In theory conversing with experts on both sides then finding consensus in the middle is a good idea. In practice it assumes that both sides have valid points on all issues (which they don't), never lie (which they do), haven't been bought (which they have), and that the middle is an appropriate response (which it almost never is; the "middle" position between some genocide and no genocide is a little genocide).
In theory conversing with experts on both sides then finding consensus in the middle is a good idea. In practice it assumes that both sides have valid points on all issues (which they don't), never lie (which they do), haven't been bought (which they have), and that the middle is an appropriate response (which it almost never is; the "middle" position between some genocide and no genocide is a little genocide).
The whole idea relies on there being no right/wrong answers
thank you for saying this, I love the way you worded it