BECAUSE {Insert any name here} has POSITIVES, anything BAD they do is OK, right?

[Land Shark]

So much discussion here expressly or impliedly concerns arguments (or allows the INFERENCE) of the following form:

BECAUSE {Insert any name here} has POSITIVES, anything BAD they do is outweighed. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good!

No one person or issue in particular is being addressed here, but EXAMPLES of issues that are argued back and forth in the above general manner (and whose names could therefore go in the underlined slot above) include but by no means are limited to the following:

Wal-Mart (one thread today naming positive thing, w/o expressly excusing Wal-Mart)

Health Care Reform Bill "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." ON EDIT: This phrase is ok, as are "balancing tests" if there are no fundamental principles involved that admit of no compromise (see Lincoln quote, below)

The Obama Administration

The Democratic Party

Etc.

Assuming vegetarianism is a good thing, does that make Hitler, a vegetarian, a good thing? All would agree no, though many might do so because Hitler's bad outweighed his good.

IT IS NOT ALWAYS A "BALANCING TEST" BETWEEN BAD AND GOOD.

If it were always a balancing test between bad and good, then anyone with "good" or "positive" qualities or accomplishments would be free to do a fewer number of bad acts with impunity.

Instead, though things are MORE OFTEN a balancing test, certain lines can't be crossed. Abraham Lincoln: "Certain principles may and must be inflexible."

If one has no "lines in the sand" then, as against something with "good" qualities, there's little or no limit to the evil they can do.

One line in the sand is the absolute prohibition on torture AND other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of people - it knows of no exceptions whatsoever for time of war or peace. Only actual and imminent violators and their direct supporters defend actions against such clear-cut moral and legal lines.

"The limits of power are defined by the tolerance of those they oppress." -Frederick Douglass

In other words, when it comes to fundamental principles, one must have lines or else one's freedom and rights are there for the taking, by anyone wanting to take them, at least as long as they are not in the mask of the devil himself.

THE SOLUTION:

1. CALL THEM AS YOU SEE THEM. In order to be faithful TO OURSELVES, we must always call the good the good and the bad the bad. No weasel words unless in extraordinary situations.

AND

2. SOMETIMES, NO COMPROMISE IS THE ONLY WAY. We must draw clear lines in the sand on fundamental principles or laws, and there must be consequences for crossing those lines. Those consequences can range from repeated, publicly stated withdrawal of all respect and legitimacy, to activism campaigns of organizing, to lawsuits, or to self-defense (depending on the context).

No Compromise: Nobody can stick their hand in the pocket of another's pants and fish around (violating their bodily integrity and dignity) and then "compromise" on taking their hand half way out in exchange for some compensation or concession! The demand can only be "get your hand out of my pocket" and their can be no compromise!

I know all of you have lines, as illustrated in the above example.

I'm not (right here) suggesting what your other lines in the sand of no compromise should be. But I am saying that it's critical, ON THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES, to have those lines and to enforce them with consequences in some way. If everything is a balancing test and/or must always be balanced by the positive, there's few or no limits to the evil a perceived "good thing" can do, and get away with it.

On the other hand, if we know our principles that admit of no compromise and stick to them, and if we're clear about them, then ironically THE POSITIVE is then free to be stated, without the perceived risk of confusing the moral sense of others, which all too often causes us to suppress the positive in the other, thus demonizing them to an extent.

Just be careful - the urge not to "demonize" -- which is good -- can morph into the failure to call the bad the bad, or the failure to seek consequences for the bad when it occurs. Here again, no limits to tyrants are in place, and we've become slaves to evils.

If we could all follow the common sense rule of integrity and call the good the good and the bad the bad, among other things we wouldn't have to see much complaining about un-recommending a post that appears to make some other camp look good.

[hlthe2b]

1. I truly wish that I were as perfect as the OP...

then I, too, could see EVERYTHING in such ABSOLUTE terms. :eyes:

[Land Shark]

4. The OP is as much reminder to myself on being clear about what's compromisable, & what is not.

Other than the example of the hand in the pants and torture, two things I believe everyone here agrees on, the OP doesn't say at all WHAT the principles must be not to compromise on, only that they must exist unless one wants to be someone that can be abused and pushed aside - Endlessly.

The intent of the OP is general in application, it doesn't hit one side only, but it's the task, and not an easy one, of all people using their conscience.

