Tattoos and Appearances

I am close to getting to the fiftieth page of In Cold Blood and the murder still has not occurred. The lives of the to be murdered Clutter family is still being described. In class we discussed why the author does this and came to the conclusion that the family is society or show what society expects. The author also continues to describe what the murders, Dick and Perry, are doing before the murder. The way time is managed in the narrative is revealing but does not offer any clue as to why the murder is commited.

Up to now there is no sort of connection between the family and the murders. Which just makes it seem as if the Clutters were picket at random. The murderers also don't seem to be working for anyone who would want to hurt the Clutters. This all adds to the suspense and mystery of why this all American family is killed.

One thing I find curious is Perry. He does not portray the typical aspect of a murderer. Sure he has tatoos but just because of that doesn't mean he fits the profile. Even the description of his tatoos as being "elaborate-not the slef-inflicted work of an amateur but epics of the art contrived by Honolulu and Yokohama masters." (Pg 31). While Dick has a more hardened personality which are shown in his tatoos, Perry seems a soft man.

Maybe its the description of him being injured and his way of thinking that add to this. When the murderers needed stalkings to mask their faces this description was very unique:

"The notion presented a drawback of course: nuns, and anything pertainiing to them, were bad luck, and Perry was most respectful of his superstitions." (Pg 42)

I think this highlights the simplicity of Perry. He just seems like such an innocent guy that does not seem like he did time or is about to commit a murder. Along with this description they talk about Dick having a really high IQ so maybe Perry is only being taken advantage of by Dick. It could be possible Dick wants to pin the whole murder on Perry and him being simple minded is perfect.

The author could also just be presenting him as the weaker of the two murders to later show how his appearance can be deceiving. Isn't it true that some of the worlds most dangerous people seem to be simple and kind?



Maimed: Wound or injure (someone) so that part of the body is permanently damaged.

Quandary:A difficult situation; a practical dilemma.

Still Warm Blooded

This week we started reading In Cold Blood, a novel by Truman Capote. The novel requiered the author to do extensive research and even though names were changed, the stories are basically the same. the title pretty much tells the reader that the book will be about murder but the subtitle hints that the bigger part of this will be the consequences. The question now is whether it will be the consequences of the murderers,  those close to the deceased, or maybe the deceased themselves.

These first pages have described the setting of the story, Holcomb. This small town is in Kansas and is described as "an aimless congregation of buildings" and "a haphazard hamlet" (pg 3) the setting is not where one would expect a murder story to take place. The author spends the first few paragraphs describing Holcomb and while the descriptions are very imahinative and clear, the metaphors and similes used make this small town seem dangerous and harboring danger.

After the description of Holcomb, character being to be introduced. Frist there is Herbert William Clutter, a well off land owner. He is a stern man who is very religious and condones drinking. The author uses foreshadowing to let the reader know Mr. Clutter will be murdered when he says:

"...he headed for home and the day's work, unaware that it would be his last." (Pg 13)

The next section of the book describes a man waiting in a coffee shop for a guy called Dick. The guy in the coffee shops name is Perry and is half Irish and native american. There seems to be no sort of  association between Perry and Mr. Clutter but in a later section it seems as though Perry and Dick will be the murderers of the story. There is talks of a gun and what seems to be allabies to where they are. This creates suspense for the reader.

The last character described in depth is Nancy Clutter. She is practiically described as perfect and if she were to apply to college in the present, she would have a long list of activities to put on her application. Her sections feel a little out of place between her father, the man who will be murdered, and the murderers. The author might do this intentionally to hint that maybe Nancy will be an innocent bystander of the murder that occurs. Then again it might go back to those consequences mentioned in the subtitle.

Fallacy Overload

Winston Churchill. Former president of England during some of the most trying times the country has faced. After dealing with World War Two, the issue of the independence of India came into the picture. In this speech Churchill speaks about the issues, but also weighs in on how it is not beneficial to anyone. This speech was full of fallacies. It wasn't that hard to spot them and its still surprising how many were used.

First, hasty generalization is used throughout the whole speech. Whenever things are assumed without concrete proof, which happens a lot in this speech, there is hasty generalization. When Churchill talks about how the British got hurt or how the people of India don’t know where to turn. He is making conclusions regarding these issues with very little proof. Along with this, there is a constant repetition of ideas. Using this tautology, Churchill reminds the audience how the Indians can’t rule themselves, will erupt into social chaos, and how the British are keeping things under control. He repeats the premise many times to showcase the point that the British are the best thing that could have happened to India.

There is a prime example of slippery slope when Churchill says: “in imagining that Mr. Ramsay MacDonald and Mr. Gandhi and Lord Irwin are going to bestow peace and progress upon India, we should be committing ourselves to a crazy dream, with a terrible awakening.” Basically we can expect the worst from doing something reasonable. Along with assuming the worst he uses the fallacy of antecedent to make it seem that things will continue as they are. Especially when he mentions Socialist and how what they are doing now wont change in the future.

