Mckay, you too like argument.

So let's talk about arguments. My style of argument. 

But first, what are we arguing about?

You see, you can't even tell. You might think you know, but you don't. Trust me, you don't

As a side story, I have this friend, a very close friend, I argue with most of the time. In fact, after every argument, I'd always feel that's it, RIP to friendship. 

"You fuck off" "You get out of my face" "I don't care"

It's hard to believe, but every single one of our debate sessions had always ended in the above phrases.

Well, let's call him Tom, as in Thomas (not his real name though). And Tom is still my guy till tomorrow. Kind of makes sense Thomas comes to mind as his pseudo for the purpose of this article. I mean, the dude in bible who's famous for doubting was Thomas too.

I was inspired to write this piece as my second substack for the year during a ride in one my friends' car. On his way to work. He was going to drop me off somewhere along the way - to " face my own front."

Well, his name is Leo. Real name, this time. Unlike Tom, Leo and I don't end arguments on hostilities.

"People always wonder why we are best friends, even though our personalities are like worlds apart." Leo said this to me as I teased him about listening to Talk Radio. I was going to search for a station that played music. Like soundcity or something. He was right. 

To give an example, Leo would want to go to heaven, and I'll be like, "Okay bye, I'm off to hell." Now feel free to take this example literally, I promise, you are not overestimating the accuracy. 

But we are best of friends. And I'm grateful for that.

I like Leo because he always calls a spade a spade. Not by any other name. 

He reminds me of a certain Chinese Philosopher by the name of Confucius. Don't let the name confuse you. He was indeed Chinese. He had a Chinese name, you Google it.

Confucius, when asked what he would do differently if he took over governance, simply stated he would rectify nomenclature. He was of the opinion that the only way the world was going to move forward was "calling things what they truly are."

I agree with him 100%.

We need to normalize calling things what they are. It will save us a lot of energy expended on unnecessary arguments. 

Think about when you are married, and you need all that energy for your partner's sexual well being. You don't want to be wasting it, arguing with randos, when you can easily admit taking someone else's property without their permission (with no intention of returning it) is STEALING.

People don't understand how I argue because unlike them I don't care what's right or wrong. What's good or evil. I only care about nomenclature. That thing you just did, what is it called? Yes, let's call it that. You can have the job of worrying whether you have done right or wrong, not me. I don't have that time.

You see, you may not have realized it, but the only reason we go back and forth in arguments is our obsession with morality. We want to be sure we are not associated with evil. And it's funny because good or evil is subjective. Your moral standards begin where another person's ends. No one is actually going to accept the evil tag slapped on them - at least not willfully - so why waste time?

Here's my typical argument style that people find troubling. 

Tom: I came to your house & didn't find you. 

Me: What time?

Tom: 2pm. Saturday, June 4, 2022.

Me: (being so sure I was at home at the exact time) Please where did find me? Did you come in?

Tom: I did. Up to your bedroom. I didn't even find your car in its normal spot.

Me: Okay this is now serious. My car was literally parked there all day. I put it to you you're lying. 

Tom: You are calling me a liar?

Me: Yes. Unless you are blind, you must be lying. 

Tom: I am not a liar. 

Me: Well, it's clear one of us is lying then. There must be a way to find out who's telling the truth. We can ask my neighbour, he was with me the whole time.

Tom: I don't want to hear from your neighbour. 

Me: Then you are lying. 

Tom: Well, that's your perspective. 

Me: (are you kidding me) perspective? Nah nigga you lied. That's what you just did.

Tom goes on to insist it's okay for us to see things differently. 

"You're not lying, I'm not lying, let's leave it that way."

Well ending an argument this way might make for some sort of psychological refuge, but I'm not having that. 

The danger is that it sets precedence for future debates. For peace to reign? Nah!

That's a "fake" peace. It will expire. Peace, never built on truth, will never be a lasting one.

Me: (again) I am sure of what I'm saying, and if you are not ready to get to the bottom of it with me, then I'm afraid you are a liar. 

Tom: I'm not lying. 

Rinse. Repeat. You can imagine.

You see, the problem here is Tom doesn't want to accept the "liar" tag. He's concerned what side of the moral compass lying falls in. On the other hand, I just merely care about the definition. 

He sees the liar tag as a judgment. I don't. I see lying as lying. The term lying defines an act. And no one's permission is required for this definition once the act is being committed.

I would not be needing your permission to call you a thief if you stole something. You have met the condition to be called a thief. You can now go and debate whether or not STEALING is evil with you village people. I don't have time for that. You are caught STEALING, you are a thief. 

Any attempt at denying being a thief, omo, na there you find my trouble. I no go gree o. We go argue till thy kingdom come. Or whenever you get angry and leave.

That's my style of argument. And you are free to have a problem with that.