Sometimes there IS no middle ground.

[Pab Sungenis]

http://cnx.com/?p=1339

I take exception to the idea that we should all be working toward finding the middle ground on more issues with those who oppose us.

I'm sorry, but that's not always the case. Some things are either black or white, on or off, right or wrong. On some issues, there just IS no middle ground. Here are just a few.

• Civil rights

To be absolutely blunt, there is no compromise on basic civil rights. You cannot find common ground with someone who is unwilling to recognize you as worthy of the basic dignity of a human being, or indeed sees you as less human than them in the first place. To attempt to find common ground with that person is to sink to their level, to deny your own humanity. This is the kind of thought that led to limits on how much you could beat your wife, or how much of a person a slave counted as under the law.



• Torture

The infliction of severe pain and anguish is never justified. To define select conditions under which the objectives to be achieved by ripping someone's fingernails out, or simulate their drowning, or attaching electrodes to their "bathing suit areas," or any of a number of fascinating concepts dreamed up by "interrogators" in recent years is acceptable is to invite the adjustment of that acceptability threshold. There can be no common ground on torture, because one step over the line is a cliff that leads right to Hell.



• Justice

Mike Piller put it best in one of my favorite lines of dialogue of all time: "laws change, but Justice is Justice." To compromise on Justice, to imply that there are circumstances under which it is right to do that which is not just, is to completely destroy the concept of Justice. A Man much wiser than Mike Piller put it a different way: "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill."

I'm certain there are many more, but those are three right off the top of my head. Three issues on which there really can be no compromise, because even the slightest compromise undermines the basic concept we are arguing about. So on these issues, and a certain number of others, if you want to find common ground with me you are going to have to walk over to where I am because there simply are some issues on which I am right and you are wrong.

Article Copyright 2010 2,000 Monkeys With Typewriters, LLC, used with permission. May not be reproduced or excerpted without prior, explicit written permission.

[Starry Messenger]

1. k & r

[Le Taz Hot]

2. I couldn't agree more.

It' such a cop-out to hear the MSM claim they get an equal amount of criticism from both sides so "we must be doing something right." No, at best, you're straddling the fence because the truth IS usually one side or the other.

K & R

[rpannier]

36. Whenever I hear the media make the claim I think of Australia News Reporter Jim Middleton

"By that logic (equal amounts criticism)if I propose a day where we take kittens and puppies and throw them off a bridge and I get equal criticism from both the right and left, it must therefore be valid because of where the criticism is coming from. It could be that my idea is just plain daft and the criticism I am getting is based on the merits of my idiotic statement."

-Jim Middleton to Howard Kurtzman

[Demeter]

3. AMEN!

It's even more than a principle--it's the very definition of of good government. It's what we signed up for, and our forefathers and mothers...

There's justice, and then there's injustice. Only in specific civil suits can there be compromise, and those compromises had better be just.

[xchrom]

4. i would add economics to that list.

i'm having a growing realization that we are becoming more and more neoliberal.

even people who in other times would be more on the side of the people.

and it's driving us all down the sink hole.

[HughBeaumont]

8. Yeps.

You're either FOR fairness and a sustainable living wage for all classes or you're NOT. None of this "well, we simply HAVE to accept that some people are going to be left behind." bullshit. You leave people behind, then this grandiose plan grinds to a dead HALT. It starts with an inch and then another mile is taken.

[depakid]

12. +1

[awoke_in_2003]

45. +1000. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

66. There's very little that is black and white about economics

If you want to make the argument that all citizens are entitled to a certain standard of living (and I think they are) I think that goes far more under the realm of human rights than it does economic policy. But actual economic policy need not be inherently left wing or right wing.

[TheKentuckian]

5. Absolutely correct. I'd add there is no compromising with unmitigated greed either.

Medium is a size not a philosophy.

