There is this one person I discuss issues with who happens to be, on most issues, on the opposite side of the political spectrum from me, but we have this understanding that when it seems that we’re not going anywhere on an issue we “agree to disagree” and we move on. It keeps the discussion respectful, fresh, and interesting, and keeps us from beating on a dead horse.

That said, if you come across some persons with whom having a rational discussion is not possible, of course you can, and should, refrain from engaging. It’s like throwing good money after bad.

Reasonable people can disagree.

I personally really dislike it when blogs are full of people saying ditto. You get these circular groups with people posting the same thing and agreeing with each other on each of their posts and everything seems to be less like discussion and more like cheerleader practice.

The worst friend to have is one that agrees with you all the time.

I think dissenting opinions keep ideas and discussions closer to the ground and pragmatic instead of flying of into a wacky ideology driven roller coaster that jets to one end of the spectrum.

Common sense has to win out.

There are people around who just don’t get it. Not all discussion is good. You just have to be able to see that line where there is a reasonable person disagreeing with you and when someone is just bat shit crazy and is sucking the integrity out of the discussion.

The third group must be addressed at least one time, in order to acknowledge that you aren’t intolerant and ignoring anybody. Then take what they say and break it down with facts to substantiate your opinion (mostly for readers of the undecided group who wander by), then when they talk again say, ‘I’ve already covered that’ with a link to your previous comment and move on?

You don’t want that middle group to think you are as close minded as the third group, so downright ignoring them doesn’t seem to work (and they know this). But you can deal with it one time and then let them know it’s been covered and the rest of us are moving on to other discussions.

Your profession is in this, mine is not, although I love political blog debates and am in them all the time. I ALWAYS am talking to the middle group, even when I’m talking to someone on my side or in the third group. It’s always done in the context of knowing that the middle group is out there somewhere reading.

With the third group, we must agree to disagree without being disagreeable, but that’s as far as it will go. By the same token, i refuse to let them hijack or divert to their agenda my conversations with the first two groups. To that end, I edit the comment section of my blog. I have no problems deleting comments sent by those whose responses don’t fit my agenda. It is after all my blog. It is not an open forum for those on the other side to present their views. Let ‘em get their own damn blog.

I think that’s where I basically come down. In some instances, I can see publicly engaging with people in that third group to some degree, if only because others win the first two groups will “overhear” the discusion and thus there’s some possibility of moving people.

However, there’s always a point at which it stops being worth it, and it’s usually about the time you start repeating yourself and start hearing the same arguments over and over. (Or about the time when the other party declares themselves unmovable.) To that end, I’ve banned a couple of people from commenting here in the last couple of years, when it became clear they’re participation wasn’t going to be constructive.

And I don’t think it qualifies as censorship, since anyone with an internet connection and 5 minutes to spare can go to Blogger.Com, start their own blog and say whatever they want. After all, there are about 75,000 blogs launched every day now. There’s always room for one more.

So I start to wonder, given all the above, why they’d want to waste their time in a dialogue where both parties are immovable. It’s then that I wonder if, for the third group, engaging in dialogue or at least pretending to is a tactic because if you’re talking to them you’re not talking to the people in the first and second group. And if you’re not talking to the people in the first and second group, spending your energy arguing with the third, then you aren’t making any progress on your goals.

That, plus those in the second group may have a point or two of affinity with those in the third. Keeping their points in front of group two serves the same purpose for them as for you…and YOU’VE put in the effort to draw them together. It’s parasitical on a certain level.

They are in NO way looking to engage you in conversation. If they were they’d have a consistent view rather than just flipping your arguments over and over.