Churchill is saying this speech in front of a large crowd and uses the fallacy of appeal to popularity to get a patriotic sentiment from the audience. When he uses the word “we” he is referring to the English and how it is their burden to help the Indians. When he says “Such are the follies we are forced to expose.” He isn't simply referring to the government but to every single person listening to his speech.

To finish my post, there is the use of unit fallacy:

“…are the same Brahmins who deny the primary rights of existence to nearly sixty millions of their own fellow countrymen whom they call 'untouchable'.”

There could be more or less people who are being denied rights and this number is probably not exact. By saying specific numbers of any kind, the audience might be swayed to believe that the data is real.

Shooting Dilemmas

With the other two speeches I have looked at, they were from people from both sides. In this speech by George Orwell, we see a different side of the British Imperialism issue. Here is a young soldier who has to be there because it’s an order and not because he wants to. In this speech he decides to shoot an elephant but the reasons he chooses to do this aren't as clear or honorable.

In the first paragraphs, Orwell describes how he was treated by the natives. He stood out because he was an English man and was despised by the Burman’s. He creates n appeal to popularity with this idea. He describes how soldiers were ill treated, how he did not have a really good education, and all these reasons that would make the audience feel bad for him. He uses all of this so that later when he shoots the elephant, the audience agrees with his decision. Through this he realizes the power of the white man:  “I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind.” The audience could say they agreed with him since he makes it seem that if that course of action wasn't taken, he would suffer the consequences.

There is also hasty generalizations that push him to shoot. He says that all the faces watching him wanted him to shoot. How could he have seen all the faces? There were probably those who didn't want him to shoot the elephant at all. This hasty generalization makes the fact that he shot the elephant more appealing to the audience. Orwell plays the victim in the issue if you think about it.

The straw man tactic is the whole essay. To attempt to describe what it was like to feel pressure by the people in Burma. The story of the elephant is the authors way to have an argument against his opponent by using a topic he is familiar with and knows about. This makes his point look better than his opponents because he is the one posing the situation. 

Lots of Fallacies There Ghandi

In the speech given by Ghandi  at Kingsley Hall in London, he talks about God and how He is perceived. I read and listened to the speech. By doing this I was able to appreciate how what he was saying was to cause and impact on the British. Tying it back to what we have been learning in class, there are some fallacies in the speech that are not easily spotted. Before I begin analyzing the fallacies, I just want to throw out there, I liked the speech and am in no way attempting to butcher it.

In the first paragraph, Ghandi uses a hasty generalization. He presents all this information about how the existence of God can be reasoned to a limited extent. When he says that last sentence he is drawing conclusions out of scanty data or evidence which is actually more his ideas turned into evidence. This is clear in the art sentence when he closes that idea generalizing the idea. It is also important to point out that in the first paragraph it becomes clear what Ghandi will be discussing since he introduces the topic clearly. This could show the straw man fallacy since he chooses to get his point across by tackling a topic that is easier for him to talk about.

The second paragraph discusses the village of Mysore and how the population didn't know who their ruler was. By giving this specific example Ghandi shows the use of straw man once again to tackle the argument in territory that is known to him.  The Chantelier fallacy is present in the third paragraph when he talks about the research and how he interpreted it. This doesn't necessarily mean it leads to this specific conclusion and how he could also be using the fallacy of misinterpreting the evidence. It is mostly his ideas and making his ideas sound like the right conclusion.

The final paragraph has a lot of tautology since the premise of what God should be is repeated constantly. For example when Ghandi says: "Hence I gather that God is life, truth, light. He is love. He is the supreme Good. But He is no God who merely satisfies the intellect, if He ever does. God to be God must rule the heart and transform it. He must express himself in every smallest act of His votary." He is mostly just repeating the same idea in different ways. That God is this and does that. Also in this last paragraph, there is use of the fallacy of antecedent since he says situations will be a certain way continuously because they have always been that way.

Infomercials Unmasked

Its Sunday morning and you wake up at six a.m for whatever reason and made the mistake of turning on the T.V. Prepare to face the consequences. The commercial above comes on and since there is nothing else on, you are immediately entangled by the images of firm behinds and happy people. First you are apathetic toward the pajama pants but as the commercial goes on you start thinking: "Hey maybe these aren't so bad!". When thoughts about how you can wear these on your next trip to the grocery store and be comfortable as you put the groceries away creep in, stop. Just stop and really think.

You should first notice the disconnection in this seemingly perfect commercial. The persuader is saying that you can use pajama pants for the situations presented and be happy about it. What about what you want? Do you really want to wear some tacky looking pants out in public while your children are near by? You might be comfortable but the commercial fails to show that you really cant wear these state of the art pants for everything.

