Jump to content

Anime Elf

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Anime Elf

  1. [QUOTE]I'm sorry your blind to the socioeconomic cycle. It is much, much harder for a minority to rise up to the level of most whites, and I'm saying they should have help to get there, as they'd have to work harder just to be on the same playing field. It's possible for minorities to escape the life they were born into, but it's highly improbable, and the government should be there to help the people who are trying to get out of the ditch. I honestly don't see what's so wrong about this except for your whole "But it'd make them feel bad!" argument. Very few minorities feel as if their pride has been hurt when they get a job due to AA.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, I'm blind to the same cycle both my parents rose from? Right. Anyway, it's easier than ever before for people to be insured of job security and equal opportunities et al because of things like the EEOC and the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not the responsibility of the government to raise every single person from poverty to the middle class. People have to take their own initiative. You've been given examples of how that has worked for people on this very board, showing it is more than possible for more than just former world's richest man Andrew Carnegie. Even if people only had a fraction of his success, they would be out of poverty. I never said it would be easy, that's why I used the term "hard work," not "equal work." It almost sounds like you're discriminating against non-beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. If two people are of equal merit academically, then that's where extracirricular activities come in. If the two people are not of equal academic merit, and they're both trying to get into the same academic institution, the person with the higher grades and test scores should get in, despite race. Even if its the difference between and 3.7 and a 3.9, the 3.9 person should get in. If you want to reject the academically superior candidate for an academic institution just because the one with lower grades is black, that's reverse discrimination.

    [QUOTE]I understood what he said. I also don't honestly believe that you can do anything you set your mind to. Humans are finite beings with limitation, and unfortunately, bias still holds minorities down from achieving as much as a white man. This is the simple truth. I'm also saying that when you write off minorities as not trying hard enough, you're being completely foolish and blind to the factors that keep them chained to the lives they lead. Not everyone can become an Andrew Carnegie -- he was an isolated case in the sea of millions.[/QUOTE]

    Setting your mind to do something and actually putting forth the effort to accomplish it are two dinstinct, yet not exclusive, things. Factors? Sakurasuka and I have already told you how minorities can rise above those factors and a young age, escape the cycle if you will. You're writing off minorities as if minorities can't help themselves and live in a country that actively persecutes them. Maybe you aren't thinking about the United States of America.

    [QUOTE]This is how it should be? That some people are less fortunate than others and are forced to work much harder just to get to the starting line of success? It's the way it should be when an "trashy" child is born? I guess I'm mostly objecting to your diction here.

    You're right -- we should all be working harder to become better, and these are the people I'd like to help. If they're making the conscious effort to become better and rise out of poverty, I want to help them through the glass ceiling.[/QUOTE]

    Yes, that is how it should be. People should work to better their living conditions despite what they were born into. Not doing anything to better yourself is a decision that you have to live with the consequences of. If they're working hard, they won't need Affirmative Action because they'll have the same skill sets as every other qualified person applying for that particular job. Knocking out some equally qualified person because you're a member of a protected class is horrible and just basing a decision based on something other than merit. It's like making one form of discrimination illegal so another one can be legal, and that just seems moronic.

    [QUOTE]A public school in the area got one million dollars from none other than Michael Jordan. This particular school has some of the lowest scores in the area. The one million dollars did nothing to change things. Sure, it helped, but throwing money to a school and doing nothing else isn't helping anyone. We can throw money at impoverished countries in Africa, and we have been doing that for decades. However, there is no improvement in standard of living over there. It's the exact same dynamic. I agree that teachers should be paid more, and that offering increased salary would help, and that newer learning materials would help too, but the first thing you must change is the minds of the students. If they still don't care, and now they go to a ritzy school, nothing willl change.

    AA is giving people a shot at things they thought they'd never have, not making them slack off. No black person I know is slacking off because they know they can make it into colllege on AA. If anything, AA is motivating the students who are already academically-oriented to keep going, and that's what I want it to do. I don't want it giving some 2.3 GPA kid a Harvard acceptance letter just because he's black. I want a 3.7 GPA kid getting that benefit.

