I've been thinking about this conversation a bit and I have a proposal to make. One that I feel might be actually useful both to this OP and to the general discourse on this board. You are not obligated of course, and fair warning if you do it in good faith chances are it'll be uncomfortable at times, probably for the both of us.
I suggest to alternately bring up an issue that brings up something about the other side you don't like, but this time we use some rules.
-First, we don't switch the premise until one of 2 things happen. 1. One of the 2 sides concedes 2. We both agree that no consensus can be reached.
-Second, if this is achieved we both agree to not beat the other over the head over conceding. The point isn't to win an argument but actually to find some consensus. Gloating simply puts people on the defensive.
-Third, we make a conscious effort to avoid fallacies. And we promise to earnestly consider the argument of someone who accuses the other of doing so (sometimes they are hard to spot)
The object would be to first of all. Disprove this OP by showing that avoiding fallacies actually allows for the setting of standards.
More importantly though it will allow us to actually see what we can agree on instead of doing what everyone here does. Highlighting what we disagree on.
I will tell you beforehand that I'm not afraid to call bullshit, so of you are willing to do this, you better be serious. If you're not I would be highly disappointed and you will lose the respect you have earned by this conversation.
If you feel you cannot do this I will understand and will not hold it against you in any way. (This is a confronting thing to do,do not underestimate it)
