3 ms·

Building on this point, values for a single person/group can be ranked in terms of importance: I value easily drinkable water much more than I value easy access

Building on this point, values for a single person/group can be ranked in terms of importance: I value easily drinkable water much more than I value easy access to cat pictures, and I value easy access to cat pictures more than I value Irish independence (for example). This being the case, two groups that might differ on some values can oftentimes work together if they have similar regard for highly-prioritized shared values--for example, I would have no problem protesting with somebody from the IRA were our common supply of water or internet threatened. The cancerous line of thinking adopted by extremist conservatives and progressives, though, requires that all values must be ranked according to some ill-defined group gestalt, and moreover, that any difference in value systems--no matter how low-priority!--is sufficient for name-calling and failing to cooperate. That desire to gridlock over petty things is what rots a society.

taylodl 9y ago
In my argumentation and debate class I took at the University many years ago the professor made the somewhat provocative statement that there is a set of universal values which everyone holds dear. The problem is they rank them differently in terms of importance and that's where all the arguments stem from. The key to effective debate is to identify those values you share and show you have the same mutual concerns.
- angersock 9y ago
  Yep. When arguing properly (as opposed to here, for example), I usually try to start with a common set of values or facts with my opponent--oftentimes just using theirs for convenience's sake--and try to reason back to my own position. Rarely does this fail. When it does fail, it usually means that we both have an incomplete view of the world, or that there is some incorrectness in the chain of reasoning that becomes evident pretty quickly. Unfortunately, people usually prefer to take the (quicker, sloppier, more quarrelsome) route of "I have my facts, you have your facts, you are evil for believing <X,Y,Z>".

taylodl 9y ago

In my argumentation and debate class I took at the University many years ago the professor made the somewhat provocative statement that there is a set of universal values which everyone holds dear. The problem is they rank them differently in terms of importance and that's where all the arguments stem from. The key to effective debate is to identify those values you share and show you have the same mutual concerns.

angersock 9y ago
Yep. When arguing properly (as opposed to here, for example), I usually try to start with a common set of values or facts with my opponent--oftentimes just using theirs for convenience's sake--and try to reason back to my own position. Rarely does this fail. When it does fail, it usually means that we both have an incomplete view of the world, or that there is some incorrectness in the chain of reasoning that becomes evident pretty quickly. Unfortunately, people usually prefer to take the (quicker, sloppier, more quarrelsome) route of "I have my facts, you have your facts, you are evil for believing <X,Y,Z>".