    I know I'm working my *** off even though AA will help me. I could get into Princeton without it, and I'm not slacking off because of it.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah, so giving schools a handout didn't change their performance, where hard (or should I say harder) work, and not a bigger handout would have. Affirmative Action isn't giving people a shot at something they didn't have before. It gives minorities preferential treatment over others. As of now, minorities do not have to have the same level of performance because of Affirmative Action. Instead, they can do less work and get the same place. Affirmative Action doesn't motivate minorities to work harder. If anything, removing Affirmative Action would make minorities work harder to prove they are more better, more qualified, than everyone else, which is what I want, people working harder and producing better output to show they're more qualified to get where they got. I too am working hard and not relying on school handouts to get into a good school and I don't want race to be a factor in the admissions process, which I can do something about. I want to be accepted based on my grades, test scores, and extracurricular activities just like everyone else (a level playing field) not because I'm a minority (coming up to the plate with the pitcher throwing it to me slow and straight because I'm a minority).

    [QUOTE]I sort of want everyone to meet on the same level playing field, and we can do away with AA. I think that's the entire point of it.[/QUOTE]

    Affirmative Action creates a whole new discrimination, placing people on an unequal playing field. Making everyone the same was the point of Affirmative Action, but it's gone overboard and it's causing dicrimination, something it sought to prevent, which I think means it's overstayed its welcome.
  2. Affirmative Action has overstepped its boundaries in today's day and age.

    [QUOTE][B]Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
    438 U.S. 265 (1978)
    Docket Number: 76-811

    October 12, 1977

    June 26, 1978

    Subjects: Civil Rights: Affirmative Action[/B]

    [B]Facts of the Case [/B]
    Allan Bakke, a thirty-five-year-old white man, had twice applied for admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. He was rejected both times. The school reserved sixteen places in each entering class of one hundred for "qualified" minorities, as part of the university's affirmative action program, in an effort to redress longstanding, unfair minority exclusions from the medical profession. Bakke's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race.

    [B]Question Presented [/B]
    Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?

    [B]Conclusion [/B]
    No and yes. There was no single majority opinion. Four of the justices contended that any racial quota system supported by government violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., agreed, casting the deciding vote ordering the medical school to admit Bakke. However, in his opinion, Powell argued that the rigid use of racial quotas as employed at the school violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The remaining four justices held that the use of race as a criterion in admissions decisions in higher education was constitutionally permissible. Powell joined that opinion as well, contending that the use of race was permissible as one of several admission criteria. So, the Court managed to minimize white opposition to the goal of equality (by finding for Bakke) while extending gains for racial minorities through affirmative action.

    [QUOTE][B]Adarand Constructors v. Pena
    515 U.S. 200 (1995)
    Docket Number: 93-1841

    January 17, 1995

    June 12, 1995

    Subjects: Civil Rights: Affirmative Action
    [B]Facts of the Case [/B]
    Adarand, a contractor specializing in highway guardrail work, submitted the lowest bid as a subcontractor for part of a project funded by the United States Department of Transportation. Under the terms of the federal contract, the prime contractor would receive additional compensation if it hired small businesses controlled by "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals." [The clause declared that "the contractor shall presume that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals include Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Native Americans, Asian Pacific Americans, and other minorities...." Federal law requires such a subcontracting clause in most federal agency contracts]. Another subcontractor, Gonzales Construction Company, was awarded the work. It was certified as a minority business; Adarand was not. The prime contractor would have accepted Adarand's bid had it not been for the additional payment for hiring Gonzales.

    [B]Question Presented [/B]
    Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a discriminatory practice that violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause?

    Yes. Overruling Metro Broadcasting (497 US 547), the Court held that all racial classifications, whether imposed by federal, state, or local authorities, must pass strict scrutiny review. In other words, they "must serve a compelling government interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest." The Court added that compensation programs which are truly based on disadvantage, rather than race, would be evaluated under lower equal protection standards. However, since race is not a sufficient condition for a presumption of disadvantage and the award of favored treatment, all race-based classifications must be judged under the strict scrutiny standard. Moreover, even proof of past injury does not in itself establish the suffering of present or future injury. The Court remanded for a determination of whether the Transportation Department's program satisfied strict scrutiny. [/QUOTE]

    These are just two examples that came to mind of how the Supreme Court has recognized that reverse discrimination exists in America today. As for a handout, to me it would be like walking up to a well-off businessman, who got to where he was by hard work, eating somewhere fairly nice, and then having someone offer him some money to buy food because he's black. That's a bit insulting isn't it?

