[rob777]

The question is which is a more effective way of "fighting for our God-given unalienable rights"? Confining our conversations to an "amen corner" who already agree with us, or engaging in debate with those who do not? It is not a matter of "entertaining" those who hold such views, but engaging them in an argument. As it stands, a poster does not even have to hold such positions to get zotted, but merely to say positive things about a candidate who does hold to some of these views.

As for expecting this to change, where have I ever expressed such expectations? I have learned to live with it.

[Jim Robinson]

Look, I’m not going to argue with you about this. If FR is not your cup of tea, just leave. Thanks!

[Servant of the Cross]

Please. This “amen corner” solely relates to Rooty and Romney.

[grey_whiskers]

If you're going to autofellate, at least have the common decency to pull your ...foot, out of your mouth before speaking.

Some of my best friends on FR have been those atheists who spoke RESPECTFULLY and "phrased their answers in the form of a question" -- and had the humility to admit either that they didn't know, or that a "mere" believer might have happened to stumble across, or deduce, an answer which they themselves had not yet thought of.

The same thing applies to Romneybots, Paulbots, and the like.

It tends to get annoying to be addressed continually with an air of noblesse oblige by one's intellectual inferiors. And even more annoying that the inferiors like to touch themselves excitedly over the air of consternation thus caused.

Prometheus is how Lucifer likes to tell his story to himself. Or, to quote the demon-possessed Weston in Perelandra, "It is for this that I came here, that you may have death in abundance."

Many of the RINO and lib candidates are presenting the same thing, in the long run. Some of them are even dimly aware of it, but feel that as long as they can make and enjoy their pile, but kick the can down the road for others to deal with, any problems which accumulate to the point of intractability and dire consequences are neither their responsibility, nor on their conscience; indeed, they have corrupted their conscience to the point of feeling vaguely self-congratulatory about the whole affair. (cf The Screwtape Letters XXIV, "What you want is to keep a sly self-congratulation mixing with all his thoughts and never allow him to raise the question “What, precisely, am I congratulating myself about?“")

And, finally, in cartoon language, to make absolutely SURE we haven't gone over your head:

Cheers!

[Colofornian]

The question is which is a more effective way of "fighting for our God-given unalienable rights"? Confining our conversations to an "amen corner" who already agree with us, or engaging in debate with those who do not? It is not a matter of "entertaining" those who hold such views, but engaging them in an argument. As it stands, a poster does not even have to hold such positions to get zotted, but merely to say positive things about a candidate who does hold to some of these views.

You know, Ravi Zacharias is an international Christian apologist. In one of his books, he describes the over-extended mania we have of allowing people to state "both sides" of an argument.

The example he gives -- which shows the ludicrous extreme we go to when we don't set some boundaries -- is a classroom where a teacher allows a "debate" between a protagonist and an antagonist.

We might readily think, "Hey, that's great. Here's a teacher who loves academic freedom. They're allowing both sides to be heard."

But what if I then added the content of the "debate" Ravi mentioned in his hypothetical? What if the "debate" was whether it was OK to abuse children...and there was actually a "pro"-abuse discussion being advocated.

I wouldn't think much of an educator allowing the pro-child abuse position to be debated under the guise of "academic freedom." Likewise, I commend Jim's well-thought out boundaries here.

Abortion is, after all, the ultimate child abuse. Each baby who has brainwaves and a heartbeat is dismembered by a machine with mega the power of a vacuum cleaner.

I think of Mitt Romney's Dec 2007 interview with Katie Couric...where one sentence he's discussing embryos being adopted out by adoptive parents; and the next he's saying he thinks it's great that embryos could be offered up for "research" -- destruction.

Here we have a RINO candidate who keeps having these pro-child abuse & anti-child abuse "debates" in his own head...and he can't come to a once-and-for all conclusion even in his own mind.

I don't think FR needs to become yet another forum where pro-child abuse arguments are openly welcomed -- all in the name of libertarian or academic freedom.

[Elsie]

As it stands, a poster does not even have to hold such positions to get zotted, but merely to say positive things about a candidate who does hold to some of these views.

NO; they get warned before being cast into outer darkness.

It's the things they post AFTER the warning, that brings the smell of brimstone lingering in the air...

[cracker45]

“... I have learned to live with it.”

Well, apparently NOT, since you’re still whining!

JC