What is the (purpose of / value in) defending regressive ideas?
If an idea is universally considered regressive, then usually it doesn't come up. Ideas that people are discussing are usually ones where it's not completely clear yet, to everyone, whether it is a good idea or not. In that case, allowing both sides fair advocacy is critical to making a fair decision.
If we can’t agree that there exist regressive ideas, what are we even doing here?
I haven’t stated what I believe to be progressive or regressive. You don’t know what viewpoints I hold. I have withheld these viewpoints from the discussion precisely because I am trying to establish agreement regarding some basic, primitive notions.
And just what are those ideas? I'm guessing not everyone will agree to them.
> I haven’t stated what I believe to be progressive or regressive. You don’t know what viewpoints I hold.
It doesn't matter. My point is not everyone will agree with your viewpoints.
How do you propose we move forward?
How do we move forward? Do we go straight ahead? Well, dictatorship is always moving straight ahead, because they can easily define what is progressive and what is regressive, by looking at the dictator. If progressiveness and regressiveness is so easy to define, what do we even need democracy for? Let's just find the most progressive person and appoint him our president/prime minister/chariman/king/chieftain, and let him lead us forward.