[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
Logic will be a tool in your arguments, but it will not act as a God-Like Authority.


[/ QUOTE ]

I sure hope I didn't imply anything to this end since I agree with the limitations of logic.

The last thing I would want to do is coerce him to agree with me based on what I say or any force that I may implicitly or explicitly apply.

The only thing I might want to urge him to do (even with coercion) is to dig deeper into the issue to figure out where he really stands. If it's a completely neutral position, so be it. If it's on the opposite side of where I am, so be it.

The larger conflicts emerging from many cases of diverging views are only loosely related to a single incident, apply to both sides equally, and can often be averted via compromise. However, both sides are wise to be aware that there are limits to how much compromise can be made over time before problems arise, and that macro factor should also figure into each person's equations IMO.

That's basically all I'm saying.

[Edit]

Is it safe to say we've reached a point of divergence in our axioms, ie. that I assume such problems (based on competing, but not contradictory values) have a right answer (for each person), and you assume they don't necessarily (because the whole mishmash of competing values can easily simulate a set of contradictory values, say)?