You cannot tell which people belong to that group which might never be able to be reached...assuming it really exists (I sense a self-fulfilling prophecy here).
Segregating our thinking because it's difficult seems problematic to me. It certainly deserves a high degree of caution and sensitivity, but, as I see it, where two diametrically opposed camps exist, segregated thinking allows for a festering sore to deepen; outreach, on the other hand, can promote commonality. That is to say, I completely disagree with many views, but in talking with some of those who hold those views I began to sense the same humanity me and mine have and at least a begrudging respect began to form.
For me it's been easier to write people off when I've had no contact with them.
Sorry, I need to clarify what Aristotle was getting at... To pursue discourse with an oppposed group is to tailor the discussion to placate the opposition, which Aristotle advises against. Instead, he advocates pursuing the argument which will appeal to the persuasive group; that is, the group which may be turned to advocate for the argument in point. The discourse actually has nothing to do with the orator picking out and segregating the audience. Rather, its about the orator choosing the substance of discussion and seeing the discussion maintains its integrity for the duration of the oration.
It is basically advice to for debators to keep focus on the issue at hand and prevent opposing debators from occluding the issue and taking control of the debate. Constructing an argument does not have anything to do with segrated thinking, it has to do with creating an argument that can resist attacks to change topics from the core of the discussion. I argee with Mary here...most threads about religion and ki do not maintain the core discussion from the original post. They derail and digress into someone calling someone else something bad and Jun kills the tread.
To which I will add a comment which I think plays a role in all belief-based arguments: A belief transcends empirical evidence. A belief is so firmly fixed in one's being that it is undeterrable. So what is the point of arguing against a belief? There is no point. Yet in my first post I argue there are trolls more interested in arguing aginst beliefs then accepting the belief and discussing their perspectives of their own belief.
For example, Matthew says:
That is to say, I completely disagree with many views, but in talking with some of those who hold those views I began to sense the same humanity me and mine have and at least a begrudging respect began to form.
I assume since we are talking about beliefs, Matthew intended to qualify his complete disagreements as relating to beliefs. His beliefs are not relevant to mine, nor can he argue to persuade me to change my beliefs. So while at best we may have discourse exchanging how we arrived at our convictions, there is no argument.
So here is the question, why are we consumed with arguing beliefs?