The idea of having a dialogue with people with whom one completely disagrees is a liberal, and a left liberal, proposition.
Steve Paiken in his (liberalized) view at The Agenda, tries to argue AGAINST this premise in his most recent program: Theatre of the Extreme:
The idea behind a "dialogue" with leftist liberals is that you argue based on the premises presented BY THE liberals.
You start already with a losing proposition, and not only that, with a false premise of dialogue.
This is the liberals' way of pushing you into a corner.
If you don't agree to a dialogue then you are unreasonable.
If you do agree and enter the "dialogue," then stakes are already against you, and you WILL come out as unreasonable, and in the favourite word of the (liberal) era: bigoted.
Why should you enter a dialogue with anyone if your fundamental positions are opposed? What will that do other than produce rancour and resentment, probably more on your reasonable part and more "we got you" glee on the liberals' part, and even serious repercussions such as "criminal charges"?
Modern family discussions based on diametrically opposed opinions will only result in yelling across the dinner table. That is why any substantial discussion between "politically opposing" members NEVER occurs. Who wants to enter into verbal warfare during the now infrequent family gatherings? You will have a sour taste in your mouth, and it aint the burned turkey.
Prior to the Era of Liberalism, people argued based assumed premises:
- The supremacy of God
- The importance of traditional cultural inheritance
- The necessity of maintaining the culture
- The importance of transferring one's culture to future generations
Anything that that deflects or deters from these premises cannot be present at the dinner table (or the public forum).
In other words successful societies argue (and have forums) based on SIMILAR premises, and anyone else or anything else is a traitor or an enemy, and subject to the county's proceedings on their fate (imprisonment and even the death penalty)
Liberal dialogue is the dialogue of traitors and enemies. The liberalized society of our modern era, through its various laws and procedure, SILENCES OPPOSITION, This is actually a natural state of the human condition. Diametrically opposed ideas CANNOT exist in a society because it deteres from the "normal" function of that society.
Therefore liberals HAVE TO silence that opposition through a false and deceptive poston of "free speech" and "freedom of thought" if it is to function at all.
But if you do, in good faith, follow that premise and enter the "dialogue," then you WILL have the liberal mafia descend on with a blink of an eye.
I know. It has happened to me.
