Of Pros(e) and Con(text)s

As a matter of speaking,
I have recently become obsessed with dialogue. Specifically, It concerns me that the communicative process is surprisingly more intrinsically argumentative than I thought. The natural paradigm surrounding the nature of prose, is that it is ordinary, unpoetic and informal. I thought of it as the way we exchange "so what do you do", "where do you live" small talk at a Christmas party. What shifted my view is that I have noticed that the simplest of statements we make, even at their most insignificant, possess the context of our entire lives. They are actually pros or cons on the omnipresent pro-con list of life choices, deceptively dressed as casual language.
For me, it is now evident that each and every discussionary assertion that we make holds the hidden values of who we individually are. A statement's credibility, how it is taken, the meaning surrounding the statement itself is nothing without taking the speaker into account. This becomes significant because all human action has an intent. While it is obvious when you think about someone selling a car, getting you to vote for a proposition, or choosing a faith, the most unimportant statements like what kind of turkey you bought, how you fixed your broken tail light on your car, or what you said to a friend, are in actuality argumentative cases meant to justify or validate the decisions that we have made. Out of the 12 different types of deli meats at various prices, you spend a little extra because your preference is for (x). You could take your car to your dealership, hire a mechanic, or do it yourself, but you chose (x) because it best suits you. A listener is left with the choice to agree or disagree. "I love the smoked pepper turkey at Whole Foods", or "They have better prices at..." be they casual, are approvals or disapprovals.
While they don't seem to be argumentative, we stamp the experiences of our lives with directives about how and why. From opening statement to closing argument, the brand of coffee that we individually prefer to stimulate our personal existence with, is a presentation of potential leadership.
We only think that these minor conversations are without assertion, because we are not bothered if people disagree. We regard these choices as personal because we don't take the reactions of our listener's personal. We are free to be indifferent about our differences as long as they are weak in their magnitude. It is as though we metaphysically populate the crowded subway of philosophical space each with our own stops and destinations. Along this journey, we do not mind eachother, as long as we are not jabbing elbows into eachother's minds. You can have your smoked pepper turkey, but don't encroach upon my political propositions.
In conversation, we devour each other's experiences as offerings to our personal lists of pros and cons. The unintrusive informality of prose merely makes each other's individual contexts digestible.

Pro or Con?

-MM