    Anyway, I'm sorry you feel that minorities are virtually unable to escape they life they were born into without federal mandated help. This isn't the pre-Civil Rights Movement in America. There are a whole lot of ways for people to raise themselves up without needed to be given a handout. The EEOC comes to mind.
  3. [QUOTE]And I've never heard such a blind, idealistic statement in my life. "If you work hard, you can do anything!" I'm sure that works in Pokemon, but not in real life where you are bound by socioeconomic factors completely out of your control. Sure, working hard might work for 5% of people less fortunate than yourself, but the reality is that it just doesn't work. Not everyone has an equal playing field, and Affirmative Action seeks to level it a bit.[/QUOTE]

    Oh, I'm sorry I'm idealistic. Or maybe its because it worked for [B]both[/B] my parents who rose from less than ideal conditions growing up (to put it nicely) to where they are today. I benefit from Affirmative Action and I think it's lived past its time. I want to be accepted based on merit and not to fill a quota, and I know I will be because I hate using the race card. I feel its a degrading way to get what you want because you're having people judge you by the color of your skin or your gender, economic standing, etc. and not by your actual merit.

    Oh, and I did read your pst about how someone with worse grades and lower test scores should beat out someone with better grades and higher test scores because they grew up in inner city Detroit and not New England. If someone worked that hard to get where they were, I highly doubt they would want a handout. And even if they can't get into Princeton or Harvard, I'm sure there are a few other good schools somewhere in the country, just maybe. But then again, I may just be idealistic.
  4. [QUOTE]Is something right simply because it is the law? In Nazi Germany, it was illegal to help Jews escape persecution. By your logic, you should be punished for breaking that law. In any event, it wouldn't surprise me if our government were flying people back down every day, but those are tax-dollars wasted on a relatively pointless activity. Instead of blowing those thousands/millions on jet fuel, the jet itself, pilots, etc., you could have tried to help out the US of A.[/QUOTE]

    I never said what was right or wrong when it came to the law, but thieves, murderers, and rapists break the law and I don't see you wanting to grant them amnesty. If the law isn't up to snuff morally, socially, etc. change it. It's happened before. I'm acknowledging here and now that sometimes it takes an illegal action or two to get the law noticed and changed like with Rosa Parks (which is why many people don't want her arrest pardoned), but most Civil Rights activists tried to follow the law to get the changes they wanted. Here, illegal immigrants may be protesting peacefully, but they very fact that they're here is breaking the law.

    [QUOTE]America lets in some terribly low number of people per-year, and the lettuce farmer isn't going to be at the top of that long, long list waiting to get in. Because we have quotas, people are driven to illegally immigrate to here. I mean, if you were starving, would you like to stick around for 20 more years to come here legally? I think not. This is why it is essential that we increase the number of allowed immigrants per-year. I honestly don't think much else will change things.[/QUOTE]

    It's not America's responsibility to let every single person into the country as a citizen. A country and its citizens have the right to decide their laws, not the people illegally there, and are therefore allowed to decide which and how many immigrants get in each year. If you don't like it, call your Congressperson and ask them to change it, don't just sit here and say "we should" without doing anything. If I was starving, I would go somewhere else, plain and simple. There are other countries besides the United States they can go to that aren't so polarized on this issue, and many are closer depending on the location in Mexico.

    [QUOTE]Last I checked, the welfare state was on welfare because they either couldn't or didn't want to take the jobs that immigrants are taking. Talk to the welfare state, man. If they start moving towards wanting to work, then they won't need to be on welfare ... do you see where I'm going here? Immigrants do take the jobs no one else wants -- who wants to pick tomatos and lettuce all day, everyday? Perhaps meat packaging and processing is more up your alley? I think not. Immigrants make up a huge percentage of our agricultural business in America.[/QUOTE]

    Many people are on welfare because its a vicious cycle that makes it hard to rise up above it. With some welfare reform, this could work. Even though there are people manipulating the welfare system, there are illegal immigrants who aren't exactally here for altruistic purposes or to escape persecution.

