Hooligans Take Turin

Don Juan: The Womanizer

As I went to see the see the school play, I wouldn't have thought that it would be as comical as it was. After all Don Juan is a play by Molière from the seventeenth century. Nevertheless, I'm going to give you a “deep” analysis of my interpretation of the play.

Don Juan, played by Matt Alvarez, was a very intriguing character. As the play unraveled we were able to see different facets of him. One of the main things to describe him, was that he was womanizer. One minute he was with one woman, ten seconds later they were already engaged, and thirty seconds later he was hitting on another. This was really effective for him, well why wouldn’t it be? He was handsome, charming, and well attracts women the most, he was wealthy. We can’t leave out that he was married, or wasn’t and had clingy ex-wife (didn’t quite understand that relationship status), the fact is that he did well when it came to women. After hearing Don Juan’s little adventures with women, let’s now go to his adventures with his sidekick. As he was flirting with all the women, his sidekick was covering up all his dirty work, he even worked as wingman, because after all what is a womanizer without his wing man. Ok, getting back in track. His sidekick (forgot his name…oops) was always helping him no matter what situation he was in, he was willing to pay for him. I don’t know if he did this as a job, or he just really idolized him, but Don Juan was mean because he took advantage of him.

After watching all the play, one could say that Don Juan wasn’t the best person ever, and he didn’t have the best values either. Well that’s why at the end of the play they ended up sending him to hell, because of all the sins he committed. Well Don Juan at least you can tell the other sin committers that you lived a good life!

Btw: My favorite part was for sure when Manuel was acting as a lifeguard. EPIC, EXTRAORDINARY, PRICELESS.

The Perks of Being a Horseback Rider

Taraaaa!! Here is our documentary, enjoy!

Getting To Know "Them"

What does being among the thugs mean?

As I started reading Bill Buford's book, Among the Thugs, I began to create an understanding of why people rage over football games. Buford after living for a long time in London, he first encompassed what it was like to encounter a football crowd, and what it was like to be among a football crowd. Unknown to what the "thugs" of the footballs clubs in England were, Buford became interested on them. 

What was written above, was a little summary of what I have read of this book. Now you can finally breathe, it's the moment you've all been waiting for: my own personal take on the book. As I keep reading, I realize that Buford looks at the Manchester thugs (or any other for that matter) as a weird species, and even refers to the thugs as "one of them." Buford, "wanted to meet a football thug," but according to him, "everyone around [him] look like one" (19). Even if he knew they differed from other fans, I realized he didn't really knew why. As the book continued he went to another game, a Manchester one, where he  "finally met one of 'them'". I do not know if thugs differ according to their respective football teams, all I know is that they are hardcore fans. Even though I talk about "them" as I didn't know them, I do, I have been among the thugs. Clearly in a different way, because as I asked before, "What does being among the thugs mean?" As for me being among thugs: was being trapped among a big quantity of fans that didn't let me escape to leave the stadium.. For Buford it might mean a different thing. He probably refers to being "Among the Thugs" as being a part of them, or at least pretending to be.

Here I leave you what thugs in Colombia, (aka: hinchas) would do for their team. For English's, rebellious thugs might just want to smash a window from a train, but "hinchas" from the Millonarios, team from Colombia, go to the extreme of taking weapons to their respective matches.

http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/deportes/hinchas-de-millonarios-fueron-capturados-en-peru-por-robo-y-posesion-de-armas-antes-del-partido-de-copa-sudamericana/20120802/nota/1734010.aspx

This is what thugs are like: rebellious and loving fans to their respective teams. I can't help but wonder what will Buford do as this book progresses. Will he become one of "them"? Will he prefer Chelsea or Manchester? Sometimes I even wonder if he will become Rooney's best friend.

All this questions will be answered next Tuesday, at 8'0 central in Blogger.
JK, I don't even know what I'm talking about anymore.

Prime Minister of Fallacies

I already spot one difference between Churchill’s speech Gandhi’s,Churchill’s is so much longer. So let us move on, I am going to talk about thefallacies that Winston Churchill used in his speech, “Our Duty in India.” Andaction:

“One would have thought that if there was one cause in the worldwhich the Conservative party would have hastened to defend, it would be thecause of the British Empire of India.”

Complex Cause right there, Churchill just committed the sin of thefalse choice. Why the cause has to be the British Empire of India? And not thatmonkeys like bananas?

“Unhappily all that influence, and it is an enormous influence, hasbeen cast the other way”

We’ve got ourselves a case of Tautology ladies and gentlemen. Thesame thing gets repeated twice. If you noticed, I myself just used tautology aswell. Churchill could have just said: “Unhappily all that influence has beencast the other way.” Other than tautology, he was being wordy (not a fallacy).

