vortext

The only shouting argument I remember my parents having revolved around a spoon. Not literally of course, they're was no tribal-esk spoon circling, but the dispute was defiantly about a spoon. Not a particularly valuable or offensive spoon. It held no sentimental value, and probably only got attention because of some cat food/pudding based mix up. Despite this it was the only time I've seen my parents raise there voices at each other. My dad was so angry he went for a walk.

Lately I've been thinking about arguments a lot. I've been trying to figure out what they are. Unfortunately it seems the topic demands some retrospective soul searching, oh dear. For the record my mother never touched me. Well she did touch me, but not in a bad way, presuming of course our perspectives on 'bad' are in alignment.

I was educated in a very English way by teachers who, if they didn't already have them, defiantly thought elbow patches were 'pretty hip'. I learned to admire the more considered argumentative approach in which you have to listen, and concede when you are wrong. there is no winning or loosing arguments. Arguments are intellectual exchanges. Imagine Volcans with chai tea and cardiagans. You can only loose an argument by getting emotional or irrational as this diverts the argument to something less useful and more self indulgent.

I simply don't know how to do the emotional argument well. Like everyone I loose my temper, but I tend to seek compromise.

In my most agitated state I become very quiet and hope to drop a logic bomb. The interesting thing with arguing this way is it only works if the other person is prepared to listen.

Cockroaches might die from a nuclear bomb hitting if they bothered to understand what they are.

There is a time and place for considered argument. Dropping logic on the dude violently beating your car with a golf club is rarely affectual.

So, I devised a plan: I decided to provoke a argument and see what happens when I don't get involved.

This morning I got on a tube in rush hour with my music roaring, and I waited. I was fly trap.

A gentleman politely asked me to turn it down. I declined. He gave up. Then another man, provoked by my reply, turned and started shouting at me. It's a weird feeling having someone loose it at you, spitting in my face, bubbling hate, but at the same time trying to present a rationale for his actions.

Now I kept eye contact, but i felt uncomfortable and intimidated.

After 40 seconds of prolonged yelling he paused as if looking for my input. so I chucked in a 'you don't know anything about me'. Yeah, I know, but im a beginer. My response slightly knocked the fuming man off kilter as he tried to argue he did, then realising it was rather a silly angel switched it to 'I know your inconsiderate'. Fair point, nicely done. Unfortunately I did not have the confidence to point out the irony of chiming consideration when he had spent the last two minutes shouting in my face.

My lack of response resulted in the first man jumping at me and yanking my headphones out of my ears. I told him not to touch me and put them back in. He backed off, I think because he realised he crossed a line towards physical conflict. Then the second man started ranting again and people began to clap in the carriage. Now i felt annoyed, surely proper arguments don't end in clapping.

I cant figure out the fear. I do stand up, I'm used to dyeing in front of a room full of people. I think its because as much as I had a right to say 'fuck you' I knew that being considerate is a personally preferable path.

Now, I must confess, the basis of my preoccupation with arguments is that I have started to feel morality is not only subjective, but, perhaps, a false construct.

Niccolo Machiavelli wrote 'The end justifies the means.' which I took as a simple justification for a series of imoral actions. My revelation with the ideal came when I realised 'the end' could be your death.

What is wrong with the argument: 'I killed him because I wanted to'?

We are all mortal creatures in decay with the capacity to kill. Why not stomp everyone in our way?

Modern thinking is such that taking a rational and objective view the more horrific a crime the more the perpetrator deserves our empathy to become healed. It's Christian thought.

Noticing this emotional bias towards empathy I decided to remove it from my consideration of good and evil.

What is good and evil? It seems good is to live emphatically. Evil to live for self.

I want to be truthful, honest, and supportive of those close to me, but only because I want to live in that environment. If I preferred lies, why not? Why is it less respectable?

I believe our bias against it is because it expresses a lack of affection. It goes against family.

As solitary creatures there is no right and wrong.

Raw Argument is the dialect where empathy and Machiavelli mix.

Maybe nice guys finish last because they're too busy cheering on there opponents.