For today’s blog, I present you with two scenarios: 

^{Scenario One} 

A leaky roof. A quote. Three men on the roof. Unexpected extra work. A person under pressure to make a decision. A mended roof, payment pending. Concern about poor work. Loud discussion, leading to threats. Bouncing emails, non-existent offices. Borrowed guard dogs. Friends acting as surveillance. Gardaí. Attempts to understand the underworld. Haggling. More violent threats. Days of sadness for being a fool, and great stress. Independent inspection. Vindication. No payment. Future repair.  

^{Scenario Two} 

A leaky roof. A quote. Three men on the roof. Unexpected extra work. A person under pressure to make a decision. A mended roof, payment in cash. Peace of mind. Communication with the people in Scenario one. Fingers crossed. Knowledge that everyone does this. Safety. Heavy rain. A leaky roof. Attempts to get repair. No response. Uncertainty and future repair.  

… 

These two scenarios happened within days of each other on the same street. As is the way of life, they are still ongoing.  

It made me wonder about the nature of disagreement. The following emerged. 

N.B. ‘the piggy-wig man’ is the boss of the three men on the roof.  

The nasty piggy-wig man’s sonnet: 

I am stripping everything two the ground 
Because they are mine and I want them back 
I don’t want your money now keep it 
I am coming now with my lads 

The theoretical reply: 

Do arguments work? 
If I win, you lose. 
That isn’t winning.  
If you win, I lose. 
That (definitely) isn’t winning.  

If a win is when 
there is nothing wrong 
then losing isn’t winning 
and nor is winning winning. 
Is there no winning? 

P.S. One of the guard dogs liked banana, the other preferred apple. The banana-eating one dribbled. 

Theme photo by Brian Wangenheim on Unsplash