    [QUOTE]You're right, however our nation was founded on persecuted Europeans. Reading the Constitution would reveal this to anyone -- that people come here to escape persecution and poverty for a new life. Furthermore, I don't see you yelling at all those immigrants that hopped over during the Great Potato Famine. Yeah, they came legally -- we also didn't have quota laws back then. See my point? We lessen quota laws, we can have legal immigrants.[/QUOTE]

    That's right, they came over legally, and therefore did not break the law. If I'm remembering my American history correctly, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, we didn't have laws about speeding or drinking and driving in the 1840s, but today it's relevant, so there are laws. If you look at the Founding Fathers, you would see they were hardly economically disadvantaged, quite the opposite actually, and before them many people did come for economic reasons, but weren't exactally dirt poor themselves. While America was built on immigrants, it wasn't built on some poverty-stricken immigrants (look at how much it took to get over here) trying to escape some tyrannical dictator.

    There are other countries besides the US where immigrants can travel to, many with more lax immigration laws. I'm not by any means saying we should turn down refugees or those seeking asylum, but since that isn't really the case and these people are breaking the law, I think they should be punished, whether that means going to jail, going back home, or whatever. We shouldn't reward people for breaking the law.
  5. I agree with reducing the scope of affirmative action because it really doesn't have the same need it did when it first came into being. The Supreme Court has recognized that reverse discrimination is a real phenomenon that happens everyday, which is unfair. If I get better grades and have better test scores and more extracurricular activities I'm more involved in, I deserve to get into the college. I don't think anyone should get into a college just because they're a minority with semi-decent grades. The system needs to be based on merit, not handouts, which is what this country was based on. If a school is bad, transfer to a district magnet school or apply for a scholarship to a private school or something. It's not possible to decide where you're born into, but if you work hard you can rise above it, and that's the way it should be. You shouldn't knock someone more qualified off the list just because you fit a quota.
  6. Where to begin with the subject of [B]ILLEGAL[/B] immigration? Ah yes, the name says it all. Yes, illegal immigrants should be punished for committing an illegal ("prohibited by law") action. At the moment, aren't multiple planes filled with illegal immigrants being flown to Central America every day?

    Anyway, I do think it is selfish of people breaking the law demanding not to be punished for it. Okay, they snuck in here because they're so close. America lets in less than one million immigrants a year for a reason. There are people who have been waiting up to [I]twenty years [/I] to get into the United States, and we have illegal immigrants who can come over just because they happen to share a border. That hardly seems fair to those not breaking the law, but that's just me.

    Another thing that bugs me is that people claim that illegal immigrants take jobs Americans won't. Well, we do have a nice sized poplulation on welfare that are citizens who are legally allowed to be here, so why don't they take the jobs? We need to fix our own problems as a country, so why not tackle poverty among the United State's own citizens?

    Also, I'm pretty sick of the "everyone's decended from a Eurpean immigrant" shtick. My family tree comes from Native Americans and Africans didn't exactally come here to escape persecuation. So no, not everyone in the United States is decended from persecuted Europeans. And most of the ones who are had ancestors who came over legally.

    As for English, yes I do think that here in the United States where the unofficial official language is English, immigrants should have (and I'm glad to become a citizen you have to) at least a good grasp on the English language. I'm sure if it really becomes an issue, Congress can make English the official language. When I go into another country, I do my best to use my knowledge of their language whenever I can (Spanish, French, etc.) or try to learn at least a few phrases to get by or go with a friend who speaks the language because I respect the different cultures and don't go in expecting everyone to speak English.

