They couldn't harm their image any further if they tore it apart, trampled it into mud, spat on it, then fed it to wild animals. They're delaying the inevitable.

Are you taking action though: that achieves a great deal more and is much more inspiring to others to do the same than someone saying word to the efect of "people need to do something about this atrocity" (atrocity is not a word I would use, but Roze has used it previously).

Perhaps.. our miscommunication stems from a difference in our opinions of passion & action. How do you define action? Starting a blog or a forum?

>Tell me a social movement where there has been no anger.
(Perhaps Ghandi's peaceful protests? How about, given the time of year, MLK's peaceful protests? Arguably, could have been anger–but the point of it was to turn the hate/anger/violence into a constructive flow.)

>Saying that there needs to be more calmness and temperateness is >like telling David, in his fight against Goliath, to put down his slingshot >and… calmly gnaw at Goliath's ankles, or something.
Just pointing out that you're using a Biblical reference to prove a point in the same post that you invoked a vehement atheist. It amused me. :)

>There needs to be passion. There needs to be anger. Telling people >to be calm is the same thing as telling people to disempower >themselves.
Passion, I agree. And even anger, yes, can be useful. You use it to constantly inform your beliefs, though, and I guarantee you'll run afoul of trouble.

I'm not sure how this thing got so off-topic so quickly.

>After all, I am not attempting to speak to people "on the other side," >even if it seems as such. I am not trying to persuade anybody.
And it's evident! Can you imagine how little we'd accomplish if we calmly, measuredly attempted to speak to people on the other side of the fence from us? Jesus–pandemonium it'd be!

>I would doubt that any informed, reasoned, highly educated,
>even-tempered argument would do much to stir people to action.
Totally agree! The reason I enjoy Obama, for example, is because he is quick to judge, holds onto his ideals without thinking through and considering, and sensationalizes everything into a common denominator equivalent to baby food for the brain. You know, so that -anyone- can understand it. He had stirred us into action last year, and hopefully this year, through his anger-stoking speeches calling us to jump to conclusions.

>I really don't think people listen to such highly intellectual arguments. I >mean, wouldn't people just brush that off as "snobbish" or something >like that?
I'd much rather listen to someone with informed opinions, snobbish or no.

>I want there to be anger, and if there is not, I want to stir anger.
I thought maybe there'd be something to be had from discussing with you–at this point I realised there would be nothing useful, though.
>But anger is always necessary.
No.

I've got no time, patience, good words, well-wishes or any form of encouragement for those on the side of The Gluttonous–
but Roze–you need to calm down. seriously. The Fight gains nothing from your vitriolic, mindless, uninformed ranting. There are so, so, so many holes in your logic that I don't even know where to start at.

My point: we need all the fight we can muster, but our cause gains nothing from misinformed, uneducated, circuitous accusations and assumptions.

Not an attack–a plea. Please take it as such! Light a candle! Don't curse the darkness!
An informed, even-tempered citizen is of far more use to us in reaching a successful conclusion than is a prejudiced sensationalist..