It is a common technique, in my experience, to generalize parts of an argument to make it easier to find a shared philosophy or principle. Then Shared understan

It is a common technique, in my experience, to generalize parts of an argument to make it easier to find a shared philosophy or principle. Then Shared understanding can cooperatively be built on the common ground formed by the shared philosophy or principle. mariusor generalized their argument, tried to separate his argument form any specific group, with: > I am arguing that someone that supports an objectively immoral act is objectively immoral and even though they might be free to espouse that point of view, any private individual or organization is equally free in shunning them. After common ground is found the next step is to apply the shared understanding or philosophy to the specifics of the issue at hand. This often allows both parties to separate themselves from their biases, at least some, and think more clearly.