Compare

• Anaphora: repetition of a word or words at the beginning of two or more sentences or clauses.
  

• Antithesis: two opposite or ideas that are introduced in a parallel way.

• Chiasmus: reversal in the order of words in two parallel phrases.

• Climax: the last part of a clause is the same as the beginning of the next clause.

• Dialysis: offers only two choices.

• Idiom: two words that when combined have a meaning of their own.

• Metaphor: comparison.

• Metonymy: uses the part to describe a whole.

• Multiple-yoking: a single subject is accompanied by multiple verbs, usually arranged in a parallel series.

• Self-answering questions: rhetorical questions that are asked and soon answered.

• Speak-around: the use of more words than necessary to express an idea.

• Synecdoche: a part is used for the whole or the whole for a part.

Deadly Sins

Fallacy: the use of poor reasoning for an argument.

1. False Comparison: two things are similar so they must be the same.
• The all natural fallacy: some natural things are good for you so everything that is natural is good for you.
• The appeal to popularity: other kids get to do it, so why don't I?
• Reduction ad absurdum: compares a logical choice with a ridiculous choice.
• The fallacy of antecedent: false comparison related to time.
• The false analogy: joins two different things and calls them the same. 
• The unit fallacy: does weird math with two different things, often confusing the part for the whole.
2. Bad Example: the example used to prove the argument.
• The hasty generalisation: uses too few examples and interprets them too broadly.
• Misinterpreting the evidence: takes the exception and uses it to prove the rule.
3. Ignorance as Proof: the argument claims that the lack of examples proves that something does not exist.
• The fallacy of ignorance: because something has never been disproved it must be true.
• Superstitions: the belief in supernatural casualty or that one event causes another without them being linked.
4. Tautology: the proof and the conclusion are the same. 
5. False Choice: the number of choices given is not the number of choices that exist. 
• The many questions fallacy: it squeezes two or more issues into a single one.
• The false dilemma fallacy: offers the audience two or more choices when more exist.
6. Red Herring: distracts the audience to make them forget what the main issue is about.
• The straw man fallacy: sets up a different issue that is easier to argue, or more favorable for the other person.
7. Wrong Ending: fails to lead to the conclusion.
• The slippery slope: predicts a dire series of events stemming from a single choice.
• The post hoc ergo propter hoc or the Chanticleer fallacy: assumes that if something follows something else then the first caused the second.

• Another Logical mistake
• The fallacy of power: if the person in charge wants it, it must be good.

• The seven rhetorical out-of-bounds:

1. Switching tenses away from the future.
2. Inflexible insistence on the rules: refusing to hear the other side.
3. Humiliation: seeks to embarras others, or win points for yourself.
4. Innuendo: if you object to it, you look like a fool. An implication or hint, a suggestion.
5. Threats: it denies the audience a choice.
6. Nasty language or signs.
7. Utter stupidity: "Never argue with a fool, people may not know the difference."

Chanticleer fallacy

The fallacy of antecedent

All natural fallacy

The false analogy

Hasty generalisation

Superstitions/Supernatural

The many questions fallacy

The false dilemma fallacy

Sneaky

Humor is a very tricky form of rhetoric. The it involves persuading the audience in a very sneaky way, without them knowing. If you find something entertaining or amusing then it is much easier to persuade you. Laughter can enhance ethos if used properly. Urbane humor is sophisticated and allusive, it requires previous knowledge or context. Wit is situational humor, it is clever and often uses irony. Facetious humor is used to 'break the ice', it is used mainly to make people laugh. Banter is aimed at someone or something, it's retaliation, or 'snapping back', it uses concession to throw the other persons argument back at them.

Storytelling is when you use a well-told narrative that allows the audience to imagine the experience, most effectively when it reminds them of their own past experiences and if it is told in the first person. Experience is what the audience believes happened in the past and expectation is what they think will happen in the future. To make it much more potent it is important to include things that the audience does not expect. Also in order to capture their attention it is crucial to show feelings and sensations. However too much sensation is not effective.

