The Death of Compromise

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

The life is extinquished or it is not, when it is extinguished is not a compromise.

Well if that's your opinion, you're welcome to it. however, you must recognize that, for example, where the health of the mother is concerned, some compromises have to be made, yes?

Bailouts do nothing good.

Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. I disagree. The point is, you offered it as an example that compromise is impossible. Saying 'Because I don't like it' doesn't mean that compromise is impossible.

A war is a war is a war. The scale of it has nothing to do with it being a war.

Are you arguing over the definition of what 'war' means? Are you saying it's not a war because there hasn't been a formal declaration from one state to another? I'm still not sure what you're getting at, here.

The Constitution does not compromise on what is taxable revenue. It is explicit.

I have many times before suggested that the Constitution should be edited and updated. It's a very old document and times have changed.

[Figment]

The thing with constitutions and other older documents is, that once they gained a certain age in which changes were applied, even those parties once against them will cling to it as if it's a holy document that's beyond change.

The more time passes by, the less likely it is people accept changes because change always generates fear that it might change for the worse.

[CutterJohn]

Conservatives need liberals to drag them out of the past, to question why things are done they way they are, to look for better ways. Liberals need conservatives to put a damper on their more 'grandiose' ideas, to maintain ideas that may seem old fashioned but are at least proven to work, and be stable, to not change for the sake of change.

Authoritarians need libertarians to fight for their rights. Libertarians need authoritarians to maintain the rule of law.

Big government types need small government types to push for a smaller, more efficient government. Small government types need big government types to push for a government that can effectively perform its duties, and take on new, worthwhile, obligations.

Free marketers need socialists to put a damper on that most dangerous of all human emotions, unbridled greed. Socialists need free marketers to utilize that same powerful emotion for the benefit of all.


They aren't enemies. Adversaries, perhaps, but also complimentary, and each would lead a country to ruin without the temperance of the other. Compromise is not just important, its fundamental, and its slow disappearance is very disheartening.

[Malorn]

Meh.

[ItsTheSheppy]

Originally Posted by Malorn

There are some things that make sense to compromise on, and some things that don't. It all comes down to how strongly you feel about something. Saying you won't compromise is a firm commitment to a belief that you feel strongly about. Declaring that isn't a bad thing.

Blanket no-compromise on anything is foolish, but we all have things that we feel strongly about and won't ever compromise. There's nothing wrong with that.

Blanket compromise is also foolish. Compromise also isn't always a good thing. It can lead to half-assed solutions that don't fix a problem and instead just drain resources. Someone who is always compromising doesn't really stand for or believe in anything. Gotta take it on a case-by-case basis. Pick and choose the battles that are worth fighting.

While I do believe that we live in a world where occasionally an absolute will arise, I'm more referring to the inability (or lack of desire) for our political parties to compromise on nearly anything. It's seen largely as a point of pride whereas I feel that ideally, refusing to compromise should be seen as a rare, unpalatable necessity when it's very clear that the other person is being wholly unreasonable, and that meeting in the middle would totally compromise the subject.

These usually involve things like death or rights. Either someone is alive, or dead. Either everyone has the same exact rights, or they don't. They tend to be binary, but they also tend to be the minority in social and political concerns. And rarely do they arise in economics.

[Figment]

Not just pride, it's seen as a political leverage tool to simply obstruct the other and making the other look like its solutions don't work by never giving them the chance to even try it.

[Noivad]

The act of Compromise is a cyclic event that no one really wins as the complete wants of two disagreeing sides are not fully met by either side.

There are no winners in compromise, just an ease of tensions of complete deadlock over some precieved probem or ideal

To compromise is to make a deal between different parties (does not mean political)where each party gives up part of their demand.

In arguments, compromise is a concept of finding agreement through communication, through a mutual acceptance of terms—often involving variations from an original goal or desire.

Extremism is often considered as antonym to compromise, which, depending on context, may be associated with concepts of balance, or tolerance.

In the negative connotation, compromise may be referred to as capitulation, referring to a "surrender" of objectives, principles, or material, in the process of negotiating an agreement.

In human relationships "compromise" is frequently said to be an agreement that no party is happy with, this is because the parties involved often feel that they either gave away too much or that they received too little.

Compromise will never be dead as external forces not connected directly to the impasse' will intervine causing one side or the other to make a compromise for self preservation.

In the end even if a compromise is made through agreement, at the first opportunity, to un compromise the previous compromise will begin anew with varition on those items that were not in the orginal comprmise. The cycle renews itself.

So there never will be a death to compromise.