“my broad point was how do you have genuine dialog if people hold views that are not only discrepant, but in which one group appears to not even acknowledge the position that they really hold”
Genuine dialog needs the people involved to have respect for the people on the other side despite their holding views you disagree with.
It also requires the small possibility that some of their views may be valid which means some of “our” opposite views may be invalid and need to be recognized as such.
I see no questioning of views tolerated at most sites, If anyone steps out of line the views expressed are condemned without any leeway.
Inconsistencies are ignored and swept under the carpet.
Extreme views which start off agreeing with “our” views but magnify them are tolerated rather than challenged.
Steven said “I’m with hansen and Watts on that. strange bedfellows”.
Even stranger would be you and Joshua and BBD in with Mosher, Judy and Monckton.
[Covers eyes aghast].
But the sad fact is we are all working together to try and “improve the world” over the same issue.
Some of us [myself included] have [in the heat of the moment] said things hurtful to others in making our points of view and trust in dialog has been broken almost to the point of non repair.
Keep trying is the only answer.
Isn’t it just using <u> to underline and </u> to end it?
(MY superpower is having it work only when desired, and not work for explanatory examples. 😉