[blindpig]

6. It works so well...

[H2O Man]

7. Recommended

Well said. Thank you.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. And it is for me particularly offensive to be told to find

middle ground out of pragmatism by people who in the next breath claim a deep religious faith which is of course, not pragmatically based at all. The same people who take the anti-equality stance based on an unwavering dogma demand all manner of compromise that is absolutely forbidden by that same faith.
The Christian President, against equal rights for Christ, also tortures the Christ, according to the Christ, who said clearly that he IS the prisoners we keep, and our treatment of them IS our treatment of him. That is what he said. He did not say 'no equal rights for teh gay' but he most certainly said that many who think they know him are in fact harming him directly, daily.
They are religiously hypocritical to the point of utter heresy in the religious realm and utter inhumanity by the standards of the heathen like me.
Da Vinci said "He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur." Leonardo was right.

[defendandprotect]

26. "He who refuses to punish evil commands it to occur" --- Leonard Da Vinci

Thank you --

:)

[ThomCat]

51. +1

I agree. The idea that religion needs to be coddles and protected, because nobody with faith can ever be offended, but they are allowed to offend anyone they want as long as they rationalize their bigotries in terms of their faith if so incredibly offensive that it makes me physically sick.

But it is accepted. So accepted that it is mainstream policy. It is accepted without question as the underlying premise in a whole lot of articles and discussions, even here.

But Dare to question this and you're attacking their faith! Oh NO! x(

[barbtries]

10. well put.

[Catherina]

11. War. Workers Rights. There is no middle ground. Rec'd n/t

[TBF]

23. Absolutely. The money class has been waging war

against us for some time. Lately, with the gap between rich and poor increasing, they are obviously winning.

[pampango]

13. Might be harder to show when there IS middle ground with repubs and teabaggers. n/t

[OHdem10]

14. Health Care---you either believe people should have health care

or you do not.

[awoke_in_2003]

47. it should fall under civil rights...

in my opinion.

[kctim]

15. Its good for one to stand for what they believe

even better if one also respects the right of others to do the same.

The issue itself, not our personal opinions about the issue, are what should define "black or white, on or off, right or wrong." Placing our own personal spin on issues blinds us and causes us to over-generalize the character of others. It has greatly helped lead to the division we face.
Should President Obama be considered an enemy of civil rights simply because some believe gay marriage should now be considered a basic civil right? Not hardly. Does that mean no common ground can be found with him on civil rights? Ridiculous and kind of insulting, IMO.

You don't have to compromise facts to reach middle ground, but sometimes you do have to compromise you're personal opinion.

[Le Taz Hot]

59. You ask . . .

"Should President Obama be considered an enemy of civil rights simply because some believe gay marriage should now be considered a basic civil right?"

The answer is yes. Some issues have no middle ground and Civil Rights is one of them. The OP really does lay out the case quite well as do several subsequent posts. I encourage you to take some time and read through them -- some are wonderfully insightful.

[txaslftist]

16. Sorry m8. That's not how they see it in DC.

Civil Rights:

Under the current administration, with a Dem at the head and Dems running both houses, the Patriot Act has been continued, we've developed a new branch of the military tasked with "cyber-space warfare", and we've kept Gitmo open. So your respect for civil rights has been "compromised" and a "middle ground" discovered. Somewhere slightly to the left of Genghis Khan.

Torture:

Under the previous administration torture was encouraged, and as the latest WIKIleaks doc dump demonstrates, was rampant in an area in which the US was nominally in charge. The present administration's response to the doc dump has been to imprison the leaker and try to prosecute Wikileaks' founder.

Justice:

We still have more people in our prisons than any other nation in the world, and the last go round with the US sentencing guidelines commission rendered yet another annual net increase in sentences, with the notable exceptions of "recency points" and minor tinkering with the crack/powder disparity.

So apparently compromise and middle ground on these issues is not only possible, it seems to be the prevailing practice among our elected leaders of both parties.

