Fallacy City by Gandhi

We all know who Gandhi is. That frail man who made India's revolution a peaceful one. It's amazing how uneducated people (in terms of rhetoric) fall blindly into a black hole of false logic. His speech has too many fallacies to be undetected.

Hasty generalization: It is this unseen power which makes itself felt and yet defies all proof, because it is so unlike all that I perceive through my senses.

I'm absolutely sure what Gandhi perceives through his senses is not all the proof they got. I mean, the guy wore glasses. On we go with a false dilemma: 

"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." 

There are so many religions! Scientology doesn't even have a God. There are more options than just thinking there is a power that rules and not knowing what this power is because when people have a religion they are certain about what this power is. Gandhi also uses ignorance as proof.

"In my tour last year in Mysore I met many poor villagers and I found upon inquiry that they did not know who ruled Mysore." 

Gandhi didn't ask every single villager. I bet he asked a few and came up with this hasty generalization. 

They simply said some God ruled it. If the knowledge of these poor people was so limited about their ruler I who am infinitely lesser in respect to God than they to their ruler need not be surprised if I do not realize the presence of God - the King of Kings.

Then I thought "King of Kings" was a tautology. It seems a tautology is different words with the same meaning, thus this idea was wrong. 

"I do dimly perceive that whilst everything around me is ever changing, ever dying there is underlying all that change a living power that is changeless, that holds all together, that creates, dissolves and recreates. 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."

Just because Gandhi doesn't see anything that he can consider "the informing spirit of God," it just is. This is both a misinterpretation of the evidence and an example of the fallacy of ignorance. It's amazing Gandhi was able to fit two fallacies in one sentence.

"And is this power benevolent or malevolent ? I see it as purely benevolent, for I can see that in the midst of death life persists, in the midst of untruth truth persists, in the midst of darkness light persists." 

False dilemma alarm. This idea makes no sense! How can Gandhi say there is only white (benevolence) when all he does is mix it with black (malevolence)? Theres is a spectrum of greys that result from this idea! 

"Where there is realization outside the senses it is infallible."

Fallacy of ignorance.  

"It is proved not by extraneous evidence but in the transformed conduct and character of those who have felt the real presence of God within. Such testimony is to be found in the experiences of an unbroken line of prophets and sages in all countries and climes. To reject this evidence is to deny oneself."

Reductio ad absurdum AND complex cause fallacy.

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

Dude, we noticed.

Misinformercials

I'll kick this post off by telling you guys the fallacious comment my aunt tried on my cousin. He attempted to eat a banana, one of the small variety, in one bite because my brother did it. He gagged when trying. "If Sergio [my brother] jumps out a window, would you to?" 

"If he survived I probably would."

"If he survived I probably would." Wow. That was the stupidest retort I've heard AND it sounded worse in Spanish. Sergio could lose both arms and a leg and still survive. There's nothing left to say here.

This little occurrence just took place in my house and was perfect to get in a rhetorical mood. 

There's an ongoing debate on topics like gay marriage and abortion. I ask myself whether the "right way" foul applies to this argument. I consider that like beauty, what's right and what's wrong is up to the person to decide. Concepts as abstract as these have no right or wrong. In my opinion, it just can't be determined. Others have a truth. One doesn't know if the opponent is lying, so one must focus on trying to find out.

1. Try to discover who's needs the persuader is trying to meet.

2. Understand how much of an extremist your opponent is.

Back to abortion, I asked some people whether they supported it, didn't, or wouldn't respond. More tan 80% of the people I asked told me "That depends on the situation, if my girlfriend got pregnant I'd make her get and abortion / I support abortion in are of rape." In this case there was no space for sussing but it was very close to assessing practical wisdom.

Off to another topic, Juliana's blog. Good analysis on the Pajama Jeans commercial even though, sadly, this product already exists and goes by the name of jeggings. Yup, you combine leggings and jeans to get these pants, which are just as comfortable as the Pajama Jeans and much prettier (as I see it). I do agree with Juliana when she says that the comparable experience is very clear and I do see it in many commercials when I wake up! Like this one. Or this one. Or all the other commercials that make me want to go back to sleep. And Isabella has the same thoughts.

Seems like every blog I've read (of the people who did their homework) talks about Infomercials. And it seems like I'm a rhetorical wit. Isabella's post showed me all the fallacies in the video she linked when  all I saw was an easy way for people with weak, not-so-sexy midsection into a world of ponies and better looking abs. Restating Isabella's rhetorical question, who'd have thought? Definitely not me!

Zenophobia: Fear of an open space in your knowledge

It sucks to suck, but it's even worse to be a suck-up. Or that's what I used to think until I read Chapter 15. If your rhetorical skills reach certain level, you can turn a rebel into a suck-up. There's only one way to protect yourself from the benefits (or evils) or rhetoric: education.

It's like taking a quiz without studying, it's highly improbable you pass the exam if you haven't studied or at least heard a little about the topic. Same thing with rhetoric. There are many people and companies ready to trick you with their fallacious arguments. Don't be alarmed, knowing about the topic will surely aid you.

