, since that was a feminine attribute: "Hey, pal, who are you calling virtuous? The word connotes weakness and dependency-a sexist's idea of femininity".

Is this how they want to look like?

Oh yeah all muscle...

I think we were luckier with this one. Don't mind me being virtuous... 

The Tie Issues

I heard many critiques and compliments for both candidates competing for the U.S.A presidency. One of the funniest was that on the previous debate (not the one today) Romney had worn a tie which had an english stripe, rather than the American stripped tie. At first I found it funny then I understood it as pure stupidity. Now, after watching the debate I see the "importance" of these little accessory for men. There I was, trying to understand the points of view of both candidates, when my mind stopped thinking, sidetracked thanks to the ugly tie Romney had on. I was then immediately favoring Obama. I can't actually choose a side or even argue about the topic. I know nothing of the U.S.A current situation. I know very little about politics. I might as well admit that I am ignorant to the politics of the most influential country in the world, and those of my own country too. But as a human I can say that it sounds logical (logos) to say that more budget for the military would be absurd if they are already the country that spends the most in military. Perhaps it is not the amount of budget, but the way it is being used. 

I was shocked, though, to see two grown men attacking each other like little children (Well spoken nine year olds). If I recall correctly there were more than 4 interruptions between one another. The guy mediating looked frustrated and tired. Maybe it was because he was old and looked wise that I assumed he was tired. Mmm oh well... 

In addition to my incompetence for the topic and my alarming interest on everyone's clothes, I was trying to relax from the stress the tests this week bring me. I saw the two candidates debating. Obama with his golden pathos. -For example when he told the story about Patton. -And Romney with his reputation. Always talking about his success as a Governor and a business man. I get it they need the rhetorical knifes to make us agree. They both used logos, exposing facts like komodo dragons spit poisonous saliva at their enemies. I was charmed by those, the logical facts. I didn't know if they were greatly maneuvered fallacies, but they sounded real. And the certainty in their voice made me feel unworthy of doubting such wise men. Seeing them there gave me a strong existential depression. 

The only think that stopped me from falling into complete admiration for their memory and fantastic oratory was that they had an ATTITUDE.  They made faces, raised their voice and even laughed at each other. I was not expecting them to get all carried away like fighting teenagers. Then, I remembered, my days in MUN are proof of how I will never achieve the goal of lady in distress. I snap like a mean witch when attacked. If I were to be debating right there one day I would end up shooting the opposition. I am not very patient, so I have to forgive them for their lack of it. 

Oh politics. Just an ugly tie.

When Thinking Spoiling

Rhetoric: Rhetoric is the art of discourse, an art that aims to improve the facility of speakers or writers who attempt to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.

Rhetoric has always been part of our lives. We have to get the things we want and we learn how to get them with time. We use it without knowing it's name but we are not ignorant to it's existence. Although rhetoric has always been part of my repertoire of tools to use when working for a goal, I feel that knowing how it is characterized does help me organize my arguments. But I found out that if I plan my argument based on the advise of the book it feels forced. I'm stuck there thinking should I mind maneuvers or not? I'm also trying to use a wide variety of techniques and that makes me panic. I end up less organized than when I just go with my natural rhetorical abilities. They are, off course, learned over time but they come out naturally now. (I think I will plan them only for written arguments.) 

Here's an example: My mom and dad are talking in the family room and I hear my name. My instinct tells me to ask them what they are talking about. I then proceede to scream: "Dad why are you guys talking about me?," I am a curious person. My mom, as usual, intervenes and screams back: "Cause you are the new password." I am left puzzled by her response and I reply: "What password?," she says, "the password of your fathers life." She is mocking me and that is highly unacceptable. I rise and walk to the family room keeping in mind my new rhetorical organizing skills. 

1. I set my personal goal: Make my mom realize that she is NOT being funny.

2. Set goal for my audience: CHANGE MOOD: from humorous to annoyed.

First I have to say I was successful on one of my goals but the other one was a total fail.

I started off stimulating her emotions by standing in front of the tv. Once I was strategically placed I was aware of her annoyed look. I asked her again seriously what password. She went on with her little charade, "All the passwords [honey], it's a sign of affection from your dad." She tried changing topics to me not liking the ceviche my father bought. But I was determined. "Mom why do you enjoy pestering me?," I wanted to trigger guilt. She is reluctant and I snap. This doesn't happen usually, she is literally ignoring me, like my immature sister is accustomed to do. She triggers stress in me instead. I'm thinking what was next and in the desperation of the process I panic. I change my target and tell my father to "try buying the nice fish next time," I'm still using rhetoric because I prefer the use of a suggestion instead of an accusatory phrase. He feels offended anyways, and my mom gets a new reason to shush me. I get slapped by her words: "Stop being rude to your dad, the fish was fine." I now look like a brat. Two strikes, stress and now embarrassment. But she started this. Although I already lost in my terms, I will accomplish one of my goals at least: to annoy her. I succeed, completely transformed into the brat she made me look like. It works she is pissed. She attempts to watch a movie and, engulfed in stress, she fails to make the apple t.v. work. 

I take advantage of that one mistake she just made, to use her same "humorous" tactics this time on her. 

Me: "When you are mean and definitely on the wrong attitude you do everything wrong." (She looks at me, mouth open.) "No I'm not going to help you." 

I leave feeling somehow triumphant. Until I remember I wanted her to take me to the ATM. Now I have an annoyed mom and I need something from her. Not even advanced rhetoric will assure me success.

Think they said. 

LPE Legion

LPE= Logos, Ethos and Pathos.

Logos is logic. Facts

Ethos is reputation.

