The Transubstantiation of the Cheese and Wine

I get strong cravings for meat every once in a while. A perfect meal for me in this situation is a medium rare porterhouse, a baked potato, asparagus, and a glass of Château Puygueraud (any year). But sometimes I have this craving and just can’t get the meal together. First of all I don’t have any Château Puygueraud on hand and haven’t for over a year. Secondly, I don’t always have a good steak just lying around. Thirdly, I live far from civilization (if indeed such a thing does exist) and can’t go out and easily buy these items. So I must at times make do with a cheese plate and a different wine, often an American (or even Canadian) Bordeaux style blend. One of the best deals I ever had was 1998 Conn Creek Anthology for only $18 a bottle. I was flat broke and thus couldn’t justify buying more than the 3 bottles I purchased (which I also couldn’t justify). Well, needless to say, that’s all gone too.

To get back to the point, sometimes a glass of wine, a few pieces of extra aged Gouda and/or some Old Mimolette and maybe a slice of mango or apple do the trick. It is as though they have somehow transformed into that perfect meal inside me.

a new deodorant can of deodorant worms

Trying a new deodorant is a big deal for me, because I have allergic reactions to almost every deodorant and antiperspirants make me sweat profusely. My last deodorant had the slogan “developed with athletes” proudly displayed on the label. I often wondered how the athletes assisted with its creation. Were they the “scientists” who formulated it? Were they questioned to see what they wanted in a deodorant? Were they guinea pigs who were experimented on, perhaps without their knowledge, or were they just pulverized, liquified, or granulated to somehow serve as the base for the deodorant? Doesn’t really matter, because it worked okay. If it works, I don’t care how many dead sports heros are in it, and I don’t care how dumb the people are who made it. But I could no longer find that particular deodorant. My new deodorant looked as if it had already been opened and possibly used, so I examined the top to see if there were hairs or something in it, and written right on the top were the words “TAKE THE RISK”. I was thinking, would some dude rub this under his arm and then emboss these words to try to goad me into acquiring his unique variety of underarm warts? Now, you know I’m a risk taker when it comes to deodorant, because i need to try them out to find out if I’m allergic. I don’t need to be taunted by my deodorant, as though I’m not living on the edge already. Another slogan for the same deodorant was, “FOR RISK TAKERS, It’s the smell of telling your boss that he hasn’t had an original idea in 20 years.” That seems a bit unfair, because I am my boss, so If I wear this deodorant I’m telling me I’m not a very good boss, plus, I’m a risk taker, and I haven’t had any good ideas in a while, and apparently I don’t like me. Of course, I would have to assume that it was the marketers complaining that they had to do this campaign, because how could they have known that I might take the risk?

Well, I decided to go ahead and take the risk, I’m wearing the deodorant as I write this. It seems to be working okay, but I’m beginning to feel dissatisfied with my job, life, self, I would jump off a building but I would have to drive for more than an hour to find a building tall enough... There is a silo about a mile from here. Now I’m on a quest to prove something to this deodorant. But it is easier to be a risk taker now that I hate myself.

The tale of Lucifractus

Once upon a time there was a 3 sided semi-opaque semi-translucent boy with a glowing spine. He was just opaque enough that you couldn’t see all of his internal organs (which were shiny and true). He was very refractive, more refractive than other semi-opaque things would normally be, for instance, a sandblasted prism would not be nearly as refractive as he. His refractiveness was highly coveted by black marketeers and there were many attempts made to capture him, lobotomize him and use him as a chandelier. But in his refractiveness was his cunning, plus he could run equally swiftly forwards, backwards and sideways, and he made many daring escapes. Sometimes he would pretend to be part of a chandelier (which is ironic, incase you didn’t notice). At other times he would pretend to be a neon sign, and had even earned the nickname “neon spine”. Due in part to his personal charm and to a great degree due to his ability to recharge glowing golf balls by resting them in his shirt collar he became something of a local celebrity. All of the 24 hour business men knew him due to his consistent presence and visibility on the nighttime courses. He was the first ever in all history to simultaneously hold the titles “Very Glowy” and “Highly Refractive” at the state fair. It was this renown for taking part in simple community activities that eventually landed him the opportunity to be on Jay Leno. But Lucifractus was a proud little fella, and decided that even though Jay’s head could easily support his weight, he would wait until he was invited as a proper guest. His personal integrity gained him even more prominence in his small town but he was never again asked to go anywhere or do anything by anyone outside of his small town again. He lived a simple life, became a bee keeper, and sold honey on the street corner. Many wondered how a life with so much sparkle and promise could have made such a nominal ripple in the fabric of the patchwork quilt of our lives. The easy answer is, that’s what always happens. Call it pride, modesty, artistic or personal integrity...