    I'm not going on some right-wing narrow-minded rant. I'm ranting about how those breaking the law are complaining because they have the chance to here while others who are willing to follow the law can't get in because they aren't in the country right next to a U.S. border.
  7. They way I see it is we have a way our life could turn out that would ultimately be the best for us in the long run, which may involve anything from becoming a president, becoming a teacher, or maybe even just having kids. I think that fulfilling destiny just means becoming self actualized and its our own choice whether or not this happens.
  8. It just depends on what beliefs you hold. Personally I believe that God has always existed and always will. It's weird because when you think about God and religion and everything like that it just seems to be hard to comprehend sometimes, well a lot of the time. That's why there's faith. I know that my answer might seem like a cop out or something and for that I'm sorry, but just think about all the things we have faith in, or believe in, on a daily basis. It makes sense to me at least. Sorry if I couldn't help.
  9. How many changes has this board gone through in the past few years anyway? I came here way back a long time ago, probably a little over four years ago. After the first change I was there for, I kind of waned in coming and then I kind of stopped all together for a while. The thing I miss most about the older boards/version is the people because when I decided to come back a lot of the people that I knew before were gone.

    Anyway, I'm not sure if this was a change from the older boards or not (I didn't care about this kind of stuff when I first started) but I do like the Lounge and how there is a medium for people to talk civilly about real issues not only going on in the world but also with everyone here.
  10. George Bush hates black people? Someone must have forgot to tell Condie and Colin Powell. :animeangr

    Anyway, free speech does more good than bad. I think the stupid lawsuit phase is over and judges are actually throwing cases out now that are just plain stupid. Anyway, there's a reason free speech was in the First Amendment. Sure people are gonna be offended, but big whoop. Take it all in stride or get out, don't ruin one of the best institutions in the free world because someone takes offense to some insignificant insult. That just shows their character. Feel better knowing how much better off you are than them.

    Besides, its only high school. Four years of whatever and then college. Don't seriously contemplate taking away freedom of speech because high school doesn't allow complete freedom. Besides, in high school, we're mostly minors under the supervision of government employees, so of course there's gonna be stuff regulated. When you go home or off campus or something like that, say what you want, well, don't disturb the peace or anything, but you get the point.

    Freedom of Speech does our society a whole lot more good than bad.
  11. Wow. It's just a cartoon. I think that everyone just needs to realize that. Instead, the embassy was burned, London was bombed, and Muslims want the cartoonists hands cut off. Over a cartoon.

    Since we're speaking of cartoons that depict a middle eastern religion in a bad light, what about cartoons coming from Muslims that portray extremely Anti-Semetic messages? Is this a case of "you can dish it out but not take it"? I think so. Now considering the contest for Holocaust cartoons, I think that the Muslims are trying to return to being the "dishers."

    It's not like we don't have Anti-Chritian stuff going on in America. Remember back when that artists painted the Virgin Mary, Baby Jesus, and some other figures and smeared it with feces? The Court ruled it was okay because it was freedom of expression (although I'm sure the smell would be considered offensive by anybody). The point is, America deals with Anti-Religious stuff all the time, in a country with a majority of Christians. Sure the painting didn't go over well, but we didn't have any death threats or threats of another 9/11 type attack. Europe has about a ten percent Muslim population (most of them have come into Europe by choice). They were offending a minority that has resorted to doing some pretty outrageous things. If a majority in America can take satire in stride, a minority in Europe certainly should be able to.

    And there was that whole soldier with no limbs comic, that, while it enraged many many many people, was still deemed Constitutional.

    Freedom of speech means that everyone can say what they want (well, there are limits like yelling fire in a public place or things partaining to national security, but I digress). Like what has been said before, someone will always be offended by something. No one was forcing anyone to look at the comics (which was one person's written satire, not even, oh, let's say, a book. To bad that guy's still on the run). Have a cartoon war or something (wait, nevermind). Peaceful protests people. We don't need even more fighting in the Middle East.
  12. I honestly think that if you say that you're a __(fill in the blank)__, act like it. There are some people who think that a lot of whatever __(blank)__ said is outdated, but it's not too hard to bring older philosphies and teachings to modern day. We do it with the Constitution all the time (not the best example I admit, but it was the first to come to mind).

    Anyway, picking and choosing what you want to believe it kind of stupid. I do realize that there are divisions in religions, and I'm okay with that, but you would still be a __(blank)__. Picking from multiple religions isn't that good, because you're refusing the parts you don't like. This isn't your dinner. I think that's why a lot less people are becoming less religous, and more aligning themselves with the values of certain religions while not committing themselves fully to that religion.

