A Threat?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Darren

Yes - medieval Muslim Spain - the caliphate of Cordoba with its religious tolerance and subsequent flowering of especially Islamic and Judaic culture and its advancement of the arts and sciences. Finally smashed in 1492, tolerance gave way to Islamophobia and Judeophobia in the form of the infamous Spanish Inquisition. Thus passed one of medieval Europe's finest civilizations.

Indeed, "religious freedom" is a fairly modern concept. Religious tolerance has made appearances throughout human history but the prevailing tendency has been one of "orthodoxy" enforcing "correct belief" against "heretics". The Roman Catholic church had an ongoing interest in suppressing dissent, as does almost any established religion (one recognized as "official" by civil and military leaders). I would suspect that in the span of human religious activity that "religious freedom" has been a rare thing indeed.

godfry

[Sweetie]

Sorry I haven't responded, I've been just literally pysically exhausted, sorry that I snapped at you Adora.

All I know is that when I look at the situation, I think Communism, which is completely secular, has been a terrible force in our world, even possibly more so according to the death tolls than the "evil" or "danger" some see in the opposition by religious parties.

All I was thinking then and all I'm thinking now is that we need:

a) diplomacy
b) empathy
c) compromise
d) strategy
e) intelligence

Each of which I think is lacking on both sides within the polarization in America today, both the religious Fundamentalists and the non-religious Fundamentalists. I think people in general are having problems in all of these five areas and I think being adept in all those five areas are worthy goals.

I think diplomacy, make nice-nice even with your enemies is vital. I think empathy is sorely lacking, I think everybody is unwilling to compromise, on both sides it's like "this way or the highway" and I don't think anybody is happy when faced with such an ultimatum. I think there is a lack of the realization that while some are arguing it "should be" this way, they fail to note that it has not been this way and perhaps one should be a little more gentle with trying to take the candy away from the baby instead of merely saying well, the baby should never have had that candy in the first place which does no one any good, and that's not even agreeing that the one taking the candy is in the right. I think strategy, because of the first three suffers and I think there is an incredible lack of intelligence because of the lack of the above four which makes the ones who claim to be more intelligent the ones with mud on their face. That's just a glimpse from my perspective at the moment. I could be wrong about all of these things and I in no way mean to project any of this onto anyone in particular, just a general overview from my eyes to others.

[Adora]

Um...

Call me nuts, and living-on-the-other-side-of-the-Pacific and all, but since when should anyone in a country consider fellow citizens "enemies"? "Supporters of competing ideologies" or possibly "Supporters of Political rivals" sure, but right-out enemies?

If you're talking in those terms, you've already bought into the Fundamentalist ideologies, and cries of moderation and compromise sound a bit empty. And for the record, such ideologies are created by conservative/fundamentalist ideologies, for the "faux persecution" reasons I stated above.

All I know is that when I look at the situation, I think Communism, which is completely secular, has been a terrible force in our world, even possibly more so according to the death tolls than the "evil" or "danger" some see in the opposition by religious parties.

And it's also been a wonderful force for good in some countries as well. Y'know, rights for the worker, co-ops, and all that? In many places, these are the only things standing in the way of negative economic globalisation.

If you're going to talk about any economic ideology (like any kind of ideology at all) you have to take in the full picture.

In this case, Capitalism is just as evil. Ukraine, at present? Child labour? Destruction of the environment to take rare resources illegally? Destruction of the health of persecuted or ignored minorities because the government doesn't want to touch big-business? Chile, anyone? Y'know, The Real September 11th!?

And what the hell does the fact ideal communism being secular have to do with anything? Are we going to get into the stupid "OMG Stalin was teh atheist so all atheists = teh EVOL!!1" argument or something?

AND, for the record, exactly what position are you coming at this from Sweetie? What neutral position are you claiming that you can make such claims as "I think there is an incredible lack of intelligence because of the lack of the above four which makes the ones who claim to be more intelligent the ones with mud on their face."? Because frankly, your comments about Communism speak volumes in regards to "Intelligence".

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Adora

Um...

Call me nuts, and living-on-the-other-side-of-the-Pacific and all, but since when should anyone in a country consider fellow citizens "enemies"? "Supporters of competing ideologies" or possibly "Supporters of Political rivals" sure, but right-out enemies?

