Silver Supporter
- Messages
- 6,072
- Reactions
- 15,024
And that's where we are headed. I'm hearing more and more advice like "your property isn't worth your life", and it's not, but that doesn't mean you should cooperate with a thief. I would not be surprised to hear that "you should cooperate with your rapist to avoid injury".When the "discussion" seems to devolve into "I don't like something, therefore you should not have it" or "Your rights and opinions offend me, therefore you should be cancelled" it is never truly a discussion. In any debate, definitions and rules must be established for a baseline. If "meaningful change" is not defined then it simply becomes a method to silence all opposition. Who changes? What is the benefit? Why does one side have to conform or transform to make themselves more appealing to their philosophical, theological, sociological opposites? We need to start asking ourselves why "meaningful change" seems to always mean deconstructing the rights, freedoms, justice, norms, and morals of our country. Otherwise it is like having a discussion with law enforcement on how to meaningfully change our homes to be more "thief friendly" or our families more "predator friendly". After all, if we would just let criminals have their way we wouldn't need firearms, right?