The circumstances around the beginnings of my environmental conversation are a bit fuzzy, but in the end I can say it was one of the most encompassing and engrossing I've had in recent memory. I had been enjoying the nightlife in Adams Morgan, and when my two friends and I began our walk back to the apartment the conversation too began.

The conversation first began about a girl that my friend had been spending time with only to find that she had a long-term boyfriend. Rather than table the uncomfortable issue right there, we decided to evaluate the situation using some the common debate passageways of the ethos, the logos, and the pathos. I will not go to in depth about the results of the first leg of the argument, but needlessly to say--even though both sides of the issue were vigorously exercised-- my friend made the right choice. Yet it was here that we began to make an evaluation of the very debate style we had been using. Could everything be encapsulated into one of the categories? Were these elements revelatory pathways to understanding reason or compassion or were they merely blinders that would force us to miss things? Fortunately, one of my friends, Friend A we will call him, was willing to make a stand that whatever could not be explained logos or ethos was truly a pathos. We considered the issues of environment and the world that persists around, wondering whether or not most people would even bother to debate over their lifestyles.

The logical arguments are clear said Friend A as are the ethical ones. It is merely a matter of not working enough on the control that the pathos can have on people. He stated that people could be appealed to for compassion or at the very least fear to move forward. It was at this point where my other friend--B-- stepped in being a very deliberate thinker. "Yes, but do people continue to work for fear or compassion when they are more closely surrounded by mundane "necessities"? We can't expect them to stay fearful when the effects of what is happening are being shipped across space and time."

"Do we not need to indict our leaders for not taking a greater part in the move for action?" I said. Of course, this spawned a large tangent about a whole mess of issues concerning leadership, people stealing recent elections in northern states etc etc. Eventually, however, we were began to evaluate whether or not leaders were really not just like any other person who could not be appealed to to make change. Perhaps in trying to be leaders they were giving up their freewill to merely be a voice of constituents and interest groups. The conversation continued on for some time and eventually returned to an evaluation on our debate pathways. It was perhaps most revealing that we could talk to each other and concede points and win in others, yet such a debate is never possible or sought on the issues at stake on a large enough scale to truly matter. Even 3 intelligent FRIENDS could not decide whether conventional ways of appeal were even worth using let alone what would be the best angle to approach another.