Ch. 5, Dialogic Ethics

I must admit, dialogic ethics was the hardest for me to understand 2 weeks ago.  In class, we defined this type of ethic as an "emergent situation taking place and a conversation taking place after the situation has happened, which leads to learning".  In our reading, this type of ethic is defined as "a historically responsive answer to differing ethnic backgrounds that situate contrary and contrasting senses of the 'good'".  I think that our chapter's definition is more clear to me because it emphasizes that this type of ethic depends on 2 or more people coming from different backgrounds.  These 2 or more people are witness to some specific happening in the world, and then and only then can both learn, and that learning comes from one another's beliefs and will to compromise.
The chapter said that my generation is one where "we may be the first to live in an era whose public discourse and scholarship are defined by the acknowledgment of difference".  I loved that part, and I am proud to be apart of this generation for that reason.  Unlike past generations, we are the most prone to see diversity as a positive rather than a negative.  We use it to our advantage.  I can't tell you how many times I've learned from people who are a lot different than me.  I teach them things, and we create a bond and shared experience.  I think that after reading this chapter, it's fair to say that our generation is one that wishes not to judge others.  We tend to judge when others' lives effect our own.  I'm no different.  If someone is gay, or has tattoos, or uses drugs, I don't judge them.  But let's say I have a kid in 10 years and my kid wants to spend the night at a friend's whose parents are gay... I might have an issue with that because their lifestyle  would affect my own.  However, that situation is emergent, and both parties have to come to a compromise in some sort of way.
How do others feel about this chapter?  I can't wait to hear our discussion tomorrow!