With a lot of feelings the persuader tends to get off track and become subjective, so it is important to have self-control. Another way to make it even more effective is with volume control. Using this you underplay the emotion, seeming to have a hard time controlling your emotions and later let some more emotions out, gradually and moderately. It is important to use simple speech, and not so many fancy words. Elaborate speech is more for ethos and logos, while plain, basic and modest speech is more pathetic.

To control your audience's emotions use different techniques. Using backfire you are able to calm their emotions by overplaying them yourself, this way they don't feel them as strongly. To direct their anger someone, show that persons lack of concern for their problems. Using passive voice you can direct their anger away from someone, imply things happened on their own. By comparing the audience to a successful rival to control their sense of group identity or patriotism. Emulation is when your audience imitates you, with more ethos your audience imitates you more. With unannounced emotion you sneak up on your audience and they are less capable and less likely to resist the emotion

Penguins Logic

In order to win an argument you need to control it. The most important tools to compare an argument are commonplaces, deductive logic, and inductive logic.

Commonplaces are things that are widely believed or accepted. For example, a commonplace that my mom used to tell me when I was young, "You can't swim right after eating because you will get sick." Commonplace words are words that affect the audiences emotions. Depending on the connotation of the words, whether its negative like "chatty" or "pushy", or positive like "friendly" or "expressive".

Deductive logic starts with a premise or a commonplace, then it goes into specifics, and then theres a conclusion. An example of this would be: "Vegetarians don't eat meat. Veronica is a vegetarian. Therefore, Veronica doesn't eat meat." This is deductive logic because it begins with a fact, 'vegetarians don't eat meat', something that is widely known and accepted. Then it goes into a specific fact that can be debated, and not everyone might believe, and it closes with a conclusion that connects the two.

On the other hand, inductive logic takes specific cases and uses them to prove a premise or a conclusion. An example of inductive logic would be: "Miranda is an Ice skater. Ice skaters are thin and tall. Therefore, Miranda is thin and tall." This is inductive reasoning because it begins with a specific case, 'Miranda is and Ice skater'. Then it goes into the general belief that all ice skaters are thin and tall, and finishes with the conclusion that 'Miranda is thin and tall'.

Premise: something that the audience knows or believes.

Debating

This Summer I was at the Global Young Leaders Conference. We spent a lot of time debating our points of view on different topics, trying to change each other's thoughts, to make them more like ours. Now I realise that some of the best arguments had ethos (appeal to character), pathos (appeal to emotions) and logos (appeal to logic). Thinking back on my arguments  I remember that on one particular discussion I had, in which I was able to convince my friend of what I thought, I used all three of them.

We were discussing whether it was better for a country to intervene in a conflict that it was not involved in, or simply provide the means needed for the country with the conflict, to solve it on its own.
"Think about all the times that the US has intervened in a country that had a conflict, most times the intervention has lead to more violence and resistance because peace could not be forced by an outside party that didn't know what the country was going through. Specially if the country that intervene's has its own agenda, a clear example is El Salvador," I said, "Think about what happened there, think about the kids who got recruited by the american soldiers to join the army. How do you think they felt, when apart from there being a war with the guerrilla in their country, foreigners came in to 'stop the violence and to help' but only made it worse, because they had other priorities that could benefit them more."
"Yeah, but you can't just let them keep killing each other" She responded.
"I know, but at some point they will have to stop on their own, maybe its important to push them to use the means we can provide for them, but going in and forcing peace in a way that works for another country might not work for that one."

They are also used in advertisements.

Decorum is being able to meet your audiences expectations in order to agree with you. Concession is using your opponents argument to your own advantage.  On a speech given by a 15 year old girl for the UN in 2008, the girl uses both decorum and concession. She uses their arguments to prove her point and adjusts the way she speaks to meet they way they would, treating them like important members of an international organisation, not like other people her own age.

Real?

