While I hate to be argumentative, I'm having an argument with myself.

One of the reasons I blog is because I don't like arguments. But that's a contradiction, because blogging is a form of argument. And there are too many arguments. So if you don't like arguments, blogging is not likely to make them go away. I don't like arguments because I don't think they really settle anything -- especially if the goal is to "win" or to "lose." I like to think that an honest exchange of views is more productive than an argument, but forms of argumentative discourse (like "persuasion," "influence," and even "manipulation") have a way of sneaking into even the most honest discussions and exchanges of views.

Even the phrase "frank exchange of views" is often used as diplomatic doubletalk meaning "argument." (It might even mean a screaming match between sworn enemies or warring tribes whose stated goals were mutual annihilation.)

Whether an argument is a genuine exchange of views, a debate, or a discussion depends on a lot of things, and the distinction often turns on whether an audience is present, and what kind of audience. If two friends who disagree on abortion sit down for dinner and honestly attempt to discuss things like when life begins and how murder is to be defined, they might never agree, and it might very well turn into what we would all call an "argument" -- but it will likely be a more beneficial and mutually productive argument than an encounter in front of a street crowd between a NOW activist waving a coat hanger and a fundamentalist Christian waving a placard of a mutilated fetus. Same thing with guns. In a public setting, people will become more defensive and behave very differently than they will in private. For some people, it does not matter. There's always the type of person who interprets the slightest hint of disagreement -- even in private -- as an outright attack, or an invitation to a debate at the very least.

In blogging, these distinctions are necessarily blurred, because reading a blog does not necessarily tell you how the blogger handles discussions, and the blogger has no real way of knowing who is reading, and unless people leave comments, no way of knowing what they are thinking. Arguments can occur in comments, or they can be started at other blogs. Because of the inability of the blogger to see and know who is reading, it's often tough to discern who started an argument. If I read something I disagree with, and I say so, did I start an argument? Is there even an argument? There is no obligation of anyone to respond.

This discussion (or am I having an "argument"?) is further compounded by how we define the word "argument."

Let me confess that I have erred by using the modern colloquial definition of the word. Its origin and original meaning are to be found in the Latin arguere -- which means "to clarify."

Not that I'm having an argument with the word argument, but you know, I always think it helps to clarify.

For something less than clear, let's consider this gem -- No, strike that! I don't want to seem more argumentative than I am. Let's consider this piece of reporting by the Philadelphia Inquirer's Natalie Pompilio:

It's violence that touches the lives of every city resident, but some families, like the Andersons, have been hit extraordinarily hard. Their experiences offer a snapshot of life in the inner city.

Anderson's six children - ages 14 to 20 - grew up without their father. One fall day in 1996, he left the house with a quick "I'm leaving; I'll be back," and went to a neighborhood store. He was shot five times and killed during an argument with the proprietor.

"He never came back," Anderson said simply.

(Emphasis added.)

I think there had to be more than an argument in that store. It's tough to judge the case from such scanty facts, but I'm going to assume that the store owner is the shooter. Even though Ms. Pompilio does not state that he was, I think that if the "victim" had argued with the store owner (over, say, the Clinton-Dole race, a big topic in 1996), and then been shot by a third person, she'd have pointed that out.

So, let's assume that the man goes into the store, and that an argument occurs between him and the store owner. Unless the store owner was a psychopath, why would he pump five bullets into the man absent something more than an argument? And wouldn't that have been a murder? Had the store owner been convicted or charged with murder, wouldn't that have been reported? Considering the facts we are given, wouldn't it be more fair to call this encounter a fight? Might there have even been some sort of physical attack?

Or am I now guilty of having an argument? An argument with what? I mean, the above is supposed to be part of a news story, right? How can anyone have an argument with a news report? Reports are supposed to simply state the facts, not engage in arguments. But staring me in the face was the word "argument" -- offered in such a context as to be devoid of discernable meaning.

At the risk of being argumentative myself, I think the above is an example of argumentative reporting. I suspect that it has something to do with the illogical meme that's been floated around here to the effect that an argument plus a gun equals murder, but I can't be sure.

To test my theory, let's remove guns from the equation. If two men get into a fistfight on the street, would we call that an argument? I doubt it. They might have had an argument at one point, but once they used their fists, something else has occurred. Something that does not happen in the normal course of arguments. I think it would be less than accurate to say that someone was "bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat during an argument with the proprietor" or that he "had his throat slit during an argument with the proprietor," because acts of extreme violence are separate superseding events.

I may be wrong in my analysis, and readers are free to disagree with me, just as they are free to disagree with each other in the comments. If they do, that would be called an argument. But if they were crazy enough to start shooting each other, it would no longer be an argument. Actually, I don't even think it's fair to say that the arguments result in shootings, because arguments are normal human behavior, and shootings are not. To say that arguments cause shooting involves the same logic as saying that guns cause shooting or fists cause fighting. There is no such causation. (An argument is not a fight, and a gun is not a shooting.)

To maintain that it is, we might as well say that property causes burglary. That shoplifting is an argument over store prices. (Or, I suppose, that poverty is violence.)

Hmmm....

Maybe I should prohibit armed readers from leaving comments.