[Ansteorra] Questions about crowns and crown tournaments

[Miles Grey]

On 7/20/2012 4:57 PM, Bree Flowers wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Miles Grey <Kahn at west-point.org> wrote:
>> On 7/20/2012 12:45 AM, Patrick R wrote:
>>>
>>> Who would be hurt if someone with a same sex consort was allowed to
>>> compete?
>>
>>
>> I've always believed
>> that those who are proposing a change should first at least show that the
>> change will cause no harm before the change is accepted.
>
> I think what we should be aiming for is a decision that inflicts the
> least amount of hurt, whether that results in change or maintaining
> the status-quo.

Of course.  You are correct - harm cannot be avoided.  A change should 
be shown to cause less harm *and* more good than the status quo. 
There's a reason for the old saying, "out of the frying pan, into the 
fire."  Save in an emergency situation, before a change is made, we 
should do our best to ensure that we don't go from uncomfortably warm to 
immolated.

>
>> Similarly, while this
>> proposed change might not "hurt" someone, it might be just the blow needed
>> in these trying times to eliminate him or her from this game of ours.
>
> Good sir, might I propose that this effect could be experienced either
> direction the decision goes. Some will be hurt enough by the
> possibility of a single-sex ruling couple that they may walk away.
> Others might be so offended at the closed-mindedness of our
> organization that they choose not to play with us any more. This is a
> polarizing issue that has the potential to drive away good people no
> matter which way it goes.

I'm sure you were using the polite, modern address.  I don't mean to be 
pedantic, but on this list, I do not deserve to be called "sir."  Not 
only have I not earned it, but I have too much respect for those who have.

So the decision really comes down to which will cause the most harm. 
Not an easy decision, but we cannot actually show that the change will 
cause *less* harm than the status quo, so how do we justify making that 
change?  Better the heat of the frying pan than the flames of the fire. 
  You're saying that people will leave that which they've been a part of 
for some time if we refuse to *change* to suit them.  Funny.  When it 
was mentioned that people might quit if the change is imposed, they were 
mocked at with expressions like "take your ball and go home."  Shouldn't 
the same derision apply with even more accuracy to those who might leave 
if the organization they've participated in for years declines to 
implement the change they demand?

Further, I object to your assertion that it is those who oppose the 
change who are closed-minded.  While I've done my best to be polite and 
reasonable, I've been called hateful, bigoted, and un-evolved, all 
because my *opinion* differed.  So who is really being closed-minded? 
To be open-minded does not mean to *accept* opinions with which we 
disagree; it means to *respect* them and those who hold them.  Just 
because others will label any opinion that differs from theirs as 
"closed-mindedness" does not make it so.  I respect the opposing opinion 
and those who hold it.  Being called hateful, closed-minded, and bigoted 
really doesn't make me feel like I'm being accorded the slightest respect.

   Miles Grey