The moral of this story is, “If Jay Leno wants to wear you as a hat, just let him.”

Marketing New Economic Hybrids

I’ve seen many third-rate products gain almost universal acclaim due to great marketing campaigns. You can probably think of a few billion of such instances yourself. One of the lamest and most offensive product endorsements you will ever be bombarded with is the marketing of a child by that child’s progenitor.

No matter how good your product is no one will appreciate it without some sort of marketing. One of the best forms of marketing is word-of-mouth. Word-of-mouth is usually much more effective than other types of advertising because it generally comes from a friend, colleague or other familiar source. Word-of-mouth is also generally delivered with a great amount of enthusiasm because the person WANTS to talk about the product or service. They aren’t being paid or coerced to do it. They often don’t even have a clue that they are advertising. They are just talking about what they believe in.

I believe this is so with most parents, they believe in the product. They have to believe in it because it comes from their “factory”. They don’t want others to think they churn out shoddy progeny. There hasn’t been enough real-world testing to know whether the child will be capable of any appreciable tenure on the world scene, receive any acclaim or notoriety, or even assimilate into the proletariat cog-pool. So the parent starts an ad campaign early on to convince people that their flatulent little poo-ball has intrinsic worth beyond what appears to the “untrained” eye.

This is accomplished by parading the “outpouring of ones loins” around proudly so everyone can see. If the “loin-fruit” is more of a rotten apple, then photos are proudly displayed while horrific tales of anguish, perversion and sadism are refashioned into charming post-traumatic retrospectives in which the antihero is portrayed as truth incarnate. The facts are not fully glossed over, most of the gut-wrenching detail is on display. The parent/marketer does cover things up, but they need to keep the product real, so it is mostly the presentation that is altered, not the facts.

A common way to “happy things up” is to cap it all off with a colloquial buzzphrase such as, “boys will be boys”, “we just love him to death,” “he’s my joy”, “we were all kids once”, “if you had kids you’d understand”, “you did the same thing when you were a kid”, and “well, lets just see what your kids turn out like!!!”

Of course, you don’t have to let people know you have such a bad product. In fact, you could go back to the drawing board and figure out if you really should be in marketing. Maybe you’d be better served (as would all of us) if you just spent more time improving the product before you tell us all how great it is.

I realize that I truncated this analysis rather abruptly, but does anyone really have time to dissect and catalogue the intricacies of a collective irrational mind? Besides, you wouldn’t read it.

HOW TO WIN *EVERY ARGUMENT (PART III)

Here are a few more tips and tricks to try (just for fun) during your next argument.

Establish multiple definitions of key words. Listen closely to the opposing viewpoints and pick out the key words that they use to make their case. Take special note of the meanings they intend to apply to that word in this context, then start using these words to build your own case. Avoid using their definitions, imply this by your context but try to straddle at least two different definitions of these key words at all times. This will allow you to change the meaning of your statements “post factum” by making statements such as, “I was referring to (the word) in its classical sense” or “I was bringing up a hypothetical” or “I meant that as a verb” or even “well, if you want to get all technical about it I’ll just make up a new word for the concept” (then start replacing the word with their name, their children’s names or other topics they might find touchy).

Try footnotes. This is a variant of the afore mentioned method, but in this case the word choice is fully initiated by you. The research should be done in advance to find a few great misleading words. Although, pretty much any word should be vague enough because you can also add meaning to your words by “footnoting” them thus raising them beyond the scrutiny of context. Then, later you can explain that you had “footnoted” that particular usage of the word and were going to come back to it later. Or you can say that the word must be understood in context and you have to finish your entire thought before it can be properly explained. Try this several times during the discussion. Depending on the desired reaction, this can be particularly enjoyable if your proof seems to be negating itself.

