Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
View Poll Results: Will the next president get a fair shake?
Thats true but when that fringe gets their in from religious texts there is NO possibility of compromise.
With secular groups, compromise might be tough but it is possible.
With religious groups, they may not all be extremist but the more moderate folks usually have some sympathy for the extremists as their opinions come from the same place.
I care about the environment but there is no one book that tells me what I should do about it. hence the possibility of discussion and compromise.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Nope the loony in the White House is enough for me to worry about.
And you don't think that having the right conservative Chrsitian credentials is important for primaries,. Please explain why a previously [mostly] secular McCain is coming over all Christian conservative now ?
I can't believe you are naive enough not to know this.
But your reaction is typically. If somebody starts to decry the activist fringe then many here start dumping on them and accusing us of lumping all Christians together.
Note for your reading. I said "Loony Fringe", this only applies to you if you include yourself in the Loony fringe group
I believe that our entire political process has become a play ground for the "loony fringe" regardless of party.
From what I see, no one gets elected now without cow-tao'ing to the extremists in your party, and the media feeds on that!
It will only get worse with next year's elections. The extreme is the only way to get the masses attention anymore.
Like George Carlin said: "If they can't scare the **** out of you with it, they'll package it with a huge set of tits and throw it in your face!"
Thats true but when that fringe gets their in from religious texts there is NO possibility of compromise.
With secular groups, compromise might be tough but it is possible.
With religious groups, they may not all be extremist but the more moderate folks usually have some sympathy for the extremists as their opinions come from the same place.
I care about the environment but there is no one book that tells me what I should do about it. hence the possibility of discussion and compromise.
I understand what you are saying; I however am looking at it from a different POV. It is not the source, but the emotion, that clouds reason and judgment. The cause, IMHO, is irrelevant. The fringe elements (regardless of which fringe they stand on - religious, fiscal, sexual (I'm not only referring to homosexuality, but other types as well - note to mods), environmental, or numerous others) have filled the discussion with emotion.
To go with environmental (example) - there is a very large movement that believes that we should not cut down trees. However, the former leader of Greenpeace suggests we should do exactly that - including old growth forests - as growing trees absorb carbon, and can only release it in the process of combustion. Mature trees cannot absorb nearly as much carbon as their growing counterparts.
Yet for forwarding this theory, he was criticized and ostercized by the very fringe that he was a part of - because he violated one of the key beliefs, which seems to be - "Don't cut down trees". I believe that he was criticized due to because of emotion, not based upon the logical validity of his theory.
I believe that our entire political process has become a play ground for the "loony fringe" regardless of party.
From what I see, no one gets elected now without cow-tao'ing to the extremists in your party, and the media feeds on that!
It will only get worse with next year's elections. The extreme is the only way to get the masses attention anymore.
Like George Carlin said: "If they can't scare the **** out of you with it, they'll package it with a huge set of tits and throw it in your face!"
I agree with you there - approximately 5% of the public decides who we get to choose as our next president (half of the population votes, only about 10% of voters go to the primaries, that's about 5% of all adults)
You are right that emotion clouds the thought process but I still maintain there is a fundamental difference though.
So if I may ask, in reference to your example about environment, how would you differentiate the two - e.g. how would environmentalists act different than religious fundamentalists? For purpose of argument, the two worse offenders: ELF and the Jihadists.
noun
Definition: 1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life
2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine
3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by
4. obsession: an object, practice, cause, or activity that somebody is completely devoted to or obsessed by
Nidan, you claim that those on the extreme right are less likely to compromise do to religious beliefs. According to Encarta many on the far left qualify as religious as well. Rabid environmentalism and other extreme left causes become a religion to those devoted to them. I would argue that both extremes are just as likely not to compromise.
E.L.F. & A.L.F. come to mind as extreme lefty cults.
When the White Ringers try to claim the ACLU and Amnesty Intl. as "looney left" - I must disagree.
__________________
"Seachicken - it's what's for dinner" - me (until the 'Hawks sweep the Cards)
Check out Dephinger on our MySpace page.
But as I've found even here, when it comes to some subjects, even less fanatical folks are unwilling to compromise as they depend on one source for their basis os truth.
You are correct at the real extremes logic makes little difference. Once you come in from those extremes though people with a secualr orientation can compromise and discuss subjects based on facts and evidence.
If your reference book is the bible, then its doesn't change, new information isn't forthcoming, new research doesn't unearth new scientific theories. The Bible is and apart from picking the translation that you prefer and ongoing picking over the words therein, no new facts or information is going to come from it. If you think the Bible told you Evolution was bad last year, it will tell you the same this year.
So, political extremism is a Republican only problem?
I am taking this out of context. So, to be clear I am just answering the question above.
NO. Definately not.
A radical conservative replublican is just as dangerous as a radical liberal democrat.
The point of this government, WAS to have a happy middle.
Unfortunately, both sides spend so much time trying to undo what the other side has already done, that nothing productive gets accomplished.
Anytime you put radical, or extreme in front of a group of people with certain beliefs, it is dangerous. Because radical/extreme usually translates to voilent, stubborn, narrow mindedness/sigtness, all things that come together and makes one person try to push his beliefs onto another. In bold is the worse crime you can ever commit.
__________________ A-Dub on Playoffs:“You get a great sense of pride you stuck it out,” Wilson said, “now that it’s finally here.” An Out of State Fan's Guide for Seeing the Cardinals in AZ: http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/blog.php?b=71
Like George Carlin said: "If they can't scare the **** out of you with it, they'll package it with a huge set of tits and throw it in your face!"
You are the last person I would ever expect to quote Carlin.
__________________ A-Dub on Playoffs:“You get a great sense of pride you stuck it out,” Wilson said, “now that it’s finally here.” An Out of State Fan's Guide for Seeing the Cardinals in AZ: http://www.arizonasportsfans.com/vb/blog.php?b=71
Anytime you put radical, or extreme in front of a group of people with certain beliefs, it is dangerous. Because radical/extreme usually translates to voilent, stubborn, narrow mindedness/sigtness, all things that come together and makes one person try to push his beliefs onto another. In bold is the worse crime you can ever commit.
Which is probably one reason I tend to focus on the religious right currently as they are the ones in control of the White House.
If Al Sharton and his ilk were in a similar position of power I would be just as disapproving of them.
Powerless fanatics are less of a concern but we have not had a case as bad of this before. Unfortunately I expect this is now going to be more common.
Linear Mode
