PDA

View Full Version : Compromise- redefined?



Ronin13
03-06-2013, 11:14
Something I started writing last night and just finished up this morning... Let me know what you think:

Compromise- Redefined?

Something came to my attention recently... There are currently two fights going on that I have aligned myself with one side of. I'll try to be brief, but one is the current debate on firearms, both on a state and national level. The other is a very local issue in my home town where the local volunteer fire department (which my father used to belong to) has decided to build a training building on the property of one of their stations and now opponents are calling for a recall election of the members on the board of the department. In both of these cases I'm hearing a familiar word, but seeing a different definition to this word. The word is "Compromise." I thought I understood what this word means, but the use and context for this word by many leads me to believe either I'm mistaken or perhaps those using it in the context they are, do not know what this word means.

To start, here is what I believe compromise means, as defined in the dictionary: Compromise (n)- The settlement of a dispute by concessions on both or all sides.Concessions to mean "the act of conceding or yielding." In lay terms, compromise means that both sides (or all sides if more than 2) give something up to come to an agreement on something.

The current conflicts with which I have aligned on one side of, the opposing side is asking for compromise, yet they are steadfast in their refusal to yield in any way. To give a perfect example- the opposing side of the gun debate, those who want more gun control, more laws, and restrictions on ownership of guns, are asking for compromise, but have yet to present any concessions on their end. They wish to restrict what kinds of firearms, capacity, and other restrictions in terms of ownership. However, if the side I'm on gives that up, what is the opposition giving up in this "compromise." Short answer, in their proposals thus far, nothing. This is not compromise, this is sacrifice. The same can be said of the issue with the fire department in my town. The board has met with the community a number of times (57 to be exact), and reduced the size of the building, reduced the amount of use it will see (12 times a year), and even revised what kind of materials will be used to generate smoke for the building. Yet these concessions do not please the opponents. The opposition simply will not give in, unless the plans for the building are scrubbed. There have been many concessions on one side, but the other side will not give in. How is this a request for compromise?

The main difference between compromise and sacrifice is that in a compromise, both sides give something up. In a one-sided-concession only one side gives up something (or a lot of somethings) to satisfy the other side of the dispute. To put it simply, those who call for compromise, yet have proposed no concessions or refuse to yield in any way, are not asking for fairness in a dispute, they want their way and nothing else. This is why in modern use, compromise isn't the correct word.
http://ryandvdsn.blogspot.com/2013/03/compromise-redefined.html

robertcolorado2009
03-06-2013, 11:17
I like it, it's insightful. Logical.

Dingo
03-06-2013, 11:19
Hit the nail on the head.

flyingcouch
03-06-2013, 16:28
There can be no compromise in the either debate you mention:

Gun Control - Side A wants no new laws, Side B wants new laws. Even if side B ends up getting fewer laws than they initally wanted they still got what they wanted (new laws) and Side A sacrifices. How many times must Side A "compromise" There are already 20,000 gun laws. seems like more than enough compromise.

The training building is similar. If one side wants nothing and the other side wants something there is no compromise. Even a smaller something is still something, and the want nothings end up sacrificing.

The correct question for the want nothings in both situations is how much are you willing to sacrifice. Compromise can only occur if both sides want something and they happen to be different somethings.

Great-Kazoo
03-06-2013, 16:40
COMPROMISE= Agreeing to be gang raped in prison vs. being gang raped in prison.

Once again this is not about Compromise, it's about total confiscation of firearms and destruction of the 2nd amendment.

Nicely though out though .

Goodburbon
03-06-2013, 16:54
I posted something very similar on facebook a month ago.

Goodburbon
03-06-2013, 17:01
I will say my peace on this and try to refrain from beating this dead horse.

I will not "compromise" on gun rights. Compromise suggests 2 parties agreeing on common ground, each giving up something.

If party A wants party B to give up everything it has, and they "compromise" on only giving up half, Party B loses half and Party A loses nothing.

We've already compromised:
1. NFA requires all new Machine guns, silencers, short barrel rifles, and short barrel shotguns to be registered.
2. Gun control act of 1968 dictates that ALL existing NFA items be registered.
3. 1986 NO more new Machine guns may be registered by citizens.
4. 1994 "assault weapons ban" banned silly things like flash hiders, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and magazines over 30 rds.
5. 2004 we finally got something back when the AWB expired.

So unless you're willing to "compromise" by undoing something that has already been taken from me, then you can go "compromise" yourself.

Make ANY more guns or magazines illegal and you will make criminals out of Millions of otherwise responsible law abiding citizens, myself included.

Kraven251
03-06-2013, 17:03
I like it, but you presented the "reasonable" description of compromise, that would fall on deaf ears. You have also attempted to introduce logic into our current political arena, oops.