Then there is the state of character of that feminine voice from the heavens that is just too happy. No one sounds that happy when they talk about pajamas and jeans. Here, this woman is temporarily that virtuous being that is teaching us all there is to know about pajama jeans and how they benefit you. There is a choice being presented and she cares about you picking these pajama jeans over just regular sweat pants, which lets face it, are better than all the pajama jeans in the world. Last, there is the mean. Are pajama jeans too extreme or not extreme enough for you? The situations being given make it seems simple but if you really sit down and think: would you even wear these out in public and risk someone feeling the texture and ratting you out?


I do give props to them in their phronesis or practical wisdom. This persuader makes it clear that these pants fit all sizes. By doing this, the advice is matched with the particular circumstance and might make pajama pants a little bit more appealing to you. Right after this, the comparable experience is put into play. In this commercial its the different situations in which you could wear your pajama pants, that could ultimately make you picture yourself going through that experience.

All in all, I don't believe anyone would get a sudden urge to buy these pajama pants after they really analyze the situation. Its all a sham to get your money and make the world tackier. So know what to look for and oppose a tackier world!

Those Old Shows

Logical fallacies are put into a different category than the rest. Heinrichs does this on purpose in Thank You For Arguing, by explaining it in chapter fifteen. The name of the fallacy discussed is the fallacy of power which is the fallacy that assumes that the person in charge is always right. With this fallacy Heinrichs explains that "there are no right or wrong decisions in an argument , there is only likely and unlikely. (pg 157)".

So if there is no right or wrong, could an argument go on forever? It is important to note that one should never block the argument. An argument wants to reach a conclusion, a satisfactory conclusion that leaves both sides knowing they gave it their rhetorical all. Whenever an argument is "blocked" it is called a foul. I think of this foul like the foul ball in baseball. The pitcher and the batter are both ready, each with their own set of skills ready to show it off to the world. The pitcher and the batter can both commit fouls if you think about it. the pitcher can manipulate the ball so that the batter can't hit it, therefore ending the "argument" or baseball play. The batter can hit a foul ball and that can also put an end to the bas argument (see what I did there?).

The golden rule learned in this chapter is: Never argue the inarguable. All parts of the argument must remain on task and using real persuasion. To do this, no fouls must be done. Still, even the author admits that in the rhetoric world, there are very little rules. The success of the argument depends on those taking part in it.

Discussing the fouls that can be commented, humiliation is one of them. Humiliation is a foul because all it seeks is to gain the upper hand or just ridicule the victim. Does not really go with playing fair. Within humiliation there is innuendo. Remember all those old T.V shows we watched when we were little? Well, whether they were Disney or Nickelodeon, some of them had sue funky innuendos. We didn't catch on to most of them because we aren't the geniuses we are today. For example in the Flinstones there is a perverted joke that I would have never gotten when I was six and glued to my T.V watching the characters. This right here is a pretty um interesting innuendo.

Tyra, Paco, and Logos

Chapter thirteen of Thank You For Arguing, brings the reader back to logos. There are different ways to use logos to make your argument stronger and appeal more to the audience. The author says that by being comfortable with the logic you are going to employ in your argument, and not afraid of letting the audience into it. In a sense you are Tyra Banks when in comes to logic, not scared of completely making a complete fool of yourself because your logic is powerful and others embrace it.

Tyra Banks is not the best example for this but its more a personification of the situation. When she tells the upcoming models in Americas Next Top Model  how they should do things, she goes all out. Why? her logos lies in years of experience in the modeling world and the fact that she knows what she is doing. So what happens next? Tyra shows the models (and national television) how her logos applies to the situation. If the question was about hair flipping, Tyra doesn't just hair flip, she hair swats to prove her point. 

Logos is about having confidence in what you know and not being intimidated by the audience. With deductive logic you apply a general idea to something more specific. this logic is connected with enthymemes. An enthymeme puts a commonplace and a conclusion together. Almost all the ads we are exposed to have this kind of logic because it supports a choice. For example lets take my favorite commercial One Million by Paco Rabanne. Basically the premise or commonplace is that everyone wants something they don't have and want it fast. Then the more specific case is that by wearing this cologne you can achieve anything you want by snapping your fingers. 

The next logos strategy is inductive logic. This is the opposite to deductive logic. You go from the specific and apply it to the general. Here you are not basing your argument on an already existing belief but you are creating one. This kind of logic comes with three kinds of examples you can use to  make your inductive logic stronger: fact, comparison, or story. Saying facts just means you say common things that highlight your point to the audience. if you are talking about how badly you want new shoes, you talk about how they help your knees, are aerodynamic, and can help you get a date. You don't say random facts about the contents in a Maruchan cup. Then comes comparison which is kind of like facts but saying a pro and a con and how that con makes you better. The last example is a story, whether it is fiction, non fit ion, a joke, or something from the media, you can use it in inductive logic.