Being able to recognize subjects about which you can't be rational is more useful than deceiving yourself that you can remain detached while discussing them. If you try to rationally discuss and negotiate a topic which is a non-negotiable hot button for you, laying a rational groundwork is a waste of time, since you will discard rational discourse when the non-rational line is reached. "This doesn't mean that no one could have such a rational dialogue. Nor does it mean the people who could have that rational dialogue are moral monsters. They may just be better at acknowledging that their feelings, while deeply held, need not be binding on everyone else. Finally, I don't think having a[n irrational] line is necessarily a defect (at least, to the extent that you can acknowledge it is not grounded in rational arguments, nor need it be binding on others, although your feelings about others not bound by it may not be wholly rational, either)." However, it is important to recognize that their particular point of view is very personal, is grounded in emotion that other people may not share, and that a their different point of view is not prima facie wrong. Deciding that they are wrong is to value your ideological stance more than you value empathy for other people. Cutting off empathy for others makes being a member of a community problematic.
**This is lifted - quoted and paraphrased from Dr. Free-Ride's blog "Adventures in Science and Ethics". I neglected to save the link when I wrote saved the doc, but if you google it, it comes up easily enough. The original article was about the ethics of scientific testing on animals - cats in particular, a topic about which I have mixed feelings. However, the rationale is more applicable for me to a broader range of topics. | 
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
issahla's journal
