[Retra]

Just because people have different values does not mean we don't share values, and more importantly, that we don't share reality. The things that I am intolerant toward are a disregard for the facts, a disregard for demonstrated relevance, and a disregard for the legitimacy of expertise and aggregate authority.

>Isn't that just tribalism and conquest?

I mean, if you're saying that this conflict is an integral part of human nature, then you're not asking me to change my mind; you're giving me a justification for why I don't have to. That knife cuts both ways.

This is always the problem I have when trying to reason about American conservatism; if God gave you your riches, then if you lose them, attribute it to God. If might makes right, then I am not wrong to deny it so long as that denial leads to victory. Etc.. There's nothing there to tell me I'm wrong, only that people disagree. So wrongness has to be a kind of aggregate disagreement, and that leads to liberalism. Both roads lead to liberalism.

[iamnothere]

> Just because people have different values does not mean we don't share values, and more importantly, that we don't share reality. The things that I am intolerant toward are a disregard for the facts, a disregard for demonstrated relevance, and a disregard for the legitimacy of expertise and aggregate authority.

We may share the same physical reality, but many facets of reality that are critical to human experience may not be shared. In particular, and I am aware that this contradicts what you've just said, values seem to be very different across cultural boundaries. There are some general shared values that are often shared across cultures, but these shared values are also not the values that people care most about on a day-to-day basis. (Not too many people out there protesting murder, theft, etc in any organized sense.)

The values that people seem to care most about are the ones that distinguish them from other tribes. These values are often more important to people than basic needs. People will starve themselves over values, they will kill themselves over values. You can say they shouldn't. Obviously they disagree!

> I mean, if you're saying that this conflict is an integral part of human nature, then you're not asking me to change my mind; you're giving me a justification for why I don't have to.

It is an integral part of human nature. I'm not sure it can be "solved" without creating a truly oppressive superstate and permanently reducing human genetic diversity. Conflict is inherent to being alive; the best you can do is keep it on a slow boil.

[Retra]

You keep framing this conflict as though it is a purely political/value-based disagreement. It is not. When somebody denies basic facts about the world or the validity of rational methods and/or scientific reasoning, you are not simply disagreeing with me in a political sense, you are advocating for a world that is entirely arbitrary. This is what I'm saying is the double-edged knife: at best, if such people get their way, they have only provided others the justification to be cruel to them. They have not provided any argument that their opponents are wrong.

I don't deny anybody their experiences. If you trust someone who swears upon a bible, I will tell you that you are gullible, and point out that this activity neither aids in the service of justice nor pays due consideration to our mutual respect for freedom of religion. But if you say "homosexuality is a choice", you are marginalizing people's fundamental perceptions. This is not merely a difference in values, it is deception and oppression that supports one's arbitrary values, and if anyone else did the same thing, they'd be in a position to oppress and marginalize just the same.

This conflict is not simply about political disagreement -- it is about the denial of the validity of basic reasoning methods solely on the basis that the outcome is personally inconvenient.

[iamnothere]

> You keep framing this conflict as though it is a purely political/value-based disagreement. It is not. When somebody denies basic facts about the world or the validity of rational methods and/or scientific reasoning, you are not simply disagreeing with me in a political sense, you are advocating for a world that is entirely arbitrary.

Isn't that a position based on its own set of values, though? And your position would clearly be based on a different set of values.

> I don't deny anybody their experiences. If you trust someone who swears upon a bible, I will tell you that you are gullible, and point out that this activity neither aids in the service of justice nor pays due consideration to our mutual respect for freedom of religion.

Followed immediately by

> But if you say "homosexuality is a choice", you are marginalizing people's fundamental perceptions.

[Emphasis added]

Look, there's nothing wrong with having values and staking out a firm position based on those values. Claiming that one's own values-based position is distinct and special and is fundamentally different than other values-based positions, however, is merely dogma.

[Retra]

And if everything is dogma, then we must simply fight to the death. I am arguing it is not, precisely because that is not the outcome I want to occur. You can disagree -- but you do not improve anything by doing so.

As I've been saying, if you argue that our positions are merely equal, you do not change my mind, you simply cause me to stop trying to justify my position. (You've justified it for me!) That is unacceptable, and betrays the entire reason we're talking about this.

[iamnothere]

> And if everything is dogma, then we must simply fight to the death.

Only if everyone feels they have to "win".

It is possible to force a draw or stalemate, in perpetuity. That's what I'm arguing for. The only alternative is to force your opponents to comply, globally, through overwhelming oppression.

[Retra]

Well, that's just a different set of values.