I don't call anybody an enemy. Did I say that? I don't recall saying such from my perspective and I don't think it so but I think, as I have said, that many feel like it is so and I have no idea why I'm bothering to gently explain because this person, who we all know now why is still a virgin, and yes, I'm taking back my apology, will just fuck it up and freak out.

Do you have any friends? You know this has to die in you before you can get anything meaningful out of life, this antagonistic superiority type of complex. Holy fuck. I remember why I'm not full-out bi-sexual, I can't stand many women any more than the average man can. I deliberately seek to kill in myself anything resembling what you are putting out, and if you find any remnants just remind me, I'll go back under the knife. You think you are gender confused? I think you are unfortunately very female.

[Adora]

Did I say that?

Yes actually, you did.

...make nice-nice even with your enemies is vital.

See? You're buying into the ideology by using the same rhetoric as the extremeists on either side (which you express a dislike of).

who we all know now why is still a virgin

How old are you? 13? Because I haven't heard anyone try this little ditty since I was that age. Anyone who's read the thread on this board about lying knows that there is a big difference between how I act online and how I act offline. So, really, if we're going to be pathetic little schoolgirls throwing such ridiculous insults at each other, let's get some facts straight, kay? Because obviously, from this...

You think you are gender confused?

You're either very confused yourself, or maybe you can't tell the difference between "dissatisfaction" and "confusion". Neither would surprise me.

Maybe I should just point out something grown ups do: We criticise arguments. I know it might be hard for you to comprehend this, but just because I disagree with your thoughts on "secular" Communism, religious persecution throughout the ages, and the language you are using which is the opposite to the position you are promoting, doesn't mean I'm trying to threaten your bisexuality. Now, if you can't play with the big-boys, we'll put you back in your playpen, or you can grow up, and make a proper reply to my arguments, without using pathetic distraction tactics.

[wildernesse]

Sweetie,

Your last post is out and out ridiculous, as well as hard to read. Is it really so difficult to take being challenged? As for the insults against all women--honey, look in the mirror. If you're not acting like a pissed-off catty cheerleader, I don't know who is.

[livius drusus]

Amen.

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

Sweetie,

Your last post is out and out ridiculous, as well as hard to read. Is it really so difficult to take being challenged?

Challenged is fine. When everything is twisted and then thrown back in an antagonistic know-it-all way, that's a little different. I love discussion, but how you can have a discussion with someone who is always right?

As for the insults against all women--honey, look in the mirror.

Not all women, I said many, go back and check. Men don't often get bitchy, they get silent. Men, like visciousmemories and seebs for instance, are more willing to be objective and not speak before they have something worthwhile to say, it's comforting when the things I don't like about my own nature come to the surface.

If you're not acting like a pissed-off catty cheerleader, I don't know who is.

No denials here, like I said, I hate being bitchy. Communication requires listening skills as well as verbal skills. My main point is that Fundamentalists feel threatened, and that I think there is a sense of us against them, enemy type factions. I never said there were enemies and I never said I thought there were enemies among many other things that I didn't say. It's a simple yes or no type question. Do you think they feel threatened? You can't say the same from the opposite side, they don't feel threatened, I get the sense that they feel they have to silence and castrate them at any cost and are disappointed in their inability to do so.

And FYI, I'm Canuckian aka "Peacekeeper."

[Sweetie]

Originally Posted by Adora

Yes actually, you did.

You think what you quoted says that?

...make nice-nice even with your enemies is vital.

Originally Posted by Adora

See? You're buying into the ideology by using the same rhetoric as the extremeists on either side (which you express a dislike of).

For fuck's sake, are you kidding me? That's how you interpreted that and that's your response, that such a thing as diplomacy and respect is rhetoric? Isn't that the conditions for any meaningful human interaction? I don't know, maybe I'm living in a parrallel universe, not one where you can treat people like dirt, refuse to set a groundwork of mutual respect and expect to get anywhere and don't allow for the conditions that make positive changes without war.

How old are you? 13? Because I haven't heard anyone try this little ditty since I was that age. Anyone who's read the thread on this board about lying knows that there is a big difference between how I act online and how I act offline.

Like fucking what? You have decided that there is way to act that is less than unsufferable and you prefer to inflict your insufferability on us? How nice.

Maybe I should just point out something grown ups do: We criticise arguments.

