tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-378290551274867963.post3687991734597003530..comments2017-02-01T21:12:08.148-08:00Comments on The World According to Garff: The Quest for Middle GroundSGarffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00637912884778634603noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-378290551274867963.post-17453220850438715332008-11-21T11:58:00.000-08:002008-11-21T11:58:00.000-08:00If I understand your question I mean in the politi...If I understand your question I mean in the political sense. It’s not a question of being justified but rather of feeling justified. When one group feels that the have a legitimate right and they feel that that right is being improperly denied they may feel that it is legitimate to respond by extra-political means. When they do this they cite our historical precedent of people legitimately rising up against real political tyranny. The problem is that because we have this precedent people will always use it to try and justify violence no matter how illegitimate (objectively) their claims are i.e. a lynch mob.<BR/><BR/>As for whether or not there is a group to be blamed. I think there is plenty of blame to go around its’ always tempting to just blame the other side. I should note that there are plenty of prop 8 opponents that allow for middle ground (I gave a few examples in the post). The best approach is to take a step back from it all and look at the rhetoric and actions of all involved. There are preachers who have been carrying signs saying all gays will burn with some reference to a biblical verse (fortunately these preachers are not of my particular faith and they really amount to a few fringe weirdoes). These people certainly are contributing to the problem. <BR/><BR/>The protesters are also contributing to this problem by publicly demonizing individuals and entire organizations when all they know is that someone gave a donation to their opponents. The rhetoric that if you don’t actively support gay-marriage you are a bigot, a Klansman, a daemon is at its heart an attempt to destroy the middle ground. I can’t find an adequate corollary on the other side. I’m sure there are commonly held views that would qualify I just don’t see them advocated in public. <BR/><BR/>So in the end I don’t think you can pin this loss on any one group (this probably holds for any discussion where the middle ground disappears). I do think however that labeling people in the middle as bigots and targeting individuals are the most egregious and widespread offenses against the middle ground.SGarffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637912884778634603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-378290551274867963.post-51952647305328315872008-11-21T09:08:00.000-08:002008-11-21T09:08:00.000-08:00"“Wronged” and “legitimate” are in the eye of the ..."“Wronged” and “legitimate” are in the eye of the beholder."<BR/><BR/>Do you mean in the political sense or in general?<BR/><BR/>People can feel wronged or that the political process was illegitimate, and those feelings are genuine and valid, but if the voice of the people (meaning the majority of votes) honored something, then it is completely legitimate. That's the definition of the law.<BR/><BR/>It's almost like saying relativism is relative?<BR/><BR/>I see what you're saying, and it's a very good point about middle ground, but in the end, wronged and legitimate are concrete matters.<BR/><BR/>Here's the question that fascinates me. Is someone or some group to be blamed for the loss of the middle ground?Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08698077849841578454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-378290551274867963.post-62776858097947759242008-11-20T18:37:00.000-08:002008-11-20T18:37:00.000-08:00Mike,I agree with both of your points. I’m not sa...Mike,<BR/>I agree with both of your points. I’m not saying that it is necessarily bad that this violent strain exists only that it is disturbing because it may justify a broad range of violence. Certainly in all governments people have the absolute or brute power to attempt to rise up by violent means. It also seems that this power is probably a good thing in the cases of repressive regimes which give no political power to the people. <BR/><BR/>The problem is that this power is often taken to excesses especially since it is qusi-cannonized in American political theory. That is when one group looses in the political process they decide to use violence, taking the law into their own hands. The philosophy is that ‘we the people’ are the law whether by ballots or guns. <BR/><BR/>It is very difficult to make a distinction between ‘we the people’ as a whole and ‘we the people’ as one particular group that doesn’t like the law. <BR/><BR/>The heart of the problem is that when people feel wronged by the political process they feel that they have the legitimate right to react through extra-political means such as violence. “Wronged” and “legitimate” are in the eye of the beholder.<BR/><BR/>As long as there is room for middle ground on an issue and open discussion I don’t think there is a problem because violence will be isolated and anomalous. Once the discussion ends and all who are not completely with us are against us and are the “other” or the “enemy” violence is not inevitable but it is likely.SGarffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637912884778634603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-378290551274867963.post-49989757115910097332008-11-19T08:50:00.000-08:002008-11-19T08:50:00.000-08:00Steve said: 'This country was founded on violence ...Steve said: 'This country was founded on violence and on the notion that the people can rise up and vote with their guns. It is in our constitution in the right to bear arms and to form militias.'<BR/><BR/>Important distinction. Back then, we had no representation. Now we have our representation and whatever comes to our country, comes by the voice of the people. We all know what Mosiah 29 says about the voice of the people. One of the few times that 'voting with guns' MAY be justified is when the voice of the people is not honored.<BR/><BR/>Also, it's important to note that the country was not founded SOLELY on violence and guns, but the principles that are worth taking up arms to defend.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08698077849841578454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-378290551274867963.post-31654035058053050832008-11-17T13:52:00.000-08:002008-11-17T13:52:00.000-08:00Yeah, I’m glad they weren’t zombies too. But I can...Yeah, I’m glad they weren’t zombies too. But I can’t help but wonder if the two dreams aren’t related somehow. There are a lot of parallels: isolation, fear, mindless crowds, and being cornered. Who knows they might even have the same meaning. But I’m not going to lie on a couch for $200 an hour just to find out.SGarffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00637912884778634603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-378290551274867963.post-85528710597132784642008-11-17T12:08:00.000-08:002008-11-17T12:08:00.000-08:00At least there weren't any zombies in the dream. ...At least there weren't any zombies in the dream. Thats bad news.Jerkolashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07520857552931383186noreply@blogger.com