Go with what you know. This is a cheesy way to argue, but many find it enjoyable. Every single little thing that the other person says, you just say, “I don’t know about that”, that’s it. You don’t need to know anything, and you just might win.

I’ll conclude this lesson with a story about an argument that I witnessed just the other day. A guy walks up to me at the gas station (while I’m filling the tank) and is just finishing what sounds like a very forceful argument, he seems to be making a good point. I assumed he was talking on his cell phone, but as he walked up to me and finished his point (which was totally coherent, yet unintelligible (brilliant style)) I could see that he was just some bum or drug addict. He had no phone, he wasn’t talking to anyone specific, he was talking to everyone. Taking on the entire world one blip or conversational fragment at a time.

As he completes his dissertation, he stares right at me and says, “I’m right! Well I sure don’t see you arguing!” Then he walks away saying, “yeah! That’s what I thought!”

I could have spoke up but then he would have probably said, “back off, this is between me and your hair!” So he won that argument just by being vague about who or what he was actually arguing with and what his beef was. Brilliant self preservation mechanism. And a reasonably respectable style.

* HOW TO WIN (almost) EVERY ARGUMENT (PART III)

HOW TO WIN *EVERY ARGUMENT (PART II)

Sometimes you need to avoid the argument to win. I know that may mean that you don’t win the current argument, but you have to consider your overall record. You need to remember that some people will actually kill you for being a winner or even starting an argument with them. I know that it puts a huge damper on your day if you don’t get to argue (especially if you belong to the “Total Jackass” school of debate), but you have to think of the big picture, there are many others out there waiting to engage you in verbal fisticuffs. Are you going to take away their joy because you want to match wits with a knife, gun or kick to the head?

Remember, no matter what your specific aim is, to teach, preach, or terrorize, argument is about destruction. You certainly can’t teach someone anything new until you have extinguished their hopes, banished their dreams, pulverized their expectations, subverted the foundations of their deeply held beliefs and deconstructed the psychological artifice that keeps them from listening to you blindly. Plus, sometimes you need to convince them that obvious truths such as gravity don’t exist (this will be discussed in part 8).

The great thing about my methods is that they are proven true for almost all styles of and motives for argumentation.

Of course there is no point in facing-off with a person who has no intellectual fodder to throw on the mixed metaphorical bonfire of brain-boxing. If you have some dummy throwing mind-feces at you, just let him believe he won, let him have his moment of “glory”, he’ll probably die soon by suffocating on a plastic bag. And when he’s gone, you and the plastic bag can get together and discuss your collective accomplishments.

Being right doesn’t mean you’ll win an argument, in fact, it may even be a hinderance at times. One of the best ways to win an argument is to know all the facts but not tie yourself down to them. This gives you the fluidity you need to assail your foe from any angle. You will sound more credible if you can appear to have an actual viewpoint, but it isn’t usually necessary.

You are probably thinking, “sure, it may be the best way, but I don’t wanna know stuff, I’m just in it for the hard-core noggin-scuffle”. Really, you don’t need to know much more than the fact that you want to argue to get in the game, in fact, that thought you just had, if expressed out loud could be considered an argument!

If you hope to become a professional fussbudget it is best to fact check, fact check, fact check, and to the best of your ability make sure you are always correct (fussbudgetry and pragmatism will be footnoted in part 8).

*HOW TO WIN (almost) EVERY ARGUMENT (PART II)

HOW TO WIN (almost) EVERY ARGUMENT (PART I)

There are many reasons to argue, and almost all reasons are valid. Maybe you argue for a noble cause; to raise awareness to issues that you feel are important, to alert someone of danger, to stamp out ignorance, to crush weakness, to expose feeble reasoning, to turn your frown upside-down, or just to chill. Perhaps you argue with motives that are questionable at best; to make someone else feel bad, to make you feel better about yourself, to justify your own reasoning by getting others to unwittingly agree with you, to get people to disagree with you in a way that allows you to discount their opinions thus validating your own, to dogmatically express your rage, to make someone cower so you can feel that there is at least one part of your life that allows you to exhibit power and exert some miniscule amount of force, or just to be a total jackass. No matter what your reasons for arguing, and regardless of whether you are a professional or amateur, everyone can enjoy this delightful and relaxing activity.

