Menu
Home
Forums
Visual works
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Info & rules
Site rules
Server list
Sanctuary Discord
Sanctuary FAQ
Sanctuary's origins
Staffing policies
Sanctuary YouTube
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
Banned members
User verification codes
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Welcome to the edge of the civilized internet! All our official content can be found
here.
If you have any questions, try our FAQ
here
or see our video on
why this site exists at all!
Home
Forums
Site and Community Discussion
Official Content Listings
The Official Congressional Blacklist
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
Reply to thread
Message
<p>[QUOTE="Epyc Wynn, post: 10860, member: 52"]</p><p>"How dare politicians make negative compromises for the greater good -they should take extreme good positions without compromise even if it means contributing to a greater evil!"</p><p></p><p>You're basically saying all compromise is bad by your own logic, which would fundamentally break governance as a whole. By its very nature, compromise involves tolerating somewhat bad outcomes for the greater good. Though, not surprising as a stance if you fundamentally oppose the government as a whole. Things like diplomacy, tolerating insertion of bad things into overall half-decent bills, allowing gradual progress even if there's a degree of regress. </p><p></p><p>Now of course you can just go "but Trump go elected anyway!" but at that point that's just a result of Sanders losing a safe bet, not Sanders making a bad bet -only a few tens of thousands of votes in the 'wrong' physical locations caused the loss of this otherwise safe bet. Sanders got unlucky with Trump winning insofar as Hillary lost causing a mass cultural division and shift in favor of fascist-style politics, but it would be foolish to equate unlucky with unwise.</p><p></p><p>To insist Sanders was wrong to compromise is not a criticism of Sanders but you conveying your ideological position in a roundabout way that one should take an extreme 'good' position to create a small direct good outcome even if it means indirectly causing an overall far greater evil outcome to occur. It's childish at best.</p><p>[/QUOTE]</p>
[QUOTE="Epyc Wynn, post: 10860, member: 52"] "How dare politicians make negative compromises for the greater good -they should take extreme good positions without compromise even if it means contributing to a greater evil!" You're basically saying all compromise is bad by your own logic, which would fundamentally break governance as a whole. By its very nature, compromise involves tolerating somewhat bad outcomes for the greater good. Though, not surprising as a stance if you fundamentally oppose the government as a whole. Things like diplomacy, tolerating insertion of bad things into overall half-decent bills, allowing gradual progress even if there's a degree of regress. Now of course you can just go "but Trump go elected anyway!" but at that point that's just a result of Sanders losing a safe bet, not Sanders making a bad bet -only a few tens of thousands of votes in the 'wrong' physical locations caused the loss of this otherwise safe bet. Sanders got unlucky with Trump winning insofar as Hillary lost causing a mass cultural division and shift in favor of fascist-style politics, but it would be foolish to equate unlucky with unwise. To insist Sanders was wrong to compromise is not a criticism of Sanders but you conveying your ideological position in a roundabout way that one should take an extreme 'good' position to create a small direct good outcome even if it means indirectly causing an overall far greater evil outcome to occur. It's childish at best. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Preview
Name
Verification
What is the first letter of the site name?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Site and Community Discussion
Official Content Listings
The Official Congressional Blacklist
Top