If you want a career that is currently being pursued, it would not hurt to choose for themselves first. You can freely choose the desired job. You do not even bother to divide their time between work and schedule a date with a lover. One more thing, there is no ‘obligation’ is to report what, where or with whom.

2. Want to ‘Free’
The existence of a lover is often limited the space, especially in terms of socializing. Well, if you still want to be friends with anyone freely, being single may be a good decision. Imagine if everyone would go out with friends, you have to ask permission or at least tell where to go.

When alone, you can freely make plans with friends. Starting from the movies, to the amusement park, theater to watch the show traveling overseas. Not only that, you had a chance to meet new people and the environment as much as possible. Being single, letting you live a social life and to choose friends freely without having to worry about partner’s feelings.

3. The focus is still with Yourself
No doubt, love with someone we care about is fun and makes a flowery heart. But romance is not always sweet. There are spices quarrels, discord and jealousy in it the potential to raise stress and even depression. As we know, stress can be detrimental to health.

According to research quoted by The Soko, who often quarreled with his partner at risk of suffering from hypertension, five times greater than the single. Being single, chances are you removing the negative emotions will be smaller than those in pairs. That way, the mind and body are also more relaxed. If your life has been greatly troubled with work or family problems, to be single for a while may be better.

4. Saturated with Arguments
It’s okay to occasionally fight or argue with a lover. But if the relationship more than a romance filled with fights, you should start thinking for themselves alive while. Moreover, if the contention is caused by the little things that did not matter. Instead of having to ‘pull the veins’ every time they met, it is better not to meet every day right?

This is the premise on which cognitive behavioural therapy also known as Neuro Linguistic Programming (NLP) is based. NLP believes our thoughts, feelings, and actions are simply habits or programs that have got written into our minds over the years. If we can take control of our feelings and change our attitude, behavior and more importantly, our communication, we can get what we want.

NLP theory believe it is possible to talk calmly and smooth every disagreements from escalating into conflicts, but makes a few presumptions for its success. For one, both the parties involved in the interaction/ communication is equally interested in clearing the imbroglio, both are equally willing to invest their time and are willing to exercise a lot of self discipline.

Let’s get real. Understand that the conciliatory process is challenging and sometimes not (easily) possible.

It is not uncommon to find one of the parties disinterested in setting things right. They may not be strong enough to resist the urge to prove themselves right and become confrontational. May be the relationship is not important enough to them to risk hurting their ego by attempting reconciliation. Or may be they fear that discussing disagreements that have spiralled to such heights can open the proverbial hornet’s nest.

When we are in intimate relationships, we often have a “list of complaints” that we have accumulated over the years. And when you offend your partner/friend, a counterattack blame game begins — “Haven’t you ever looked in a mirror?”

Often, criticism follows disagreement, and how we react to criticism determines whether or not the disagreement is stemmed at the onset itself. This is easier said than done. To most of us, criticism is like an attack to which we respond through protests, counter (heated) arguments or suppressed resentment with weak surrender.

We fight criticism as if we were being attacked with a lethal weapon, and get into a defensive position. In such a state of mind, it is difficult, if not impossible, to listen actively to criticism. Instead of listening, we start reacting and judging, and our minds become busy thinking how we should get back or retaliate. We mock the emotionally charged person and allow them no time to recover.

If we retaliate when the recipient is unreasonable and not in a receptive mood, we intensify the conflict. Emotionally intelligent persons understand cues and know when somebody is not in a mood to discuss. They do not try to change what they cannot change or force others to agree with them. They don’t drag old issues while discussing the present, and refrain from poking and lacerating old wounds.

Ideally, we should never have left unresolved disagreements to escalate into conflicts. We should have paused and listened actively, empathized with others point of view, clarified the issues by asking and rephrasing their questions and concerns, apologized when warranted, and never allowed grievances to pile up.

But we have done the unworthy acts and the stage is all red. Irritations are at the peak, and even a murmur may cause an explosion. What do we do?

If the situation is this BAD, run for life. Don’t rock a rocking boat. Time is the biggest healer. But even when several years elapse, it is best never to reopen old issues, but start with fresh reinforcements of positive emotions like love and friendship.