Arguing is fun and educates the other person. It sharpens the senses and rejuvenates the mind. It is generally very easy to win an argument because the other person is almost always wrong. In the event that the other person may actually be on to something, just be happy that most people who actually have a good point don’t generally have a clue how to argue. You can easily crush them by rehashing some vague misunderstanding that they had when they originally formulated the idea or with some unintentional mis-statement or even a speech impediment they have. Certainly, an idealistic person who has thought through their beliefs to the nth detail has convinced themselves so thoroughly that they are correct (and no one really cares, but they may be) that they have also duped themselves into believing that everyone will praise the truths they have discovered (or at least that someone will). Even if this optimism is the only flaw in their argument, it is plenty of ammunition to fully obliterate their assertion. All you have to do is bring up generalized impossibilities and pose them as though they are legitimate questions somehow connected to the topic of current controversy. A question like, “What about the links made by Dr. Leopald Thorstieg in his 1938 paper regarding IFE, you are familiar with IFE aren’t you? Well, all the research that I’ve seen confirms his findings. How do you explain that?” will totally disarm almost all of these turkeys, for the simple reason that they can’t have possibly heard about something that doesn’t exist. Along with this another great thing about almost everybody else, is that they argue against the person confronting them rather than just arguing their point. So when you bring up a hypothesis in a forceful way, no matter how contrived, fabricated or spurious, they tend to feel a compulsion to argue against that point and lose track of the original thrust of the discussion. If you think they have a valid point then it is your civic duty to utterly annihilate their presentation, this will help them to hone their expostulative expertise, and thus, in the future, when you feel that they are appropriately equipped to save the world you may wish to allow them to do so, you may choose to stand by and supervise though.

But how do you destroy a perfect argument? Especially when you know that the other person is 100% right? Easy. No one can be 100% right on everything, so just sit back and wait for them to say something you can easily capitalize on. It helps if you continually disarm them by finding things you can agree with, this is extremely easy to do when you are debating with someone who is right. NEVER, agree with things that will undermine your own contradictory stance, if the thoughts expressed by your nemesis are correct, you can generally gloss over them by reaffirming an acceptable and similar point that was previously agreed upon by both parties. Remember that you only need to vary slightly from the essence of your opponents gist, anyone who has thought through their reasoning so well as to seem 100% correct will easily be lured to defend the seemingly insignificant details. If you are almost constantly agreeing with them they will eventually tire and/or drop their guard and actually say something wrong. In any of these cases you can then take that one small comment and pretend that it is the platform of their entire logical framework. Your opponent may see through this tactic but if you are playing to an audience they will be on your side. Because of the audience, your opponent will be compelled to respond to your quibbles, once this process has been started you can’t lose, just keep agreeing, baiting and inferring. If they refuse to continue the argument, you lost, but the audience thinks you won, so in a way you did win, because you convinced a large group of people to believe you instead of the person who was right. And that’s no easy task, actually, I’m kidding, it is very easy to fool people, but you still did it, plus you made the winner of the argument leave in frustration and that’s worth something!

In the event that your opponent sees through this tactic and there is no audience you will need to have the stamina and presence of mind to keep nitpicking and then agreeing while countering with hard hitting vague questions. If none of these things work, it’s time to play dirty, it’s all blatant falsehoods of incomprehensible atrocity all the time, a person who really wants to help you (and/or the whole world) will feel like they are physically being attacked, they will eventually fall into a stupor during which they are disoriented and begin to question their own beliefs. They start to wonder how others (that’s you, but you have made it seem that there are many who share your views) could have such strong beliefs that seem so contrary to reason. Being logical people, they will begin to doubt their own reasoning and consider the notion that the obnoxious blathering you are bombarding them with has some possible merit. Now you have them where you want them, if you don’t care about the future of our planet, you can just move in for the kill (This will be explained in detail in part 8). But if you would still like to see if they can adapt to the psychological punishment you’ve just dealt them, you can let them live (conversationally speaking), after all the argument is over, for now. They are still questioning things that they were fully convinced of, and may have lost all will to fight, you did your job well.

There are really no losers in an argument because you always win an argument if you enjoy yourself. That’s the whole point of arguing. If you follow the directions laid out in this primer, you should enjoy your next argument.