[hlthe2b]

7. You seem to suggest there is an absolute line that we should

all agree upon--even though you don't say what that is. Arguably that line can look very different for different people, depending on other issues and their own priorities in life. :shrug:

I surely don't want to move towards a "litmus" test of what is acceptable as a threshold.

[Land Shark]

11. Everyone gets to decide where their lines are. If they don't decide, anything can happen.

It's true I am not telling anyone what those lines are here, just making a logical argument as to the consequences of not drawing lines in a few places. Each can decide where those are, or if there's nothing that they wouldn't be willing to give up or compromise on. Think of the example of someone's hand in your pocket. Would you compromise or take a position of not compromising - their hand MUST come out?

[hlthe2b]

16. Chiding DUers for (supposedly) not drawing their own lines?

Is that really what you want to convey? Do you really think that you are the only one that has a moral code of any kind and that the rest of us are accepting of anything a member of our party does? I just don't get the point you are trying to make. I am trying, but I just don't...

[Land Shark]

17. I think EVERYONE has moral lines of no compromise. What are yours? They can differ, for sure

I wonder what in the OP makes anyone think everyone's lines have to be the same? Anyway, I tried to convey that they can and do differ, and that very difference causes the "camps" we see from time to time.

[2 Much Tribulation]

2. Ho w funny that people unrec this post when it's not saying what the lines are not to cross n/t

[FiveGoodMen]

3. K& (insufficient) R

[sui generis]

5. dude caffeine is not your friend.

[Land Shark]

6. Because?

[sui generis]

13. that was a little stream of consciousness - I get nonlinearity

BUT was it the best presentation for your ideas? Nah.

[Land Shark]

23. OK. I also posted on torture and John Yoo today, making me think of lines not to be crossed.

Given what I usually write, nonlinearity strikes me as a good thing. ;)

[spoony]

25. It was pretty damn good stream of consciousness

And at least the OP is demonstrating consciousness. It's more than I can say for many spouting off these days.

[stray cat]

8. And if anyone is less than perfect that condemns everything good they do?

[Land Shark]

10. If no fundamental principles are involved, NO. Call good good & the bad bad and WEIGH THEM. Vote!

The preliminary question is whether the person has principles in that area that are fundamental and not to be comrpomised. Nothing forces them to do this, and in some cases it's inappropriate NOT TO compromise.

[Land Shark]

9. K&R n/t

[Jamastiene]

12. Gosh, you seem upset about something.

I once made a similar argument years ago. I was told I had Borderline Personality Disorder for it. Turns out I didn't. I just saw good as good and bad as bad.

[Land Shark]

21. Good for you. I agree (even if our pricipled lines in the sand may differ) n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

14. No, the positives must actually out weigh the bad.

[Land Shark]

20. True, whenever a balancing test must apply. But still one shouldn't call the bad the good, just to

root for the "home team." The integrity principle of calling the good the good and vice versa doesn't allow that. Is this an easy rule sometimes? No. But I see no principled way in ordinary cases out of calling the good good and the bad bad.

[catnhatnh]

15. K&R Shark....

I was on the Walmart thread and was supportive of one policy WITHOUT fully endorsing them. Some things you must oppose absolutely while sometimes an advantageous interaction that doesn't compromise your absolutes and WHICH REWARDS BEHAVIORS you approve of is a good thing.

[Land Shark]

18. I agree. There are also classes of things that go over, like wars of aggression. n/t

[uberllama42]

19. Hitler was not a vegetarian

The myth of his asceticism was a lie concocted by Goebbels. State propaganda depicted Hitler as a teetotaler, vegetarian and sexual abstinent, none of which were true. He liked to talk about Germany's future as a nation of vegetarians, a theory that originated with Richard Wagner. But in private he often drank beer and ate sausage, and of course he kept a mistress.

[Land Shark]

22. Well, thanks for the info. I trust all can subsitute an analogous example. n/t

[uberllama42]

31. Sure. That doesn't change your point at all. n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

24. Don't raise issues of personal morality and responsibility on here, Paul.

Some people find it very distressing, indeed outrageous. And they have that 'killer' put down: 'You're not perfect!' You're on a hiding to nothing.

An atheist posting bad-mouthing God in the religion/theology folder suggested I could be banned from DU for bad-mouthing him and his atheist tribe. I was touched by his concern for my poor witness to 'gentle Jesus meek', which only proved that the big stick worked. His tenderness for Christianity shone through 'like a good deed in a naughty world.

