Mondo's Law

"It’s primarily a time saving device".

The use and purpose of Mondo’s Law is simple. It can be deployed at any time during an argument, and in fact, works even better when applied prior to one. Upon implementing Mondo’s Law you no longer continue the discussion, instead you deem it unfit as intelligible conversation and thus you completely refuse to accept or even acknowledge any of the nonsense you’ve encountered. Mondo’s Law should always be applied to such arguments containing:

-Politics
-Sport
-Religion
-Conspiracy Theory
-Racism
-Feminism

Brief examples of the types of arguments Mondo's Law can help prevent.

Political arguments always happen the same way: with an issue that neither party will agree on despite both having tediously manipulated information on the matter. Individuals attempting these arguments are regularly as uneducated as the politicians they defend. Both lack of class consciousness and general ignorance is commonly why you see single welfare-mothers erroneously supporting upper-class-favouring political parties. These arguments can go on for hours and usually end how they start – with a difference of opinion on a subject they both think they know more about.

Sport arguments are often passionately veneered with the struggles of one’s inability to comprehend why dum dum no like gum gum. This argument usually entails the use of old information; such as a lesser known 1982 sporting match which played out in a particular way that is typically beneficial to party A’s point. These arguments frequently reduce brain activity the longer they go on.

Religious arguments are normally carried out between those who do, and those who do not, believe in a particular deity or scripture. Though, they were not always carried out in this manner; previously they were carried out and nailed to a cross. This is regularly viewed as a one book vs. many books debate. These arguments always play out the same way – sometimes for days – and are usually the most entertaining of the arguments to observe but still end equally as ineffectively; with regards to affecting view points.

Conspiracy Theory arguments are often fuelled by the over analysis of pseudoscience and false facts. This means that one party will claim to be using their own research despite having no actual academic experience or knowledge in the field. Said [tin hat] party will believe themselves to be of superior knowledge to their adversary and also perceive themselves as enlightened beings. It is not uncommon to hear references cited from scientists nobody has ever heard of before, or who people have heard of, but have laughed out of academia. These arguments usually end with a lot of frustration and smugness – or so the lizard people told me.

Racism & Feminism based arguments are very similar in their delivery. This is mostly fed by self-righteousness and an absence of educational understanding in what they’re talking about outside of ‘I live it everyday’ logic. These arguments are usually backed up with basic knowledge on the subject and misquoted, out of context, speech. Despite the parties claim they’re well read on the subject it usually turns out the individual has read very few books, all of which lack the diversity and clarity needed to gain an informed opinion on the matter. These arguments more often than not end up with one party believing their struggle has been exemplified – whereas anyone else just thinks they're dumb.

These are just a few examples of arguments Mondo’s Law can help prevent; still there are also many more places it can be executed. It’s primarily a time saving device designed to tackle potential arguments, or the continuation of unappealing arguments. Considering almost every argument has a, somewhat, familiarly predictable path Mondo’s Law can be a very useful tool for surviving the times.
_________________________________________________
Personal thoughts included because fuck you, that’s why: though sometimes I appreciate when people reference information from books, and in fact encourage them to read more - if you base your whole opinion from one book, I might as well just cut out the middle man and argue with the author of said book. This information should be used to assist in the forming of an opinion with conflicting viewpoints all being considered and evaluated accordingly: this should not be used as the be all and end all foundation on which your opinion is formed - unless you’re really, really stupid. However, that's probably a different problem for a different time.
___________________________________________________

Life’s too short - especially for stupid people who operate heavy machinery.

-P