Unless you were both influenced by Perelandra, in which case the odds are much higher.
I actually think of Chesterton's fence argument as a rhetorical move. I imagine that some hypothetical "Alice" says, "I can't see any reason for this", in order to force their opponent to justify something which was historically justified by values which are considered obsolete -- for instance, "I can't see any reason why same-sex couples should not marry". Well, Alice probably can see reasons, but if Alice gives those reasons, she is doing her opponent's job. If she instead says, "The only reason for this is bigotry," Chesterton will say, "It's mean to call me a bigot." So Alice goes with, "I can't see any reason for this." And Chesterton, cleverly says, "Well, if you can't see the reason for it, it's because you're not thinking."
Note: neither Alice nor Chesterton are arguing in good faith here.
while Democrats could run pretty much the same campaign in the primaries as well as the general election.
Democrats in fact differ between the primary and the general election. Off the top of my head, consider Obama's shift on FISA from 2007 (voted against) to post-primary 2008 (voted for telecom immunity).
I recently came across this, which seems to have some evidence in my favor (and some irrelevant stuff): http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2013/10/extraordinary-leader/
Before I tell my suicidal friends to volunteer, I want to make sure that your experimental design is good. What experiment are you proposing?
You mean, have not yet expressed an opinion in a way that you understand.
Anyway, the fact that slaves and ex-slaves did advocate for the rights of slaves indicates that closeness to a problem does not necessarily lead one to ignore it.
That doesn't work for preference utilitarians (it would strongly prefer to remain alive).
Um, what about the actual slaves and ex-slaves?
No, because it's possible that there genuinely is a possible total ordering, but that nobody knows how to figure out what it is. "No human always knows what's right" is not an argument against moral realism, any more than "No human knows everything about God" is an argument against theism.
(I'm not a moral realist or theist)