The following exchange occurred between a correspondent an me on his FakeBook "Wall" this morning; in fact it may be on-going even as I write this. I post it here because it contains a fairly concise and I hope cogent defense of my skepticism about "compromise" with one's mortal antagonists.
(Correspondent): Posted by Eric Smith~
"Just because I am willing to meet my opponent halfway doesn't mean that I am willing to go over to the side of my opponent's for therein lies the difference between compromise and surrender."
58 minutes ago · Like ·
Steve A....., (Correspondent) and 8 others like this.Woody Wiqiliques Konopak: Just out of curiosity, where's "half-way" on:
Universal Health CARE?
Social Security/Medicare cuts?
Separation of Church/State?
52 minutes ago · Like · 1 person
(Correspondent) When you can give answers...solutions to real problems you go more than half-way...keep up the effort! You can rise above the opposition by staying true to your principles and setting the goal of ''agreement'' as a step to a solution to the problem at hand!
FACE FACTS!!! BE HONEST!! LOOK FOR AGREEMENT!!
37 minutes ago · Like
(Correspondent): MORAL REASONING inters into the equation also!
8 minutes ago · LikeWoody Wiqiliques Konopak: Alls I asked was show me WITH WHAT I should agree, with folks whose views on those issues are mutually exclusive of my own.
Where to start? "Well, you'd agree that at least abortions should be rare?"
According to whom? What is "rare?' Who's counting?
"Well, we can't just pull out of those places where we're invaders. We're responsible, aren't we?"
Give 'em reparations in the amount of half the amount we'd spend to stay there and get the fuck out.
You cannot 'negotiate' with someone who wishes you ill, dead, or silent.