    All this to say, if you claim you're a __(blank)__, act like it. Don't sit around and pick and choose from anything while you say you have committed yourself to religion or ideology or philosophy.
  13. Peaceful negotiations don't always work, but there's already another thread about pacifism. The U.N. troops are troops sent by nations who volunteer troops, the U.N. is not some world government that has its own resources. It's a group that many of the world's nations have joined to act almost like a peaceful police force for the rest of the world, and while that's not all they do, it's a big part of it.

    My main beef with the U.N. is that the nations will rag on the U.S., not support their actions, criticize America, and still expect them to write a check. That's some twisted logic. That's like if we were in a club, and you gave the most money and were the strongest, but me and a bunch of other members criticized almost everything you did and still expected you to do contribute more than anyone else. Not to mention that despite being the biggest contributor and strongest member, you're expected to be equal with the littlest guys who will criticize you and still expect help when they need it.

    And while I know that the U.N. does not stand for the U.S. and friends, how well would the U.N. work if you removed the United States from it completely?
  14. How do you guys feel about the U.N. and the U.S. relationship now and how would you feel if the U.S. pulled out?

    Personally, I think that the U.N. really doesn't do all that much, mostly just going to talk to people and try to get them to stop fighting, mostly depending on a small number of countries like the U.S., England, and Australia, etc. to actually enforce things. In addition, while it's good that all the countries in the United Nations are represented, I don't think that every single country should have equal representation (I do know about the "big five") because not every country is affected the same way by U.N. policies, not every country is the same size, not every country provides the same funding, etc. In addition, I think that the U.N. hasn't always agreed with the U.S. even though it has asked the U.S. to give more money/support/etc. only many occasions. The U.S. is the largest contributor. Don't try and take money from while bossing around one of the biggest members.

    Anyhoo, what do you think the U.N. would be without the U.S.? Better? Worse? Would America be better or worse off withdrawing from the U.N.?
  15. I don't think so. Most 16/17 year olds aren't considered to be "mature adults", although 18 arguably isn't much better. But the reason 18 year old can vote is because they can go off to war, so if you want 16/17 year olds fighting wars....

    Seriously, I just want to enjoy my life right now. I'm more politically aware than the average person, but I like debating about it and thinking about politics, not necessarily making up my mind about every single issue. Not to mention that today making an informed decision means doing your own research and not just listening to everything you hear or read, which is something I'm not looking foward to, but it's a civic responsibility type thing, and I want to be informed.

    And if I vote, I have the right to complain about how the government's working.
  16. Not a lot of guys are okay with the girl asking first. It seems like their setting their control before the relationship even starts. Or, you could be totally clueless and them frustrated. It happens. The thing to really remember though is whoever asks the person out pays for the meal. This includes women as well.
  17. PSP definately. There's a lot more versatility in what it can do (games, movies, music, internet), the graphics are incredible, and you don't need a stylus. The only downside is the loading time, but it's worth it.

    DS seems okay when you first get it, but not too long afterwards, it looses a lot of its appeal. The graphics aren't that great compared to PSP, the functions are limited, and the stylus gameplay thing kind of bugs me.

    But then again, this is just me.
  18. Oh, sorry for not tying in the militia part with the rest of my argument so clearly. I had alluded to it in the part about South Africa, but let me explain a little more clearly why I think that the United States still should have a militia.

    In the past one hundred or so years, it has been estimated by Amnesty International that there have been over one hundred million deaths resulting from genocide performed by the country's own governments. One factor that these governments all had in common was the disarming of the citizens.

    While this may or may not happen in America, the citizens are powerless to go up against a corrupt government successfully if the government has all the weapons while they have few to none. This is what history has proven. I know that America is not like the other countries, but these countries didn't start off hating or distrusting their government. They believed that their government was acting in their best interests only to be stabbed in the back.

    Oh, and happy MLK day everyone!
  19. I agree with you. Pacifism does not work. It takes two people, and if one's starting a war, I highly doubt they will easily agree to pacifistic notions of a bloodless compromise. A diplomatic answer should be sought out first, but if that doesn't work, don't just stand there and get beaten due to your own refusal to retaliate.
  • Create New...