I just started reading The Heart That Bleeds by Alma Guillermoprieto. When I first begun the book and realised that it was about Latin America, I thought it was going to be filled with general facts, and stereotypes. I had never heard anything about the author so I was predisposed for her to say somethings that I might not agree with. However I didn't want to be biased and close minded, so I decided to read a bit about the author before beginning the book. Alma Guillermoprieto is a Mexican Journalist that has written a lot about Latin America, she has lived in Mexico, Colombia the US and Brazil. After I found out that she had already written about Latin America, and that she had lived here I abandoned all my previous thoughts, and decided to give the book a chance.

She begins the first chapter saying: "This country feels as if someone had turned out the light" (3). Before reading anything else I thought about how that could apply to our country and other countries today. I remember my parents and grandparents telling me about how terrible it was before, and how today couldn't compare to what everyone who lived back then had gone through. There was a lot of violence, the drug traffickers and the guerrilla put bombs everywhere, and no one knew when they would go off and where. As I kept reading about the stories and the events that took place I felt horrible. I could not believe that people could do something like this and not care. I am not able to comprehend how people are so selfish, and have so much greed that they don't care what they do, or who they hurt, as long as they get what they want.

Expropriation: when a public agency takes private property for a purpose deemed to be in the public interest.

Guilt

Sarah's blog about feeling guilty made me think about what I thought when I began reading the memoir. At first I was a bit skeptical, I didn't think that anyone had so many memories about their past, specially not such detailed memories. Lung talks about what she thought, and wondered, she says  "He seems so serious and sad, and [she] wonder if [she] will ever see [her] fun Pa again" (49). I have read many memoirs, and heard many stories of people who went through traumatic, dangerous, horrible experiences in the past. About three years ago I read A Piece of Cake by Cupcake Brown. I doubted that she remembered all of the things she went through, all the conversations and even what people where wearing. She said that her grandmother told her, “You lay down with dogs you get up with fleas. A hard head makes a soft behind. Life is like a box of chocolates you never know what you're going to get.” Most of my doubt was because when people were actually telling me their stories, face to face, they wouldn't give as much detail. Obviously they were not going to act out the conversations that they had, but they didn't always say what they wondered, and thought in the moment. I know that when you write, more details are included, conversations and scenery so the reader can connect with the story, and picture what was happening. However sometimes when people go through a traumatic event their subconscious mind will 'block' the memories. Sort of like a defense mechanism, to avoid what happened, and even though they will still be affected, and certain things may trigger them and give them flash backs or anxiety, they won't remember somethings. I know that it doesn't happen to everyone, and it is less likely to happen to children under 10 years old, but I would think that because it was such a terrible, long period of time, they wouldn't remember somethings. 

I realize now that they were such impacting moments in their lives, moments that marked a big change, and the beginning of a terrible time that they had to live through. I know that I can't remember every moment from when I was young, but the ones that made a big impact are embedded in my brain, clear enough for me to describe everything, as if they happened only this morning.

Life Skills

Best of Friends. Best of Sisters.

After Chou and Loung get separated they are all alone. Loung says that "When [she] was sad and upset, it was [Chou] who [she] invariably sought out to share [her] feelings. [She] never realized how much [she] would miss [Chou] now that [they] were apart" (136). Loung had three brothers and three sisters, she was the second youngest and Chou the third. They were only three years apart and they were closer to each other than to any of their other siblings. When they were all forced to leave, their mother asked them to go off in different directions because it was safer, but "Though it goes against Ma's warnings, Chou and [her] cannot separate [from each other] so [they] head off in the same direction" (123). I can tell that they are very close, and reluctant to let go of each other and part ways.

I only have one sister, but when I try to put myself in Loung's shoes I know I would never be able to let go of her. She is my best friend and I cannot even imagine not having her around. We share everything and even though sometimes we fight but we can never go to sleep without making up. I could never imagine being in the situation that Loung was in when she had to part ways with her sister and keep going on her own.

