Overview

Despite agreeing with the Legal Principle, people will inevetiably disagree over the facts of certain issues.

Possible Approaches

Introductory remarks

Here are some approaches to consider with the aim of avoiding miscommunication or escelation.

Does everyone agree on the Legal Principle?

First, agreement on the Legal Principle is essential.**

Factual disputes are inherently complex.
Many of the world’s biggest and thorniest issues come down to a disagreement on facts. Echo chambers (where peoples’ opnions are reinforced rather than challenged), exacerbated by social media, have caused large factions of society to have significant disagreements about basic facts on many complex issues.
We cannot begin to converge on facts until we rebuild societal trust. This begins with establishing a voluntary global live-and-let-live community based on high trust. Eventually, as the community grows, we could expect community members to develop media companies, report as 3L scientists, and even have sufficient 3L representation in governmental positions to rebuild trust in these institutions. Until then, we must remain sufficiently humble as to the facts we do not have personal knowledge of.
Currently, factual disputes are inherently complex to resolve. The Live and Let Live Movement does not pretend to have a monopoly on the truth. Unfortunately, a formal trial is the best way to resolve factual disputes. Obviously, this is not possible with most factual disputes.
The key to avoiding further polarization is to have humility with regard to accepted facts, especially when we lack direct personal knowledge or experience. It is easy to find so-called experts to support almost any position on any issue. It is much more important that we start from a shared acceptance of the underlying Legal Principle and leave it to the courts to weigh the evidence to resolve factual disputes.
It may be best to posit competing facts and resolve the issue by consistently applying the LP to all sets of competing facts. Ultimately, agreeing on the underlying principle from which we reason is more important than debating which facts are true.

Suggested steps

Agree on the Principle, even if we do not agree on the facts (keep a lookout for factual disputes!).
We can agree on a hypothetical and analyze the situation using each set of competing facts.
And we can also agree on the victimless crime issues that we do share.

Condemning Aggressors

When commenting on matters on any form of aggression, the following approach may be useful:

Condemn all aggressors and Distinguish between political actors who hold authority over the decision to aggress and the civilians who are affected by those decisions (themselves having no decision-making responsibility for). In other words, outline the distinction between the political power and society’s power.
Acknowledge the limits of fact-finding by noting unless your interlocutor has conducted a formal, impartial and verified fact-finding process, positions on who is right or wrong in a conflict should be avoided. It is unlikely you, your interlocutor or the the aggressing parties themselves are reliable fact-finders.
Apply a consistent framework if an interlocutor insists on you expressing your opinion on which party is (more) justified in aggressing. A useful starting point is de Vitoria’s three criteria for a just war, applied equally to both the aggressing parties. These criteriea can be applied at any point in history in the circumstnaces under question.

Generally, refer to primary 3L sources rather than issuing bespoke public statements. Be cautious of which media outlets are likely to distort stateemtns to support a particular agenda. Any public commentary should direct your audience to 3L’s existing resources: The Book, the (White Paper)[white-paper], and the 3L Engine.

Remamber the Moral Principle. This means do your best to maintain civil dialogue. This Condeming Aggresses approach is intended to facilitate productive engagement with people who hold strong or emotional views on ongoing conflicts, while remaining anchored to 3L principles rather than personal opinion. Your approach may be entirely different while still embodying the Moral Principle for constructive discussions.