[Veelox]

> if someone else started with those premises, they'd also arrive at the same conclusions

I like your definition of critical thinking, it also allows me to highlight why I agree with sideband. In the bay area there tends to be less acceptance for differing premises.

I am a conservative Christian and certain premises I bring to the conversation automatically make me "hateful" or "bigoted". While I have seen this most prominently in the religious/moral realm I see it in politics as well.

In the bay area there is a right set of premises and a wrong set. If you start with the wrong set it is acceptable to wholly reject the conclusions without engaging critically with why the premises are wrong.

[tunesmith]

Yes, I'm far from a conservative Christian but I appreciate that while some premises are fact, other premises are simply "values" ("should/ought" statements) that can vary from person to person. People can reason accurately towards different conclusions from those values. People should be able to debate/disagree respectfully about differing values, assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values.

Of course, people can reason incorrectly, too. I think there's a set of people that disagree with the values, but there's another set of people that object to conclusions that appear inconsistent when compared to the premises/values they purportedly rest upon.

[Veelox]

> assuming there's a basic level of humanity in those values

I am not saying that you are this way, but I have had interactions that lead me to believe that reasoning allows some to wholly reject values I hold dear as "intolerant" without consideration, all in the name of tolerance. It comes across as comical in a tragic way.

On the flip side, I have had interactions where I was able have a disagreement and work backward to the differing values which we were able to agree to disagree on.

[tunesmith]

There are some deeply held values worldwide that are deeply offensive to others, that's for sure. For instance, there are those who earnestly believe that some class of humans is naturally inferior to others, or more genetically suited to servitude, etc.

The question of how or whether to limit some kinds of speech... I honestly think this is one of the great philosophical struggles of this generation. I am not sure why it has come up again when it seemed largely settled in the past. On the liberal side, you see people like Howard Dean and Elizabeth Warren disagree on it, which is a weird experience.

I think the question is, is there some set of underlying values where we can appropriately justify excluding someone entirely?

If the answer is yes, then how do you draw the line, and how do you protect against arbitrary lines being drawn against you in return? If the answer is no, then there's a whole host of other questions, like how do you deal with trolls?

I remember there was a great deal of consternation about Bill Nye debating Ken Ham, for instance. So many voices thought it was inappropriate. I thought the debate was a good thing.

On the other hand, I have a hard time accepting that trolling is protected speech. Heartfelt offensive speech I'm fine with, but trolling feels like a close cousin of fighting words, with intent only to destroy. On the other hand, I'm not sure how to tell the difference between trolling and heartfelt ignorance.