Pathos is emotion.

These are tools to win an argument. In Thank You For Arguing the author Jay Heinrichs explains to us the power of knowing how to use these rhetorical tools. Created by Aristotle these tools are three big ones of many Heinrichs already gave us.
Arguments can be mastered remembering the following "rules":
1. mirror the emotion of your opponents, to show concern. Then, switch it to what you want the mood to be.
2. Discuss trying to reach concession
3. Become the one who wins the fight. Almost like acting.

Although it is not mentioned in chapter four of Heinrichs book, I'm sure he will include it later on, presentation is key. The way you look does matter. That's why you have to look fabulous ALL the time.

Like this:

Kinda! Just look right for the occasion and try not to be part of the herd of ill dressed citizens.


Or look horrible or I dunno. Work it. Because sweet victory awaits you in future arguments.

My Future Children

I am trying to spend time with my grandparents. They always make great conversation topics. That's about all I need to like a person. I was talking with my grandmother about the book I'm reading, Kaffir Boy. I told her how the book made me feel. I said, "I ache for my own future children. As I read, I grab myself in fear and it takes me a few seconds to remember I am safe, in my bedroom. Disgusted by human cruelty, I always have to stop reading." and from that - deep- paragraph the only thing she picked up was "my own future children". She asked me how I pictured them, how I wanted to raise them and how many kids I wanted. She told me that she wanted them to know about her. I understood her anxiety to know all this things and we talked. 

The conversation, which after a while returned to the book, made me realize how I am very protective about my future children. ( Something like this.)

In the book, Mathabane describes the hiding place his mother used when the police came looking for her. He was shocked because "[his sister and him] often had trouble fitting in [that wardrobe] whenever [they] played hide and seek" (p.26). After the conversation with my grandmother I understood that I would do anything to protect my children, just like Mathabane's mother did.

Apartheid

I avoid topics that remind me that the people I love may die. I think it is natural. One topic that always takes me to traumatic scenes is my childhood. I didn't suffer, but it reminds me of the time I can't recuperate. I complain, I demand, I am human.

The book Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane reminds me of how lucky I have been and how stupid my complains are. I had my fingers crossed as I opened the first page of the preface. I was wishing for a good book. That means a book that transports me to another world. That helps me escape my own boringly dramatic life. I knew from the speed of my reading that I was starting to like this book. Liking the suffering that it brought me.
I was faced with a reality I knew little about, even though I have read about it many times: Apartheid in South Africa.
The author managed to transform his fears into written words. I can picture this process as something similar to a candle melting under its flame. Well his melted words burned me and I too felt his fear. In the preface he said "In my childhood these enforcers of white prerogatives and whims represented a sinister force capable of crushing me at will...", the feeling of fear he had is stronger than any fear I have had. Yet, I understand it. How can I understand a feeling I haven't had? Well, that is the magic of a good book.
As odd as this may sound I feel like a kaffir when I read. I understand that "[in Africa] to be black is to be at the end of the line when anything of significance is to be found," and that fills me with anger. No one should feel like a left over. Cruelty should never be tolerated.
Mathabane doesn't exaggerate his story, he is not begging his readers to feel hatred nor dissapointment. Mathabane kills us with clear and simply described memories. We feel the hot wax of his burning candle and we ache. I ache as if I were him.

I am being transported and I consume this book eagerly.

Nonsense

The debate between Brian A. Garner and Robert Lane Greene was interesting although too advanced for me to fully understand. I tried to concentrate in what each of them was arguing. I found this to be exhausting. Nevertheless, my efforts paid off and I am now aware of the prescriptivist/ descriptivist debate of the linguistic world. I don't really know what side to take on the discussion since I struggled with half of what they said. I kept being distracted by the advertisement on the left side of the web page. I could give each of them points and call one, the winner. But my judgement was blocked by my lack of knowledge and tired mind. I was more interested in guessing their personalities through the pictures that appeared next to their names. Robert Lane seems more artistic and free. His black and white photo is sober and organized. But from the daring stare he gives the camera I guessed he is not easily satisfied. He wants to be taken seriously. That's probably why he chose a simple blazer without a tie. Brian on the other hand, is more the classic scholar that enjoys a library more than a spa. He doesn't look funny. But in private with people he considers equal or superior he might be quite amusing. He decided to use a photo with books behind him. The background reassures his readers that he, indeed, is a serious writer, (Surrounded by books, always and forever). Well I'm just writing my random thoughts here. I think that's how I best respond to things. I analyze and judge images with the enthusiasm they give to troubled English.
Oh, and if you were wondering the advertisement said: "Nonsense?", and that can be VERY distracting.

Ink

During class I heard some of my classmates ask: What is close reading? 

Well it is is to see the symbolism behind every word the author writes. In this assignment we had to close read the title of the memoir we are going to read. I will read Kaffir Boy by Mark Mathabane. The first thing that strikes me from the title is the cultural value it has. Although I don't know the meaning of the word Kaffir, I can deduce it is culturally rich.

Kaffir: The word kaffir, sometimes spelled kaffer or kafir, is an offensive term for a black person, most common in South Africa and other African countries. Generally considered a racial or ethnic slur in modern usage, it was previously a neutral term for black southernAfrican people.

So there we go! Kaffir is a racial term. I can predict now that the book will treat the topic of racial injustice. 

The second word on the title is boy which means the youth of the writer could be his main focus point. I can also see how uniting a pure boy and an offensive term seems contradictory, it brings the reader to the social conflict the book may treat.

I expect a dramatic book, which will move me. I expect a shocking reality, probably a cruel one. What else can I say? Let's start it.