Yes, I do that just as well as anybody does but I make some attempt to get it right objectively speaking instead of just filtering it through my prejudices and preconceived notions first.

I know it might be hard for you to comprehend this, but just because I disagree with your thoughts on "secular" Communism,

I never said anything about secular communism other than it was a force in a world with a very large death toll. What's the point? What are you trying to infer by my bringing up a very real fact? All it's meant to say is that any extreme everpervasive ideology is dangerous, not necessarily just the religious right. I don't personally think that a utopia is possible, where each side gets what they want. I think compromise is the only way to go.

religious persecution throughout the ages,

I didn't even go there with you, if you noticed?

and the language you are using which is the opposite to the position you are promoting,

Holy Fuck once again. Is this a problem, do you think, when you are so certain that you are right even though you aren't really dealing with what is actually said or meant?

doesn't mean I'm trying to threaten your bisexuality.

I don't know if this is the clearest case of such a thing, but this is just totally twisted and taken out of context, etc. I'm really expected to sit here and wade through this twisted mass and am considered unwilling to meet a challenge if I don't? Gawd.

Now, if you can't play with the big-boys, we'll put you back in your playpen, or you can grow up, and make a proper reply to my arguments, without using pathetic distraction tactics.

[Sweetie]

The problem is, I find from my experience, is that when dealing with a twisted mass, it takes alot of work. You have to back-step, reiterate and clarify, you have to do whatever explaining it takes to show that it was twisted and then to show what was really being meant and if more than one thing is twisted, I mean, it's just difficult. That requires, however, a willingness on the other party to do so which is usually not there. What happens if someone is unwilling to admit that they got something wrong or that they are prejudiced and jumping to conclusions is that their defense mechanisms start working, if they are unwilling then we get defensiveness and generally, just another twisted mass of justifications. When I encounter it, it generally requires more work and more patience than I am willing to put in to deal with justification after justification after justification, I usually just decide that I am wasting my breath and it's not worth it, that's just me, that's my explanation if it matters. I'm content to have others disagree with me, I'm content with having made an attempt to say something and having failed.

[viscousmemories]

The problem is, I find from my experience, is that when dealing with a twisted mass, it takes alot of work. You have to back-step, reiterate and clarify, you have to do whatever explaining it takes to show that it was twisted and then to show what was really being meant and if more than one thing is twisted, I mean, it's just difficult. That requires, however, a willingness on the other party to do so which is usually not there. What happens if someone is unwilling to admit that they got something wrong or that they are prejudiced and jumping to conclusions is that their defense mechanisms start working, if they are unwilling then we get defensiveness and generally, just another twisted mass of justifications.

I don't really get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that you have presented lucent, consistent and reasonable arguments in this thread and others have turned it into a twisted mass that you're now struggling to sort out? Because honestly your posts seem to have been largely disconnected and stream of consciousness from the beginning that others have been trying to sort out. Anyway I admit that I don't have the energy or inclination to try to work out what your point is, but that is due more to your unapologetic nastiness to Adora than your disjointed posts.

[Sweetie]

I don't really get what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that you have presented lucent, consistent and reasonable arguments in this thread and others have turned it into a twisted mass that you're now struggling to sort out?

My thoughts are non-linear. I can start at wherever and end up wherever, it is a bit much though I can put them all together it's just very large. Lucid and continuous, I don't know, I thought so but I have been tired, like I said.

Want to start again?

Because honestly your posts seem to have been largely disconnected and stream of consciousness from the beginning that others have been trying to sort out.

Eh, sorry about that if that's how they were.

Anyway I admit that I don't have the energy or inclination to try to work out what your point is, but that is due more to your unapologetic nastiness to Adora than your disjointed posts.

Well, no I won't apologize to Adora. Her treatment of seebs and his wife's life's work (he is still offended btw), her nastiness in several threads, her consistent antagonism throughout has just culminated for me and I've brought preconceived notions about her and her antagonism to this thread after having seen it so much so that I won't apologize. She strikes me as the type that very rarely would ever entertain the notion that they could be wrong. She likes to stir up shit and play games, she is free to, I won't play and I won't be treated, like I said, like a FUCKING STUPIDHEAD. I have lost sympathy as far as that goes. That may change, but it's not at present. Say the same for me, that's fine, I just at present think that that notion of Adora is justified. Prove me wrong, what have I missed?