[bobbolink]

17. Amen and Hallelujah! Thanks for having the courage to say what should be obvious to all of us who

came of age during the Civil Rights era.

It really is clear that time has marched on, and many here haven't a clue about these things.

Until they, too, get their heads stomped on.

Or their houses bombed.

Or their children have nightmares of fright.

When THAT Equal Opportunity becomes more evident, maybe there will finally be some awareness again.

[jmondine]

18. A controversial issue is defined as one upon which reasonable, well informed people disagree

So much of what passes for controversy, including the issues you mentioned, simply do not apply.

[felix_numinous]

19. Legal issues are not political issues.

But they are being spun as liberal issues or progressive issues. The power of language.

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. "Us"?

I happen to agree with you about #1 and #2, but as responses have shown, not everyone has the same list as you or I.

In general yes, there are some issues about which I'm not going to compromise, but I am enough of a pragmatist that I'll support the quickest path to the goal.

I hate sports metaphors, but sometimes they are appropriate. I will choose a base hit over striking out while aiming for the fence, every time. The base hit isn't a compromise, it's progress.

[nashville_brook]

21. compromising moral issues creates amoral policy -- ah, the third way.

[MadMaddie]

22. You are right those issues should not be compromised when

fixing them.

However; if the Republicans are in power the conversation and the law will never change. That's a fact.

We have to get more Democratic Progressives in office. We need to win now and we need to win in 2012.

[bigtree]

24. there may not have been a perfect 'middle ground' for Civil Rights

. . . but legislatively, it took decades after the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed for those rights to be fully realized and defended by the federal government. Most of our major social changes have been incremental in their realization and enactment.

[RaleighNCDUer]

50. But the legislation DID come first. We didn't wait until the nation was ready for it

before passing the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. We passed the law, then dragged (most of) the country into compliance, because the law was RIGHT.

[bigtree]

63. but the legislation wasn't complete

It left out disabled Americans, for instance. Do you think the laws, as initially passed, were complete and inclusive of all components and remedies regarding civil rights for Americans? If not, would you have held back support because of its flaws and omissions?

[defendandprotect]

25. Absolutely .... as if there was a "middle ground" re slavery or genocide re Native Americans...!!

Maybe Segregation, Inc. for another 100 years was someone's joke of a "middle ground"?

What Americans have to remember is that we're still in the same gene pool which gave

us so many of these atrocities.

Neither is there any "middle ground" on reproductive freedom --

it is an issue for a woman to decide as to whether or not to bring a new life into the world --

or not.

Nature is pro-choice -- have given women many means via plants which are our drugs -- to

prevent conception, terminate a pregnance and/or to bring about complete and permanent

infertility if she wished. Pretty much all of that information was destroyed by patriarchy --

as well as the plants and information about them.

RU-486, however, is actually based on one of those natural means of terminating a pregnancy --

an ingredient in papaya -- and still used by women in the South Seas. Stops a fertilized egg

from implanting in womb lining.

[Hardrada]

27. Abortion

[Tsiyu]

28. Exactly

if you live in America, you are subject to a US Constitution which guarantees - or is supposed to guarantee - justice, no torture and civil rights.

I suppose once Congress and their freedumb lover B*sh passed the Patriot Act, many peoples' concepts of liberty and justice, and right and wrong, simply fell out of their heads.

[awoke_in_2003]

48. and what is really discouraging...

is the dems did NOTHING to rescind the patriot act. They didn't even make a half-hearted attempt, like they do on most things.

[bertman]

29. REC. nt.

[GoneOffShore]

30. thank you

There are more but you've hit the high spots.

[BzaDem]

31. "there simply are some issues on which I am right and you are wrong"

I would certainly agree with that statement. I would even agree with it applied to the issues you listed in this post.

But even in general, statement is exactly correct. Too many people here use bullshit non-facts to come up with what they call an "opinion," and then complain when others delegate their "opinion" to the bullshit pile where it belongs. "But we are all entitled to our opinion," they say!

