(surprised boisterous laugh) Have I just been set up?I’m not familiar with the book. But taking just the quote on face value, what I hear Stevenson deploring is not so much a failure to question assumptions about moral absolutes as he is deploring a barbarity and a lack of courtesy.The lack of courtesy--the ‘shouting’ as he calls it--covers up the sense of inadequacy concerning one’s own beliefs.I like to remember a poster I saw back in my college days--you have not convinced a man because you have silenced him, And again, as my dad used to quote to me--a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.I feel myself going off on one of my Nidan-style discourses. I’ll try to keep it simple.Generally speaking, we have the two sides in our society--orthodoxy vs. freethinking--absolute morality vs. situational morality--and in the current phrasing, liberal vs. conservative.Stevenson himself was a Democratic candidate for the Presidency. He was the darling of the liberals. And when Ike the Republican won, they went berserk--kind of like Al Gore vs. George Bush.Orthodoxy is traditionally less articulate than Freethinking. I remember how eloquent the Smothers Brothers were--and Hubert Humphrey--and Eugene McCarthy--and even radicals like Huey Newton and Abbie Hoffman. Liberalism was in all its splendor. From the Anti-(Vietnam) War pacifism to the New Morality to recreational drug use. Nixon’s Watergate scandal and the Pentagon Papers didn’t help the conservatives. But somewhere along the way, the conservatives got articulate themselves. Jerry Falwell wasn’t exactly responsible for the resurgence--but he helped give it the momentum.Fast forward to the present day--long story short. Each side has its Sacred Cows--assumptions which must not be questioned. The new atheists love to deconstruct Christianity. But they become absolutely unglued when you mention creationism. Question gun control--global warming--whatever--and watch them get flustered and rabid.I’m getting long again. Let me put what Stevenson is saying into my own words. People get lazy. They read about the issue and gave it some thought when they were young adults and their opinions are set. Nothing wrong with that. It’s human nature.But the days of changing paradigms are upon us. It is demanded that we keep our wits sharp and continually reacquaint ourselves with the fundamental issues. I’ve read enough of both sides of the debates to know that each side is equally guilty of--how does he say it? ‘Unreason and anti-intellectualism’. We all get comfortable in our own assumptions. I've seen more than one liberal come apart at the seams in discussing world climate change because the conservative had some figures derived from climate statistics at hand, and all the liberal could appeal to was the mantra that ‘everybody knows that the earth is getting warmer--all the scientists say so’. Or the common badmouthing--’Tea Party-ers are all racist!’ ‘They hate the President because he’s black!"I apologize. I’m letting my own sentiments get in the way. And I’m also in love with my own intellect--always a flaw.But--do my windy words make any sense?