On Rhetoric (again)

Today's comment is: Studying rhetoric has given the ability to more deeply understand all of those little phrases that we all use to make a point or end an argument.
"It takes one to know one", or "easy come, easy go"; "Whatever doesn't kill me makes me stronger", or "It works if you work it" (from AA)
These little phrases that at first seem to be equal and finite, or final, have now become terms to which I have given real value. They can be weighed and compared and if need be rejected. At the same time I cannot deem any one truer than the other, only more useful, more valuable to me and my life experience.
1. It takes one to know one
This is on its surface a stupid little saying used mostly by kids to get out of an argument they cannot win. Kids of all ages that is. It is not stupid. Rhetorically it clearly and cleverly describes a situation of truth with few words maximizing the meaning. To really understand a person you have to "walk a mile in their shoes." This is another way of saying kind of the same thing. However this way of saying it, maybe because of its history of use, does not sound as stupid and therefor is not as stupid. For perception, overuse, or general cheesiness of sayings effect the affect that they have when used, and therefor the truest of sayings can lose power and do not have the intended outcome of use.
2. Easy come, easy go
This saying is so concise and true that it is almost genius. It becomes true genius because it must have been made up by some redneck. Someone who would be described as 'trash' or a 'rube.' Basically someone who comes from a lower class group whose expectation of intelligence are equally low. I say this because only someone who has had nothing to begin with can conceive of something coming and going in and out of existence like a cool breeze. Even if you do not buy my argument, you would have to consider such a simple use of language to be something that anyone of any level of intelligence might say. The irony of it would also be lost on the rich, who might not find the sudden loss of a lifestyle they were born with to be something to chuckle at. At the same time this phrase is meant to be one of comfort to the one it is told to. Only one who has already experienced the lack of means can take comfort in the fact that they are once again in the same position. A more privileged soul might consider the loss to be unfair, where a person of modest means knows that nature is not concerned with fairness. At least not in the way we perceive it. This is a high quality saying in my book, both because of its elegance and subtle humor.
3. Whatever doesn't kill me...
This one is not really funny at all, and can sound quite arrogant. It gives off the perception that an individual has found a way to cheat death, where death was really only cheated due to a series of people and events that lead to the individual in question's seemingly miraculous recovery. I only use this one as an example because of a writer I heard of and can't remember the name of who had cancer. He said that some of the little sayings that people use when talking about the fight against cancer such as the one above should no longer be part of cancer treatment terminology. Its a saying that is too commonly used and yet consistently found to be untrue.
4.It works if you work it...
This is one of many sayings form a cult-light organization that uses rhetoric as a tool to keep its members in line. I personally thought I worked the twelve step program to the best of my ability and did not get the desired outcome: general serenity in sobriety. The automatic response to my complaint would be that I did not "work" the program right. I guess it depends on what the definition of "work" is. The thing that I find disturbing is that there is a saying to counter any claim that the twelve step program is fallible. Hence the cult-like, cult-light status of the group. The narrowness of the program is enough to turn a few day dreamy individuals off all together, but by no means should one underestimate the power of this and other twelve step sayings. They dominate our vocabulary on substance use treatment despite the fact that scientific evidence used to support the system as the only way to deal with drug and alcohol 'addiction' is shaky at best. You do not hear a lot of criticism of the program from the medical community, which could easily give the impression that it is a sound program. But since when is a medical treatment considered sound when there is a success rate of below 20%?