“It will also be long. We must not expectearly success.”

The reappearance in the use of tautology, Churchill strikes again. Wellif it “will also be long”, it’s not going to end quickly or “early” as he would.So yes Winston Churchill, you justrepeated the same ideas in different words.

“...they shall do so with their eyes open, and not be led blindfoldinto a trap.”

Tautology once again, I am sure that if you have your “eyes open”then you are not “blindfold.”

“We shall not be taken by surprise, as the country was during theRound Table Conference.”

Many questions, maybe, I don’t know.

“The princes, the Europeans, the Moslems, the Depressed classes, theAnglo – Indians -  none of them know whatto do nor where to turn the face of their apparent desertion by Great Britain.”

Almost sure it is a fallacy, just not sure which. Chewbecca defense?

“I repudiate the calumny which our opponents level at us that wehave no policy for India but repression and force.”

I repeat: “but repression and force.” False Dilemma? Well Churchillis only offering India two types of “policy," while there are probably more.

“We believe tat the next forward step is the development of Indianresponsibility in the provincial governments of India.”

This can be an example of the many questions fallacy. In this partof the speech Churchill is saying the next step is “the development ofIndian…”. As he says this, he is also implying that “Indian responsibility”used to be underdeveloped.

“The responsible government of territories and populations as largeas Germany, France, Poland, Italyor Spain is not a task unworthy of Indiancapacity for self-government, so far as it has yet been displayed.”

Not sure which, but this part of the speech is clearly a part of theSixth Deadly Sin: The Red Herring.

“If you took the antagonisms of France and Germany, and the antagonismsof Catholics and Protestants, and compounded them and multiplied them ten-fold,you would not equal the division which separates these two races intermingledby scores of millions in cities and plain of India.”

Do I even have to tell you? This clearly an example of the Chewbeccadefense, Churchill this could even be partof the South Park episode of Chewbecca defense.

As this speech continued, I was able to spot more fallacies. This isan exposition of some of the one’s Churchill used, because after all myassignment was not to write the speech all over again.

To end my blog, I am going to include a famous thing Churchill once said to Lady Astor:

"I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly"

BURN. I see what you did there Mr. Churchill.

Does anyone know what the picture below of Winston Churchill really means? If you do, good, if you don't, look it up, if you believe it means peace, then you are wrong. It means victory, and yes Mr. Churchill, victory you had with that fallacious argument.

This does not mean peace

Fun Fact: Robbie Williams also used the V-sign (palms out)

as an insult.

One More Foul. Pardon me: One more FALLACY

As I started reading Gandhi’s famous speech at Kingsley Hall, I was not able to spot the fallacies as quickly as I thought I would. Nevertheless as I read it several times, I found what I believe could be examples of fallacies. Gandhi was able to use fallacies hidden within his other use of rhetoric.  When in his speech he says, “It is not a blind law, for no blind law can govern the conduct of living being….” Other than using the fallacy of antecedent, as Daniel Solano said in his blogs, he could also be using the fallacy of many questions. When Gandhi says that there is a law, but not a “blind law”, he is already stating that there is something “governing everything”. Then he says that “no blind law can govern the conduct of living being”, here as Daniel said he is using fallacy of antecedent because if Gandhi says it, he probably is talking from background knowledge and how “blind laws” haven’t work in the past. So yes, he is using fallacy of antecedent, but also the fallacy of many questions, because he squashed two issues into one, “so that a conclusion proves another conclusion” (Heinrichs, 147). Other than this he also used tautology. Congrats Gandhi, three fallacies in one, just one more so you get your fourth foul, and out (just kidding).

The use of tautology was also very constant, as he kept repeating throughout the speech the same ideas. As Heinrichs said, when using tautology “the proof and the conclusion agree perfectly… because they are the same thing” (146). An example could be when he said, “humble and mute acceptance of divine authority makes life's journey easier even as the acceptance of earthly rule makes life under it easier.” As you can see I made the word “easier” in italic, because it is one of the reasons I believe it could classify as tautology: repeating words. Other than repeating words, the two ideas expressed in this sentence ended up with same conclusion. This was not the only example of tautology Gandhi presented. As the speech kept unraveling, he repeated more than once,  “that people don’t know who rules” and in other words, “villagers…did not know who ruled.” I’m not going to keep on exposing the types of fallacies used, not because I’m fearless, but because I wasn’t able to find more.

Oh look, I myself used a fallacy: “he repeated more than once.”

Gandhi, you and I have more in common that you could ever know.



*Note after having class: not sure anymore if my first example classified as a fallacy of many questions is correct, just saying!