I don't share your vision about that ideal. One thing I appreciate about being in the US is my right to have my voice heard. I also share the fundamental belief that the sharing of diverse voices leads to better solutions and more rights and freedoms for everyone. Innovation comes from the sharing of different ideas. Getting to the point where everyone agreed on everything is not only unrealistic, it's stifling. People would become like walking zombies, agreeing on the same things. There was an episode of Star Trek, The Next Generation where it seemed like people agreed on everything. Everything looked placid and calm on the surface. When someone disagreed, there was a device to reprogram that person's brain to get back in agreement. People who disagreed with having the device used like that were forcibly taken to it. Even if the tool weren't an actual device, that's not a future I'd be interested in. But the reason I stopped to take the time to respond to your argument that "anything's possible" is because you've used it on me before as a rhetorical device and debate strategy. I feel that it's a poor tactic to further open discussion. It stops discussion because it's difficult to deal with the idea that anything is possible. It has people trying to shoot down possibilities that aren't even in the realm of possibility.We see the idea of consensus differently; I imply that everyone agrees upon a point, not merely the majority. Is it idealistic? Most definitely.
This and your Star Trek analogy imply that it's a forced-upon agreement rather than people coming together in their views and recognize their differences. You seem to think that I mean people to agree upon every single matter, which is taking my argument too far. I don't believe that this is agreement: this, as you point out, is zombie behavior. We experience reality differently due to the massively, incomprehensibly-vast amount of ways each of us brought up. Every detail shapes our view, and so it would be quite difficult to have people to agree on everything, much more useless. There are, however, things that would benefit from such an agreement: like, say, agreeing on not using derogatory terms towards people because they're belittling to the target person and don't address whatever issues you might have with their race, ethnicity, nationality, sexuality or another aspect of their lives. It's a can of worms I don't want to open; I was merely providing my perspective on why that could be in the works. As for "anything's possible" argument: thank you for noticing that. I will give it some thought. If there's any other insight you can provide on the matter, I will greatly appreciate it.People would become like walking zombies, agreeing on the same things.