Leaderboard

"And that, I think, is a good start". Agreed, within certain parameters. I'm assuming that the "discourse" you allude to is with someone you feel is a "friend", to some degree or another. Someone you like (at least somewhat), and respect (same qualifier). When those are the "default" positions - most likely mutual - there's every chance that neither person (m or f) would want to purposely disrespect the other, and thus keep the tone of the conversation within certain "non-challenging" parameters. This assumes, of course, a pre-existing sense of friendship, respect, each for the other. In that kind of trusting situation, what the other person has to say is important, and received with the aforementioned sense of trust in mind. Even criticism for x or y or z can be considered within the framework of non-judgementalism. While some folks are not disposed to this kind of sharing relationship, I'll bet 10-to-1 that you are. Thus, the "trick" is to parry conversations that may prove distasteful, and engage seriously only those you trust - and who trust you. Now, I know you wouldn't be engaging in this kind of sharing with just anyone you happened to meet - who would? It would be someone you already trusted to be decent, honest, and couch any potential critical statements as carefully as they're able. However - "if their logic doesn’t hold up against my own values" - then your friend can still remain one of your friends, but there's simply a depth of that friendship that will not be plumbed. And, that's alright. We don't need all that many "real" friends, but we do need a few. Like you, I generally don't engage in these kinds of discussions until I really know someone, and for the same reasons. Combine that with a disinclination to accept poorly-thought out, poorly conceived blathering with little respect, and we wind up being refreshed, validated in our sense of self, our sense of purpose, and our sense of determination to be the man that we aspire to be. Thanks for that most interesting post.