I saw this thread as determining what drives a particular “fight” you are engaged in, that is the strategy, motivation, expectation and not the “good”. We can start a “good” anytime we feel like in another thread.

….............if you see wrong and silently walk away you are part of the problem............

…............."Starting a quarrel is like opening a floodgate, so stop before a dispute breaks out."..............

I agree with Belly to a large extent, though I think it impossible to tackle every wrong you see. If your responding you haven't started it. If it's wildly factually incorrect you don't have to waste too much energy making your point. You know you won't change that person's viewpoint, you're just making sure the factually correct version gets out.

Dear NNS,

You may be a decent fellow, but I feel the missionary effort is in essence evil. In addition to what I mentioned in the previous post it substitutes nonsense for rationality. Historically it has created great suffering and been a part of the suppression of cultures and the slaughter of peoples. Would you have me be silent in the face of what I see as evil?

Dear NNS,

You wrote: "If I though you were going to hell and did nothing, wouldn't that make me a monster?"

I think that a religion that maintains that a person will go to hell because that person does not subscribe to certain mumbojumbo is a religion that is nutty and should be discarded. When I die I have no reason to think I am going anywhere except into nothingness. Believing that a person will go to hell because that person does not subscribe to certain mumbojumbo is a reason for doing something. It is a reason for questioning such a silly and ugly belief.

Good grief, what is the world coming to when people think that exchanging ideas over the interweb amounts to a fight?

A fight is where one of the parties has to physically pick his teeth up off the floor afterwards.

What goes on around here is basically a modified version of that famous thought experiment involving infinite monkeys and typewriters. So far our collective bashing away at out keyboards has yet to produce anything as worthy as a crap sonnet, let alone the script of the Lion King.

Still, we have fun don't we? I do, at any rate. Otherwise you'd bugger off, wouldn't you?

To Foxy.

Your examples of the conversations in OLO are often part of the examples that inspired me to say this part in the OP.

"I've stood by those I've seen as being bullied, then later learned that sometimes they weren't being bullied as much as they were just talking to someone who was fed up and angry. Too often with a justified reason for their anger. Who was fighting the good fight in those instances?"

Some causes that you've stood by are causes I've seen reason to stand against. Just experience with people from those causes or otherwise what those causes promote that I don't agree with. (Abortion comes to mind as part of a feminist cause, that I readily think is wrong). With this in mind several of the posts I see between you and those who are against you, at first would make a younger me rush to your side to defend the bullied person. But now? Not so much. Now I can see the reason for the anger that sometimes is not contained. (As I've said in one of the other conversations, part of this realization is feminist activists silencing male perspectives with a kind of call that they have no right to speak up. It shows they never wanted men's opinion to begin with, and will only keep it if it suits their cause). And I hear the counter arguments against PC filtering in ongoing conversations. People get fed up not being "allowed" to share their view, or having their points ignored in the whole of society. Build that up and yes people get angry.

(Continued)

(Continued)

That said I get exactly what your saying that some of the names your called make you feel like you should respond and defend yourself. In my time on OLO, there's several occurrences where that's all that was offered to me. Counterpoints that mock and belittle. And occasionally try to sprinkle a point in between their taunts. Believe me I get it. I don't think that replying to those those does anything to help the matter except to fill satisfied for a moment (till they respond again). And at that point it's not fighting a good fight. For a cause, or a justified reason. It's fighting for the sake of fighting. Winning these fights are paired with defending yourself. It can get ugly, and for now in this topic, I'm questioning the entire circus act.

However with one poster I see the merit of having nothing to do with him instead of saying something when I see wrong. The conversations with Opinionated2 have been fruitless with continual mudslinging on his side. Ignoring that, I was able to actually address any other part of the discussions. (Either things to agree with or points to counter).

This action is supported by some of the wisdom in the bible. One is that a wise man knows to hold their tongue, and the foolish give full vent to their frustrations. Another is that when someone slanders or says wrong. Correct them up to two times, then have nothing to do with them. Their sinfulness is their own, not our responsibility.