Seeing oneself as not at the edge of the not-there cliff

Can't one have "Civilized Debate"?

What is wrong with those "others"?

How can they refuse "civilized" debate?

Indeed "one" oft wonders what in God's forsaken heaven possibly could be churning within the minds of those "others".
Especially where those others are of the non-XYZ mindset.

Here "XYZ", if you so mind,
represents "conservative"
or "liberal" or
some other such well defined
and trust-able circle of pigeon-holing.


As it so happens (click on image at right to see video)
"conservative" thinker Melanie Phillips
has shared with us her views of "one's"
place in the Universe.

One is forced you see, to live in a world
most unfortunately delineated as between the clearly rational (those who know how to engage in truth-seeking and "civilized" debate) and the "others", those who hang their hats on an "-ism", Environmentalism for example, but are not able to debate the objective facts.

Consider "Climate Change". It is a buggers' con-trick.
Surely and indeed.
All those "bio-feedbacks" in the climate will set things right
This is an "objective truth" (according to Ms. Phillips)

It is "lonely" at the top according to Ms. Phillips, to be the only journalist at her news organization still telling the "truth" in a world turned upside down.
It is lonely to be stuck there surrounded by the distortional consensus fabricated in secret cabal by the others (the Climate-Gaters), including by the gullible and unfortunately "liberal" journalists.
But be brave oh rational one. For you are not lonely among the majority of "Middle Britain", within the group that is grounded in true "reality".

Cliff?
What cliff?
I (speaking as Ms. Phillips or other conservatives) see no cliff.
But surely if there was one, "we" would see it and do the sensible thing ...

The "sensible" thing would be to pull back,
to step back from the cliff.
But only after we see it and are positively
sure that indeed it is there.

Yes, there will be minor "hurt" for some.
But surely we can then have civilized debate
and work things out and step back.
We are after all, "rational".

For the needed conversation to be "civilized"
certain variations of it must of course be "taboo".

For example, use of vulgarities is to be eschewed.
But what else is taboo? Blasphemy?
Whose "civilization" decides what is civil and what is not?

Should we allow so-called scientists to blaspheme scriptural truth?

By Heavens, no!
For if we did, those soulless, godless demons would turn our world upside down and empty it of all true value. They would have us believe that black is white and vice versa.