Maggie's Farm

The notion that "the truth must lie somewhere in-between" is an appealing fallacy to the compulsively peaceful, because it seems to remove argument and strife. But it is torture for the truth-minded, because rarely does truth lie "in the middle:" there is usually a right and a wrong - somewhere. Or at least a "best or closer approximation of truth."

Compromise may be the bread and butter of politics, diplomacy, and law suits, but it doesn't work in the pursuit of truth and reality. You can't be half-pregnant. Can you be half-guilty? I think so, but the legal system isn't really constructed that way - it is constructed to settle a matter.

If you think Bush lied to the people to pursue a nefarious scheme, and I think he did not, then the reality isn't that he half-lied. If you think Buddha is the manifestation of God, and I believe that Jesus is the only way, then the "all religions are equal, and all gods are the same" silliness is nothing but a "truth-compromise" - a spineless cop-out in the disguise of "tolerance."

Sometimes truth compromises seem essential: I happen to believe that the Second Amendment is a basic right - the right to self-defence which transcends even the Constitution - derived from English Common Law and transplanted to the US. However, I do not care to have my neighbor messing with nukes in his back yard, nor do I care to have criminals going around with stolen machine guns. Nevertheless, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." seems unambiguous to me.