There seems to be a collection of largely negative views towards a number of broad categories at this board. Some examples being religious affiliation and non-religious affiliation, as well as the manner in which people conduct themselves in modern times. I'm only asking: why harbor the resentment? Why seek to tear down and falsify these people and their ways aggressively? Is their some sort of revenge needed? What I am speaking of is the apparent need of several board posters to not contribute a positive solution to discussion, but argue the validity of a negative observation of an idea. "Modernity is decay because of focus on the individual, we need focus on the community..." but how? Are you going to use a positive means of doing so that actually encourages others of following your path? Because, as far as I can see, not doing so results in them declaring war on you. You lament this, but do nothing to bypass it. I just would like to know why, as I find myself joyfully pursuing my values. Perhaps I'll fail, and if so I'll redefine my methods and goals, but I prefer to move instead of idly stand by in complaint. As far as the religious against non-religious debate is concerned, I see a war of symbols. We can point out what's wrong with atheism or Christianity, but seem little able to create valid solutions to the problems therein. I personally see little wrong with both beliefs, as I have met stable individuals of both denominations. I also find little use in identifying the wrong, and think it more healthy to identify negative trends within the thinking and acting of the majority of people today and counter-act them effectively. What I mean by effectively is actually making use of these symbols, as pointing out the flaws of their followers seems to incite little more than aggression. Work within these symbols and simply adapt their manner of thinking to your own. I know this was previously mentioned in another thread, but discussion with a user at the forums has provoked thought for myself in this area. People are going to require archetypes that encourage value and action, as some people require direction in order to undertake the pursuit of a goal or the adoption of a value. Instead of bashing the archetypes themselves, can't we use them to our advantage? If people are prone to selecting these affiliations to guide their actions, shouldn't those with healthy ideas be defining the outlines of these associations? For instance, I plan to run for a position on the county seat, and will most likely be advertising myself as a conservative republican, the predominant political choice of the area of the Midwest that I live in. I hope to use this position to encourage not conservative republican ideas, but ideas I feel will benefit the community to the greatest degree. I use generally well-liked symbols of focus on family, community, education, and self-sufficiency. As these ideas play into my ideology, I have no problem making use of them. And honestly, who DOESN'T want a community based on those values? The war of symbols just seems to dilute the process of defining a path and following it, as when someone works towards doing so it isn't often the path that leads to failure, but the inability to create one at the behest of those who seem to prefer non-choice to choice; most likely because this allows them free movement within a community without expectation. You know, no negative consequences for being too lazy to help build the schoolhouse. Further commentary would be helpful.