I do this all the time. Start a project, fail to promote it and then find myself disappointed at the lack of input.

But.

I’m a fickle person and I think I’ve found a new project to nurture. It’s called Things We’re Not Going to Talk About. That’s all the information I’m going to give you right now, but I will say that Unfinished Arguments definitely fits within the umbrella of what I’m trying to do with Things. So, there may be some changes on this blog.

In the meantime, if you could just hold tight, tell your friends, and keep checking the blog every now and again. I will do my best to be as quick as possible.

Subject of argument: The Rugby World Cup
Time and place: My workplace, the day after the RWC final
With: numerous colleagues over a period of about an hour
What they said:  Did you watch the final? NO!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU!?!?!?!
What I said (eventually): LOOK! Would you all just LAY OFF!?!?
What I wish I’d said: Seriously? I don’t know why it’s so frigging important to you whether I watched the game or not. I watched the last ten minutes, which I felt was an appropriate commitment for a non-rugby fan. Unlike you, I don’t tie my patriotism to a vulgar sport consisting of men in tight clothing tackling each other to try and get hold of a ball, in the process smacking each other up so that most of the time, half the team can’t play because of injuries. When you’re ready to talk about something relevant like art, science, politics or music, come back and see me. 

Subject of argument: “Intentional Fallacy” (or rather, an argument against intentional fallacy)
Time and Place: English Scholarship class
With whom the argument was held: A fellow member of the class who happens to be incredibly outspoken, self assured and intelligent.
What they said: Something to the effect of when looking for meaning within a text, the author’s intention is absolute and any meaning, or messages found by the reader or critic that are contrary to what the author was intending are meaningless. He cited a poem written in the eighteenth century (can’t recall its title) where the word “plastic” appears to describe something malleable or flexible, then argued that in a post-polymer world, the poem’s acquired meaning has no validity because the author intended the word to be used in its original context and only its original context.
What you said: I said nothing.
What you wish you’d have said: I hoped to bring up an example of Yto Barrada’s photography (specifically her Life Full of Holes project) and suggest that when one views the photograph below one could easily place significance on the advertisement, rather than the subject of the advertisement, one could easily bring up ideas about consumption, and a child’s innocence being tainted by constant prompts to consume, or a perpetual desire for an idealised reality, such as the one pictured in the advertisement. Okay, yes it’s a stretch.

But when one views the photograph in the context of its series, a study of the Strait of Gibraltar and how it affects those wishing to emigrate from Africa to Europe, and this sense of isolation and fear  and being trapped in one place that is associated with the Strait itself, are any assertions previously made by the viewer now void?

Subject of argument: The co-worker of a friend being a bitch
Time and Place: After work at a friend’s house
With whom the argument was held: A friend and her house mate
What they said: House mate had explained that of course the co-worker was a bitch because she went to a private school, to which my friend replied “Hey! We went to private schools and we’re not like that!”
What you said: “Yeah, it’s hidden somewhere deep down inside.”
What you wish you’d have said: “Yeah, but that just means we’ve had a lot of experience dealing with snobby bitches.”

Subject of argument: Marriage
Time and place: Afternoon, my parents’ living room
With: My mother
What I initially said: “I’m probably not going to get married.”
What she said: “Well if you’re not going to have a big wedding then at least have the decency to invite us to the registry office.”
What I said: “Sure Mum.”
What I should have said: “Actually mum, when I say ‘I’m not getting married’ it means just that… I simply don’t believe in marriage as the most successful formula for the modern relationship. Marriage has and always will be more about convenience and a business partnership rather than actual love, and with the current state of society being that women are just as likely to earn a decent living as men are, I am not obliged to enter into that kind of contract with anyone. I’m most likely going to drift through a number of loving, worthwhile relationships that will make me happy rather than chain myself to one man for life. Oh, and by the way, brace yourself that I’ll probably end up having a child out either out of wedlock or by myself as a solo parent by choice.”

Subject of argument: NATO/US involvement in Libya
Time and place: A casual dinner with a few friends, mid-July
With: A friend who is far more intelligent (in many cases) and self-assured than myself
What they said: The Arab Spring is a conspiracy to get control of Libya’s oil supply. There was something about all of the NATO/US troops being in plain clothes. She definitely justified her argument by saying “I know this because my dad is really into politics.” She also said “why else would Libyans suddenly want Western style luxuries”… such as democracy.
What I said: (in a timid voice) … I’m probably not even going justify that with a response.
What I should have said: I think you and your father conspiracy theorists. I think, considering the British and American governments’ favourable reputation with rulers such as Mubarak and Gaddafi, they stand to lose more if they are deposed and the people of these countries react negatively towards the trading (especially in terms of weapons) and support these Western leaders have offered the autocrats, while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses which were occurring long before the revolutions (Source). Furthermore, to say that this was an American conspiracy cheapens or belittles said human rights abuses, it provides the assumption that everything was relatively fine and dandy before the Americans decided they wanted Libya’s oil. And might I add that Obama’s attitude to military intervention is vastly different to Bush’s - the most obvious difference being that Obama waited for U.N. approval (and was accused of stalling by some critics) before sending military intervention into Libya, while Bush on the other hand ignored the U.N.’s advice about invading Iraq. Oh, and democracy is by no means a Western value.