>The goal of Hollian Enquiry is to get at whatever truth is
>accessible to the parties, compared to the goal of a debate,
>which is for one side to win and make the other side lose.
A good idea. I remember a discussion we had in the military where someone tried to claim the USSR fell behind in computer technology because they tried to develop a technology that would give proportional answers rather than a digital yes or no. My roommate said this was nuts until I reminded him about analog computers.
>The point is that we were able to talk civilly about a highly
>charged controversy and almost agree on a resolution. Wouldn't it
>be more appropriate for legislators to talk civilly about
>broadening perspectives and resolving issues rather than bragging
>about defeating right or left wing extremists and other such
Again a good idea, the problem is that resolution in not always possible. In the example you gave (abortion), I don't believe the state ever has rights in the matter until after birth, when a new citizen has been created. I believe the rights of the mother (to chose) are inviolable till then.
Member, Extropy Institute