The most important thing when people who claim to have similar aims reason is honesty. We should state our foundation incepts and try to make all aspects as clear as we can. We should also state what it is in the other's incepts that we disagree with and we should be open about the real/root causes of this disagreement.
Commitment to this policy will save us from being misled by personality based bias.
We are often presented with a choice between ignoring what is disagreeable (for the purpose of an outward show of unity) and a frank and comprehensive expression of disagreement. We may choose to bite down on our contrary views because we do not want to appear 'divisive'. Yet, all we are doing , when we speak frankly, is exposing sources (or seeds) of present (or potential) division. This, it may be said, can only be beneficial in the long run. But, because we are afraid of the word 'divisive', due perhaps to our previous experiences with the concept of 'divide & rule', some will now do anything in thier power not to appear 'divisive'. This is seen as a virtue.
It is a false virtue. It is a piece of self-deception because there are circumstances presently existing that neccesitate divisiveness. Also, not talking about a piece of everyday reality will not make it disappear, community problems are resolved by engagement; self-repairing societal malfunctions are extremely rare.
And even if we carry on together regardless of our fundamental differences, we have seen instances from the past where others who did the same later witnessed the destruction of what they had gained when former comrades turned on each other. In other words, if our fundamental motivational incepts are too disimilar and if those differences are not resolved before our one unifying cause is removed from the arena, then we will eventually still have a falling out. Therefore, it is better that we air all differences now and seek a comprehensive and honest consensus.
It is better that we know now if we are actually on the same journey. So, honesty with one's self and with others is most important. And being honest with one's self will mostly require acknowledging what is lacking in one's governing doctrine. To misrepresent what one stands for or to purposefully misrepresent what another stands for is the lowest form of dishonesty in an arena like this. This is a forum where ideas are shared,
therefore, ideas that are expressed should be dealt with for what they represent. Where this is not clear, enquiries can be made. To distort what another says for the sake of point-scoring or with the intent of protecting one's suddenly exposed fragile governing doctrine is low behaviour. If a person's governing doctrine does not provide the tools to counter what opposes it, then that doctrine cannot be whole. Better then to embark on further education than to adopt the false persona of one who is 'unfairly mis-understood'. If newly revealed ideas show a weakness in one's governing doctrine, then it is better to look without the passion of possesiveness at that doctrine, move foward with the next words spoken, desist from the futile re-cycling of what is not worth defending because, if a thing that claims to be Truth cannot defend itself, how can it defend you?
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This site may at times contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml