@maxdancona,
You know Max, none immediately spring to mine. I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, but i would have thought something would have popped into mind. Maybe when it happens there isn't the same attention paid as when the resolution requires violence or dramatic shifts in the makeup of a government.
In any case, I'm not trying to argue that the problem can only be resolved by the parties improving their understanding of one another's position, or that it's even possible at all to resolve it in that manner.
I do believe though that if it can be solved in such a manner, accusing the other side of bad faith and evil intent won't do it.
I've acknowledged that apparent hardliners, such as yourself, are not prohibited from attempting your own means of resolution, and that ultimately what appears to at least be a temporary resolution can be affected by you and those taking the same position.
It does give rise to why you or brandon (if it's fair to consider him hardliner too) continue to post on this topic.
You're more than free to use this forum in whatever fashion you would like and I'm not trying to take any sort of shot at you, but I'm curious.
Do you think it's neccesary to counter the argument of the opposing hardline whenever you see it (or maybe you just like to)?
Do you think it advances your hardline position (even in some small way) stating it every chance you get?
Do you use this forum to hone an argument that has greater relevance in a different one?
No judgment value involved. I'm just interested in why people do certain things.
