i find that alot of people who start arguments provocatively, are generally fully aware of the opposing stance you will take and the argument usually ends up being an utter waste of time.
cabbies seem to be an obvious of example of this so i usually go quiet or change the subject.
i have a mate who recently in the last two years or so seems to have turned into a kind of cross between jeremy clarkson and richard littlejohn on the dull argument/ political views spectrum, he came the pub recently and managed to get science vs religion - into growth of catholicism in the uk into blaming Polish into ranting about his 'rights as a politically apathetic 'scientist' in about 10 minutes the other day. These are all things i don't care about and ignore until he provokes something out of an entirely stupid remark and i have to pull him up about it.
It's a weird situation though as even though i read more about these subjects than him and think about them, have more experience of them etc, the argument ends up with me breaking down and disposing of his argument and him using the 'well i'm still right because i say i am' system of 'defense'.
its really quite hard to find much in common sometimes which is a shame, but i think we just need to avoid certain subjects, this is probably the way to do it, as sure as hell i'm not going to change his bizarre view of the world by trying to argue with him and he's really a good guy apart from that.
cabbies seem to be an obvious of example of this so i usually go quiet or change the subject.
i have a mate who recently in the last two years or so seems to have turned into a kind of cross between jeremy clarkson and richard littlejohn on the dull argument/ political views spectrum, he came the pub recently and managed to get science vs religion - into growth of catholicism in the uk into blaming Polish into ranting about his 'rights as a politically apathetic 'scientist' in about 10 minutes the other day. These are all things i don't care about and ignore until he provokes something out of an entirely stupid remark and i have to pull him up about it.
It's a weird situation though as even though i read more about these subjects than him and think about them, have more experience of them etc, the argument ends up with me breaking down and disposing of his argument and him using the 'well i'm still right because i say i am' system of 'defense'.
its really quite hard to find much in common sometimes which is a shame, but i think we just need to avoid certain subjects, this is probably the way to do it, as sure as hell i'm not going to change his bizarre view of the world by trying to argue with him and he's really a good guy apart from that.