In most others, evaluate the situation. How important is the relationship? For you and for the other person. If it is  your colleague at a previous job, an online friend, or a casual acquaintance you often run into at church or a shopping mall who doesn’t figure prominently in your life, it may be better to forget patching up the differences and just move on. Again, this is a personal decision. May be you are finicky about not leaving unresolved issues, you may still like to leave a conciliatory note, if only for enhancing your own self esteem.

Choose your battles. Don’t get sucked into unnecessary conflicts. Ask yourself, “Is it worth arguing about?” If the debate is going to create more problems than it solves, remain silent.

Know when to walk away. When you find yourself losing control, separate yourself from the conflict and give yourself time to think clearly about the most constructive way to respond.

Read Also

How To Listen Actively

Resolving Conflicts: How To Agree to Disagree

Nate (oldest child), called our house regularly, every Saturday just to say, ‘I miss you, Grammy!’ That was a heart warmer, if there ever was one. Taylor (second oldest), sent me a paper doll, which I had to carry wherever I went, for a solid week. Also, I had to write a journal of everything that occurred in our life together! This dolls name was, ‘Flat Taylor.’ Actually, I completely enjoyed this constant companion at my side, because I knew that my precious granddaughter fashioned it, with her own, precious little hands! This thrilled my heart, knowing that she chose me, to participate in one of her classroom projects, for an entire week. After it was over, I had to mail everything back to Taylor’s teacher, along with ‘Flat Taylor’ and our week-long journal neatly written out. It was a joyful experience, I will never forget. Zachary (number three), was the quiet one, who acted like he didn’t have any needs, didn’t demand things and he never said a whole lot. But, when Grandpa and Grandma took him with us, alone in the backseat of our car he chittered non-stop, knowing that he had our undivided attention, all to himself! Zachary wasn’t a born squeaky wheel, so he just laid back and watched everyone else grab and scramble for what they wanted or thought they needed. Kaitlyn, (number four) was adorable and quite verbal. Whenever she needed something, everyone heard about it! Her cute face and natural, bubbly personality, won my heart over in about five minutes. Spending time with her, was a lot of fun!

MariLyn and I had a disagreement, not a fight mind you, just a few short sentences. To keep from flaring up at each other (which we never do), we parted ways and didn’t communicate for a couple months. Why didn’t I contact her? Because after time passes by, it’s very hard to remember what was actually said or done. I honestly didn’t remember, because I love my daughter very much. Not hearing her voice or seeing her face, was extremely hard. I consider her one of my best friends, regardless of who was right or wrong, or who said what. I was definitely wrong, that’s one thing I did know. My attitudes were far from being right. 

Today, she sent me a text message and neither one of us even mentioned our discord. It’s such a blessing to be communicating with her again, hearing that she misses me! We shared a few short texts and both were assured that everything is back in place again. Only God can mend hurt feelings and that’s exactly what he has done. I’m so glad, that his ways are so much higher than our ways and the Lord has a perfect plan, knowing just exactly what it takes to heal our hearts. I’m so thankful for his infinite wisdom, his forgiveness and also, for his complete understanding!

            In the article “The Careless Language of Sexual Violence,” published in the Rumpus Original on March 10th, 2011, Roxane Gay argues, to people involved in the news media and entertainment industry, that the way sexual violence is depicted in modern media has made it a permissive act by desensitizing people to its true consequences. Gay’s intent is to get these industries to present it in a more accurate fashion.

            Gay quotes the article “Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town,” published in the New York Times on March 8th, 2011, by James McKinley Jr., and explains how McKinley sympathizes with the eighteen men who raped an eleven year old girl instead of sympathizing with the victim herself. She goes on to cite several hit television shows like Beverly Hills 90210, Private Practice, and Law and Order: SVU as evidence showing that the media has progressively shifted toward depicting sexual violence inaccurately by using sugar-coated language that distorts its effects on the victim. Gay argues that this inaccurate depiction of rape desensitizes people to it, making it a more acceptable deed. After bringing forth these examples of misrepresented sexual violence in entertainment, Gay asserts that women live in a troublesome time and explains the various negative consequences that one endures when they are sexually assaulted. Also, Gay mentions that she is a fiction writer who writes about sexual violence in her novels. She concludes by restating the actual incident that motivated her to write the essay, in words she feels are more appropriate, and reiterates her point that the use of improper language to depict these acts can have disastrous consequences.

