Inflexible political dogma is as dangerous as inflexible religious dogma.

[Turborama]

That is all.

(edited to fix typo in the title)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. For example?

[Turborama]

3. Current events.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. You mean Reggie Bush getting stripped of his Heismann?

Or the suicide car bombing in Russia?

Maybe we have a miscommunication. When I asked you for an example, I was asking you for an example.

[Turborama]

5. I'm leaving it open to interpretation on purpose

You can choose which current events fit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Why don't you just tell us what you're thinking about?

And we'll tell you how you're probably wrong.

[Turborama]

7. Who's this "we" you're speaking for?

What I'm thinking about is in the title of this thread.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. You seem rather inflexible in not telling us what it is you're not talking about.

Do you consider yourself a religious person, by chance?

[Turborama]

9. No, I'm not religious. Are you?

I think anyone with any common sense can work out what I'm inferring in the title of this OP. Unless they've missed the biggest story of the past few days. There, I've given you a clue.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. I think most people with common sense know the difference between implying and inferring.

The biggest story of the past few days? Do you mean this koran business?

Because that hasn't got much to do with political dogma, now does it?

[Turborama]

11. The responses to to it have a lot to do with it.

inferring present participle of in·fer
Verb: Deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Yes, that's the correct definition of infer.

Therefore, you obviously meant "implying."

Irregardless, which political response to the koran burning do you find as insulting and inflexible as the koran burning itself?

[Turborama]

14. I haven't said I find anything insulting, I'm talking about the rigidity of the debate.

That has been going on over the past couple of days.

A bit of background, I'm witnessing this whole drama unfold as an expat living in Indonesia and seem to have a totally different perspective than what I'm seeing coming from both sides. You could call it objectively looking at how these two dogmas are fighting against each other.

People defiantly defending their essential constitution versus people defiantly defending their sanctified holy book with no room for manoeuvre on either side. This is how wars start.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. You don't find the koran burning insulting?

My goodness.

Anyhoo, what political opposition to the koran burning do you think should be backed off?

[Turborama]

17. I'm not religious, so I am not personally insulted, no.

I am personally worried what the outcome will be of the burning of it and I'm getting sick and tired of the amount of times I'm reading people making excuses for and siding with this extremely provocative and dangerous act that is about to take place.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Neither am I.

I'm not black, but I'm insulted by racism.

Aren't you?

You're sick and tired of "excuses" and "siding?"

Are you referring to the first amendment arguments, like that other guy has suggested?

[Turborama]

19. Well, I did say I'm not personally insulted. I do empathize with people who are, though.

Yes, I am sick and tired of the inflexible dogma on both sides, like I said before.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. So you're sick and tired of people who stand up for the first amendment.

If you won't stand up for the first amendment, what are you willing to stand up for?

Anything?

And you're as sick of the 1st amendment as you are of book burning?

Interesting.

[Turborama]

21. No, I said I am sick and tired of the inflexible dogma on both sides

How many times do I have to repeat it?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. OK, you're sick and tired of people who support the 1st amendment.

But what are you willing to stick up for, if not that?

Anything?

[Turborama]

23. No, I didn't say I'm sick and tired of people who support the 1st amendment

Inflexible dogma. Get it?

It's a waste of time carrying on with you if this is the type of discourse you're offering.

ETA If you're genuinely interested in what I'll stand up for, check my journal, there's a lot in there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

25. You're sick and tired of people having the inflexible dogma of supporting the 1st amendment.

"It's a waste of time carrying on with you if this is the type of discourse you're offering."

Turborama, you've spent this entire thread talking out of both sides of your mouth. Which is exactly what I'd expect from somebody unwilling to stand up for anything.

[Turborama]

28. You call it talking out of both sides of my mouth, I call it being objective

From a distance. Have I insulted you personally? Thanks for reconfirming why discussion with you is a waste of time.

As I said upthread, if you're genuinely interested in finding out what I "stand up for", my Journal is a good place to look.

Oh, and my signature line is a bit of a giveaway, I occasionally update it but this is what I am "standing up for" in it at the moment.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. You've had plenty of time to tell us what the fuck it is that you're talkng about.

Instead, you chose to dance around the issue.

So yeah, both sides of your mouth.

[Turborama]

33. "Us", again. You speak for the whole of DU now? Wow.

I was trying to see if you join up the dots all by yourself but instead I had to spoon feed it to you and you still got it wrong.

So, yeah. Waste of time.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. I'm speaking for those of us who aren't psychic.

And maybe those of us who support the first amendment.

If that's wrong, you're perfectly welcome to tell us whatever the hell it is you're talking about.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Irregardless?

Really? And you're giving grammar lessons? Things that make one go, Hmmmmmm.
GAC

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Yes, genius, that's the joke.

Thanks for pointing it out.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. Then It Was Stupefyingly Unfunny

So, that negates the very concept of it being a joke.

I'll give you time to look up the big words.
GAC

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Says the guy who didn't get it.

No skin off my back.

[jobycom]

2. Can be. Doesn't mean is.

Both Hitler and Ghandi were somewhat inflexible.

[smalll]

13. Here's a guess. You think that "inflexible" respect for the First Amendment is as dangerous --

as religious nutjobbery. Quite ridiculous. No wonder you didn't want to spell it out. See how silly it is to say that First Amendment absolutism is as dangerous as wackadoodle Floriduh preachers or robust Islamists whose answer to every "dissing" of their religion is violence.

On edit: Looks like I'm right in my guess. See post 14: "People defiantly defending their essential constitution versus people defiantly defending their sanctified holy book with no room for manoeuvre on either side."

Cower, cower!

Run away, run away!

[Vickers]

16. Well, yes and no.

But mostly what-the-fuck-is-your-point.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. Inflexible political dogma IS religion. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

31. Potentially. Of course standing for nothing has far more proven problems.

I don't need to relitigate human sacrifice. Sometimes survival and development means saying no.

You also eventually end up meeting both ends in a bad neighborhood. You find your rejection of firm anchor principles is a form of ideological rigidness as well.

Balance is where it's at. Balance even kicks moderation square in the ass.

Of course there is a need for the wind and the earth as well as the eagle, the cat, and green grass.

Knowing why you must be firm or why it is best to seek compromise is the key.
There are times for both where the other will potentially destroy any chance for success.
You shouldn't let one form of calcification blind you in fear of another.

[Turborama]

36. Thank you

That's a really enlightening response.

[dkf]

34. Oh yeah.