[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by dnall

I was asked my personal opinion on the theoretical case of an org having either lost its way or never having had such a broad meaningful mission in the first place. And I said, they should get back to their roots &/or remake themselves with such a purpose for being, or they should cease to exist. I don't want anyone to dissolve. I want them to find that change the world mission and focus the existence of their org on that.

What you were asked wasn't exactly theoretical:

Originally Posted by 33girl

I don't think you can say that overall, as there are many religious or ethnic groups out there who part of their purpose, if not their primary purpose, for being founded was that they were denied membership in other groups. You can't really blame them for "losing their purpose" when society has moved forward and (hopefully/theoretically) made their purpose moot.

Anybody familiar with Greek life can quickly identify a number of specific fraternities and sororities that would fit this description, so it should come as no surprise that you would be interpreted as commenting on those fraternities and sororities when you said:

Originally Posted by dnall

I would say their founding was short sighted. They have lost their purpose & therefore should dissolve or remake themselves with a new change the world purpose. Otherwise it's sitting in a car that's out of gas blasting the radio and pressing on the pedals thinking you're getting to your destination. I'd rather see them out of the way so those members will go to orgs that do actively have a serious change the world mission to accomplish.

Meanwhile, your constant focus on a "change the world purpose" prompts me to ask again:

Originally Posted by MysticCat

So only "serious change the world" missions are valid or worthwhile missions? Anything else is short-sighted? My org certainly has what I would call a "serious change the world" mission, but I can't imagine ever suggesting that other orgs with different kinds of missions (like, say, change/grow the person) aren't equally worthwhile or valuable.

My confusion here is because the only way I can see anyone being angry with what I said is if they thought their own org didn't have a real reason for being and had in fact become little more than a social club.

Then I'm afraid you are indeed confused. Whether you intend to be judgmental or not, that's how it's coming across, and that's what we're trying to tell you.

BTW, being challenged on something you've said =/= angry challenger.