I define your approach as meekness based on this quote of yours,
The ends justify the means is not an argument that conservatives should be making.
That attitude is one I have watched conservatives have since the culture wars began in ernest in the sixties. We take the high moral ground while the left uses every dirty trick in the book. And we have lost. Now we find ourselves on the brink. And you suggest we continue our losing strategy?
That is the road to ruin, goodman. In time of war, the ends DO justify the means, to a certain extent. I don't advocate fascist or genocidal tactics, but a brief suspension of the Marquis of Queensbury rules of engagement are in order and necessary. Anything less I consider meek.
Regarding morality and Christianity as an excuse to lay down and lose? I reject it.
The bible is not a suicide pact. Neither is the Constitution. I will not have the very foundations of our society turned on us and used as weapons to defeat us.
I am by no means attacking you and I appreciate your sentiments. They come from a good place, I know. I just say we cannot keep the America we know if we don't get down in the mud and fight these people.
With all due respect, goodman.
the apparent unwillingness or inability of Q-true believers to engage in constructive dialogue with critics in a manner that is logically consistent
I have to disagree with you strongly here. This group of people (Qbirds) seems very polite and reasonable to critics and the curious. Until the contingent of hostiles jumps ugly. Maybe you haven't seen that. Keep reading the threads and just watch. This is a basket of very non-deplorable people.
Our purpose, as defined by Q, is to learn together, solve puzzles together, and share knowledge. We are told to "red pill" each other and the outside world. What would be the purpose of alienating our own community members?
No. The disruptors disrupt. Some of us engage them. That is what you see.
Again. With all due respect.
Bagster, you seem to think that anyone who may have an opinion contrary to yours on these issues - or even merely questions what is an extremely murky Internet phenom. - is some kind of ‘disruptor’. It sounds to some of us as if you want all the Q threads to be a personal ‘safe space’ for ‘believers’ - and to my understanding, that status is only granted to religions here.
People who present alternate thoughts about all of this in a polite way are not ‘trolls’.
(By the way: the ‘goodman’ schtick seemed merely silly and affected at first; now it’s tiresome.)
‘With all due respect’, of course.
Ditto! Live act and be honorable in character and deportment, in a boxing match we use the marquis’ rules. Every other fight is to the death and there is no outcome save victory hence the use of the atomic bomb, fire bombing, etc.
Clausewitz makes it clear you must Destroy your enemy, His will to fight, His means to fight, or That which he holds dear enough to fight for in order to defeat Him and his ability to ever wage war again. Point out where it says to be fair or nice? Patton made no bones nor did Halsey that our objective was to MURDER our enemies and as a nation We CHEERED these great warrior leaders. Time to wake up from smelling roses and Gentlemen (and Ladies) “Prepare to defend yourselves!” - We were soldiers once
The means are determined by the enemy. If the enemy requires harder means, they will get them.
The bible is not a suicide pact. Neither is the Constitution. I will not have the very foundations of our society turned on us and used as weapons to defeat us.
I much agree with that. Thanks.
I won't lose my religion or moral values over it. However, even God altered some of HIS OWN edicts in the Old Testament depending on current contingencies--e.g. David and troops eating the sacred bread.
There are fitting exceptions to SOP on occasion.