Obama or Hillary?

Back to this issue. . .

There are many, many... and conversely, there are few, few... instances where two people with open minds can have a conversation.

Most of us have an open mind when it comes to how many jumps per minute is couth when it comes to Masai warrior dancing. You and I, not being Masai, could discuss this issue and reach an amicable agreement in minutes. But if you had this discussion with a Masai warrior, you'd either have to accept his point of view or get hopelessly lost in an argument about which you did not care.

So we can easily see that arguments, to be successful, require the involvement of people with divergent opinions. And the stronger held the opinion, the greater the likelihood the argument would eventually involve yelling and fist shaking.

Letting go of the need to defend your opinions is very hard. And it's wicked hard when you think your opinion is a scientific fact. (Notice how few arguments you get in about gravity or the freezing point of water?)

Anyway, Laztheism teaches that arguing should only be done if make-up sex is a certainty, during freeway closures, or when you're only doing it because the other person froths at the mouth cutely. Which is a basic tenet of Laztheism: whenever possible, only do those things which amuse and entertain you. But the only way arguing can be amusing is if you don't care about 'winning' the argument. Which is another tenet of Laztheism: you should care about what it is you're doing. See, even the most unorganized, motivationless, pointless plan of action has rules...

So in the next few months, as countless opportunities are afforded for expressing your views, avoid them, because too many of these will be precursors to 'arguments.'

Hillary or Obama? Global Warming or Global Myth? Jehovah or Allah? Raise taxes or lower taxes? Do those pants make her ass look fat or not? Arguments seldom have winners, but they almost always have losers.