i mean in an argument, do you have to dissect who or what started it. why oh why?
bottoms up, jongbong!
2007-10-04 14:06:57 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel ➔ Asia Pacific ➔ Philippines
zzz... no... if that's the situation. you better hire a lawyer and settle it in court. hmmm... beer... zzz...
cheers diwata sinta!
2007-10-04 14:18:34 · answer #1 · answered by jongbong 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yeah, in principle you have to so that the argument is given closure. Although oftentimes, people argue because they want to get to the bottom of things or the real essence of things. you would only be superficial if you don't. anyhow , arguments, if they do not result to violence, can be fun. Socrates believed that you can't really capture the real truth in things but the process of argumentation (socractic dialogue) will give you possible answers to life's big questions. But this can be tiring especially if you're dealing with dense people or bigots, in which case the best recourse would be not to argue at all and just walk away... :)
2007-10-04 21:31:17 · answer #2 · answered by King Ren II 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Getting to the bottom of it, most of the times, only makes the argument worse. Between friends, things can be resolved amicably. It only takes short explanations on what happened, and promises that those missteps won't happen again, even just on best efforts basis. Because surely, missteps will happen. But what are friends for?
That is why, in answer to Annabelle's question, I do not get angry. Try this approach, all ye Yappers.
2007-10-04 21:17:27 · answer #3 · answered by boyplakwatsa.com 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the person you're talking to. Most of the times, for me, I want to get at the bottom of things to make a realistic solultion.
2007-10-05 05:39:06 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
less talk less hassles,i hate non sense arguments.
2007-10-04 21:18:03 · answer #5 · answered by tisya 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