I myself have often been accused of taking a black and white stance on any number of topics. Many people argue that no truths exist in those extremes, that the truth is always gray, somewhere in between. As a generally staunch opponent of moderation, I argue agains this truism in all its hypocritical, or at least ironic posturing.

The genesis of the need for arbitration exists only when two diametrically opposed viewpoints are brought into confrontation. Without black v white, then no gray would need to exist as a buffer. The immediate counterpoint could be attempted that there are multiple agents on one side of the conflict with slightly varying opinions and this constitutes graying gradation. Not true. While on certain points, the two agents may agree, bonding them in union against a common dissenter, on others they disagree and it's on each point that the black and white argument takes place. If one is taking a stance of any kind, then it is on one side or another of every argument. If one is willing to compromise, to enter the gray, then the disagreement is dissolved.

By definition, there is no argument in grey. Is this because, as mentioned above in a mocking tone, that the truth exists there? That if one is to take all aggregate stances on multivarious issues and blend every single opposition any two interacting parties hold thus creating a gray template (albeit an artifical one) are we to assume the truth exists there? Why? All grey is a glossed-over composite of several dichotomies. So how can the truth exist in half-hearted gestures and poorly indoctorinated beliefs?

What does exist in the gray then? The only truth in the gray is a berth or derth of molecules, depending on the dilution of the two original divergences. Molecules float back and forth between the black and white viewpoints as well as compose them and so we may assume that what's supporting and distancing them are the same atomic compositions. That's the only definition the median area holds. Other than that mere physical fabrication, is there anything in the area between the distant ports?

Allowing that substance and not complete absence exists in this mysterious area, allowing that any disagreement is composed of a continuum of nearly endless propositions and suppositions, isn't each one in and of itself a new black point for which there must only logically exist an argument of completely opposite weight as to balance or even negate it? So even if teh gray area is comprised of many miniature re-assessments, then they all in themselves are new arguments and not reposing of the initial one that sparked them.

But, supposing I'm wrong on the above assertions, supposing I'm missing a big point or even making a big mistake here. Isn't insisting on a wealth of options other than two opposing views itself a hardline stance? The paradox upon which the gray argument collapses is that it in itself is a black or white point. Of course, I muse that grays are always destined to collapse anywya, because it's simply a semantic variant for an acutely weak statement.

And which is black and which white in any particular argument? As previously observed, the parts are not opponents, but components, reliant on each other for definiton and maintanence of individual identity. Black is white. Therefore, black is not truly black and white not truly white, but each a version of themselves, and building upon that, the conclusion is that all opposites negate each otehr and themselves because it's impossible to know which is which and where each opposite begins. They themselves begin to fill the space left in the absence of a median and the black and white, thus conflated become gray themselves. Therefore nothing but gray exists, and without any opposition, much less a strong one, to define and identify it as so, gray itself then ceases to be. Why don't arguments themselves cease?