![Quote](images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by
Kathianne
Actually, your premise is incorrect for the simple assumption you state:
You insist on framing perfected good fighting perfected evil. Man, which in the non-pc lexicon is synonymous to human, the individual, is not perfect. That would be God.
By your definition, which you create off the basis of your own thoughts, anyone not fitting your created definition is incapable of passion or compassion. Yeah, that I will reject as a premise. We join in the community for the survival of all-consciously or not, agreeing to provide and protect the whole body. We do that as individuals-anything else is a Hobbesian choice.
We are individuals, but we are social beings. Anyone subsumed by either is what we'd call 'not quite right.' Those are the psychopaths and they don't know or care about your 'right' and 'left.' We all need to make those basic needs, thus willing take up basic rights which we have more or less defined in the Declaration and Bill of Rights. If scarcity comes, we fail to provide for the whole those basics, then the individual will only use the means of the community to ensure the survival of their own individual. It all falls apart.
There are extreme far right individuals, which you seem incapable of understanding their existence, because with your construct, they cannot exist.
The right is for less government, not an abolishment of such. That would be anarchy-which is also something that is a desire by the far left. Note that. The extremes only sound different, their end game is the same. Both are seeking their definition of 'perfection' which both mean they would control the apparatus to destroy those they deem not.
It's easier to see your 'enemies' as complete evil doers, the terrorists seem able to do that with both individuals, countries, even systems of government.