The difficulty in responding to your question in a vacuum is that the answer may reasonably differ depending on the matter under discussion. Our motivations to enter into "communication" [to use a neutral term] may vary, depending on the topic at hand and the participants involved. So then, that's a "No, I'm not interested in dialogue"?
That's OK, dialogue is optional.
Curtis, I'm surprised. I provided a rather lengthy response. This is how you summarize what I said above? Why are you doing this?
Had you wished to initiate a discussion on the topic of "discussion" vs. "dialogue" you could have done so by simply starting that discussion, without the need to take another forum member's comments (um ... mine) out of context.
What you were asking was, "No one else can have a different yet valid perspective?" on the issue we were discussing. I answered your question in the negative with respect to that
issue. At the outset of this thread you quoted my response out of context, without reference to the issue we were discussing. In many cases, on many issues, where reasonable people may differ, there are "different yet valid perspectives." However, on certain core moral/ethical issues, there are not "different yet valid perspectives." That does not mean on the forum we don't explore the thinking of everyone. This does not mean, however, that we must pretend that there are "different yet valid perspectives" on every issue. To take an extreme example, if a terrorist captures an innocent civilian and slits his throught in front of a video camera, I am not willing to conceded that that terrorist has a "different yet valid perspective." We can all think of subject matters where we are not willing to concede there is a different yet valid perspective.
I've absolutely no desire to reopen the issue that Lion blocked. We can't go much further here, in the abstract. Which is fine with me.
Curtis, in fairness, if we are going to see your original post, readers should see my response as well:Before you run off on the moral relativism tangent, could you please reread my post and point out where I said "equally valid" to quote your misquote.
Curtis, just because people hold different opinions does not mean that all opinions are equal. Your premise of "equally valid" opinions is simply another iteration of moral relativism, a concept that I wholly reject.
As to my reference to your original statement, you refer to a "different yet valid
perspective." The premise of this statement is that there are opposing yet equally valid perspectives on the issue. Because, by definition, no "valid" perspective can be more or less valid than another "valid" perspective. Sometimes there really are equally valid perspectives (i.e., where reasonable people may differ), but at other times not. It really depends on the issue
. When the "different valid perspectives" approach is applied to certain core moral/ethical issues, this is
Civility is the minimum requirement. We can hope for much more.
There is value in both "dialogue" and "discussion" and yes, at times, even "debate" (though after a repetitive point "debate" can become a painful waste of time).
I believe of all people on this forum I've strived to encourage "dialogue" when merited
. However, there are some issues, some circumstances, where the best one can hope for is to set the record straight.
The main thing is to avoid personalizing discussions, and preferably to treat one another with respect. If we can stay just in that space, I'm happy.