[ExI] Striving for Objectivity Across Different Cultures

[Lee Corbin]

Stefano writes

> Lee wrote:
> 
>> Yes, exactly! It's a fascinating project to imagine oneself cooped up
>> with Adolf Hitler in a two person cell for many years. You could start with
>> "hath not a Jew eyes?" and go from there! Of course, as a collectivist
>> there will probably remain insoluble differences in his outlook and values
>> compared to yours. But they may be minimized.
> 
> I do not know whether that is ironic,

Just out of curiosity, how could that be read ironically? 
I did mean every word. 

> but as a practising lawyer I would say that actually a typical
> gimmick is to start from whatever admission or stipulation may
> be possible to obtain.

I'm just thinking of ordinary debates. If you and I disagree
on something, don't we necessarily try to find statements
that the other is forced to agree with, that lead him or her
towards our way of thinking?

> A variant of the above approach is to play to the public, meaning that
> your opponent may well deny you the very modest "common ground" that,
> say, it is a good thing all other things being equal that knowledge be
> expanded, but by doing so he corners you in a position much less
> defensible than, say, the idea that genetic research should be
> forbidden.

I like to think that I'm thinking that I'm merely in a two-person
conversation, but of course I have noticed that my style does
change on account of our audience. But here, are you implying
that your adversary will be lying when he denies you a "common
ground" that in his heart he does readily accept? 

I could never stand the very idea of "debate" in high school, it 
seemed somehow very dishonest and wicked to argue a point
that you did not believe.

Lee