Hope

I believe that there is always hope, not everything is ever lost, things could always be worse. However I admit that at times I have felt like they really couldn't, like there was no light shining, and there was no point for anything. I felt like hope was for the foolish, for people that wanted to live in a false reality. I understand why Loung would say that "[She] cannot allow [herself] the luxury of hope. To hope is to let pieces of [herself] die. To hope is to grieve his absence and acknowledge the emptiness in [her] soul without him" (108). I know that for her the hope that was lost was of her father coming back. Her truth was that he was gone. For good. Even if she had not said it out loud, or admitted it to herself, repeating it in her head to believe it, she felt it. And she couldn't deny what she felt. I know that what I felt when I felt that all hope was lost was very different than what she felt. We were put in different situations that ended up with those feelings, and even though I felt them I could never imagine being in her position, I could never imagine having to grow up in the situation she grew up in. I have family and friends that have grown up in difficult situations, I have heard their stories and how hard it has been for them, yet hers is simply horrific. I knew that things like this happened but reading about how someone suffered, and was affected personally, in their point of view makes the whole thing much more real. I am stunned that we do this to each other, that humanity can be so awful. Reading her story I think about one of my favorite songs, Dancing In Circles by Love & Theft. Part of the lyrics say "I don't understand why we do what we do to each other, according to his word we're all born sisters and brothers, but we lie and we steal, we fight and we kill even though we know the way…" Hurting each other is like a cycle that we can't break and that is exactly what the song says, but I still can't understand how people do this and are not affected, they simply don't care. How are they able to cause suffering, pain and death, and look the other way. Why don't they put themselves in the other person's shoes and think about how they would feel if it was being done to them.

Confusion. Safety.

The memoir First They Killed My Father by Loung Ung, tells the story of what her and her family went through during the Khmer Rouge. When I first began reading I was really surprised because Loung starts the memoir from when she was 5, before the Khmer Rouge. I realize that it must've been really tough for her to have to live the way she did at such a young age. It kills me to think that people had to go through that, especially at such a young age. Loung didn't even understand what was happening or why. When her father explains to her that the people in the Khmer Rouge are bad and 'destroyers of thing' she says, "[She'] does not quite understand what Pa means. [She] only hopes that someday she can be half as smart as he is" (18). I think that children should enjoy life, be free and silly, not have to live like Loung did. She must've been so scared and upset. I feel sad for her and angry towards the people who did that to her and to many others. The biggest problem for a child should be about what they are going to play with next, not whether they will get enough food to calm their hunger, or if their parents and siblings will come back home safe that night.


I also feel bad for her father. He had to make sue really hard decisions in order to protect his family. After they arrive at Krang Truop some of their old acquaintances arrive there too. Loung's father tells her that, "[They] don't want anyone to hear [her] crying. It is not safe for [them] to stay [there] anymore. [They] have to go, and [they] will ride on a truck to get there" (44). They are forced to live because of his job. He was afraid that if anyone in the Khmer Rouge found out who he was they would hurt his family. He knew that if they stayed close to people they used to know they could give away the secret in order to protect themselves or their own families.

The Conflict

I began reading First They Killed My Father by Loung Ung this weekend. So far I've liked this book, yet I feel like it will get better. When you read about things like what Loung is living through on text books you get facts and statistics. I feel like when it's just that, you can't really feel much for the people who went through the terrors that took place. I am not able to connect, or feel empathy for the people who were there. I feel distant because I don't know what happened to any of the people that lived through those things. I don't know what they felt or how they got through them.

Reading about the conflict in Cambodia and Loung Ung's perspective makes it really interesting. It allows us to see what a child's perspective was, we can see the confusion, the struggle, the suffering and the fear. It also gives us an insight to what it was like for many people to live in Cambodia at the time. What they felt and what they lived. I am able to connect with them and understand what happened much better than I would if I were reading a textbook. I also thin that it allows us to know the truth about many things that other books might leave out. I think that I will really enjoy the rest of this book and I know that I will learn a lot.

Smitten: be strongly attracted to something or someone.

Putrid: Dacaying or rotting, emitting a fetid smell.

Wedged: fixed in position or forced into a narrow space.