love, read, write

earthquakes are at once terrifying and beautiful; they speak of the fragility of even mother nature but they are so great, so powerful, so grandiose. we shiver at the idea of earthquakes, the beauty of soft soil crumbling into an even deeper abyss we are too afraid to venture into.
her fingers, brown and warm and welcoming, at once become claws, angry at us (for what reason? what have we done wrong?) and she swallows us, scratching from the inside outwards, raking in bodies and edifices and things in which we take pride. she swallows our pride. she eats our pride.
but in doing so she also swallows some of herself, letting trees and beautiful animals fall into the unidentified hellscape that is below, where perhaps fragments of buildings, leftover limbs, and misshapen animal carcasses all gather to have a tea party mourning for those above.
her children, the beauty which she has birthed (though prematurely--they are still attached to her) are taken back into her insides, where they will lay for the rest of eternity. why so? perhaps she is embarrassed of the creation she has made, and it is her way of bubbling up her anger and taking back some of the terrors she has caused, though inadvertently. she did not wish for this in the beginning. everything begins with a benign cause; catastrophe is never intended - it is only an effect of the element of existence. we cannot help but be impure and a curse to mother nature.

Opinions differ.

As individuals, this is a fundamental fact that we must all learn to accept. While I may believe A, you may believe B. Someone might believe C, a fusion of A and B. Or D. Or E. The spectrum of opinions is not a discrete scale; it is continuous and infinite (could we take a derivative?) (jokes).

We accumulate opinions as we grow. From our personal experiences to our familial background, our brains collect opinions, like bricks, and construct a home around us. These bricks create a shelter where we can feel safe. It is a starting point for us when we approach problems and understand the world. It becomes the place we visit most often.

And if we're not careful enough, it becomes a prison which we cannot escape.

Arguably, this constructed home of ours (formed by our opinions) is technically not a prison. We feel happy when we are inside; we feel safe and we feel protected. How is that a prison? What's wrong with staying there your entire life?

News flash: you are not the only person living in this world. There are a few million others. And unfortunately, not everyone lives where you do, within your constructed walls. Opinions differ. It is a fact we must all accept. Someone will, one day, tell you something that offends you or confuses you. Someone will challenge you to an argument. Opinions will clash. You will debate. You might lose an argument (but still go home convinced that you are right). Every step of your life, you might add or change a brick in your home. In fact, your home is constantly changing--but minutely. (Because the closer your home is to completion, the more difficult it is to replace bricks at command.)

Perhaps you are in a situation where you would like to convince another person of your opinions. I'm sure that many of us are familiar with this situation, even more so because of the upcoming presidential election. Everyone seems to, at one point or another, be arguing about presidential candidates. Conservatives and liberals clash; Internet arguments spike; comment threads on Facebook might get feisty. (Lol.)

What I notice in these situations is the idea that everyone, or at least the majority of people I have seen, watched, or read about, is arguing the wrong way.

Maybe wrong isn't the right word. Maybe "inefficient" is.

Anyways, what I see in these arguments is this picture: person A introduces their opinions (shows person B to their house). Person B observes, and reacts negatively. Person B shows person A their house. Person A observes, and person B reacts negatively. But then, when A and B argue, they repeat their own opinions again and again and again. Nothing is really said and done at the end of the argument. Essentially, person A is hiding inside of their home, hollering about what they believe, and person B is hiding inside of their home, hollering about what they believe. Person A still likes his home and Person B still likes his. It just ends up being a massive waste of time.

I have seen on CNN, for example, a "debate" between a Trump supporter and an anti-Trump speaker. The "debate" lasted for about ten minutes, but all that really happened was this: the anti-Trump speaker would repeat and rephrase "Trump is not civil and is rude and indecent," while the Trump supporter repeated and rephrased "Trump is doing this because people are attacking him."

Now, as a person whose opinions align more with the anti-Trump speaker, I felt very frustrated. "Trump is not civil," though certainly a valid statement (in my opinion), was in no way a good argument to bring forth to a Trump supporter. The anti-Trump speaker had severely miscalculated the art of debate. What had she done wrong?

Her first mistake was in speaking from her point of view. In essence, she was just hollering from inside her home at the other home quite far away. This is not a good tactic when debating one's opinion. Second of all, she considered her home the only home and then disrespected the Trump supporter for her opinions. This, too, is a terrible tactic. Personal emotions, unless used as a specific technique (such as pathos), should not be involved when trying to logically point out flaws and "win" a debate.

Perceiving your opinions as The Answer To The World will always end with some sort of violent argument. Being against Trump is one example. Some people see it as a no-brainer, and I agree that Trump might not be the best presidential candidate (but again, my opinion is irrelevant here. I'm just clearing my conscience by putting this out there lol). But when the topic is brought up for debate, there is no use in simply asserting that you are right. Of course you think you're right--that's why you're defending it! You have to take a step back and remember that even though you might believe that your opinion is the "right answer" for society, it is not really The Right Answer. It is an opinion, and there are others out there whether you like it or not.

Maybe your opponent's opinion is repulsive and disgusting in your point of view. Such instances do happen. But while you have the right to feel disgusted, it's not a great emotion to reveal when you're trying to get them to change their mind. As much as you hate it, you have to learn to respect the other person. You don't have to respect their opinion, but you certainly have to respect them.

Even further, you should walk inside of your opponent's house. This is because empathy is important. Why has the person has constructed such a house? Understand the facts and the opinions--the foundation, the reason. The progression of logic. Comprehend the situation fully--so much and so well that you almost fall for it. For a second, you might consider the idea that you are wrong.

But you will then snap back to your home. What did you learn in that other person's house? What makes your home better? It is not a person-to-person matter. Do not jump to the conclusion that your opponent is "bad" or "stupid" or "uncivil." From your understanding, form a careful list as to why the foundation of your opponent's building is weak.

Then comes the argument, when you are ready to bounce opinions back and forth. You're ready to change their mind, to open their eyes to what you believe is right. You're prepared and you know how they think. But where do you start? A lot of people think that you should start by showing your opponent your home. I, however, don't think so. Arguing is not about you. It is about them. You're giving them a tour of their home. How does this work? Well, if your opponent only believes that his house is right, there is no point in starting in your home. Doing so will only shut his ears from the very beginning. In order to convince them they may be wrong, you must start with your opponent.

For example, the existence of misogyny is often argued among some men and women. There is a tendency for men to be manipulative and aggressive and condescending to women, and yet another tendency for men to refuse to acknowledge such a history, believing that sexism is a myth. What do we do? Do we just argue that it exists? Do we list a bunch of instances? Hollering insults or calling all men stupid will make no progress when it comes to convincing some people that sexism exists. We must accept that our belief is not an Absolute Statement (it is a perception). We must first empathize and see where they are coming from (no matter how painful it is to do so). We must be calm and we must state observations, sneak in facts, and then come to a conclusion.

This, in my opinion, is what makes a good argument. Not the simple stating of opinions, but the complex weaving of empathy and attack, empathy and attack. Stating facts will not do as much as beginning with empathy will.

And so, the attitude that many people must fundamentally change before debating "efficiently" is that no matter how right you think you are, you must always accept that there is a possibility you are wrong and that your opinion is still just an opinion. In order to break someone else's home, you must break yours. You must be able to walk in and out of your home, even if you will likely spend most of your time within your walls.


--


Note: I make this post because I have been recently irked by the way some people have "debated" on certain topics. Please remember that while you may be "right," the other person won't really believe you if all you're going to say is "I'm right and you're stupid."

Disclaimer: This entire article is an opinion, lol.