I've mentioned in the midst of discussions before about how I've perceived different meanings being attributed to different words when deployed by different posters.

This is something which I believe to a certain extent is a fact of life, we ARE all individuals and that is a reality for better or worse, I personally think it is for the better, however we are capable of sharing too and are, I believe, as innately social as we are potentially individual (I think that we are all ontologically a priori social but can become and are destined to be individual).

So, arising from this objective fact, while some individuals will value shared understandings or unanimity, for instance the desire of Muslims that all believers could been of a single mind or orthodoxy in any community of opinion or belief, objectively everyone will have their own individual interpretation which will more or less approximate to that of others.

It is inevitable that some people will possess bias then, it could be unconscious or unreflectively so or deliberate, I consider both to be a bad thing, in equal standing, although I know that some would consider the former some how "innocent" and the later more wrongful as there is an intentional "suspension of disbelief" or skepticism involved, some measure of motivated lying perhaps. Or just positive spin.

My question is, given that this is the case is acrimony and conflict inevitable in discussion? Is it desirable or undesirable? If you consider it to be desirable or undesirable to what extent do you consider yourself to be isolated or in the minority opinion in that respect?