← Bumper Sticker Of The Day…
The Fraud That Is CNN – Through The Lies Within “The Truth About Benghazi” – Updating The Previous Expose’ →

Crystal Clarity II – This is Why Hillary Will Win in 2016, and Why Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson Could Be Cabinet Members…..

Posted on August 7, 2013 by sundance
As the conversation continues, I welcome debate. Especially when comments dropped are highly reflective of “general sentiments“. Such is the case for this recent comment from Bob Jones. He outlines a generally popular retort – and presents a great opportunity for expansion:

BOB JONES SHARES- I respect the truth, and anyone who helps me to discover it. There is plenty of it to be found on this website. I respect differences, and I respect attempts to make others feel included, as opposed to making people feel excluded or trivialized. If I can accomodate someone without being forced to abandon or destroy my own identity, then I will do so.

I do not respect this kind of sentiment: “And you, or any other, are wearing that uniform, I will most assuredly consider you the enemy with as much reflexivity as I will any other that may or may not hold a similar constitution. ”
#1: I try to strive for critical thinking, not reflexive and knee-jerk forcible confinement of people into “you are either with us or against us” groups.
*That* is exactly the kind of thinking that powers the BGI and LynchMob mentality found among the fundamentalists of ALL Sects. *That* is the kind of thinking that emboldens terrorists to say that they don’t care about Collateral damage….or that nobody is innocent.
#2: When you label someone your “Enemy” you have now turned them into an Object which you no longer have to treat with any respect.
With people who have Declared War on *me* – they have adopted the Enemy label for themselves, and have chosen to make objects out of themselves by dehumanizing me. I agree that I must not Flinch, or else risk being destroyed.
However, I take issue with automatically labeling people as enemies who have different values, different ideas, and different conclusions from me…given the terrible Subjectivity that goes with Perceptions, and the hard-earned Truth that the Truth has often escaped those who think it is obvious.
I am sorry, but I associate Sneering attitudes with Bullies and Tyrants. We have an excess of Violence in this culture, and sneering with a pompous self-righteousness is only going to inflame matters rather than resolve them.
After decades of trying to Help Others, I have learned that it is counter-productive to get Angry at those whom I am trying to Help. It is even worse to display the Anger and rub people’s noses in the fact that I consider myself superior to them.
So, my question to SD and all the other Warriors/Jihadists: what do you intend to do with all of those enemies once you have vanquished them?
Offer them the choice to Convert or Die, or just delete them? (LINK)
The best way to respond is to actually break it down all the tentacles of the counter position into bite sized morsels, here goes (with emphasis upon Bob’s words done by me):

I respect the truth, and anyone who helps me to discover it. There is plenty of it to be found on this website. I respect differences, and I respect attempts to make others feel included, as opposed to making people feel excluded or trivialized. If I can accomodate someone without being forced to abandon or destroy my own identity, then I will do so.
Semantics and touchy feely gobbledygook. What exactly are you “accommodating“? Thoughts, beliefs, ideas or existence? “Accommodate” is a key word of “those who would allow”… How wonderfully magnanimous. Bob sounds like Stacy McCain.
They, in this case Bob, are/is willing to allow you to do something, say something, or be something. To which those who desire individual expression of freedom should be expected to say THANK YOU for accommodating me, or something, I guess. Again, who is the determiner of that which is allowable for you the individual? Think about it…..
I do not respect this kind of sentiment: “And you, or any other, are wearing that uniform, I will most assuredly consider you the enemy with as much reflexivity as I will any other that may or may not hold a similar constitution. ”
#1: I try to strive for critical thinking, not reflexive and knee-jerk forcible confinement of people into “you are either with us or against us” groups.
*That* is exactly the kind of thinking that powers the BGI and LynchMob mentality found among the fundamentalists of ALL Sects. *That* is the kind of thinking that emboldens terrorists to say that they don’t care about Collateral damage….or that nobody is innocent.
In the war of ideas, on this battlefield, nobody is innocent. If you try to parse out the innocents from the non-innocent you are never going to win in the WAR of ideas. Can you separate the innocents in war?
Do you stop dropping the bomb for fear the hospital is not empty? If so, don’t you think the enemy will keep the hospital filled - as a strategy to keep you from dropping the bomb?
Collateral damage, or the concern for collateral damage leads to defeat. Collateral damage as you describe are people trapped within the enemy camp. What is going to motivate them more to become part of the solution, the resistance. Knowledge they are safe inside even though they are trapped, or knowledge they need to take action – quickly?
Again, the choice is FREEDOM or NOT. You are either free, or you are not.
#2: When you label someone your “Enemy” you have now turned them into an Object which you no longer have to treat with any respect.
With people who have Declared War on *me* – they have adopted the Enemy label for themselves, and have chosen to make objects out of themselves by dehumanizing me. I agree that I must not Flinch, or else risk being destroyed.
However, I take issue with automatically labeling people as enemies who have different values, different ideas, and different conclusions from me…given the terrible Subjectivity that goes with Perceptions, and the hard-earned Truth that the Truth has often escaped those who think it is obvious.
I take no issue with looking at what is in front of me for what it actually is. I/We are not going to parse out their positions. We are clearly stating our own – big difference.
It is they who have labeled us the enemy. Fair enough. Actually, who cares? Not I.
You can label me to your hearts content, it matters not. The application of their definition upon me does not become an issue which will pertain to what thoughts or armory, I will, or will not, entertain in defeating the enemy.
I am sorry, but I associate Sneering attitudes with Bullies and Tyrants. We have an excess of Violence in this culture, and sneering with a pompous self-righteousness is only going to inflame matters rather than resolve them.
After decades of trying to Help Others, I have learned that it is counter-productive to get Angry at those whom I am trying to Help. It is even worse to display the Anger and rub people’s noses in the fact that I consider myself superior to them.
Interesting that you rail against the appearance of superiority, yet you proclaim superiority in the use of the word “accommodation“, and you are “trying to help“. Superiority is inherent within the claims you outline.
I am not superior. As a consequence, I am not trying to help anyone. I am advocating for the principles of individual liberty and individual liberty in all their forms. I am advocating for equality.
So, my question to SD and all the other Warriors/Jihadists: what do you intend to do with all of those enemies once you have vanquished them?
Offer them the choice to Convert or Die, or just delete them?
There becomes the key understanding. The appearance of the superiority mindset within the battle itself; expressed by a person who considers themselves superior. Again, the issue is freedom – you either are, or you are not.
I am not superior, nor am I going to proclaim “they” must do anything, once stopped. This battle is not to get “them” to do anything, this battle is to “stop them” from doing something.
This battle is pushing back against all of those who would define the exhibition of, approach toward, or self expression of, individual freedom.
It is they who wish to control, not I.
It is I who wish to remove the restrictions of control. Thereby granting not only myself freedom but all others the same freedom, or any freedom that they choose.
It is they who wish to define how freedom can be, or cannot be, expressed. Not I.
So…. what they do once they are held to the same opportunity of individual freedom is not a matter for me to entertain. We are equal. They will be free to do whatever they want; including disagreeing with the principle, or feeling discomfort from the understanding, they are free to do, say, be, strive etc. without any limitations.
They are, if we are successful, by necessity and purpose, in control of their own destiny. The battle here is to insure that “we” are not restricted in the same exhibition thereof; which is their implied and advocated goal.
Hence the disconnect.

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...rs/#more-67454