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

I have lost sympathy as far as that goes. That may change, but it's not at present. Say the same for me, that's fine, I just at present think that that notion of Adora is justified. Prove me wrong, what have I missed?

I don't really care what you think of Adora. Your opinion is what it is, I'm not going to try to prove you wrong. My purely subjective opinion is that your comments to her were more vicious and cruel than anything I've seen her say to anyone else.

As far as the topic of the thread I'm curious why you didn't respond to any of the good points made by wildernesse, eldar and dantonac on the first page. I know you explained that you were exhausted, but then you go on to post something that seems only tangentially related to the thread you started. That's what I mean about it being disjointed and such. I'm really not sure what topic you're interested in discussing here, and why you didn't address most of the substantive responses to your OP.

[Sweetie]

I don't really care what you think of Adora. Your opinion is what it is, I'm not going to try to prove you wrong. My purely subjective opinion is that your comments to her were more vicious and cruel than anything I've seen her say to anyone else.

Oh, yes, I do have a viper's tongue and I can be very cruel and also very sensitive, it's actually quite shocking how sensitive I really am. From my perspective, since I think my opinion of her is justified, I thought she needed to be taken down a peg or two. That's the least damage I could inflict, in a cat/hate fight, I'd go for the throat. You were talking about instinct and kill or be killed in another thread, right? It exists, especially among females, but if we are fighters we aim for the heart or the psyche, the worst damage. I had sought to kill that within in myself, or at least tamp it down and put other principles in place. If I tell her that antagonism and superiority needs to die in oneself before they can have a meaningful existence, or I would say in order to be happy, I speak from experience. I wasn't all bad, but I was the type "You shall know the difference now that I am back again," and "you really want to cross me?" I don't think that way any longer, and I try to find productive uses for my manipulative "powers", lol, and I want to be happy. I know that I'm not happy being antagonistic or being antagonized.

As far as the topic of the thread I'm curious why you didn't respond to any of the good points made by wildernesse, eldar and dantonac

Datonac's post I thought spoke for itself. I don't recall the others. Adora got my back up early on though, so she got my focus on her, perhaps that's what she wanted. Perhaps she thinks "you shall know the difference now that I am [here]"

I know you explained that you were exhausted, but then you go on to post something that seems only tangentially related to the thread you started.

Oh, no, it isn't only tangibly related. It was actually what I intended and what the OP was about. We can flesh it out if you want. If I'm not antagonistic and you don't antagonize me on purpose, or treat me like I'm lacking necessary brain cells, which I don't think you would and you haven't as of yet either, that's not why I said so, then maybe we could have a meaningful exchange of ideas. Actually, this last sentence is more the point of the whole thread, to be honest, the necessary groundwork to real communication where people can feel comfortable speaking and where people care and listen back and forth. Obviously I can have difficulty communicating my thoughts.

That's what I mean about it being disjointed and such. I'm really not sure what topic you're interested in discussing here, and why you didn't address most of the substantive responses to your OP.

[Sweetie]

In fact, me and her are probably very much alike.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

Oh, no, it isn't only tangibly related. It was actually what I intended and what the OP was about. We can flesh it out if you want.

I guess I'm not really sure how much there is to flesh out, really. Perhaps I'm not really getting the gist of your posts, but what you seem to be arguing for appears self-evident to me. I mean, of course if everyone were more diplomatic, empathetic, willing to compromise, intelligent, and strategic it would be easier to reach consensus in politics. Unfortunately as you allude to, there are all kinds of extremists who fail in all those areas and want to impose their beliefs on everyone else.

I think diplomacy, make nice-nice even with your enemies is vital. I think empathy is sorely lacking, I think everybody is unwilling to compromise, on both sides it's like "this way or the highway" and I don't think anybody is happy when faced with such an ultimatum.

I'm not sure how much compromise is possible when you're dealing with people who have a blatant disregard for your rights. If I was gay and wanted to get married I would not be willing to compromise to any degree with people who think I shouldn't have that right.

[seebs]

Perhaps the blacks can reach a compromise with the KKK where they're merely beaten severely at random intervals, instead of being killed on sight.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by seebs

Perhaps the blacks can reach a compromise with the KKK where they're merely beaten severely at random intervals, instead of being killed on sight.

Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

[wildernesse]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

I'm sure seebs will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was just making the point that there are some people with whom there is no chance of compromise. This is the same point vm makes when he says:

I'm not sure how much compromise is possible when you're dealing with people who have a blatant disregard for your rights. If I was gay and wanted to get married I would not be willing to compromise to any degree with people who think I shouldn't have that right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

I think he was saying that non-fundies trying to compromise with the fundamentalists was akin to blacks trying to compromise with the KKK.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Are you trying to put forth the laughably ridiculous idea that xians are being persecuted in a way that is in any way, shape, or form similar to how blacks have been treated by the KKK?

I was about to agree with you, but it occurs to me that there are probably places where that actually is true.

Actually, my main point was that gays don't have much chance for compromising with Westboro Baptist, for instance.

You can't expect everyone to reach a "compromise" with someone who sincerely believes that the only chance America has of "reclaiming God's blessings" is to execute all gay people.

The thing is, though, I think it's the people who are backlashing right now who started out advocating positions with which there is no meaningful compromise.

If the "compromise" does not involve both parties free to live their lives without too much interference, it's not a real compromise. I guess... If you're talking about extra privileges and power, you can compromise those. But when it gets down to "the right to live in peace", that's not something you have any way to compromise.

I guess... Finding a middle ground is reasonable over things that can be divided. But there comes a point where one side is holding a position and expecting the other to keep compromising repeatedly, and that can be a problem. There are also points which I don't think can be reasonably compromised on.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

I'm sure seebs will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was just making the point that there are some people with whom there is no chance of compromise. This is the same point vm makes when he says:

Exactly. And you'll note that "civil unions" are an attempt to make that compromise... Because people are really, really, trying to compromise.

But when the option on one side of the table is "how about you let me live", and the other side is saying "no, I think we'll kill you", it's not clear that "compromise" is what society needs.

[Adora]

That's how you interpreted that and that's your response, that such a thing as diplomacy and respect is rhetoric?

Okay, I just have to ask: What the fuck are you on? No, seriously hun, where did I say diplomacy and respect is rhetoric? Where, exactly, please? I didn't say it anywhere. I simply said that you used the terms in your post you are claiming to reject as you distance yourself from extremism. You used the word "enemy". Not "rival", not "political opponent supporters", not "supporters of a competitive ideology", but "enemy".

You have decided that there is way to act that is less than unsufferable (sic) and you prefer to inflict your insufferability on us?

Er, I don't know what planet you come from, but since when was "criticising arguments" counted as "insufferable"?

I never said anything about secular communism other than it was a force in a world with a very large death toll. What's the point?

That it is also a force in the world with a very large "toll" of benefits, as anyone who can read will be able to point out to you.

What are you trying to infer by my bringing up a very real fact?

That you should not just focus on one side of an event. There have been more wars waged in the name of deities throughout history (even if the real reasons is otherwise) than in the name of any secular ideology. How about that fact? But that's right, there's also the fact that in hundreds of countries around the world today, right now, there are religious groups fighting for social justice and human rights, for equality for all groups and genders, and for political justice and equality. And that's not even taking in the scope of the benefits some aspects of religion have brought to people around the world through histroy. Now, if I wanted to be stupid, I could just get up and say "God has been the greatest cause of war and death and destruction in the world", just as you did about Communism, and ignore the bigger picture.

But that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

I didn't even go there with you, if you noticed?

Do you have as many problems following a thread as you do making a sentence? You started this thread with some stupid statement regarding the "imprisonment" of the Pope by Moussoulini. False or otherwise, that's what we call religious persecution. You Went There. And you ignored people's posts because they didn't fit with what you were trying to "prove".

Is this a problem, do you think, when you are so certain that you are right even though you aren't really dealing with what is actually said or meant?

I know what was said and meant. I'm simply being semantic, because one of the ways to roll back people's ideologies is through changing semantics. Well, at least for us in the grown-up world, anyway. You also used the extreme words like "battle", "abhorrent", and you make stupid assumptions about people using the Ten Commandments as a "code of honour" (strong words, dem) to live by.

So maybe this is just all a very badly put together act where you are trying to act like a Fundamentalist to get into their mindset and illustrate some perceived social conflict. In that case, go back to acting school.

