I really wonder if it's worth using extreme examples in an argument, especially if the example is something in the past that is used to condemn a present-time group. Where is the value in bringing up the Inquisition, or Joe McCarthy, or Idi Amin, or the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Ku Klux Klan? Seems to me, we'd be far better off to evaluate the current issue at hand, maintaining a perspective of the extent and relevance of the issue.

That's often not the case at Mudcat. Self-righteous Mudcat demagogues feel it is their duty to take extreme situations and individuals to serve as "proof" of the wickedness of larger groups. This kind of twisted logic is the root of bigotry - but here at Mudcat, especially when it's spoken by proper liberals, it often seems to be the rule for discussion. Oftentimes, I wonder if there's any chance for rational, peaceful discussion here. Maybe the reason some think Mudcat "a boring place," is that there is no room here for the richness of constructive discussion. That used to be possible here, but it's rare nowadays.

-Joe-