Nope. If your "opinion" is not actually an opinion, but rather a factually incorrect statement or premise (or an incorrect conclusion drawn from incorrect premises), then it is not a matter of dueling opinions. In that case, there is a correct answer and a wrong answer -- not some mushy "opinion" in between.

[ibegurpard]

40. you're right

maybe you ought to look in the mirror and repeat that back to yourself

[liberation]

43. LOL!

No kidding, the irony meter was going off the charts on that previous post.

[hfojvt]

41. but this is life, not math

Real world problems are not as cut and dried. Should we build a new school or shouldn't we? Should we put A/C in the old school? Should we build a bridge? Should we make the bridge 4 lanes? There are facts involved in those decisions, but there are also values and predictions of the future. Will the city prosper or will it stagnate, and how do we define prosperity?

[donheld]

32. +1000

[laughingliberal]

33. K & R nt

[ooglymoogly]

34. KR....I have said this many times....this country cannot move

forward without curing the cancer that is the war crimes already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. A country cannot have justice for the many and not for the few. Nor can it hold its place in a civilized world. Obama has made a fatal mistake, that history will never forgive him for; on this issue and those equally profoundly stupid shreddings of the constitution.

[me b zola]

35. You had me at hello

:thumbsup:

[Senator]

37. K&+R

[defendandprotect]

38. kick

[hfojvt]

39. What alternatives are you proposing then?

Here are several choices, right off the top of my head

a. Losing - we have done lots of this. See, for example the elections of 1980, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004

b. shooting - ah, there is a wonderful idea, no?

c. name calling - a favorite of the intertubes.

[liberation]

42. I take sophistry is your proposal then?

[hfojvt]

54. no my proposals would be inclusion and persuasion

Instead of drawing a bunch of lines where it is my way or the highway. See, when you "stride toward freedom" then a single step in the right direction is better than a loss of ground.

"Using this method, Dr. King produced the greatest progressive advance of the last century. But do we modern progressives want to win? Or do we just love to hate?

Dr. King faced a vast, overwhelming racial oppression. Today’s progressives face a vast and growing oppression driven by the social stranglehold of Big Oligarchic Wealth and Power. That growing Oligarchic Power will never be defeated as long as society is split into two warring tribes, with our tribe calling their tribe “bigots” and their tribe calling us “godless elitists.”"

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh090310.shtml

"If you read Stride Toward Freedom, you will see that Dr. King endlessly deferred, on points which weren’t essential, to people who were massively wrong on the larger questions. He repeatedly deferred to leaders of Montgomery’s white community—to the mayor; to the police commissioner; to the bus company; to white business leaders. He deferred on non-essential points, even as he kept pursuing the larger goal of defeating legal segregation and “social oppression.” He didn’t choose to stand and fight every time the other tribe annoyed, offended or opposed him. He didn’t do that because he was a deeply serious person. He wasn’t a hack like Josh.

Dr. King knew that, if you fight every non-essential fight, you will likely lose out in the end, especially if you’re opposing entrenched power. And Dr. King wanted to win. He wasn’t trying to please the rubes by accepting every possible fight."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh091310.html

[Pab Sungenis]

62. But the problem is that

the issues that people want us to compromise on are NOT "ones which (aren't) essential," they ARE essential.

Marriage equality, employment equality, and full equal protection are essential issues.

Dr. King never compromised on essential issues. He didn't ask for blacks to be sat in the MIDDLE of the bus, or accept sitting in the back instead of being forced to walk. He didn't compromise on what mattered and for you to imply that he did is an insult to his memory.

