Arguing for a Better World: How to talk about the issues that divide us

Product Information

However bad things are, we must not forget that there are barricades of resistance this very minute that are holding off something much crueler. The 103 third parties who use cookies on this service do so for their purposes of displaying and measuring personalized ads, generating audience insights, and developing and improving products. This is a used book - there is no escaping the fact it has been read by someone else and it will show signs of wear and previous use.

We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. And, I would say that the differences between the Global North and South was a lens that I don't often use and will now keep in mind especially as it relates to labor and capitalism. Dillard’s story reflects maturity and understanding from someone who was forced to mature and understand too much too soon. In my exoerience, combining effective, distributed ways of organizing with structured transformation of leaders and individuals will dawn a new day, and a more sustainable world. Join Dr Arianne Shahvisi, Senior Lecturer in Ethics at Brighton and Sussex Medical School (BSMS), for the launch of her new book, Arguing for a Better World.A better view is that we should as much as possible see our common humanity - in all humans; attempt to treat all people fairly and with respect; know that while it is difficult to understand each other, it is never impossible, no matter what our race, colour or creed. Weve all wrestled with questions like these, whether were shouting at a relative across the dinner table, quarreling with old classmates on social media, or chatting late into the night with friends.

I misunderstood the aim of this book and thought that it would provide ideas to facilitate discussions between people with different perspectives in the hope of bringing people together in a deeper understanding. Many people give kneejerk answers that roughly align with their broader belief system, but flounder when asked for their reasoning, leading to a conversational stalemate-especially when faced with a political, generational, or cultural divide.Political progressives like to think they have the advantage of reason over their right-wing counterparts, who often don’t seem to know what the hell they are talking about.