Jim scratched his head in confusion as Mike told him the story, bravado and pride beaming through. I attended a conference once about religious views on abortion, and the speaker spent two hours discussing how one should not do harm to the body, including an unborn child, Mike began. I went up to the speaker after the conference and asked him if his wife had earrings, he stated, chuckling at his own cleverness. The speaker looked a little confused and said, "yes, she does." I then asked, "are they pierced ears?" He said they were, and I finally asked "how can your wife pierce her ears if harm is not allowed", he continued. You know what his answer was? I couldn't believe what he said. He said, "because she wants to." I couldn't believe he said that. He didn't even try to explain, Mike said with surprise on his face.

So, you called him out on the discrepancy in his argument? Jim asked.

Yeah, I did. It's when people say one thing and live a different way. I question them about what I see, Mike responded.

What's the point of asking that speaker to explain the discrepancy in his argument with an example like earrings? Jim questioned further to understand.

It showed that he wasn't living in accordance with what he was saying, Mike answered.

But he did explain, Jim said. His wife chose to pierce her ears and you equate a small hole in the ear with abortion. That feels like a bit of a stretch to me. There are those who don't consider earrings as harm to the body.

Then he should have explained the exception, Mike demanded, instead of hiding behind "because she wants to."

Yeah, I get that. My bigger question is why you asked it. Were you trying to understand where his principle ended, or were you just trying to catch him being inconsistent? How did your comments move the conversation forward? Jim asked with confusion bordering frustration with Mike's response.

People need to know they are being contradictory. It's my job to tell them about it, Mike asserted with palpable frustration.

You say you need to point out the contradictions, and I ask why, Jim replied. Do you intend that the other person change their behavior? I doubt the other person left the interaction thinking that Mike guy had some real insight about earrings. The comments put him on guard, defensive or embarrassed perhaps, and forced him to reconcile an absurd position: how is abortion bad but earrings okay? Jim's frustration showed as the pace and tone of his voice grew in intensity.

The point was to show him he's not being consistent, and so I told him. I didn't embarrass him, and it would be a test of his ego if I did. That would show me he has a weak ego because he can't handle being questioned, Mike stated as fact. If someone is standing in front of a room telling people how to live, he should be able to explain where his principle begins and ends. I wanted to know whether he had actually thought it through.

Jim took a breath and asked, How is that kind?

It shows me if they have a weak ego. Someone with a weak ego won't be able to handle the question. They shouldn't be saying one thing and not following through. People with weak egos don't like to be called out, Mike said.

That's the third time you've mentioned weak egos, Jim pointed out.

Because you keep missing my point.

I understand your point, Mike. You may be right about people with fragile egos not being able to handle criticism. I don't agree that embarrassment alone proves a weak ego. Even if earrings shouldn't be allowed because doing harm isn't allowed, I still don’t understand what you intended to accomplish. My question gets back to why the criticism. What purpose was served? Did you only want to point out the hypocrisy? Did you earnestly want to understand the nuanced differences of how earrings don't count as harm? It feels like the purpose was just to make sure that guy knows his theory has holes, Jim said, while thinking he should be breathing instead of engaging in this almost pointless argument.

I wanted to know what his answer would be. Mike remained defensive. I had to say something.

I don't want to continue this conversation. It doesn't feel like we're getting anywhere, Jim continued with a more serious but controlled tone. The only thing I will say is that I disagree with your approach to call someone out without the ability or desire to help them. I don't find that to be kind, and I feel like it embarrasses people for no reason.

It only embarrasses them if they have a weak ego.

I understand your explanation. I'm not asking for another one. I just disagree with the approach. I wouldn't do that, and I gave you my reasons. We don't have to agree, and we don't have to convince each other. Can we please move on from this, Mike? Jim asked.

It is my job to point out what they don't see. If they get offended or embarrassed or can't handle the questions, that's on them, they have a weak ego, Mike pressed the point further.

Mike, I'm done with this conversation. I'm getting out of here, Jim stated.

I'm just trying to explain how people say one thing and do another, and I wanna know how they make sense of that, Mike continued.

I'm done here. Goodbye, Jim said before hanging up.