[hfojvt]

64. yeah, maybe you should read the book like I did

page 63 "Now the time had come for the all-important resolution. Ralph Abernathy read the words slowly and forcefully. The main substance of the resolution called upon the Negroes not to resume riding the buses until 1) courteous treatment by the bus operators was guaranteed; 2) passengers were seated on a first-come, first-served basis - Negroes seating from the back of the bus toward the front while whites seated from the front toward the back; 3) Negro bus operators were employed on predominantly Negro routes ... The motion was carried unanimously."

page 114 "There was, however, this slight modification of the third point: considering that the possibility that there were no imminent vacancies and taking into account the existence of certain priorities due to union regulations, it was agreed we would not demand the immediate hiring of Negro bus drivers, but would settle for the willingness of the bus company to take applications from Negroes and hire some as soon as vacancies occurred."

"Stride toward Freedom" by Martin Luther King 1958

[awoke_in_2003]

44. you do count marriage equality...

as a civil right, I hope. If so, you have my support.

[Pab Sungenis]

46. Very much so.

It's one of the key Civil Rights issues today.

[awoke_in_2003]

49. I knew I liked you...

:hi:

[harmonicon]

52. your message really falls flat for putting this after it:

"Article Copyright 2010 2,000 Monkeys With Typewriters, LLC, used with permission. May not be reproduced or excerpted without prior, explicit written permission."

Give me a break. This is a public discussion board. Ohh... check this out:


I take exception to the idea that we should all be working toward finding the middle ground on more issues with those who oppose us.

I'm sorry, but that's not always the case. Some things are either black or white, on or off, right or wrong. On some issues, there just IS no middle ground. Here are just a few.

Civil rights
To be absolutely blunt, there is no compromise on basic civil rights. You cannot find common ground with someone who is unwilling to recognize you as worthy of the basic dignity of a human being, or indeed sees you as less human than them in the first place. To attempt to find common ground with that person is to sink to their level, to deny your own humanity. This is the kind of thought that led to limits on how much you could beat your wife, or how much of a person a slave counted as under the law.


Torture
The infliction of severe pain and anguish is never justified. To define select conditions under which the objectives to be achieved by ripping someone's fingernails out, or simulate their drowning, or attaching electrodes to their "bathing suit areas," or any of a number of fascinating concepts dreamed up by "interrogators" in recent years is acceptable is to invite the adjustment of that acceptability threshold. There can be no common ground on torture, because one step over the line is a cliff that leads right to Hell.


Justice
Mike Piller put it best in one of my favorite lines of dialogue of all time: "laws change, but Justice is Justice." To compromise on Justice, to imply that there are circumstances under which it is right to do that which is not just, is to completely destroy the concept of Justice. A Man much wiser than Mike Piller put it a different way: "Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill."


I'm certain there are many more, but those are three right off the top of my head. Three issues on which there really can be no compromise, because even the slightest compromise undermines the basic concept we are arguing about. So on these issues, and a certain number of others, if you want to find common ground with me you are going to have to walk over to where I am because there simply are some issues on which I am right and you are wrong.

Are you going to call the feds? I happen to think that the free exchange of information is one of those basic rights.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[democrank]

55. Recommended

[Enthusiast]

56. Seeking middle ground

is capitulation.

[The Uncola]

57. I would add several others..

.. but that's a good start.

[Recursion]

58. What about, say, working with an anti-LGBTQ bigot on something like climate change?

Or poverty? Or ending the war? That's the kind of thing I push for, though maybe that's more a question of "common ground" than "middle ground".

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. I agree about torture and civil rights, but justice is a subjective concept

and, as such, you really do have to compromise with it. Everyone wants to do what they think is just; but their idea of justice differs.

[gulliver]

61. There are always milestones, though.

Time and energy are always factors in real life. You take what you can get with the time and energy you have. That gets you a milestone and positions you to take the next milestone. Incremental progress is idealism's lifeblood, not its enemy.

[Hello_Kitty]

65. No more fucking "middle ground" horseshit on reproductive choice that's for sure

I have no interest in compromising with panty sniffing moralistic fuckwads who want to dictate what medical procedures I can have and limit my access to contraception.