Wyote said:
One striking example is that I view disagreements as more or less always silly, between moral and rational people. You either classify something as a fact, a speculation (in which case you keep working till it reaches the status of fact before asserting with any confidence OR demonstrate the probability your speculation is right), or a matter of subjective taste (in which case moral people will say the best way is to accommodate diverging tastes -- obviously if there aren't enough resources, they will also agree that's the case, and that it isn't necessarily someone's fault), or as to-be-decided/unclear. You'd think that, if people questioned themselves for hours and days and months, they'd never have angry conflicts over these things, and would always just arrive at one of those 4 options.
But when presented with this, I often get a response akin to "well they think they're correct from their point of view...so you can't expect them to change." This baffles me to no end. Because this comes from people who wouldn't say the same to a mad, insane killer who loves freezing people to death slowly. They may acknowledge the killer's preference, but they will not tolerate it. All I'm saying is
assuming one regards oneself as a moral person and a rational person, there's no way out of this nor a reason to excuse it, as it's simple enough to always arrive at one of those 4....and I've never really heard people offer reasons against so much as just tend to excuse people who don't do it.
I think clarification is ideal, and I think the whole "agreeing to disagree" thing is silly, though its counterpart which is "OK it's unclear as we've not the time to hear each others' arguments out fully, so we adjourn" is reasonable.