And again with the "choice".... I'm not saying I downright disagree with you mind. Still, I really just don't like that word. And it takes a lot of thought and a lot of empathic thinking to not hurt anyone's feelings.
Very much a quandary at times on how to express one's thoughts to an audience., and come out unscathed.
To an audience that is split some fraction on an issue, 50./50 for quite a few it seems in the present world, one makes some friends, and becomes an opponent for others. Having bedfellows provides emotional support, but does nothing to support the actual truthfulness of position taken, except in that majority and/or power rules, or can rule, even when detrimental to sectors of society.
The word can become the issue, clouding the discussion, as in "I told you...", "I asked you...", "I mentioned you...", where the connotation of the word can bring about different responses and actions from that intended, The actual issue becomes secondary. Points of order in political debate, and legal debate, spend time over what seems innocuous to the average person the meaning of "a" and "the", or whatever may be at hand at the time that needs clarification.
An audience may or may not appreciate the question that should never be asked since it is self evident to the establishment what the answer is. One well known incident is Galileo's questioning on the centre of the universe earning him a rebuke. The divine right of kings falls into the same logic; the end result being the stifling of debate and granting those with differing views the pleasure of banishment, or worse.
At times entering into a discussion is a lost cause if one is not prepared, as the discussion is set up, deviously or innocently to ensure a winner and a loser. The prime example given many times over is the wife asking the husband "Does this dress make me look fat?" The hazard is to being labelled a bigot, a racist, a ___ supporter, where ___ is any of the societies taboos and abhorrences one usually does not want to be associated with, thus making the not so subtle argument that the view is that from one of lessor humanistic quality.
-----------------------------------------------
Since not everyone is rational, nor critically thinking, nor prone to self assessment, nor prone to assess other viewpoints comprehensively, nor deviate from their position, discussions become lopsided leading to argument and polarization.
I read somewhere that the ancients, singling out the Greeks, were much better at it than us who have the hubris of being enlightened in thought. I cannot express the actual validity, as the reference has been lost in my mind, but considering nowadays that opinion can pass as reality leads me to believe the statement has some reasonableness.
On the other hand opinion as reality does shape society, and has for millennia.
So we have discussions surrounding rights, choices, behaviors whether they are from nature vs nurture, divine vs natural, expecting science to have all the answers. Funny thing is for the social sciences ( along with suspect medical cures for social problems ), the harms done to people in the name of science is often overlooked. Lobotomies, drugs, ... all promised cures for conditions that may have been mis-diagnosed - the cure being worse than the 'disease' , and in one case pornographic from a nowadays perspective. ( not frigidity, but apathy ).
------------------------------------------
