As long as I’m quoting Ramesh:

In the course of attacking, of all people, Jim Manzi, Daniel Larison writes, “I have started doubting whether people who are openly pro-torture or engaged in the sophistry of Manzi’s post are part of the same moral universe as I am, and I have wondered whether there is even a point in contesting such torture apologia as if they were reasonable arguments deserving of real consideration. Such fundamental assumptions at the core of our civilization should not have to be re-stated or justified anew, and the fact that they have to be is evidence of how deeply corrupted our political life has become, but if such basic norms are not reinforced it seems clear that they will be leeched away over time.” I have often felt much the same way about the abortion license and its defenders. But, well, we are where we are.

Having debated Ramesh on that very topic, I’m inclined to say that this is actually pretty dead on.  And yet we manage to have those arguments without devolving into shiv fights, and maybe even find that we can agree on some points in overlapping moral vocabulary. Small, banal miracles of liberal pluralism it’s worth stopping to appreciate now and again.