You perceive a threat from Christian political groups.
OK.
No real threat can be safely ignored.
OK.
Behavioralists will tell you that ignoring the inappropriate behavior will allow it to go away. Attending to it causes it to increase.
Do you believe Behavioralist theory? I don't know much about it myself. I'd say it might go away, or it might not.
Ignoring aggressive or disruptive behavior allows it to escalate.
This seems to contradict your previous point. Ignoring it allows it to go away, or it allows it to escalate. So who knows what's going to happen?
Your stance with the "Christian Nation" issue is as though the latter condition exists.
What's the latter condition in the above? I've sort of lost track. Is it that I'm the disruptive and aggressive force here? As opposed to the "substantive debate" crowd keeping the forum properly focused on Clinton hatred? It's all politics to me.
To me it seems you are a big factor in its existance because you don't want to ignor fringe innappropriate aspects of the Christian community.
Well, they don't seem to want to ignore me, either, inappropriate though I may be. I think perhaps you give me a bit too much credit here. The "Christian Nation" / Republican moral reformation thing doesn't have much to do with what I think of it or how I react to it. Within this particular forum, about the best I've ever done is redirected a little of the omnipresent Clinton hatred toward myself. Sometimes that amuses me, sometimes it incites me to more rable rousing and hot button pushing. Doesn't seem much out of character with the usual "substative debate" going on here, but that's just my personal cynical point of view. What do you think should be done about the "innappropriate behavior" of the "Christian Nation" crowd, as opposed to my own "disruptive and aggressive behavior"? Personally, I find the Starr inquisition somewhat disruptive and aggressive, but that's a political viewpoint too. A somewhat popular one, though, it seems.
Cheers, Dan. |