             Although Gay’s article is proficient at playing to the emotions of its audience, it does not demonstrate strong logos or ethos because it lacks data, reputable sources, unbiased commentary, and credentials that lend credibility to its author, while demonstrating blatant hypocrisy, a narrow angle of vision, and purposeful misinterpretation of the article it criticizes.

            Gay’s article cannot be considered a scholarly work because it lacks data, statistics, and quotes from reputable experts to support her opinions. Other than one article from the Times, the only other examples that Gay cites to backup her claims are popular television shows. For instance, she says, “I remember, for example, the episode of Beverly Hills 90210 where Kelly Taylor discussed being date raped at a slumber party, surrounded, tearfully, by her closest friends.” Her claim that shows like this deal with rape in a “careless” way is unsubstantiated because no data can back it up. In addition, no respectable sources or actual rape victims have been quoted as agreeing with this statement. Gay is asserting her opinion on a few television shows as if it is an undisputed fact. In the context of who she is trying to persuade here, no one in the media is going to take her seriously without sufficient evidence to back up her claims.

            Additionally, Gay’s article fails to establish adequate ethos. She does not provide any credentials showing her to be an expert on the issue of sexual violence. Gay is an assistant professor of English at Eastern Illinois University and has written numerous works of fiction. However, neither of these accomplishments qualifies her as an expert in the area of rape. She does not cite a past personal experience nor does she claim to have studied this issue in an academic setting of any kind. Gay’s audience is not likely to buy in to her ideas since she does not justify why she should be considered an authority on the issue of rape.

Further discrediting Gay is the fact that her piece is full of hypocrisy. For instance, after having just ripped apart the television industry for its depiction of rape, Gay completely destroys her trustworthiness by asserting that “I write about sexual violence a great deal in my fiction.” She follows this with, “There are times when I worry I am contributing to the kind of cultural numbness that would allow an article like the one in the Times to be written and published, that allows rape to be such rich fodder for popular culture and entertainment.” In addition to this she admits to being a fan of one of the shows she criticizes. Gay’s audience is unlikely to be persuaded by her argument because she is participating in the very same thing that she is condemning.

In conjunction with blatant hypocritical actions, Gay demonstrates an extremely narrow angle of vision. Her severe bias is apparent throughout the article. She actually admits this when she reveals that “I am approaching this topic somewhat selfishly.” She does not give the opposing point of view much attention. In fact, she does not really explain what the opposing view is at all. No one from the television industry or the news media is interviewed to explain their side of the argument. This is likely to offend her intended audience, as they are not fairly represented in the article, further detracting from her purpose of convincing them to change their ways.

Additionally, it seems as though Gay’s narrow angle of vision causes her to misinterpret the Times article as she spins it to justify her main argument. Gay says, “There were even questions about the whereabouts of the mother, given, as we all know, that a mother must be with her child at all times or whatever ill may befall the child is clearly the mother’s fault.” Gay is referencing a quote taken from a resident of the town in McKinley’s article. Gay implies that McKinley is the one asserting this idea because she fails to mention that McKinley is not the one questioning where the mother was. This is outright deception. She is tricking her audience by taking parts of McKinley’s article out of context and implying that they are his beliefs. In addition to this, she asserts her opinion on this misinterpreted quoted in an overly sarcastic way. This type of distortion is present throughout her critique of the article, and, when combined with the sarcastic overtone, is likely to put off her readers. Based on the fact that McKinley’s article was published in a very well known publication, many are likely to read it and realize that Gay is trying to manipulate them.

