Ian Murray wrote:
>
> The both/and of disagreement/agreement puts us on a slippery
> [and fractal] slope in all too many ethical and metaethical
> multilogues.
>
I don't see the slippery slope (except perhaps in a tautological sense that all contingent propositions put us on such a slope). In the centuries preceding the U.S. invention of unconditional surrender were not most peace treaties based on the two parties discovering _some_ grounds for agreement, in terms of which they measured the intensity of their disagreements, or something like that. And surely, most of the debates on this list are between people who are agreed that capitalism must go. There were continuing, quite sharp debates within the anti-vietnam war movement, all grounded in the agreement that it was necessary to stop the war.
Carrol