--------------------------------------------------------

Following what Mr. Tangen does in class, I read the maxim at the beginning of the chapter. It reads:

Rhetoric is an open palm, dialect is a closed fist. 
                                                                - Zeno

I tried to close read it but all my ideas were vague, but it seems they were closer to the correct answer than I thought. On page 159, Heinrichs writes on how he "loves rhetoric's lack of rules." This lack of rules is represented by an open palm while dialect, with grammar, spelling, and its other categories in which one could screw up, is shown as a closed fist. Makes sense. If I were this Zeno, I'd have used other objects. One could consider Heinrichs used Zeno's maxim since, as I just discovered, he's a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and the creator of dialect. These two titans just collided.

Enigma Paradigma

Ok, so it has been hard to write this blogpost. I unintentionally left it for the last moment, but my nerdiness forced me not to procrastinate any longer. 

I know that an enthymeme uses commonplaces to convince the audience to make a given choice. The book give an example on page 125:

Babes go for Priapic owners.

You should buy a Priapic.

In other words, if you want babes spend lots of money on a Priapic. Seems simple doesn't it? Well, I spent like 10 minutes trying to write my own and this is what I came up with:

Concise blogposts are best and get high grades. (Proof or premise)

I'll get a high grade. (Conclusion)

Haha, see what I did there? 

My enthymeme falls under deductive logic, which starts with a premise (commonplace) and then applies to my specific case to reach a conclusion. Here goes another one:

The Weasleys are alive and well. (Example)

So, all gingers have a soul. (General fact)

I know, this one was a bad example of inductive logic. These types of enthymemes take "specific cases and [use] them to prove a premise or conclusion." (125)

I read the whole chapter and didn't find "paradigm." As I think of my cozy bed I give you this sort of mediocre definition of the word, the Internet's one:

A paradigm is a typical example or pattern of something; a model.

I still don't understand the context of this word in Thank You For Arguing, but I'll go sleep because:

To have a good day people need 8 hours of sleep.

I'll have a good day.

YOLO. 

Over and out.

Of Commonplaces and Clichés

Commonplace: the result of combining a cliché and a stereotype. Even though I hate both,  Heinrichs does make a point. Commonplaces vary but so should the settings. 

So I found a video which talks about rhetoric, jokes (this includes witty, facetious, and urbane humor), and commonplaces. Particularly the misuse of commonplaces. This man is witty. He says that if congresswoman Maxine Waters knows what happened to Whitney Houston she should "step away from the crack pipe, step away from the Xanax, step away from Lorazepam because it's going to get [her] in trouble." This is what results of congresswoman Waters calling Republicans demons and gangsters. Who failed with the commonplaces and is out of decorum now? I'd say both of them! To address and audience one needs to have a little background check on them. Had he been talking with friends the comment might have been funny but this comment on national television is a whole other level.

If people babbled, or repeated the same thing over and over about Maxine and one were to use that commonplace chances are your audience will reject you. Why? National television addresses a much to big audience and it's hard to win so many people. Commonplaces appeal a great majority of the people (thus their name) but there are too many opinions the speaker would try to mould. Here's where you need to find the broadest context, to define how to convince as many people as possible.

Other than humor and commonplaces one can give the audience facts and data. Logos, duh. This is called stance. The video teaches one how to convince your friends to vote. One has to use lots of rhetoric to convince them, especially facts to convince them voting is the right way to go.

"Controlling the Mood" Is In Da Hood

Now talking about pathetic, sympathetic, and empathy, pathos comes along. The chapter's introductory aphorism reminded me of APUSH. Back then, during the Great Awakening, preachers would give sermons with such fervor people were moved to tears. I wish I could move anybody to tears, even Mittens (my cat) would be satisfying. Between ethos, logos, and pathos, the last one would definitely need working on. I'm as sensible as baby skin. 

The text also showed me some interesting ideas. Emotion comes from experience and expectation. I might be wrong, but both of them relate to verb tenses.

Experience: what happened in the past. Thus, it is forensic but strangely doesn't mention blame.

Expectation: what will happen. Deliberative, but here there is no choice because the person expects whatever comes to him and has no choice.

Yes, I was wrong.

Anyways, the success of an argument which appeals to feelings is based solely on self-control. Ranting won't do the trick. Neither will name calling or having a fit. But under so much pressure to maintain composure in front of large groups, it's best to use simple words. Elaborating the speech will make everything look practiced. My only concern is that when one knows the person like a child knows his/her parents the speaker has enough knowledge to appeal on certain ways. What's the trick when one  has never spoken to the audience before? What should one do?

Chapter Nein

After reading more than eight chapters of Thank You For Arguing I've grown a little tired of lies. I realized rhetoric as a lie as a whole. You may think I'm repeating what I previously said, but I'm just supporting a hypothesis I considered before. In other words, rhetoric is having the ability to trick people. An example is ethos' third asset, disinterested goodwill. One can be the evilest person but if one is a good liar people will trust you.

I have two thoughts: Rhetoric is a strong weapon and one has to doubt people. The speaker wants you to think he or she cares for you when he doesn't, meaning that if a politician gets your vote, what will stop him from not achieving those things he promised? "Even if you are a chockfull of virtue, street smarts, and selflessness, if your audience doesn't believe what you are, you've got a character problem." (75) Why in the world would anybody read this and think about being a good person if they can (not so) easily trick others into thinking this? To make things worse, dubitio just expanded this web of lines into one that includes acting. Maybe Honest Abe wasn't honest after all. Maybe, just maybe, he made his audience believe he is honest, but not really... I'm not sure I like how rhetoric works.