Although this argument has many shortcomings, Gay does demonstrate strong pathos by creating an emotional connection to the reader through her vivid depiction of the specific types of damage rape causes. Instead of using the watered-down terms that she claims mainstream media sources would, she asserts that “There is the exposure to unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, vaginal and anal tearing, fistula and vaginal scar tissue. The reproductive system is often irreparably damaged.” This is an effective method of gaining sympathy from the audience. While readers might be indifferent to generic terms like “attacked,” it is unlikely that anyone with a conscience could read about the true devastation rape causes and not feel troubled by it, particularly in the case of an eleven year old victim. The article is successful at sending those in the media on a guilt trip for their participation in the perceived problem.

While it is possible that many already agree with Gay’s position, her article could be improved by incorporating verifiable data from peer-reviewed journals that back up her claims, quotes from reputable experts in the area of sexual violence, and quotes from actual rape victims. In addition, she should fairly present the opposing point of view with quotes from people who disagree with her premise, and should not misrepresent the article she bases her essay on. 

The problem with reducing the mind down to physical terms is that it now merely follows physical laws that are in place or natural instincts. In this case the brain is merely an input-output machine like a computer: it just follows its programming. Without a mind that is not limited to pure physical laws, our actions become physically determined, destroying free will. This also eliminates arguments because arguments require thought outside of deterministic physical laws.

One argument to counter this is that the mind may be an illusion the brain created for itself. But the problem with this is that there is no real need for an illusion of a mind for the brain. The brain would not need an illusion to help the rest of the body to survive because an illusion would only interfere with sensory input. Also, using this language to describe the brain makes it seem like a self-aware entity in itself thus making that theory vastly more complicated than dualism and self-defeating. This is because the use of an illusion is normally in deceiving a self-aware entity, something with a mind. So it would seem that from the brain making an illusory mind, the brain has a mind to decide to make a mind to deceive its mind which makes no sense. Without more thought on this matter, the two sides will remain at a stalemate from their respective presuppositional views of the world that influence their arguments.

That quarrels get out of hand occurs when one assumes the other is incorrect. This may cause an exaggeration of a misunderstanding and it often occurs when one has not heard clearly what the other has said or shuts out details. This comes through when reading Andre Gides quote on arguments: ” Most quarrels amplify a misunderstandng”. In other words there is little in the way of a solution to the cause of the arguement in his opinion.

Oscar Wilde referred to arguments as something to be avoided because they often tend to “vulgarities that are often convincing.” If one wants to keep a friendship and avoid having the friend convinced of a falsehood that could be created through a heated discussion than it would be better to drop the disagreement according to this statement.

Donald Rumsfield stated that arguments of convenience lead to a backfire. They “lack integrity and eventually trip you up”, he said in that statement. When his reasons of continued war in Iraq were disapproved, one might think that he had to follow his own advise. One can think of statements refrring to weapons of mass destruction when for the most part there was very little beside some buried fighter aircraft.

John Deacon the instrumentalist stated that arguments “help to clear the air” which sounds positive in that one would be able to iron out differences by being able to understand why the other person was in argument with you.

(P1) Animals that are raised on factory farms have miserable lives.

(P2) It is more permissible to kill an animal’s that has a miserable life than it is to kill an animal’s that has a happy life, in order to eat them.

(C1) It is more permissible to kill a factory farmed animal than it is to kill an animal that lives a happy life, in order to eat them.

This argument comes from Levitt’s claim that she would rather eat a creature that never really lived its life rather than one that was enjoying its life one day and being slaughtered the next day. One objection to this argument is that the animals that are killed that lived happy lives, such as those on a free-range farm, will be replaced with another animal that will be able to enjoy the same sort of happy life. Therefore killing animals that live happy lives allow more total animals to live happy lives. Therefore (P2) can be thought to be false.

            Another argument that Levitt poses is as follows

(P1) Factory farming animals is the only way to produce meat that never had an individual identity.

(P2) Producing meat from an animal that once had an individual identity is cruel.

(C1) Producing factory farmed meat is the only way to produce meat withoutbeing cruel.

One objection to this argument that Levitt poses is that many people believe that the inhumane conditions and treatment that many factory farmed animals are subjected to is far more cruel than eating animals that have an individual identity. Therefore producing factory farmed meat is actually cruel. This objection shows that (P2) can be thought of as false.