Still, it was my posts that were deleted, so I left the religion/theology folder to the atheists to run riot in (I avoided it up to then, for that reason, but somehow fondly imagined that the video I posted would be deemed uncontroversial, given the name of the folder. Obviously not the case.)

I'm beginning to wonder whether it's worth posting here any more. It's not an 'I'm fed up and leaving' flouncing out, door-banging me in the butt, 'Please say you want me to stay' thang. I just see less and less point. Hlthe2b's post just confirms the madness on here now. Or was it always that way? If I leave or am kicked out, I dare say I'll still mine DU for info from the economic and financial pros and quote DU posts and links.

[Land Shark]

26. :) Even though I say it can be whatever you want, but logically one must have lines?

It may be that the line for some is an absolute prohibition on lines. But, they can not avoid the necessity of lines somewhere, one can only avoid thinking about it and concluding that some line or lines is unavoidable, somewhere.

[hlthe2b]

28. Excuse me... If you wish to engage me, don't call me out...

It is not just rude, it is against the rules and I believe that you know that.

[Land Shark]

30. Sorry. I wasn't thinking it was about you, maybe the other poster was. n/t

[hlthe2b]

33. The issue wasn't with you, Land Shark

the other poster is the one who called me out, rather than directly reply to me.

I agree with much that you say, btw, Land Shark... I just become queasy at some DUers who seemingly throw everyone--one by one-- under the bus because they inevitably do something to disappoint them. But, I agree that there comes a point where one must turn a corner on Dems who have repeatedly crossed the line (whatever that might be)

[winyanstaz]

27. I have to agree with the post...

There must be a line that cannot be crossed.
I think we are already past that line myself...but hey...thats only my own opinion.

[Land Shark]

29. Thank you, I wasn't trying to say in OP what line is, but only LOGICALLY they exist

Even if the 'line' is either

A. Absolutely always support the home team (like "America, love it or leave it")
or
B. Absolutely always do a balancing test.

[gratuitous]

32. It would be nice to know what the hell you're talking about

Abstract principles aside, when someone does wrong, I don't see any shortage of critical comment. Or when someone does right, either. But what are we to make of vilification based on third party hearsay, unsourced innuendo and outright lying? Do we jump on the bandwagon without an examination of the underlying facts? Or, just because someone uses big fonts and flashy colors, are they entitled to greater credence? And what are we to make of impassioned appeals to The Truth when the original poster suddenly vanishes when the facts don't quite pan out?

Because when that happens, it looks kind of like bullshit to me.

[Land Shark]

34. Hello gratuitous! I still believe you have the intelligence to grok an abstract post

Logically, one must have an absolute principle even if that is "no absolutes." Integrity also says to call the good the good and the bad bad, and if there's no absolute principle in play then a balancing or weighing applies.

DU and the country is being tested and will be tested again soon with the Citizens United (unlimited corporate political ads) opinion perhaps coming out tomorrow. We had unindicted war criminal on last night in the Daily Show about torture, which is absolutely prohibited.

The point is that it behooves all of us to figure out where our lines are, if any, for the reasons specified by the Frederick Douglass quote; the limits of tyrants are set by the tolerance of those they oppress.

Because the issue of absolutes applying (or not) comes up on DU with regard to issues lately, I didn't want a flame war by settling down to a specific issue. Just hoping to see what other people think, or react, as the case may be.

[gratuitous]

35. Thanks, I guess

You have a higher estimate of my intelligence than a lot of other people, including (sometimes) me. But considering the traffic here today, it appears that any number of folks are furiously trying to muddy the waters on any number of topics. Principles are good, and it's good to keep them in mind, but it's also important to consider that the anonymity of the internet invites abuse by folks who don't play by any discernible rules except perhaps "Let's you and him fight."

[Land Shark]

36. You're welcome. As to your comment, ...

I'd say there's probably some of that. I'd also suggest that some people feel some kind of persuasive pull from the OP but don't know where it goes (for them). And that creates frustration, because my reply is that "it goes in the direction you believe it should go" but in any case, one must have principles that are absolute, even if that principle is "I shall absolutely have no principles that are absolute" - such refusal to identify an absolute is itself an absolute.

ANotehr thread yesterday asked why the Bush administration can get away with murder? The answer to that question, when and if there is murder and someone gets away with it, is that not enough people have identified the line that would prevent such things and insist on accountability for the same. Even in a dictatorship, public opinion in large numbers can not be forever ignored. Basically, un-free systems of government impose super-majority requirements on the public, whereas democracy is a majority (except with respect to the rights of others)