Her treatment of seebs and his wife's life's work (he is still offended btw)

First of all: If this is true, that's not my problem.

Second: I was always under the impression seebs was very cool about the whole thing (as in: he actually showed up to I Wank and posted, and everyone loved him - well, mostly everyone, except the ones who couldn't take a joke - and never expressed that he was still "offended" by it to me, which I expect a man of his calibre to do in that situation), and seebs wife didn't much give a damn in the end because it increased the readership of the comic by some numbers. I may be wrong, but in this case, you're certainly not qualified to make comments about it, and if I am wrong, I would like to be told so by someone who may actually know what seebs is thinking... like the man himself.

Oh, yes, I do have a viper's tongue

...

Keep telling yourself that dear.

That's the least damage I could inflict, in a cat/hate fight, I'd go for the throat. You were talking about instinct and kill or be killed in another thread, right? It exists, especially among females, but if we are fighters we aim for the heart or the psyche, the worst damage.

Jesusjabberfuck... I'll say it again, for emphasis...

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON!? You are possibly the most pathetic, childish, inflated-ego, language-skills-lacking forum poster I have encountered in a very long time, and I hang out on anime forums (teenage anime fanboys: nuff said). You talk about lack of extremeism, and yet spout utterly pathetic shite like this?

Seriously bitch, are you for real? Or is this all an act? Please tell me it's an act.

I thought she needed to be taken down a peg or two.

Rrrright, and your acting like a pathetic child and someone with English problems truly hurt me Sweetie. No! I'm being serious for totally real. Look, here's an emo tear, just for you ._; NO I'M REALLY CRYING FOR REAL THIS TIME!!!1one

People who can "take me down a peg" are people with intelligence, who can form an argument and answer counter-arguments, address raised issues and not act like an idiot when someone does raise a counter-argument. Ie- not you.

I'll make this clear, shall I? Sweetie, in this thread, you have raised the same questions over and over again, and people have offered answers for your questions, and you have either a) dismissed them without telling why or offering constructive discussion on the dismissal or b) ignored them completely. You avoid the issue if it doesn't suit you, and use distraction tactics if someone pulls you up on it. You talk about "listening" and "verbal skills" as being fundamental to human communication and yet you are severely lacking in both. You blow off the fucking rocket over simple criticisms I made regarding your misleading comments about Communism, which, in the grand scheme of cristicisms & "incidents" I've had against with on this board, were pussy-English-curry-mild. But you seem like the type of person who has trouble fitting her head in the car door, so I guess you'll have trouble reading this floating around in the stratosphere and all that.

[godfry n. glad]

Then there's the problem of deciding that "compromise" is the expected means of reaching agreement. The paradigm of conflict resolution. The result can be that one or more of the parties attempting to reach a compromise overstates its position in such a manner that they can deal away unimportant details while maintaining their uncompromising stance. Then, they can claim to have compromised. Of course, when both sides use this approach, the status quo would seem to be maintained.

It seems to me that there are times to compromise and times to not compromise.

It also depends upon the nature of what is presented as a "compromise". Is it a true compromise, or a raw deal being shoved down the throat and having it called a compromise in an imbalance of power? A guess you could call it a compromise under duress.

Is it a "compromise" to refuse to provide arms to both sides in a conflict, when it is known another power provides arms to one side? Or is that an "uncompromising" stand? Perhaps it's a "compromise" to sell to both sides?

Why is compromise necessarily a good thing?

What would Boulding say?

godfry

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by seebs

I was about to agree with you, but it occurs to me that there are probably places where that actually is true.

I don't know whether to burst out laughing or let out a sad sigh. Are you actually that out of touch with reality? You people practically run the god damn planet, and by December 31, 2006 you'll more than likely have the US delivered to you--officially and completely--on a Silver Platter in the form of this country officially becoming a Theocracy.

When will it become obvious to you people that too many of you have a persecution complex? Will it end if/when atheists are hauled off to death camps by the thousands until there are none of us left? Or would it take something less drastic?

Sorry to everyone for the derailment, by the way.

Actually, my main point was that gays don't have much chance for compromising with Westboro Baptist, for instance.

You can't expect everyone to reach a "compromise" with someone who sincerely believes that the only chance America has of "reclaiming God's blessings" is to execute all gay people.

Agreed.