The first objection that Shafer-Landau poses to utilitarianism is that it is always demanding more and more self sacrifice. This is because there is always someone more needy than you are. Therefore if you ever choose to spend money on yourself there is almost always a less expensive alternative, that you would enjoy less, and the money you saved could go to those who are more needy. Therefore utilitarianism has an individual continuously giving almost to the point at which they have reduced themselves to the same state as those they are giving to. In the eyes of many non-utilitarians this amount of self sacrifice is not morally required and therefore utilitarianism is false.

The second objection that Shafer-Landau poses is that utilitarianism claims that no action is intrinsically wrong or right, which means that there is no action that is always going to be right or always going to be wrong. On top of this the wrongness and rightness of actions are not based on its consequences or its symbolism in society but the mere nature of the action. This is because utilitarianism does not care about what the action is, it only cares about the happiness produced by the outcome to determine the wrongness or rightness of the action. Therefore an action such as drowning stray, innocent puppies that have nothing to live for, to non-utilitarians, would seem like it is always wrong to do. In the eyes of a utilitarian, it is possible that drowning puppies is the morally required thing to do if for some weird reason it produces the most happiness. For instance, some troubled child gets great enjoyment out of drowning stray, innocent puppies that have nothing to live for. If nobody ever finds out that he is drowning puppies, there is only good coming out of this situation because he is enjoying it and the puppies are being put out of their misery. Therefore it is the morally required thing for the child to do. Yet, to a non-utilitarian, it seems very wrong to hide in a dark building drowning stray puppies. The outcome of this action is only happiness but the action still seems to be intrinsically wrong. Therefore this shows that utilitarianism is wrong.

The second reason that McGinn’s argument is not valid is because (M7) claims that the only permissible option is to become a vegetarian. This conclusion does not have to be true even if the premises are all true. If (M1) through (M6) are true it follows that factory farming is impermissible because it treats animals poorly. Therefore any permissible option would be one in which the animals are not treated poorly. The practice of free-range farming, a way of farming in which animals are raised for food and killed for their flesh, but treated well during their lifetime, would be a viable alternative to factory farming because it treats the animals well during their lifetime. Therefore even if all the premises are true the conclusion that you should be a free-range farmer is also a possible conclusion, which means that the argument is invalid.

The third reason that McGinn’s argument is invalid is because all the premises are referring to the practice of raising and killing animals in a manner that does not treat them well, while the conclusion is referring to the manner in which you eat. Even if it is wrong to factory farm animals because it treats them poorly, eating factory farmed meat is not the same as factory farming the meat yourself. Even if all the premises of McGinn’s argument are true, there is nothing in his argument that claims eating factory farmed meat is wrong. McGinn would need to add a premise stating that the wrongness of factory farming makes eating meat wrong in order to validate his argument

            One example of an invalid argument is…

                        (P1) I was born in the Northern Hemisphere

                        (P2) Russia is in the Northern Hemisphere

                        (P3) Moscow is in Russia

                        (C1) I was born in Moscow

This argument is invalid because if all the premises are assumed to be true it is not impossible for the conclusion to be false. If we assume that I was born in the Northern Hemisphere, that Russia is in the Northern Hemisphere and that Moscow is in Russia are all true premises, is it possible that I was not born in Moscow? Yes, Burlington is in the Northern Hemisphere, Russia is still in the Northern Hemisphere and Moscow is still in Russia, but I was born in Burlington. Therefore this shows that the argument is invalid.

            Another example of an invalid argument

                        (P1) Pizza is food

                        (P2) People eat food

                        (P3) I am eating

                        (C1) I am eating Pizza

This argument is also invalid because even if all the premises are assumed to be true, the conclusion does not have to be true. Pizza is indeed food, people actually do eat food and assume that I am eating right now. Even if all the premises are true, I could be eating an apple. I do not have to be eating pizza. Therefore this is an invalid argument.

            Below are two examples of valid arguments

            Example 1

                        (P1) 2+2=4

                        (P2) 3+1=4

                        (P3) 4+4=8

                        (C1) 2+2+3+1=8

            Example 2

                        (P1) I own one pair of shoes

                        (P2) The shoes I own are black

                        (P3) I am wearing shoes that I own

                        (C1) I am wearing black shoes